june

these are more meaningless variables -- "never been taught"; "5 years old" -- that contradict your first statement that "non-aggression must be universal" -- the universalities of selfownership and thus being responsible for your actions do not account for the variables you mention. will these kids be shot or locked in jail if they leave? can you be more specific when you say "they can't leave"? of course it is violating the non-aggression principle. there is no such thing as "misdirected self-defense". just because person X punches person Y, that does not give person Y the moral freedom to aggress against person A, B & C.

age isn't factor when it comes to property rights and the non-aggression principle. you can substitute "5" for "35" and it would make no difference within the context of these terms.so with that in mind you are basically saying "it is irrational to hold a dysfunctional adult morally responsible for anything!". which of course is nonsense, as just because an adult was abused as a child that does not give them the moral permission to then harm whoever and whatever they feel like. they are still morally accountable.

being responsible for our behaviour also includes choosing or not choosing to engage in behaviour which may waive our right to selfownership (or part of it), such as contractually signing it away or by getting pregnant with a man's creation (50/50 creation). it is you who is making the exception by claiming a selfowning agent cannot resign their selfownership in some form.

ohh, awesome. where in the settings is this? it must be a new feature, i dont remember it being there before.

she voluntarily engaged in an action with a man that had the risk of a fetus being developed inside her body. if she didn't want a man to have a say on what she does with that aspect of her body, she should not have engaged in an action that would permit just that. here's a post you made earlier in the thread. it's revealing if you swap the gender roles around

"Government always have the final say on societies actions, because government possess a maturity that the society lacks."

when we gain selfownership.because when you own yourself you also own your actions, and thus can be held responsible for your actions

specifically, what is the distinction between "direct effect" and "indirect consequence"?like, the example i have in my head is an adult places a little baby on a highway, and 2 minutes later a car drives over and kills the baby. the adult didn't "directly" engage in the violent act, because the baby being run over was just an "indirect consequence", and therefore the adult holds no accountability (right?)

but the mother voluntarily engaged in an activity that they knew had certain risks. so how do you justify punishing another party for the mother's actions?to use part of a stef analogy: it's like the parent is playing russian roulette, but it's the baby who gets shot

do you feel you now have the arguments to counter this persons points (from the OP)?

i'm certain both of these arguments rely on clarifying the definition of property rights. 1) your "growing cells" example -- well, when does one gain selfownership? the answer to that is the same answer to when one gains the right/ability "to complain", so to speak 2) an action is immoral when it imposes, without consent, upon someone elses property. so again, when does one's selfownership come into effect? does selfownership come into effect at all, considering the child is the "effect of the parents actions" and thus could be argued to be property of the parents?

great question! i feel this is somewhat of a conundrum for the position of "property rights", because property rights claims that "you own the effects of your actions" which, for many other instances, may be a passable claim (debatable), but in this particular case the "effect of your actions" is a self-owning agent! so it seems like two scenarios are at play here:1) you do own the effects of your actions, therefore you have ownership over your child and can thus abort your property at any time 2) you do not own the effects of your actions, therefore the child owns themself and abortion at any stage is violating the childs selfownershipeither option seems to be contradiction upon property rights: 1) because property rights states no person can own another person, & 2) because property rights states that you own the effects of your actions

knowing what constitutes a violation is a quite essential aspect of property rights and the nap, so hopefully someone will/can clear up this definition.

great points. what you mentioned is the heart of confusion in this topic: where/how do you draw the line on what constitutes a violation of a property rights?in the link you posted ProfessionalTeabagger claimed that someone making noise outside your home is not a breach of your property rights, but then went on to claim that someone making a loud noise outside your house 24/7 is breaching your property rights -- but no proper argument was put forward as to why this distinction is made, which highlights the confusion around the point you bring up.the OP's question really cannot be answered without a clarification on what constitutes a violation property rights.

and what is your definition of "force"?

no, you provided rhetorical questions, rhetorical questions which begged the point that i'm making, and so i asked for you to answer those rhetoricals so you can actually explain why they feed into your argument. no, it would just be aggression, because it is an unconsented act of imposition on another's property rights.it seems you are continuing to misunderstand my position. i know that for every little unconsented action to be considered an act of aggression is completely absurd. but the argument is that such acts are considered acts of aggression within the nap -- which thus makes the nap absurd.

because you are imposing on someone's property without their consent. your position appears very uncertain because you are taking sides on BOTH positions of the argument, which is of course contradictory. for instance, you have stated: so which is it?

i thought was implied because you didn't address the reasoning behind why breathing isn't a breach of the nap and instead talked about ways for which one can prevent it from happening, which is an attempt for solution after the act/breach. apologies for the misunderstanding it doesnt matter what he prefers, if breathing is not a violation of the nap then one can breath in his face all they like and they would not be breaching the nap. but WHY? you havent actually explained it yet

rather than just stating that as so, can you provide an argument? great rhetorical questions. i agree with your implication that obviously it is absurd for consent to be required for every little action... but that only begs the point that i'm making, which is: how can what constitutes as "force" be known without the consent for every little action? why isn't obama wearing a blue tie an act of force upon a viewer's eyes? why isn't a person making noises outside my home an act of force against my ears?(bold is the fundamental important question)

you can't put a positive obligation on the person who is being violated. so you are recognizing that breathing is a violation of another's body and thus an act force, and suggesting to avoid this violation such people should distance themselves from others? but in that instance, it is permissible, right?

but how do you gauge what is and what is not a breach of someone's selfownership without consent? consent is what classifies whether an action is voluntary or forceful.

1) isn't suicide always an option?2) you "have to" breath like you "have to" eat and drink. so is it okay to impose upon other people (in the OP the act of breathing is being construed as an imposition) to achieve those goals too, such as through theft?

okay,but it does seem rather presupposed to me as it fits the characteristics of "force" as generally recognized, in that a person is wilfully engaging in an action that effects another human being, without and unbeknownst of their consent. what are the distinctions that you are hinting towards that say this is not an act of "force"?

to say "oh, all the children you have can just kill themselves if they dont like it" is to make an argument after the life has already been created, and is also putting a positive obligation on the victim, which is missing the point of the question, as the original question is asking if it is immoral to have children to begin with. this is like if someone asked "is it immoral to pour paint on someone without their consent?" and you responded "if not being covered in paint was preferable, most people would wash it off!" -- again, missing the point.now obviously that paint example is immoral because it's breaching property rights and consent, so what is the difference when it comes to forcing life on a child? to flip this example around: the parent is sentient and has the capacity to prefer. so what gives the parent the right to "prefer" what is best for another being, what gives that parent the right to force life upon another being?

i'm a little confused at how this translates into a person being a "property owning agent". are you saying that a person only gains property rights when they are performing a "purposeful action"? so what about when they are not, eg. when they are sleeping, when they make mistakes, if they have a mental dsiability, or what about newborn children.. in these instances has one not gained the right of being a "property owning agent" because they do not demonstrate "purposeful action"?also, don't animals demonstrate "purposeful action"? so why make the specific distinction of "human action"?