Delaware becomes 1st state to officially outlaw spanking

[AlexAmore]

If you keep your toddler from walking out into a busy street, you will have violated the NAP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Actually saving lives who are not suicidal is fine (read the second part). Funny to see people arguing against the NAP on a Libertarian forum, though.

 

[silverhandorder]

If you keep your toddler from walking out into a busy street, you will have violated the NAP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Don't put your toddler near moving traffic. They can't move around without your help... If you are going to go to unrealistic scenarios to defend your argument be my guest. I think we both know you are not convincing your self.

Try reading your sig.

I don't follow.

 

[tod evans]

You answered your first question. I would add selling is voluntary and CPS is force.

So in your opinion it's okay for parents to "sell" rights to their children?

You then say "legally children". You're falling back on a state defined collective to support your argument.

I didn't make an argument, some teenagers need to be beaten for their actions/ statement.

Freedom is against collective thought. All your arguments force me to think in collectives in order to agree (which I don't).

Force is physical, I'm not forcing you to do squat.


When/if you have kids I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

 

[cjm]

Don't put your toddler near moving traffic. They can't move around without your help... If you are going to go to unrealistic scenarios to defend your argument be my guest. I think we both know you are not convincing your self.

A walking toddler is an unrealistic scenario? Living in a city and completely avoiding the proximity of moving traffic is the unrealistic scenario here.

 

[cjm]

Actually saving lives who are not suicidal is fine (read the second part). Funny to see people arguing against the NAP on a Libertarian forum, though.

With the NAP, you can save someone by deflecting the falling tree that's about to hit him, but you can't push him out of the way. If you want to claim that the NAP has exceptions, I'm happy to hear that. That's been my point in this thread. We might disagree on what those exceptions are, but if we agree that the NAP shouldn't be applied universally, I think we've found some common ground.

 

[Origanalist]

Don't put your toddler near moving traffic. They can't move around without your help... If you are going to go to unrealistic scenarios to defend your argument be my guest. I think we both know you are not convincing your self.

This is the voice of either inexperience or someone with drugged up kids. Do you have any idea how fast a toddler can dart out a door or escape from the back yard into the front etc.?

I don't follow.

Well feel free to raise your kids in a way that violates the NAP. Don't be surprised when they end up liberals or conservatives due to brain damage you induced in them.

Try it again, you can do it.

 

[AlexAmore]

So in your opinion it's okay for parents to "sell" rights to their children?

Absolutely. A variation of the baby market happens today through adoption. I just think it should be more free market and tweaked. Specifically I'm talking about selling the rights to raise the child.

I didn't make an argument, some teenagers need to be beaten for their actions/ statement.

MMM...beating teenagers for statements now. At least it won't come as surprise when the police state does it.

Force is physical, I'm not forcing you to do squat.

In order for me to agree with your stances I would HAVE to think in collectives.

 

[king_nothing_]

You've missed my point entirely. I said property rights would allow for ownership of children if we applied them absolutely, not the NAP. My point is that there is an exception to property rights (and you seem to agree). Let me try stating it this way:

I own all of the cells in my body unless I explicitly abandon them, sell them, or give them away, EXCEPT when those cells become a new human life.

My point is that if there is an exception to absolute property rights, perhaps there is an exception to absolute application of the NAP. I can't make it any clearer than that.

It's not an "exception" to absolute property rights, though. The beginning premise of propertarianism is self-ownership. It's not an "exception" to assert that a baby isn't your property even though you created it with your "labor". As I already said, self-ownership trumps the labor theory of property. If you're not going to respect self-ownership above and beyond all else, you may as well just throw the entire concept of property out the window.

 

[cjm]

Do you have any idea how fast a toddler can dart out a door or escape emancipate himself from the back yard into the front etc.?

Fixed to use appropriate libertarian terminology.

 

[Origanalist]

Fixed to use appropriate libertarian terminology.

 

[silverhandorder]

A walking toddler is an unrealistic scenario? Living in a city and completely avoiding the proximity of moving traffic is the unrealistic scenario here.

Yes it is. If your toddler is prone to running away from you don't take him somewhere this will be a problem. It is your responsibility to protect him, you made him you take care of him until he can do so himself.

With the NAP, you can save someone by deflecting the falling tree that's about to hit him, but you can't push him out of the way. If you want to claim that the NAP has exceptions, I'm happy to hear that. That's been my point in this thread. We might disagree on what those exceptions are, but if we agree that the NAP shouldn't be applied universally, I think we've found some common ground.

You can absolutely push someone away if they do not know the tree is falling. The same way the toddler may not know that there is a car coming to hit him. Has nothing to do with NAP. Hitting is done with intent to hurt to teach a lesson.

 

[cjm]

It's not an "exception" to absolute property rights, though. The beginning premise of propertarianism is self-ownership. It's not an "exception" to assert that a baby isn't your property even though you created it with your "labor". As I already said, self-ownership trumps the labor theory of property. If you're not going to respect self-ownership above and beyond all else, you may as well just throw the entire concept of property out the window.

What is the mechanism that transfers ownership of my biological material to the baby and exactly what point in time does that happen?

 

[silverhandorder]

Conception.

 

[cjm]

Yes it is. If your toddler is prone to running away from you don't take him somewhere this will be a problem. It is your responsibility to protect him, you made him you take care of him until he can do so himself.

You can absolutely push someone away if they do not know the tree is falling. The same way the toddler may not know that there is a car coming to hit him. Has nothing to do with NAP. Hitting is done with intent to hurt to teach a lesson.

Hmm, I pulled a definition of the NAP from wikipedia and posted it above. The salient part is here:

any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person (which may also be considered that person's property), no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner

It doesn't matter that the action is beneficial to the other person. You have still violated the NAP if you push him away.

If you are using a definition that says you can use unsolicited actions that physically affect another person if they are beneficial to that person, please cite it.

 

[Origanalist]

Yes it is. If your toddler is prone to running away from you don't take him somewhere this will be a problem. It is your responsibility to protect him, you made him you take care of him until he can do so himself.

What is the mechanism that transfers ownership of my biological material to the baby and exactly what point in time does that happen?

Conception.

Got it.

I now regret taking the circle jerk quotes out of my sig.

 

[cjm]

It is your responsibility to protect him, you made him you take care of him until he can do so himself.

Conception.

Libertarian doctrine prohibits abortion then?

 

[tod evans]

MMM...beating teenagers for statements now. At least it won't come as surprise when the police state does it.
.

I wasn't clear, "/statement" = I'm making a statement..

Although admittedly I will knock my kid out of his chair if he speaks to me as I've heard other kids speak to their parents. (I don't expect this will ever happen but it could.) And if officers of the state beat my child I will respond physically to them as well, it is my duty to provide/care for/discipline my child not yours or the states.

How you choose to handle your kid if he/she does that would of course be up to you.


As an example, I wouldn't interfere if you chose to smack your 2 y/o for having a tantrum in public however if you take off your belt and try to whip him I would interfere..........But I will never call the law to interfere.

 

[silverhandorder]

Hmm, I pulled a definition of the NAP from wikipedia and posted it above. The salient part is here:



It doesn't matter that the action is beneficial to the other person. You have still violated the NAP if you push him away.

If you are using a definition that says you can use unsolicited actions that physically affect another person if they are beneficial to that person, please cite it.

There is a world of difference between saving a life and teaching lessons with pain.

Libertarian doctrine prohibits abortion then?

Yes.

I wasn't clear, "/statement" = I'm making a statement..

Although admittedly I will knock my kid out of his chair if he speaks to me as I've heard other kids speak to their parents. (I don't expect this will ever happen but it could.) And if officers of the state beat my child I will respond physically to them as well, it is my duty to provide/care for/discipline my child not yours or the states.

How you choose to handle your kid if he/she does that would of course be up to you.


As an example, I wouldn't interfere if you chose to smack your 2 y/o for having a tantrum in public however if you take off your belt and try to whip him I would interfere..........But I will never call the law to interfere.

You got problems and should not have kids.

 

[king_nothing_]

What is the mechanism that transfers ownership of my biological material to the baby and exactly what point in time does that happen?

What the hell does that have to do with anything we're talking about? You made an argument which was categorically incorrect, I pointed out why it was so, you didn't even attempt to rebut it, and you instead respond by asking questions completely unrelated to the point I made. What time does it happen? This isn't a goddamn abortion discussion. Neither of those questions have a single thing to do with what I said: there is nothing which can correctly be deemed an "exception" to absolute property rights because self-ownership is the beginning, fundamental premise of it.

 

[Origanalist]

There is a world of difference between saving a life and teaching lessons with pain.

Yes.


You got problems and should not have kids.

So sayeth the person with how many children?