Juan:You mean, children never say to their parents "don't hit me" ?
Sorry, I thought I had made it clear earlier. Children do get to a point where they can reason enough to choose. This would probably be that point.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
What does it matter that it is a non-living vs. living organism. Animals do not have rights. Or are you not versed in that subject of the Austrian school, namely "rights"?
What has this to do with humans possessing rights, exactly? My point is you are treating the child as if it were an object.
Might makes right, right? So are you a statist now? Plus, how do we know the child wants to be removed from their parent?
No. I am saying that courts will have significant discretion in dealing with matters that involve such things as age boundaries, standards of care and the like. This is so now and this will continue to be so, so long as there are fuzzy elements in the world.
A child has no right to not be aggressed against. It cannot reason. Therefore it cannot withold consent.
So when is it that it suddenly acquires the ability to reason? Or perhaps you should realize this is incoherent, black and white nonsense and that like ryanpatgray said earlier, it is more a matter of a continuum than an on and off matter.
A parent however does have the right to seek justice from someone who harms their child. Since the child is their property.
Ipse dixit.
It would be irrelevant what the courts decide, since there would be no violations of rights. I think what would be more important would be what societal norms develop.
Seeing as it is their decisions that determine innocence or guilt, it'd hardly be irrelevant, and seeing as this is the very matter in contention. no, it's not at all clear why their decision is irrelevant.
You do realize this, right?
Again, relevance?
This is an intellectual discussion. Get over yourself already.
I suggest you lose your attitude and get over yourself instead.
Because apparently you do not understand it either.
Or perhaps you don't, and require instruction on the matter...
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus:What has this to do with humans possessing rights, exactly? My point is you are treating the child as if it were an object.
If you are saying that owning an animal is treating the animal as an object, then yes, I am treating the child as an object. But objects are just "anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object) which we all are anyways. So what?
Jon Irenicus:No. I am saying that courts will have significant discretion in dealing with matters that involve such things as age boundaries, standards of care and the like. This is so now and this will continue to be so, so long as there are fuzzy elements in the world.
Current parenting laws are pretty fubar, so I doubt it.
Jon Irenicus:So when is it that it suddenly acquires the ability to reason? Or perhaps you should realize this is incoherent, black and white nonsense and that like ryanpatgray said earlier, it is more a matter of a continuum than an on and off matter.
Of course it is not black and white. That is why there needs to be courts. Every situation is different.
Jon Irenicus:Seeing as it is their decisions that determine innocence or guilt, it'd hardly be irrelevant, and seeing as this is the very matter in contention. no, it's not at all clear why their decision is irrelevant.
I am just saying that if a court decides that the child is not old enough to consent, then the case would be thrown out.
I mean really Jon, please explain to me what it means to "care" for your child. At what point is the line crossed? If a father is bathing his daughter's private parts, is that considered molestation? What if he films it? Can you tell me what "pornography" is? At what point is the child no longer under the care of his/her parents?
Really, all these issues would be addressed in a free market. Your statement that "a court would take away a child that was raped" is unfounded. This is not necessarily what would happen in a stateless society.
So it's perfectly fine to kill mentally retarded people whenever we want to?
Byzantine:I love how all the self-reliant, freedom-talking libertarians get all squishy and emotional when they see that life choices have consequences.
Didn't Ethics of Liberty have a chapter addressing this? Somebody find the page (on mises) and post it. Lets get this over with.
Please don't try define the problem out of existence, when you know full well I meant an inanimate object and not a sentient being. If you're confused about children, then read this. Notice, no mention of full ownership over a child, but a merely ownership qua trustee, meaning there are limits to what a parent can do. I still object to this kind of language, as one does not own other humans, but trustee ownership is at least nowhere near as objectionable. Again, you need to explain why a human being can be treated as a mere object, and when this is no longer possible.
I mean really Jon, please explain to me what it means to "care" for your child. At what point is the line crossed? If a father is bathing his daughter's private parts, is that considered molestation? What if he films it? Can you tell me what "pornography" is? At what point is the child no longer under the care of his/her parents? Really, all these issues would be addressed in a free market. Your statement that "a court would take away a child that was raped" is unfounded. This is not necessarily what would happen in a stateless society.
On the contrary, it is well-founded. Rape is by definition nonconsentual aggression. Courts that were in the business of shielding malfeasors from their actions could hardly be considered courts at all. I'm not sure how bathing a child in the nude could be considered on par with rape, nor does it justify it. Perhaps some individuals will be disturbed by it and they can sue later on. I never even mentioned pornography. I questioned your argument that a child is a mere object to be used in any way the parent pleases.
Spideynw: Oh boy, here we go again with rights. So, can one assault an animal? I mean, it is a violation of some "non-aggression" principle, right?
Oh boy, here we go again with rights.
So, can one assault an animal? I mean, it is a violation of some "non-aggression" principle, right?
If you think that all humans have rights and you think that you are human, you have such rights as well. If you think that child is human being, he definitely has the same rights too. Other animals definitly are not humans so they do not have human rights. If you violate other humans particular right, you show by your action, that you do not believe that humans have such right, so until you are human being you do not have this right as well. If you beat a child that means, that you do not have right not to be beaten yourself - anyone can beat you as well.
Byzantine: In a free society, rights will have to be purchased just like everything else.
In a free society, rights will have to be purchased just like everything else.
I don't think so. You can purchase life, liberty and/or property, but you can't purchase right to life, liberty and/or property.
Jon Irenicus:Well it is precisely the semantics that do all the work here. The parents do not own the child as they own a piece of furniture or a car. They can't do anything they want to it.
Spideynw: Why not?
Because children are humans and have the same rights as their parents or any other human being has.
Jon Irenicus:They have to look out for its own interest and avoid harming it.
Spideynw: Why?
Jon Irenicus:They own the right to care for it.
Spideynw: And what if they think caring for it means killing it? Or raping it?
Then anyone could legally kill or rape that killer or raper.
Byzantine: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Then you'll probably argue that a free society will rule against homosexuality. That said, my impression was correct, this really is a short-sighted view. It's pretty obvious that homosexuality is the ultimate short-sighted view.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Then you'll probably argue that a free society will rule against homosexuality. That said, my impression was correct, this really is a short-sighted view.
It's pretty obvious that homosexuality is the ultimate short-sighted view.
Now, now, every life style is as good as another. Except for biggots, they should be killed, intolerant bastards.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Spideynw: Again, once a child can choose, then the child has rights.
Again, once a child can choose, then the child has rights.
I would say once a child became human being, then the child has human rights. IMO human became human once he was born.
nibbler491: So it's perfectly fine to kill mentally retarded people whenever we want to?
Mentally retarded people are not brain-dead. Anyways, as far as I know they have enough mental capacity to consent.
Jon Irenicus:Please don't try define the problem out of existence, when you know full well I meant an inanimate object and not a sentient being. If you're confused about children, then read this. Notice, no mention of full ownership over a child, but a merely ownership qua trustee, meaning there are limits to what a parent can do. I still object to this kind of language, as one does not own other humans, but trustee ownership is at least nowhere near as objectionable. Again, you need to explain why a human being can be treated as a mere object, and when this is no longer possible.
So, as I tried to clarify a couple of posts back, something does not have to be an inanimate object to be property. Again, animals can be owned, and are not inanimate objects. Therefore children can also be owned, even though they are not inanimate objects.
And yes, there probably are limits. Again, in a stateless society, I would be very interested to see what would happen.
Jon Irenicus:On the contrary, it is well-founded. Rape is by definition nonconsentual aggression.
First of all, it is only "aggression" if it is non consensual. And for it to be "non consensual", the being in question has to have the ability to consent. Otherwise, anytime we kill an animal to eat it or to get its skin, it would be considered murder, since they cannot consent to it.
Spideynw: nibbler491: So it's perfectly fine to kill mentally retarded people whenever we want to? Mentally retarded people are not brain-dead. Anyways, as far as I know they have enough mental capacity to consent.
And children are? I have a 3 year old niece who is perfectly capable of reasoning. It should also be noted that children of a VERY young age are also perfectly capable of consenting to something(or not consenting to something). You do something to them that they don't like or agree with and they'll make sure that you know that they don't consent.
nibbler491:And children are? I have a 3 year old niece who is perfectly capable of reasoning. It should also be noted that children of a VERY young age are also perfectly capable of consenting to something(or not consenting to something). You do something to them that they don't like or agree with and they'll make sure that you know that they don't consent.
So? Does that mean your niece's parents do not have rights over the child anymore? Is she now considered imprisoned against her will if they do not let her leave and do whatever she wants?
Parental rights and children's rights are not black and white.
Spideynw: nibbler491:And children are? I have a 3 year old niece who is perfectly capable of reasoning. It should also be noted that children of a VERY young age are also perfectly capable of consenting to something(or not consenting to something). You do something to them that they don't like or agree with and they'll make sure that you know that they don't consent. So? Does that mean your niece's parents do not have rights over the child anymore? Is she now considered imprisoned against her will if they do not let her leave and do whatever she wants? Parental rights and children's rights are not black and white.
Yet you seem to be claiming that they are. Parents own children.
That seems pretty black and white to me.
That applies to the lower animals - it is questionable that one would apply it to animals with developed reasoning ability, and certainly not humans. Moreover, children present a unique problem in that they will eventually become fully fledged reasoners, and this is a gradual process, meaning it is not merely a matter of "on and off" reasoning.
So how does inability to consent warrant being allowed to do whatever one wishes to someone else?
nibbler491: Yet you seem to be claiming that they are. Parents own children. That seems pretty black and white to me.
I am saying parents own their children until they can reason (in other words, consent). It really is dependant on the child at what point they want to claim their rights.
So I guess you are right. In that respect it is pretty black and white.
Jon Irenicus:So how does inability to consent warrant being allowed to do whatever one wishes to someone else?
Look Jon, at what point is it OK for children to have sex with their parents and why?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap