Spideynw: Look Jon, at what point is it considered "imprisonment" to not let your children leave the house as they please?
Look Jon, at what point is it considered "imprisonment" to not let your children leave the house as they please?
All the time?
Morty:All the time?
I actually decided to change my question.
But, since you did answer the question, does that mean that parents should be imprisoned as soon as the child can crawl if they do not let their child crawl anywhere it wants to?
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw: But, since you did answer the question, does that mean that parents should be imprisoned as soon as the child can crawl if they do not let their child crawl anywhere it wants to?
Parents being imprisoned for that is excessive and unnecessary. The most the child (or his defenders) can claim is the right to crawl off the property, not to any part of the property he wants. When you go to someone's house, they can prevent you from going in certain rooms/areas, but they can't prevent you from leaving.
I think Spideynw has a point. There is a point, that may differ from one child to another, up to which that child isn't conscious. Simply put, you can consider such children alike to animals from some perspective. Of course, they eventually grow up and aren't animals anymore, so this is quite a difference.
Now free societies as concieved by libertarians do have a mechanism that makes them work, they're not utopic. Of course, one may argue for animal rights, but as far as we know it, there's no mechanism to ensure that automatically, given animals don't have higher abilities. Some people could pay to protect goats, trees or even stones, but the truth is animals, plants and inanimate objects can't act like humans: they can't rally, defect or flee to a free land.
If you consider small children similar to animals, there is no way a society can provide 100% reliable protection and be a free society at the same time. This would be, in fact, equivalent to asking PDAs to control and watch over every aspect of the parent's life. It's impossible for a 3rd party to pay beforehand for the protection of an unknown number of beings or properties, and it's impossible for the PDA to try to enforce it with absolute certainty.
LOOK HERE IS THE LINK TO MURRAY N. ROTHBARD's BOOK THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY WHERE HE EXPLAINS WHAT YOU ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT (TO SOME EXTENT AND SORRY FOR THE ALL CAPS): http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
Morty:Parents being imprisoned for that is excessive and unnecessary. The most the child (or his defenders) can claim is the right to crawl off the property, not to any part of the property he wants. When you go to someone's house, they can prevent you from going in certain rooms/areas, but they can't prevent you from leaving.
OMG. Crawling anywhere it wants to, INCLUDES leaving the property. So, since it seems that is was so important for you to clarify someone does not have the right to go anywhere they want to on someone's property, I will re-phrase the question so that hopefully it will be much easier for you.
So, does that mean that the parents should be imprisoned as soon as the child can crawl if they do not let their child crawl off the property whenever he/she wants to?
Spideynw:OMG. Crawling anywhere it wants to, INCLUDES leaving the property. So, since it seems that is was so important for you to clarify someone does not have the right to go anywhere they want to on someone's property, I will re-phrase the question so that hopefully it will be much easier for you.
I was clarifying, so as to prevent misunderstandings. You said, "does that mean that parents should be imprisoned as soon as the child can crawl if they do not let their child crawl anywhere it wants to?" Which would include more than just off the property. So, the answer to your question remains.
Again, imprisonment would be excessive and unnecessary, the parents do not pose any standing threat based on that alone. The most the child (or his defenders) can claim is the right to leave, and I suppose if force is used upon the child, then just compensation.
Byzantine: Brainpolice: Some of the conservative commentary in this thread baffles me. That's because I'm talking about how the world actually works, and you're commenting from your academic Petri dish.
Brainpolice: Some of the conservative commentary in this thread baffles me.
Some of the conservative commentary in this thread baffles me.
That's because I'm talking about how the world actually works, and you're commenting from your academic Petri dish.
That's just a random appeal to realism, it doesn't make any case for you. And it's authoritarian reasoning as well.
To address the original question: I don't think that the act of viewing child pornography can be considered a crime. It would fall into the category of victimless crimes or vices. That being said, an individual owner or association can shun such behavior, but in a libertarian context there can be no official law of the land against it, lest we lapse into communitarianism. The matter is reduced to a question of social norms and personal choice. An individual could likely get away with such behavior in the privacy of their own home, and they could even get away with it somewhat in the public eye but will have to face social pressure against it. But in a libertarian context the entire community couldn't uniformly prohibit it - unless literally everyone in the community disfavored it, which isn't likely despite social norms. So it seems like there will always be at least a marginal demand for it and hence marginal participation in such behavior, short of some kind of total prohibition.
GilesStratton: 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. Now, now, every life style is as good as another. Except for biggots, they should be killed, intolerant bastards.
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.
I don't think anyone in this thread actually thinks that every life style is as good as the other. That is a misrepresentation. The point, I would think, would be that no matter what one thinks about a given lifestyle, so long as it is pursued in a voluntary context there is really nothing you can do about it short of social pressure and disassociation. It's not that all lifestyles are inherently equal in merit, it's that there has to be free competition in lifestyles and hence there cannot be some kind of uniform requirement to participate in a particular lifestyle or a uniform prohibition of a lifestyle - granted that the lifestyle in question doesn't involve aggression in and of itself. So dislike homosexuality all you want, but you don't have any authority to prohibit it on anything other than your own rightful property. A uniform prohibition, on the other hand, would reduce to communitarianism.
Look Jon, at what point is it OK for children to have sex with their parents and why?
Bizarre question, but when they're actually capable of formulating consent. That's the bare minimum.
To darkness I condemn you...
Sure but that's independent of whether children have rights (and like I said if one says they do not, one must point out when it is they suddenly do qualify for them.) No one is speaking of strict enforcement or monitoring. Just whether there are things a parent is not justified in doing to their children, such as raping them.
So dislike homosexuality all you want, but you don't have any authority to prohibit it on anything other than your own rightful property.
Obviously teh gayz!11!! will be the end of Western civilization.
Brainpolice:To address the original question: I don't think that the act of viewing child pornography can be considered a crime. It would fall into the category of victimless crimes or vices. That being said, an individual owner or association can shun such behavior, but in a libertarian context there can be no official law of the land against it, lest we lapse into communitarianism.
Byzantine doesn't actually seem to be calling for a law against viewing child pornography. Instead he seems to be saying that large numbers of people will spontaneously erupt into violence against people who view child pornography, and he says this without bothering to clarify what constitutes "child pornography". Even allowing for a strong cultural conservative bias, this just seems bizarre to me, and not realistic at all.
Brainpolice:. It's not that all lifestyles are inherently equal in merit, it's that there has to be free competition in lifestyles and hence there cannot be some kind of uniform requirement to participate in a particular lifestyle or a uniform prohibition of a lifestyle - granted that the lifestyle in question doesn't involve aggression in and of itself.
Which there isn't now, gays are protect by the state and today's thoughtpolice. Are we even allowed to say gay anymore?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
macsnafu:Even allowing for a strong cultural conservative bias, this just seems bizarre to me, and not realistic at all.
I hear parents are very enthusiastic about child abuse of all sorts. Which is exactly why everybody on these forums is an authority on the matter.
Jon Irenicus:Bizarre question, but when they're actually capable of formulating consent. That's the bare minimum.
OK, so, we obviously agree on this point, that children do not have the ability to consent at birth.
Now, do animals have rights?
If it can be shown that they possess the same cognitive abilities as humans, yes. If not, no.
Like Koko, the nipple loving gorilla?
Jon Irenicus: If it can be shown that they possess the same cognitive abilities as humans, yes. If not, no.
People, it's like saying scientists prove it and the state passes a law. Let's be honest, it either happens by itself or not. Either people or animals themselves stand up for animal rights, or nothing happens. And as long as the second option is downright impossible, the first isn't going to lead to an animal rights revolution. Get serious.
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