Are Children Property

[Murkan Mike]

Regarding the story about the man showing his children a porno video....

As sad as it may sound, I have to believe that children, as well as pets and all animals, are just property until they can actively gain their own independence.  At what age that is, I don't know, it depends upon the individual, and curcumstances may cause it to happen earlier in some children than others.  But it doesn't change the point.

Children and animals are just property, and you should have the legal right to do with your own children as you wish.  It is not for me to decide what you do with your own property.  If they don't like it, then they have the ability and then they earn the right to be their own person, and decide to stay or leave.  Then, and only then do they have rights. If they don't have the ability to leave, they don't have the right. Your children do not have a 'right to free speech' or a 'right to bear arms' as long as they are under your care.  The older they get, and the more able they are to assume self responsibility, they will eventually 'have rights' and be able to determine freedom from their parents.  At exactly what age this occurs, I don't know, but until it does, your children are your PROPERTY, not just your responsibility.

But until they do, they don't have rights.  Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to restrict or control their freedom, their learning, or their religion.  There is no such thing as 'Half Rights' or "kinda-sorta rights', it's either all or nothing, and children do not have rights, they are property.  As sad and cruel as it sounds, that man had the right to do what he wanted to his children, and it's not your business.  If you think you have the right to determine that he can't make his own property watch a fuck flick, then you may also conclude that you have the right to MAKE him show them a Creationist video, or a Bible Video, or a LDS Church video, because if you think you have the right to restrict what he does with his children, then you also have the logical argument to mandate what he does with his children, and even the extreemists would have to agree that you don't have that right.

Animals will never have rights, and will always remain property, otherwise you could never own them, or tie them on a leash, or refuse to let them go outside unattended.

Am I wrong on this?

Mike

[mikehz]

I think there is a fallacy at work here, although off the top of my head I can't recall it's name. It's the idea that if two things are somehow similar in some ways, (in this case, children and property) then they are exactly the same. But, of course they are not. I can sell property, for instance; but it would be wrong to sell children. There is no moral problem if I destroy my property, but it would be terribly wrong to harm my children.

Instead, children are endowed with extended rights. Since I contracted to bring them into the world, I am morally responsible to see to it that they are properly taken care of until they can manage on their own.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Children themselves are not exactly property -- they have natural rights to life and to emancipation -- but a child's "custody right" is an asset that's almost identical to property: it can be transferred voluntarily, and thus bought, sold, inherited, held jointly, even borrowed against, and so on.

[MacFall]

Children themselves are not exactly property -- they have natural rights to life and to emancipation -- but a child's "custody right" is an asset that's almost identical to property: it can be transferred voluntarily, and thus bought, sold, inherited, held jointly, even borrowed against, and so on.

This.

Conratulations, you qualify for a Rothbaridan Ethical Consistancy Troupe Universal Membership.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Thank you, but all those Rothbardian eggheads ever do is blow hot air.

The "Completely Uncompromising Newhampshiremen Tax-resisters" fits my tastes best.

[Rillion]

I think there is a fallacy at work here, although off the top of my head I can't recall it's name. It's the idea that if two things are somehow similar in some ways, (in this case, children and property) then they are exactly the same.

False analogy.  

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Children are property insofar as to the fact that what they own is essentially the parents' property, if they cause damage then their parents are held liable, and the parents must feed, clothe, and socialize them.

That ownership does not extend so far as to being able to sell the children because slavery is undignified, and everyone owns their own dignity, including children.


Post Script: Not the best argument ever in that last line but I want to see how it stands up against rebuttals.

[fatcat]

Regarding the story about the man showing his children a porno video....

As sad as it may sound, I have to believe that children, as well as pets and all animals, are just property until they can actively gain their own independence.  At what age that is, I don't know, it depends upon the individual, and curcumstances may cause it to happen earlier in some children than others.  But it doesn't change the point.

Children and animals are just property, and you should have the legal right to do with your own children as you wish.  It is not for me to decide what you do with your own property.

Since no one agrees that you should be able to rape and murder your children,

Children being property, or "kinda" property is extremely clumsy way to think of it.

Someone needs to come up with a classification that encompasses the rights and responsibilities of the parent-child paradigm without comparing it to other shit.

I think its pretty dangerous to try and encompass ownership-like things with ownership labelling, such as intellectual property/copyright.

If i can't sell, use, and do whatever I want with something (ALAIDHAE), then I don't own it, and i don't kind of own it.

[atomiccat]

children are endowed with extended rights. Since I contracted to bring them into the world, I am morally responsible to see to it that they are properly taken care of until they can manage on their own.

This.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

children are endowed with extended rights. Since I contracted to bring them into the world, I am morally responsible to see to it that they are properly taken care of until they can manage on their own.

This.

If its a moral responsibility, then the government has no right to see to it that you are upholding your end of the "contract".

Governments must allow us to behave in immoral ways otherwise the law of the land would be dictated to us in a feudal-caste system.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

No, you do have the natural right to sell your children / dependents into slavery or rape them (barring any legal obligations to the contrary, as there often would be), but their rights to life and emancipation are inalienable.  It's hard to imagine how anyone can rape a child and get away with it without violating those rights, in which case the child simply decides not to sue / expose the "rapist" at any time in the future, which sorta suggests it wasn't really rape.

Also, you do not have any positive obligations to your children except transparency: you can stop feeding them, but you must announce that fact publicly.  Since there's an overabundance of people willing to help a starving child and/or sue for his emancipation under the condition of adoption (especially if there's something like the Parents Tax), preventing that aid from reaching a child is akin to depriving that child from oxygen through asphyxiation - murder!

[Cognitive Dissident]

no

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

You "own" wardship over the child, but not the child itself. Big difference.

[Evil Muppet]

No, you do have the natural right to sell your children / dependents into slavery or rape them (barring any legal obligations to the contrary, as there often would be), but their rights to life and emancipation are inalienable.  It's hard to imagine how anyone can rape a child and get away with it without violating those rights, in which case the child simply decides not to sue / expose the "rapist" at any time in the future, which sorta suggests it wasn't really rape.

Also, you do not have any positive obligations to your children except transparency: you can stop feeding them, but you must announce that fact publicly.  Since there's an overabundance of people willing to help a starving child and/or sue for his emancipation under the condition of adoption (especially if there's something like the Parents Tax), preventing that aid from reaching a child is akin to depriving that child from oxygen through asphyxiation - murder!

I think that some of you are taking libertarian ideology and going way beyond any reasonable position.  You're taking your political ideals to such an extreme that you are jettisoning basic morality.  

[fatcat]

No, you do have the natural right to sell your children / dependents into slavery or rape them

trollfail