*opens up a can of worms*

[KBCraig]

Especially if that thing is a parasite that leeches off of you.

So, you can kill them right up to, say, age 18 or so?

[tracysaboe]

Especially if that thing is a parasite that leeches off of you.

So, you can kill them right up to, say, age 18 or so?

He's already said he doesn't have a problem with a parent kicking a newborn out of the house and letting it fend for itself.  At least he's being consitant.

Tracy

[Gabo]

So, you can kill them right up to, say, age 18 or so?

If you refuse your child something and he/she attempts to take it by force, then yes you may defend yourself.
Or is defense of property too radical to be libertarian nowadays?

[Dreepa]

If you refuse your child something and he/she attempts to take it by force, then yes you may defend yourself.

So we should beat 2-3 year olds?  I mean that is what they do.

[KBCraig]

So, you can kill them right up to, say, age 18 or so?

If you refuse your child something and he/she attempts to take it by force, then yes you may defend yourself.

That was one of the lamest attempts at misdirection I've ever seen. Like Dreepa said: are you going to shoot your toddler when he doesn't take "no" for an answer?

Or is defense of property too radical to be libertarian nowadays?

Come try to take my property, and see.

Kevin

[Gabo]

I don't believe this is a discussion on what is moral or intelligent.
We're discussing property rights.

And when you begin to compromise them, you'll find they all but vanish.



Obviously people aren't going to harm their children for sneaking cookies from the cookie jar.
But does that mean we should pass laws against punishment for cookie sneaking?  No.

I am merely stating what is possible in the context of property rights, not what is probable or moral.

[intergraph19]

Without getting into the debate, I would like to bring up the point that abortions will happen one way or another. They will either happen in back alleys with black market doctors, or they will happen in legitimate, sterile medical facilities. The former stems from government regulation, the latter stems from freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Regardless of whether or not abortion is murder, I don't think it should be left to government to decide.

Yes, and crime will happen anyway too, should we just make all things legal? 

You have a good point.  Laws should be followed.  However, only things that hurt other people should be against the law.

I consider ridding oneself of the pesky problem of a baby to be hurting other people.

Nah.  Because LL owns and has a 100% right to control everything that is inside of LL.  LL gets to decide what to do with what is inside of LL.

But anyway, it is your body, and you will not hurt your body if you don't want to.

So when does the "body part" get to have it's own body parts?  And at what age does it get to have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?  I'm curious as to when it becomes it's own person.  And I do appluad your consistancy, that is more than most people have by a long shot.

I don't believe this is a discussion on what is moral or intelligent.
We're discussing property rights.

And when you begin to compromise them, you'll find they all but vanish.



Obviously people aren't going to harm their children for sneaking cookies from the cookie jar.
But does that mean we should pass laws against punishment for cookie sneaking?  No.

I am merely stating what is possible in the context of property rights, not what is probable or moral.

Isn't considering a child "property" a form of slavery?  Property is only that which is inanimate, or an animal, and it's a fine line to call animals property.  Of course, I don't believe humans are animals either.

[Gabo]

Isn't considering a child "property" a form of slavery?  Property is only that which is inanimate, or an animal, and it's a fine line to call animals property.  Of course, I don't believe humans are animals either.

In the future, please read the previous posts of someone before you respond to their post out of context.

The property rights I was referring to were those of the mother to own her body, and of the parents to own the home.
Nowhere did I advocate that children were property.

[KBCraig]

We're discussing property rights.

No, we're not. Perhaps you are. But you'd be wrong.

Unless, of course, you believe parents "own" their children, as chattel.

Kevin

[tracysaboe]

We're discussing property rights.

No, we're not. Perhaps you are. But you'd be wrong.

Unless, of course, you believe parents "own" their children, as chattel.

Kevin

Of course private ownership is still superior to public ownership. 

You Treat Me Like Property 
http://www.mises.org/story/2058

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

We're discussing property rights.

No, we're not. Perhaps you are. But you'd be wrong.

Unless, of course, you believe parents "own" their children

children are the result of their parent's labor...therefore they start out as being "owned" by their parents.

from conception the potential human being goes through the process of forcefully ASSERTING their individuation from their mother ultimately achieving personhood as a sentient human being.

at some point still in utero the potential human being becomes a sentient human being via this process of asserting their independence, achieving personhood worthy of having their rights protected and we speak of the parents "gifting" the life of the child to them...

[Gabo]

Unless, of course, you believe parents "own" their children, as chattel.

We are discussing the property rights of the mother to own her body and the parents to own their home, as I stated in the previous post.

[intergraph19]

Isn't considering a child "property" a form of slavery?  Property is only that which is inanimate, or an animal, and it's a fine line to call animals property.  Of course, I don't believe humans are animals either.

In the future, please read the previous posts of someone before you respond to their post out of context.

The property rights I was referring to were those of the mother to own her body, and of the parents to own the home.
Nowhere did I advocate that children were property.

I did read the previous posts and my comment comes from the fact that a child being property is infered in the idea that a woman's "right" to her body, superceeds the right of the child to live in the first place; meaning the child has no such right, and is subsiquently, the biological property of the mother.  Slaves also had no right to live if thier masters choose not to let them.  Hence the comparison.

[KBCraig]

Unless, of course, you believe parents "own" their children, as chattel.

We are discussing the property rights of the mother to own her body

The right of a mother to her own body does not give her the right to dispose of the life -- and body -- of her child.

[intergraph19]

Unless, of course, you believe parents "own" their children, as chattel.

We are discussing the property rights of the mother to own her body

The right of a mother to her own body does not give her the right to dispose of the life -- and body -- of her child.

Oh nicly put, utterly succinct.  Exactly how I feel about it.  ^_^