ProfessionalTeabagger

That was preposterous.

Yes.

Yes you created a sovereign being but you also created the moral obligation to care for it. That's part of its sovereignty. I do not know were you're getting this idea that abandoning the child is respecting its property rights. You don't have to physically DO something TO someone to violate them. Abandonment of a child is the same thing as active murder of the child. I made no argument from consequences. I argued that part of the child's property rights includes the right to be cared for by the parent, and that right was created when the parent chose to have the child. This answers your second question too. Children do not consent or withhold consent to be born so there's no breach of property rights.You may have forgotten but we've already had something like this discussion. I am pretty certain I successfully rebutted and answered all the antinatalist arguments you made and questions you asked. But you did not respond any further. That bothers me a bit because i have to assume that if you're still asking this strange question then my arguments had zero effect. "the parents do not own anything at this point, it is the child who owns, because it now has full self-ownership." The child owns the right to be cared for by the people who created that right. If the child HAS self-ownership then it has property rights over itself; So the parents created those rights, correct? Similarly they created its right to be cared for.

You are forgetting those chosen obligations of the parent (assuming they're not mad or severely mentally retarded). Property rights do not just go one way. You may own yourself 100% and people may not have the right to violate that but you also own the effects of your actions. So when you have a child you have created the situation were the child will die if you do not care for it. You own the effects of that action. Part of the child's property rights is the right to be cared for and that right is one created by the parent. If they abandon the child they are violating that right. It's not like the baby created the situation. It does not own the effect of of being helpless. The parent owns that. So no, the abandoning parent is not respecting that child's property rights/self-ownership; just the opposite. Guardianship means an obligation to guard the child from the potentially harmful situations you have created. It does not overrule the child's self-ownership. It helps to think of a child as a full person. If you could not justify something to a child when it becomes an adult then you can't justify it when they're a child.

The parents choose to care for the child when they choose to have one. They choose guardianship of the child's property rights until such time as the child can exercise them. If a parent did not choose to have a child they were raped and either chose to continue the pregnancy or were unable to stop it. If they choose to keep it then they choose the obligation to care for it. If they choose not to keep it then they can leave it at a hospital. Property rights are valid and property exists objectively. If a parent abandons their child after birth then have murdered it.

If the child is likely going to starve and die then by definition the parent has not fulfilled their chosen moral obligation.

Stop working so much. Problem solved. Are you an anarchist now?

My father recently died from a mostly smoking related illness. The free healthcare system in my country probably extended his life-span from 68 to 69 at the cost of what must have been tens of thousand of pounds. For all I know if he'd have had to have paid the much higher insurance because of his smoking he may have stopped and he'd still be alive. It's almost impossible to know. Socialists will take the fact of the extended life-span, highlight it and use it as a justification for their violence. They are morally bankrupt so emphasizing the benefits of violence is the only case they have.

I'm not mixing any reasoning. You can support a logical argument with statistics. If I point out that your theory or ethic has contradictions then it's wrong. If I want to point to statistics or facts to demonstrate results of that theory or ethic I can do that as well. And as I pointed out I Stef does not even need the facts or statistics. If they're better of in terms of health and finance with your more rational system of violence then so what? I've "been had", therefore I should start advocating using violence to be "better off"?

Fine, let's say that the highest funding for research in medicine did not come from America or even that China has not reached Number 2 since adopting much more capitalist principles in its economy. Let's say these socialist healthcare systems did not benefit from American funding. Let's even say that the country with the highest life expectancy Monaco does not have zero income tax but is the most socialist. So what?

No because Stef argues the morality and supports it with statistics. He could use no statistics at all and he would still have made his case. That's why I'm asking you "So what?". In fact I'll just accept for the sake of argument that under socialism the outcomes of providing goods and services are always better at all times. So what?

Strong case for what? You just demonstrated what I'm arguing. You want to corral people into arguing a consequentialist case because you know statistics can be cherry-picked and distorted. I could throw back all sorts of things like the stark differences between socialist eastern bloc and more capitalist western bloc or that much if not most of the medicine and tech used by socialists comes from "capitalist" America or ask what you think about the life-expectancy of the hundreds of millions killed in socialist programs like war or any number of things but it would go exactly nowhere. Even if I could convince you to change your mind I would not want to for those reasons. The hypothesis you put forward is that a healthcare system based on non-violence and free trade will provide better goods and services than one based on violence and theft. You disprove it by showing countries with more theft and violence in healthcare currently have longer life expediencies. I'll leave aside the incoherent form of the hypothesis, the ambiguity in language and the factual mistakes and just accept that you're correct? So what?

Truth or logic is not a primary concern to socialists. They want to coral you into a consequentialist debate were they can cherry-pick and distort information to fit their ideology and they appeal directly to a population that won't think about it too much. Contrary information will not slow them down so there's little point in arguing from consequences. A person with the much weaker case can appear to have the stronger if they're willing to distort and lie.

I can live slightly longer by stealing??? YEY!

Are you a theist, ccuthbert?

It's actually a lot of fun to watch, however it thrives mostly on what JJ Abrams calls the mystery box. There are ultimately no straight answers; just more boxes within the boxes and Lost takes that to the nth degree. IF you enjoy that kind of thing then I'd say watch it. If you want something that does a similar thing but more subtly then, if you haven't seen it already, you should watch Battlestar Galactica (2004). It out-Lost's Lost in some ways but the characters are much better and their arcs are fantastic. It also has more nuclear explosions. Could Mal Reynolds be described as a libertarian or voluntarist?

Why would society be utopias?

They could just publish the clear evidence and seek protection from any retaliation. If this guy is a land developer then he's just destroyed his reputation. Who's going to do business with a known murderer? Why would this land developer hire an assassin and take that kind of risk when they could just compensate the poor homeowner? None of this makes much sense and in a voluntary society I cannot see how such a psycho could ever gain such wealth.

It's not the non-force principle, it's the non-aggression principle.

The NAP did hold as far as I remember. I've never heard a single scenario that broke the NAP.

A moral rule is a universal rule put forward concerning enforceable behavior. I guess "consent" could be considered a moral rule but what I mean is that it's not a valid moral rule. It's just a rule and anyone can make up any rule they want. I could say X violates the rule of happiness but what would that mean? "True. So at this point the parent does not know what the child-to-be's voluntary choice is, yet acts on it anyway." They act on it even if they don't have the child. Considering some potential child's preferences and then deciding not to be a parent is as much of an act as deciding TO be a parent. Both decisions impact the potential child. You can't just presuppose that non-existence is the default or preferable state. I'm not sure how your coma patient example is analogous. Are you saying people should not be brought into existence because they do not have the option to tell us what they want? "So how is it possible to raise a child without force? When a baby voluntarily plays with a dangerous object and the parent takes that object away, is this not the use of force? To put it another way, would a lot of babies even make it past the age 5 without some type of force being applied in their upbringing?" Don't conflate force with coercion or aggression. There's no victim when you forcibly remove the dangerous object (Which you are responsible for it having most likely). You are not just raising a child, you're raising a person and you would have to justify your actions as moral when that person can comprehend them. The person would or could not later legitimately claim an act of aggression was committed by having the object removed. It would be immoral NOT to remove it. You have to fill the role of decision maker until the child is capable. The child is not able to consent to play with dangerous objects so you can't claim to be violating its consent in some way. As I say, Stef uses no aggression with his child. Zero. With rape, the contradiction is that the rapist is claiming a right that they deny their victim so they are violating universality. Once you violate universality your justifications fail the test of logical consistency. If your justification is not logically consistent then it's logically contradictory. When I say person "raped" may actually understand and not consider it rape I mean they may not consider the person with the gun to their head responsible but rather the person with the gun. I'm not dismissing your rape example on the basis that it won't happen but am suggesting that it cannot logically happen. In such a scenario as the one you describe there must be more going on. The variables of just Gun, threat, stranger, rape cannot logically happen; not unless you posit three people who exist in a vacuum. It doesn't matter that much because it's just an emotional appeal anyway. "you can take this scenario (of a person in what one may consider 'danger') to many degrees, but the core argument is this: how is it morally justifiable to use force on a person or/and their property without their consent?" It's called the non-aggression principle, not the non-force principle.

The blind man is not disposing of himself. He's just walking into traffic. I assume that's why you made him blind. Grabbing him or whatever is not aggression, it's an act of defense. It's not a violation of the NAP.

Whoops, forgot to answer this. No, rape does not become morally justifiable under those circumstances. If the person rapes a stranger then they're acting under coercion. The person "raped" may actually understand and not consider it rape. These types of scenarios are generally specious because they don't exist in reality. There has never been or will never be a scenario were a person holds a threatens to kill another if they don't rape a stranger. There's always something else going on that would need to be known in order to try answering such questions in a coherent way. The full context is extremely truncated. I challenge you to find one example of that scenario ever happening at any time in history.

Consent isn't a moral rule and even if it was, the child does not withhold consent either. The argument fails in other ways but that should be enough. Stef raises his daughter completely without coercion so yes, it is possible.

No that's defensive force, not the initiation of force. In fact the blind man possibly initiated the events that forced you to make a decision.