Capacity to enter into a contact: A philosophy challenge

[ForumTroll]

This really isn't even about Anarchy Jay, this even applies to a voluntaryist society with minimal government, or some kind of autocratic polyarchy.

Well, whatever. Since nobody has yet thought of a solution, there will be force initiated against capable persons. Whether that's through government or not. It's arbitrary, not an absolute.

I'd use some drugs to think this over some more, but I don't have any.

[Johnson]

I suppose this is more of a "we'll never get to a government free society without an answer to this" kind of argument in that I believe that convincing the vast majority of people to leave the idea of ensuring children and the less mentally capable with some kind of caretaker behind, is never going to happen.

I guess THAT is more the root of this... I beleive there needs to be a principle for dealing with those that beleive in a nanny state... A way of expressing simply... What caretaking looks like in a liberty oriented society...

[ForumTroll]

I guess THAT is more the root of this... I beleive there needs to be a principle for dealing with those that beleive in a nanny state... A way of expressing simply... What caretaking looks like in a liberty oriented society...

It's because people don't want to deal emotionally with these problems, and would rather let a ruling body initiate the force.

[theCelestrian]

I'll play. - and try to take a stab at this:


An individual is considered competent when they can demonstrate to those they are about to enter a contract/consensual transaction with that they understand the contract's breadth, scope and the likely permutations of consequences (both good and bad) as a resultant of entering such a contract/agreement.

I think this is about a simple as you could make it - there are no "outside agencies" in which competency must be determined.  There is no arbitrary "line" - rather this requires the judgment and wisdom of the two parties. This also accounts for individuals who may be adults, but due to mental incapacitation would not be fit to enter certain agreements, but may be perfectly competant to engage in others, like the purchasing of food, etc.

It may not be the most ideal, but this is a simple as I think I can make it without it being absurd.

Edit:  This is also could work in the hypothetical situation should someone make the claim a person was "taken advantage of,"  and someone acting as an agent on the "victim's" behalf to serve as a litmus test, an those outside parties could review the agreement and determine if this litmus test as applicable to both parties. 

[Johnson]

I think that's a good way of making a statement about contracting with those that ARE competent... Many here have answered that people should be assumed competent.... OK... but that doesn't answer
what should happen to those that cannot.

In other words, any action taken against someone not capable of consent is then force, because they have not consented.... So the question becomes about what level of force is ok...

[theCelestrian]

Ah.  Okay, let's try this then to get the ball rolling:

Coercive force may only be applied to an individual incapable of consent only when the direct resultant of the forcible action restores or grants the individual the capacity to consent.

• Your paranoia example would pass this test - you use a minimum of force to give the individual medicine, and once they are back to the rational person prior to onset of the paranoid schizophrenia, they could then be in a position to determine whether or not to continue taking the medication, or rationally consent when of sound mind and judgment that for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, they would prefer to be a "crazy person"
  
  
• Rape and Sexual Predation would fail - raping an individual does not make the victim whole because it is , nor does it grant the individual the capacity to engage in consensual acts of sex as a direct result of the rape.
  
  
• Theft would also fail for obvious reasons

I would howver, be interested in seeing you can see some scenarios I presently do not that would strain this axiom.

[Johnson]

This is definitely the closest to what I have been trying to get at... absolutely in the right direction.

Although I do feel that this is not necessarily there yet, because children cannot immediately be granted the 'ability to consent' or immediate wisdom granted by force enacted upon them by a parent trying to protect that child from harm.

[theCelestrian]

This is definitely the closest to what I have been trying to get at... absolutely in the right direction.

Although I do feel that this is not necessarily there yet, because children cannot immediately be granted the 'ability to consent' or immediate wisdom granted by force enacted upon them by a parent trying to protect that child from harm.

Let me think on this - but I think in order to create an axiom that accounts for your aforementioned relationship - we will need to define what the archetype of the parent <-> child relationship is.

[Wayne]

That's part of the point I am making, is about this arbitrary system that determines that 18 is the legal age at which someone can willfully do such a thing. It's like something magical happens at 18, and suddenly parents and neighbors don't pull out shotguns to go kill the predator pedophiles anymore....

Then perhaps we should be focusing on just showing the absolute irrationality of having a dividing line at 18?

If you answer that anyone claiming the ability to contract gets it... there is going to be a very violent society in the making when petulant teenagers start abusing that, because their SPECIFIC mental disability is POOR DECISION MAKING because the frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the age of 21-25.

Well now you're just jumping to conclusions and treating speculation as fact. Is this a serious thought, or just more devil-advocating?

And where exactly did you get your data? I read scientific and psychology mags (the more serious stuff, I tend to skip Popular Science.) I believe it was just last year that the neurological/psychological data basically pointed at mental decision-processing ability literally peaking during the teen years. (Sure, you may gain more knowledge as you age, but depending on the quality of that knowledge, that can be good and/or bad; ability peaks in the teens.)

(And finally, teenagers can apparently abuse their position to hell and back nowadays... but looking around, for some odd reason, I don't see much of that.)

Seriously, I think YOU are focusing on these sorts of nit-picky objections far more than any actual statist I know would. You keep digging and digging for logical rebuttals--concisely stated axioms at that--and acting as if all the "arguments" are really important and really need to be addressed in minute detail. But then you finally reveal that what you're concerned about is the emotional component to all this. And you want us to address that, to your satisfaction, with logic. That's a little frustrating, you know.

A single-sentence principle/axiom logically and completely detailing how a free society handles incompetents is NOT going to be enough to sway the mind of someone whose real objection to freedom isn't really even some deep-seated concern about incompetents (which is probably the case unless they already try to address such issues in their present life.)

Maybe you're more likely to get what you want if, instead of tossing and analyzing arguments, we try to address the emotional component underlying all this?

(Yeah, yeah, I should go first then... when I get more time....)

[Johnson]

Well Wayne, the way I see it, logical thinkers like myself are much less prone to distraction by emotional arguments if there is a very sound logical theory behind our argumentation.

Something like the Libertarian's pledge or John Galt's oath provide a very sound foundation for a logical debate about any Liberty principle.
 
I see this as a territory that is lacking such a logical theory, and i think that it's possible to provide one that can guide people through this area of argumentation.

[Johnson]

Oh, also, my last three political debates have been with PoliSci majors... So they are very detail oriented, much moreso than you'd think... I want to find liberty arguments so sound that a liberty loving schmoe off the street could easily convince a politician to believe in liberty... I believe that enough brainpower put into the communicative power of language can accomplish a whole lot...

[theCelestrian]

Oh, also, my last three political debates have been with PoliSci majors... So they are very detail oriented, much moreso that you'd think... I want to find liberty arguments so sound that a liberty loving schmoe off the street could easily convince a politician to believe in liberty... I believe that enough brainpower put into the communicative power of language can accomplish a whole lot...

This will be difficult; you cannot get most people to agree to the NAP much less what we are attempting here - but it will be an interesting foray nonetheless.

I think pending any new points we might need to take stock, agree upon terms and proceed with defining some of the relationships that are seeming to prove to be problematic.

[ForumTroll]

This will be difficult; you cannot get most people to agree to the NAP much less what we are attempting here

The problem with NAP is that it requires a complete absence of involuntary government for people who abide by it.

[davann]

I want to find liberty arguments so sound that a liberty loving schmoe off the street could easily convince a politician to believe in liberty...

Quicker and easier way is to just hand him a wad of cash with a promise of future wads if he remains steadfast in his new beliefs. You are giving politicos far to much credit.

[Laetitia]

I want to find liberty arguments so sound that a liberty loving schmoe off the street could easily convince a politician to believe in liberty...

Quicker and easier way is to just hand him a wad of cash with a promise of future wads if he remains steadfast in his new beliefs. You are giving politicos far to much credit.

Unfortunately, even though a politician is probably perfectly capable of understanding the ideas, years of belief in the power that goes with votes & money are going to be very hard to overcome. What you need is either the money davann mentions, or something akin to a religious conversion. Both are unlikely, as those who want to use government to do more have far more money to throw around than those who want government to do less.