Are Children Property

[AL the Inconspicuous]

My position is logically consistent.  All other positions I've heard thus-far aren't.

Most people here even fail to grasp the #1 most fundamental fact in life: babies come from parents, and each woman needs to average 2 children (or slightly more to account for early mortality) in order for population to remain stable.  How do you get people to keep reproducing?  There is the capitalist solution - parents' rights; and there's the socialist solution - everything else.  Parents have the natural right to profit from their children, and (barring violations of the child's rights to life and emancipation) to do so on their own terms, whether you agree with them or not!

[Cognitive Dissident]

Children have a natural right to kill the parents enslaving them.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Clearly they don't.  In a society where children can get away with murdering their parents, who in their right mind would reproduce?

Do you even have a basic comprehension of what "natural rights" are?!  (Hint: they're not based on wishful thinking.)

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Alex, no you don't own your spawn. You own stewardship over them since they are agents of equal status as you. Like or not, you can't eat your kids, even if the Sniper said they taste good with wasabi sauce.

[Evil Muppet]

My position is logically consistent.  All other positions I've heard thus-far aren't.

Most people here even fail to grasp the #1 most fundamental fact in life: babies come from parents, and each woman needs to average 2 children (or slightly more to account for early mortality) in order for population to remain stable.  How do you get people to keep reproducing?  There is the capitalist solution - parents' rights; and there's the socialist solution - everything else.  Parents have the natural right to profit from their children, and (barring violations of the child's rights to life and emancipation) to do so on their own terms, whether you agree with them or not!

Your position is horrible.  Your 'logically consistent' position is psychopathic. 

How do you get people to keep reproducing?  I think the fact that you even asked that kind of question should disqualify you from reproducing. 

[AL the Inconspicuous]

More proof that most people on this forum are pot-heads who don't understand the first thing about liberty... 

[Evil Muppet]

You are trying to tell me that one human being can be the property of another human being.  You are the one who is suggesting that parents can buy, sell and ass rape their children.  Seems that your views of liberty have caused you to accept a sick and twisted morality.     

And I've never tried pot.  I'm not a pothead. 

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Because you don't have the wonderful power of Alex-o-vision! Now shutup and bow down to your betters.

[timm22]

I see things a bit differently.

Human beings are entitled to certain negative obligations from others, such as not having force initiated against them. For simplicity's sake we can call these obligations "rights". I believe all human beings have rights. I also believe children are human beings.

When two people have sex they run the "risk" of creating a human being. More specifically, they run the risk of creating a human being with a (temporarily) limited capacity to reason, to support itself, and to intelligently exercise its rights. If a man and a woman create a baby, they have in effect brought a person into the world who is unable to stay alive without assistance.

Were it not for the parents' actions, the child's incapacity would not exist. The child never asked to brought into the world nor does it have any responsibility for its helplessness. The parents are the ones who put the baby in the difficult position of existing in this world without having any chance of keeping itself alive. Thus, the parents should have to make restitution to the child in the form of supporting it and in the form of responsibly exercising the child's rights until the child is capable enough to do those things for himself.

If a parent is doing something against a child's interests, the child can not just walk away as you or I would do. This would require the child to abandon the restitution he is owed. And the child is simply unable to support himself without the parent's assistance....which again is the fault of the parents. Thus, parents should not be able to harm a child in a way that is against the child's interests.

I can't really describe how much "harm" is permissible  or what the child's "interests" are without some extra thought and about 500 more paragraphs. Nor can I describe what kind of system is best for ensuring that parents make restitution to their children...it doesn't have to be the state, and almost certainly should not be the nightmarish Child Services departments we have now.

But I don't think children are mere property to be treated in any way the parent chooses.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

You are trying to tell me that one human being can be the property of another human being.

For the millionth time, "property" and "custody" are not identical concepts, because all human beings have the natural right to life - from the moment of physical autonomy (i.e. birth, etc) until the moment of verified and documented irreversible death.  A society that fails to punish murder will be completely dysfunctional, and there's no reason at all to make an exception for infanticide, especially when there's a growing abundance of charities that would take an unwanted child off anyone's hands "no questions asked".

In order to have the right to liberty and property, however, one must be capable of reasoning, respecting the rights of others, and taking responsibility for one's actions.  Human beings are not born with those abilities - they are typically learned in the first one or two decades of life.  Furthermore, a person can lose those rights on account of violating the rights of others (imprisonment), voluntary surrender of rights (freedom of contract), or documented mental illness.  The custody holders / guardians are not the slaves of their dependents, and it is perfectly reasonable that they expect them to do certain chores in compensation for pulling their economic weight.  What constitutes such compensation -- from merely good behavior to work to sexual favors -- is entirely subjective.

This limitation on one's rights must be conditional and open to review, which I call the right to emancipation.  If a child wants to leave his/her parents, either to be a fully self-owning adult or to transfer custody to another person or organization, s\he should be able to do so, as per the outcome of arbitration / jury trial.  This right is not entirely "negative", because it creates an obligation on the parents to facilitate some degree of transparency into their family life.  In other words, you can exploit your kids, but you can't brainwash or otherwise damage them so that they can't expose you, now or in the future.  An evolving system of competetive jurisprudence and public opinion would naturally lead to the emergence of reasonable standards of parental behavior, though for the most part it would remain a sliding scale.

And I've never tried pot.  I'm not a pothead.

Good for you. 

(But since I enjoy playing a jerk on this forum so much, I reserve to call anyone a pot-head for whatever reason I want, teeheehee.)

[Cognitive Dissident]

Clearly they don't.  In a society where children can get away with murdering their parents, who in their right mind would reproduce?

Do you even have a basic comprehension of what "natural rights" are?!  (Hint: they're not based on wishful thinking.)

Sarcasm.  Learn it, dipshit.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

I would rather be called a "dipshit" by ten billion WTFK's than to censor one rant, just one rant without which an ignorant philosophy might win by default!

[BobRobertson]

I would rather be called a "dipshit" by ten billion WTFK's than to censor one rant, just one rant without which an ignorant philosophy might win by default!

Then stop asking why I continue to counter your ignorance in the Linux thread.

On my kids, they are not my property. They are my responsibility until such time as they take that responsibility upon themselves (or by circumstances have that responsibility thrust upon them).

Anything else is sophistry and obfuscation.

[Evil Muppet]

What constitutes such compensation -- from merely good behavior to work to sexual favors -- is entirely subjective.

So now child rape is just a form of compensation?

That's a great way to sell anarchy.  Get rid of the government so deviants like you can rape children as a form of compensation.  You're twisted.   

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Then stop asking why I continue to counter your ignorance in the Linux thread.

Microsoft is not going to "win by default", there are plenty of people working on free desktop apps and other components, drivers, etc.  They're just not good enough - yet.  I'm sure in a few more years they'll get it right.  My money is on KDE 7.2, after Nokia BSD's Qt... 

On my kids, they are not my property. They are my responsibility until such time as they take that responsibility upon themselves (or by circumstances have that responsibility thrust upon them).  Anything else is sophistry and obfuscation.

So, in specific terms, how is your position different than mine?  Do you believe you don't have the right to give up that responsibility?  What are the limitations of your rights as a parent?

So now child rape is just a form of compensation?  That's a great way to sell anarchy. Get rid of the government so deviants like you can rape children as a form of compensation.  You're twisted.

I'm not looking to "rape" anyone nor to "sell" anything.  I am simply presenting a rational ethical system that works, while pointing out why alternative ethical systems do not (ex. collapsing fertility rates).