|
|
#82
10-24-2007, 08:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
In your scenario, if there was no more information other than the girl was a moral agent, then I would agree that she has every right to leave and run off with creepy 40 year old guy. But in real life I don't think most scenarios would be so cut and dry, since most courts would be hard-pressed, I think, to find cases where a) a 13 yr old kid lives with parents and is fully supported by them, yet b) this 13 year old kid is clearly a fully functional moral agent. [/ QUOTE ] Who the hell's right is it for an outside group of people to determine whether or not I am a moral agent and then act upon that decision, when I myself assert that I am and it isn't their decision to say I'm not? 
|
|
#83
10-24-2007, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
The complexities of this particular type of case though (complexities that don't exist in the slavery examples) make it so that decisions in such cases would vary greatly based on particular facts, and I would imagine different communities would handle such issues in different (possibly radically so) ways. [/ QUOTE ] That you assume complexities in the case of children, yet discount the existence of complexities in slavery doesn't just make it so....unless that you assume that every possible slave in every possible slavery example is always a moral agent. I'd venture a guess that their are similar complexities in both tyes of situations, but that's probably for another topic altogether.
|
|
#84
10-24-2007, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're still fuzzy on what it means to be a moral agent, then. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe so..... I was going on the same interpretation that was previously applied in determining that a slave in the previous analogy was a moral agent, despite no other information being available. I had no idea the meaning changed dependent upon who it is applied too. Be a peach and clear this up for me....define moral agent. [ QUOTE ] The girl should be free to leave and the father would be wrong to try and force her to stay. [/ QUOTE ] Even if he strongly disagrees and asserts that she is most definately not a moral agent? [ QUOTE ] In common understanding, it's like asking if the father would be justified in using force to keep a 40 year old from helping his 25 year old daughter leave the house. [/ QUOTE ] In common understanding, their is the magic government sanctioned line of demarcation that somehow grants us all the statist equivalent of moral agency on our 18th birthdays....which is why in the common understanding it's not similar if she were 25 instead of 13. She's 13....not 25.....She asserts she is a moral agent, the father asserts she isn't. Who am I or you to tell her she isn't when she says she is? Do you really believe that a court or arbitrator in AC should make a decision affecting a person's own freedom/moral agency and then assert those findings by force....despite the subject not being an aggressor of any kind against any person or their property?
|
|
#85
10-24-2007, 10:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
That you assume complexities in the case of children, yet discount the existence of complexities in slavery doesn't just make it so....unless that you assume that every possible slave in every possible slavery example is always a moral agent. I'd venture a guess that their are similar complexities in both tyes of situations, but that's probably for another topic altogether. [/ QUOTE ] ummm... lol? It makes no difference whether or not the slaves were moral agents; it wouldn't justify the fact that they were bought and sold like property, or treated inhumanely, etc. Slavery really has very little of the complexity of the child issue; but if you're going to make such a mind-boggling claim, at least provide your reasoning! EDIT: Let me expand a bit. Take some 8 yr old boy, who's clearly not a moral agent. The fact that he isn't a moral agent doesn't mean he becomes property, and it certainly doesn't mean that someone could take possession of the kid and work him like a slave. Thus I really don't see what complexities in slavery cases that you are referring to. But by all means, my ears are open.
|
|
#86
10-24-2007, 10:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And who should get to decide which cases? The parents? [/ QUOTE ] Certainly not outsiders being paid by the kids or representatives of the kids. [/ QUOTE ] Interesting sidebar: who pays for court costs in this case? Do abused kids who want to emancipate themselves have to wait until they save enough money under a mattress or something?
|
|
#87
10-24-2007, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do you think a court of reasonable people would determine that the 40 year old was justified here? Do you think anyone would hold the father liable for defending his daughter from this guy? [/ QUOTE ] The 40-year old in the analogy did not initiate any aggression, nor employ any force. He facilitated the freeing of a moral agent that chose to be free. Why would that be unjustified? [ QUOTE ] Seriously, do people become retarded once govt goes away or something? [/ QUOTE ] Apparently, if you think it justifiable to employ force upon this poor guy despite him not aggressing upon you or your property. [/ QUOTE ] So you think an arbitrator would let him take someones child against their will and have sex with someone too young to consent? Brilliant!
|
|
#88
10-24-2007, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
ummm... lol? It makes no difference whether or not the slaves were moral agents; [/ QUOTE ] The consensus conclusion to the original analogy seemed to be that the slaveowner was the initial aggressor on the basis that the slaves were moral agents. If them being moral agents provides the justification in the original analogy, I don't quite understand how it makes no difference. [ QUOTE ] Slavery really has very little of the complexity of the child issue; but if you're going to make such a mind-boggling claim, at least provide your reasoning! [/ QUOTE ] I sent you a PM.
|
|
#89
10-24-2007, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
This is, of course, completely correct. If a person (A) doesn't believe in ACist Property Rights puts up a tent on some property that a guy (B) "mixed his labor with" (or whatever theory of non-positive law property rights acquisition one is using) and B takes out his machine gun and tells A "to get off my property" then B is violently imposing his moral viewpoints on A. [/ QUOTE ] No, he's retaliating (excessively) to A violently imposing his moral viewpoints on B. But since you believe this, maybe you can provide an answer to a situation I brought up in the other thread: Let's say you and your family move out into the wilderness. You build a house from scratch on this land and you build another part of the land into a farm. This takes years of labor on the part of you and your family, but when you're done, you've built yourself a nice little place to live. You go on like this for 10 years or so, then one of the following two situations happen: A) A stranger shows up and moves in. He starts sleeping on your bed and eating your food and refuses to ever pitch in and help. You ask him nicely to stop, to leave, and he says "hey, you can't own land, so I have as much right to this stuff as you do." At no time does he do anything that you would consider "violence". How do you resolve this situation? B) A stranger shows up and burns down your house and burns your crops. Before he does this, he says to you, "hey, I like burning stuff, so I'm going to burn down your house and crops. I don't want you to get hurt though, so I'm warning you so you can get out." What do you do?
|
|
#90
10-24-2007, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
So you think an arbitrator would let him take someones child against their will and have sex with someone too young to consent? Brilliant! [/ QUOTE ] Who said the child was being taken against their will? In the analogy, I clearly mentioned that it was her desire to do so....and certainly not against her will. And who are you to tell someone they are too young to consent, if they assert that they are perfectly old enough too? Why do you get to make decisions for someone else, in contradiction to what they desire, based solely on your opinion? How far does this extend, and to which cases is it limited? If some random 17-year old kid wants to stick bananas in his ass for pleasure, that's none of my damn business to intervene and force him not too because he doesn't know any better, right? If two 20-year old men want to grab a room, turn out the lights, and start grappling at one another's cranberry's....that's their business. I don't see the difference if one was 16 and the other 35, as opposed to them both being 20......as far as my right to intervene on one's behalf despite his not desiring me too. And if some random 13-year old girl really wants an old man cramming her peach cobbler rotten, then it's none of my damn business just the same. But if it's my daughter, then it damn sure is my business, and more so than it is anyone else's, especially some random company paid to come in and tell me what they think.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
