Are Children Property

[BobRobertson]

So, in specific terms, how is your position different than mine?

I don't know, because I didn't read your postings on the matter. Nor am I going to go back and do so.

I was referring to the general thread. Not you.

Your double standard that you get to post about anything, but question other people doing so, was what I directed at you specifically.

[BonerJoe]

I'm putting BobRobertson on ignore because all he wants to do is argue about retarded shit.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

I don't know, because I didn't read your postings on the matter. Nor am I going to go back and do so.

Wonderful academic ethic.  Very admirable. 

Your double standard that you get to post about anything, but question other people doing so, was what I directed at you specifically.

Um...  Everything I say is definitely open to debate.

[Cognitive Dissident]

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.

That's gonna leave a mark!

[hellbilly]

No, children are not property.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

No, children are not property.

Thank you. Your post is well reasoned, thought provoking, and fantastically deep.

[Cognitive Dissident]

No, children are not property.

Thank you. Your post is well reasoned, thought provoking, and fantastically deep.

I thought "no" was more concise.

[hellbilly]

No, children are not property.

Thank you. Your post is well reasoned, thought provoking, and fantastically deep.

Would you like me to repeat all the sane replies that have already been made?

How do people even entertain these wacky debates seriously?

I will add though, that the only people who seem to pull off the idea that children are property are those like Madonna and Angelina.

Madonna: "Oh hey girl! I see you got a little Malay boy. I'll swap you two Somali girls for that one."
Angelina: "OK, I'll ask Brad- but he's really been on a Vietnamese kick lately.."

...does "property" require nurturing? Of course someone will say yes to that, and that's the far reaching angle that makes this discussion stupit.

[BobRobertson]

That's gonna leave a mark!

Sadly, all it will do is reinforce his own opinion of his superiority.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

hellbilly - you're letting popular emotions get in the way of reason, which is very dangerous.

All your babies are belong to me.

Thus says the state, or whatever other thugs have regional hegemony, precisely due to the power vacuum that exists due to lack of recognition of natural rights.

That's gonna leave a mark! Sadly, all it will do is reinforce his own opinion of his superiority.

If I spend the whole day looking, I could probably find 100 examples of me being out-debated, admitting that I was wrong, and changing my views accordingly.  This is not such an occasion.  Mixing baseless moral proclamations with domineering rhetoric and insults does not win a rational argument.  The facts on which I base my arguments remain.

[Evil Muppet]

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).

Collapsing fertility rates is because people are more prosperous.  It is because children were once viewed as an economic resource to work the farm and take care of you when you become too old to work.  If you want to increase the birth rate than reduce everyone to abject poverty.  Move them out into the country and out of the cities where there isn't enough room to have a large family.  Basically you will have to undo all the benefits of modern society. 

[BobRobertson]

Collapsing fertility rates is because people are more prosperous.  It is because children were once viewed as an economic resource to work the farm and take care of you when you become too old to work.  If you want to increase the birth rate than reduce everyone to abject poverty.  Move them out into the country and out of the cities where there isn't enough room to have a large family.  Basically you will have to undo all the benefits of modern society. 

You've restated the premise for the John Ringo book, _There Will Be Dragons_.

One "side" decided that the decreasing numbers of humans was a bad thing, and the way to increase it was to eliminate technology. The other "side" pointed out that the decrease in population had been slowing, as the only people who had babies were the ones that wanted to have babies, reinforcing the reproductive drive in subsequent generations.

Anyway, that aside, I thought it was quite a good book. Ringo is no libertarian, but that doesn't mean he can't write a good story.

I especially liked how, in the second book of the series, he cites the first book as if it had been written in that world, a best seller, and the characters now have to live with the fact that they're famous. I thought it was an excellent twist to be able to refer to backstory.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Collapsing fertility rates is because people are more prosperous.  It is because children were once viewed as an economic resource to work the farm and take care of you when you become too old to work.  If you want to increase the birth rate [then] reduce everyone to abject poverty.  Move them out into the country and out of the cities where there isn't enough room to have a large family.  Basically you will have to undo all the benefits of modern society. 

I'm an amateur philosopher, not a mad dictator.  I am simply pointing out the reality of human nature, upon which natural law is based.  Just as property rights naturally reward a person for creating / bringing wealth into the human economy, so must parents' rights reward the parents for their toil.  You can make children a resource in a modern and futuristic society by simply recognizing that parents' rights exist to a greater extent than the current semi-socialist society is willing to recognize (ex. the Parents Tax).