Do parents "own" their children? A simple question and an astonishing philosophical problem for libertarians

[Makalakumu]

If ownership is obtained because people own themselves and the products of their labor, do parents own their children? Children are produced by parents labor and are therefore products of that labor. Therefore it could be argued that parents own their children.

I would love it if someone would poke holes in that argument for me, because right now it's been weighing heavily on my thoughts, when I divert them to philosophy. 

Essentially, I think that their might be a gaping hole in the self ownership principle here. If parents own their children, when does that ownership transfer to the child? If that ownership transfers to the child, couldn't it be said that parents are "stewards" of their children? Further, if there is an exception to this principle, then it is not universal. Doesn't this undermine the whole basis of owning anything? Perhaps we are simply "stewards" of everything?

That could be argued, because property rights are not infinite. If a farm owner dies and the property reverts to a state of nature, that individual no longer has property rights. Also, if we consider that all of the matter in our bodies is continuously cycling through it, humans simply don't have the permenancy for ownership.

On the other hand, if parents do own their children and ownership never transfers, then we never truly own ourselves because that ownership never transferred to us. Either way, self ownership doesn't appear to exist in my argument.

I wish I could give Stef a ring on this on a Sunday show, but alas I'm too many time zones away. Any thoughts from this community on this?

[Lowe D]

Your self ownership comes from your control over your body.  Parents don't control children's bodies, so they don't own those bodies.  The children have ownership, because they have control.  It's like this from the moment the child is born, so there is never a transfer of ownership.

[RestoringGuy]

Although there is likely some good ideas connected to bodily action, I have not found the body-control argument very compelling, nor can I say a thing is owned because labor was involved in making it.  Animals self-control and yet are owned.  To some degree, plants self-control and so can possibly some computerized machines if control is taken at face value.  Also, if a new technology enabled direct child control, it seems unlikely that parents' ethical ownership status would or should be changed to an elevated level as a result of their new increased control.Labor involved is just coincidental as to how and when we observe it.  As sunlight makes plant energy and so on through the food chain, my parents were just one closer (and temporary) intermediary from sunshine all the way to my hand typing.  A guy who assembles the main bits of a computer chip does not own the computer it is later connected to, the software it will handle, or the whole Internet.  That guy is only one essential contributor.  Only a small percentage of my current body mass originates from parental labor, the rest from water I drink and food I ate by myself.To me the problem is logical, at least if you believe property can be transferred by inheritance.  If I do not self-own, my parents do not self-own either (being products of a previous generation).  Therefore, whatever principle gave them ownership of me, that should give ownership of me also to some ancient chimpanzee who apparently did not write this crazy plan in their will.  So how my parents would have got ownership of themselves (and subsequent capacity to own their children) would be a totally impossible thing to maintain.

[Libertus]

People are not property.

[Jose Perez]

Self-ownership is a neurophysiological fact, nothing to do with matter. (Matter doesn't even "own itself" or remain consistent by a similar reductionist approach.) People are unownable because the control of psychophysical mechanisms cannot be transfered.

[SimonF]

 

Self-ownership is a neurophysiological fact, nothing to do with matter. (Matter doesn't even "own itself" or remain consistent by a similar reductionist approach.) People are unownable because the control of psychophysical mechanisms cannot be transfered.

 

Agreed with a caveat. I define ownership as a right to exclusive control of something.

A living body housing a sentient being cannot be controlled remotely. One can make threats or use force as a form of control but this is not exclusive. On the other hand a book or a brick can be owned because they can be exclusively controlled (they don't have a will of their own).

caveat: Some inanimate things also cannot be owned (at least not at the moment), for example the sun because there is also no means of control.

[RestoringGuy]

But why?  Transplanted leg or arm gets exclusively controlled by the new person they are connected to.  Control seems like a result of connections, much as driving somebody else's car does not prove you own it.  The control idea also does not work when somebody is unconscious or paralyzed.  Something like genetics, metabolism, and our objective place in nature must contribute to what is owned.  Control is just one thing in the mix.  I do not grasp why, hypothetically, a government with direct mind control technology should somehow be our rightful owners because they gained exclusive power.

[Jose Perez]

 

But why?  Transplanted leg or arm gets exclusively controlled by the new person they are connected to.  Control seems like a result of connections, much as driving somebody else's car does not prove you own it. 

 

Self-ownership. The self is not about limbs or pieces of stuff. Transplanted limbs do not necessarily become part of the self (not sure about it) but maybe they do, given the plasticity of the brain. In any case, self-ownership and the existence of an exclusive agent of control is not falsified by "lifeboat" scenarios or tinkering saw doctors...

 

The control idea also does not work when somebody is unconscious or paralyzed. 

 

Not being able to drive a car does not disprove you own it or have the potential to drive it. 

 

Something like genetics, metabolism, and our objective place in nature must contribute to what is owned.  Control is just one thing in the mix. 

 

This all points in the direction of children being owned by the parents (half ownership by mother and father to be more precise) and being enslaved to similar accidents of birth. 

 

 

 

I do not grasp why, hypothetically, a government with direct mind control technology should somehow be our rightful owners because they gained exclusive power.

 

They would be rightful owners indeed. I don't understand why you think that's an argument. People effectively controlling other people is no different that cells controlling other cells. Luckily, as it happens, we do not have that kind of control on each other.

[shortus cynicus]

No, they don't.
It is by natural low of live and evolution.

As living
creature you are obliged to extend live. Having kids is not a "work"
but fulfillment of this destiny. They are not product of your labor
but product of your genetical heritage.

I other way,
one can say, that kids owns parents. Why? Because by the same rule of
natural low, there is an expectation that parents should prefer
behavior supporting children. Parents are servs to the children. If
they are servs, they can not be owners. Parens are given to the
children by the nature as one of natural resources supporting their
lives.

If we take this
as fundamental axiom of the live and compare with current societies,
it became clear how up-side-down all the world is. National debt,
unfounded liabilities, nuclear waste, diminished resources by
Keynesian grow by consumption madness - all that is directly
destroying younger generation.

Generational
Payback is coming:

Neil Howe and
William Strauss on The Fourth Turning in 1997 CSpan

[Wesley]

 

People are not property.

 

Agreed. Now we just need to expand the definition to include children. Children have autonomy. therefore they are not owned. Not everything that is created is then owned (see debates on intellectual property). 

Thus, I feel like the act of creating life is not to create it for your own ownership, but you are creating life and giving it to another consciousness. Thus, you rescind ownership of the property once consciousness is acquired. 

[Jose Perez]

 

 

People are not property.

 

Agreed. Now we just need to expand the definition to include children.

 

Do I understand this correctly? Children are not people to you?

 

Children have autonomy. therefore they are not owned. Not everything that is created is then owned (see debates on intellectual property). 

Thus, I feel like the act of creating life is not to create it for your own ownership, but you are creating life and giving it to another consciousness. Thus, you rescind ownership of the property once consciousness is acquired. 

 

Are you suggesting small children or babies are not conscious?

It is not consciousness that creates consciousness but unconsciousness; the reproductive process and the consciousness that results have little to do with choice – often nothing to do – and definitely nothing to do with someone's creative power.

You might as well say that people have ownership over their faeces or excretions; we have just about as much control over creating that kind of life as we do over creating children, and they're not created with the intention of ownership either.

[David L]

Just an aside here...

As you don't own the air you breathe, you can't reasonably own your physical body which completely depends upon it. It simply makes no sense to try to do so, except as a temporary defense mechanism against those who would claim to own your body for themselves.   

Thus the concept of physical self-ownership cannot stand on its own as a life principle. It is a defense mechanism only.

 

[Makalakumu]

 

People are not property.

 

Why not? If I establish ownership over something by creating it with my labor, wouldn't this apply to my children? 

Yes, children grow into adults, but is the parents who make this possible. The same principle that allows a farmer to own the yeild of his crops apparently turns children into property if we universalize it.

[Makalakumu]

 

Your self ownership comes from your control over your body.  Parents don't control children's bodies, so they don't own those bodies.  The children have ownership, because they have control.  It's like this from the moment the child is born, so there is never a transfer of ownership.

 

If self ownership is derived from control over the self's body, then ownership of other things is derived from control over those things.  For example, if a farmer plants a field, they control the plants that are growing there and therefore own the plants.  If we universalize this, parents own their children.

[Makalakumu]

 

People are unownable because the control of psychophysical mechanisms cannot be transfered.

 

If consciousness cannot be transferred and cannot be owned and humans can create consciousness with their labor, then something that humans create, something that is a product of an individuals labor, cannot be owned.  This means that property is not universal, because there is an exception.  If property rights are non-universal, then the idea that we can own anything is negated.  The mechanism that transfers property from one individual to another is falsified by the excemption.  

[David L]

 

 

People are not property.

 

Why not? If I establish ownership over something by creating it with my labor, wouldn't this apply to my children? 

Yes, children grow into adults, but is the parents who make this possible. The same principle that allows a farmer to own the yeild of his crops apparently turns children into property if we universalize it.

 

Thanks for the perceptive insight. Here's a previously related thread on this theme for anyone interested....

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35703.aspx?PageIndex=1

 

 

[Pepin]

It must be realized that to say that the child is owned is to say that the child is a slave to the parent'. 

If the concept of slavery is invalidated by the NAP, if the NAP applies to humans, and if a child is a human, then the conclusion that a child is inherently enslaved to their parent cannot stand as true. To expand upon this.

Like any theory, the NAP must universally apply to a class of objects, universally only because the theory intends to make propositions about the entire class.

It is quite possible to subdivide the class through the use of words, and to say "people within the government have the right to kill, while those outside do not", but such a distinction is merely arbitrary division of the class.

It is also quite possible to subdivide the class in terms of certain properties, such as race, gender, age, or any other real characteristic. It might be said that "the white man has a right to enslave the black man", yet the question becomes: why? What does the color of skin have to do with the concept of ownership? How does color divide two groups into opposites, slave an master?

The argument being made is that "children are produced by parents labor and are therefore products of that labor", which is to subdivide the class "human" into two categories based off the idea that the child must by necessity be enslaved due to being the result a the parents labor. If the classes were not to be subdivided, which I would posit that they aren't, the resulting statement would be "people are produced by the labor of people, therefore people are enslaved to people", which would not make sense.

I would suggest that the relation of labor and ownership in regards to humans owning humans is not a good theory, especially in relation to the NAP, as it is ascribing two contradictory properties to the same class, and also the NAP intends to apply universally across the class.

 

Also, Walter Block has an interesting piece on children that I'd recommend reading.

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf

[Metric]

I agree that human babies don't have any inherent properties making them different from animals, which are owned.  Their "special" status comes from the fact that they are extremely valuable to their parents, and will eventually become moral agents themselves (inheriting self-ownership etc. in due time when their physical properties change). 

I have a feeling most people are not ready for this.

[SimonF]

 

The argument being made is that "children are produced by parents labor and are therefore products of that labor", which is to subdivide the class "human" into two categories based off the idea that the child must by necessity be enslaved due to being the result a the parents labor. If the classes were not to be subdivided, which I would posit that they aren't, the resulting statement would be "people are produced by the labor of people, therefore people are enslaved to people", which would not make sense.

 

I agree with what you say here, the labour argument becomes absurd. If we accept the labour argument, then if children later grow up and pay off national debt their parents benefitted from, do the children then own their parents?

I really liked the clarity you gave to needing to classify and that subdivisions can be arbitrary. Race and gender certainly did play a major mole in the assignment of legal rights, a practice now rejected.

So how do people define ownership anyway, I'd like to hear?

[Jose Perez]

 

 

People are unownable because the control of psychophysical mechanisms cannot be transfered.

 

If consciousness cannot be transferred and cannot be owned and humans can create consciousness with their labor, then something that humans create, something that is a product of an individuals labor, cannot be owned.  This means that property is not universal, because there is an exception.  If property rights are non-universal, then the idea that we can own anything is negated.  The mechanism that transfers property from one individual to another is falsified by the excemption.  

 

Your view that parents create consciousness with their labor is completely mistaken, which is why you come to this false problem with property. How can you equate the process of conceiving a child with labor??  I addressed this in my response to snipes777. You might as well say that you create your faeces with labor too, or that parents are some kind of gods that sculpt the bodies of children. No, your faeces are the result of automatic unconscious processes, whereas creative labor is a conscious, purposeful process. You can own the things that are a result of the latter, and you own the things that come out of you as a result of the former unless they, like you, have the capacity to control themselves. 

You "own" children (are responsible for them) inasmuch as they don't have the capacity to control themselves, otherwise you do not own them – and you certainly never own them down to the level of direct physiological control, like you don't own animals either.

 

[Jose Perez]

This idea of children being a product of parental labour really is a way to advocate the unquestionable virtue of parents in disguise. 

Any parent that feels raising a child is "labor" or "work" is just telling you that they do not feel any kind of bond with him, and that they are a bad and abusive parent as a result. Indeed, the whole phenomenon of human farming stems from the idea that parents own their children or sacrifice for them.

 

[Jose Perez]

Besides, control of psychophysical mechanisms and its non transferability is a biological fact which has nothing to do with labor. Even if you made a robot that had full control over itself you would lose ownership the moment that it was turned on; you might be able to have a relationship with it and manipulate it if it was dependent on you like a child is, but fundamentally you do not own it.

[Jose Perez]

 

I agree that human babies don't have any inherent properties making them different from animals, which are owned.  Their "special" status comes from the fact that they are extremely valuable to their parents, and will eventually become moral agents themselves (inheriting self-ownership etc. in due time when their physical properties change). 

 

Metric, that's a very interesting set of propositions. Please explain how it is that human babies' physical properties change, why this gives them self-ownership and make them different from animals and equal to their parents... At which point in a child's development does this happen?

Also why are they extremely valuable to their parents?

 

[RestoringGuy]

 

The control idea also does not work when somebody is unconscious or paralyzed.

Not being able to drive a car does not disprove you own it or have the potential to drive it.

Potential?  Nearly all people have the potential to drive my car.

 

Something like genetics, metabolism, and our objective place in nature must contribute to what is owned.  Control is just one thing in the mix.

This all points in the direction of children being owned by the parents (half ownership by mother and father to be more precise) and being enslaved to similar accidents of birth. 

 

Not in the least.  Genetics is different than either parent alone, so we are unique.  Even identical twins are unique because of mutations.  Our metabolism is made more and more independent after birth.

 

I do not grasp why, hypothetically, a government with direct mind control technology should somehow be our rightful owners because they gained exclusive power.

They would be rightful owners indeed. I don't understand why you think that's an argument. People effectively controlling other people is no different that cells controlling other cells. Luckily, as it happens, we do not have that kind of control on each other.

 

Why?  Is not ownership a moral claim?  Whether you can do it is different that whether you should.  Does this idea of control causing property necessarily lead to the concept that those who can do evil things are morally right to do so.

 

[Pepin]

So how do people define ownership anyway, I'd like to hear?

I can't say I'm the best with making this argument, but I'll do my best.

Ownership is to maintain exclusive use of something real through action. Acting on something un-owned, such as mixing your labor with un-owned land to turn a part of a forest into a yard with a house, which would be considered homesteading. Another is to perform a trade with someone who acquired the property through just means: trade.

It can be given that you claim to own your body, and if someone attempts to rape you, you have the ability to maintain the ownership of your body through means that do not exclude violence. If you have a bike, and someone stole it, the thief would not own the bike although they have exclusive use over something real, and you would have the ability to regain ownership of the bike from the thief. Likewise, if someone breaks into your house, you can use force to remove them.

There is a need to declare that one must continue to act on an object to maintain ownership. The specifics of this are more market based, but to provide an example where it would certainly apply: if someone builds a house and does nothing with it for 20 years, they cannot be said to own the house as they abandoned it. It would be possible for another to claim ownership of the house.

This theory would invalidate many claims of ownership. For instance, sticking a flag in the ground and claiming you own everything within a 100 mile radius is only a claim. Claiming ownership of something that someone currently owns would not be valid as it is merely an assertion. Homesteading something that is in a process of homesteading its own body would not work.

What I think is interesting to think about is, if homesteading is not a valid method to gain exclusive use over something and to maintain such use, then what method is valid? If no method is valid, what are the implications of such an idea?

A video I'd recommend is.

[Joey M]

 

If ownership is obtained because people own themselves and the products of their labor, do parents own their children? Children are produced by parents labor and are therefore products of that labor. Therefore it could be argued that parents own their children.

I would love it if someone would poke holes in that argument for me, because right now it's been weighing heavily on my thoughts, when I divert them to philosophy.

 

 

It seems that you're misconstruing the definition of ownership, and forgetting that morality is the ultimate goal. Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves and keep them imprisoned. What needs to be remembered is that ownership of a human being is slavery, which we both know is immoral. I believe parents have an inherent responsibility to take care of their children peacefully, that doesn't mean they can treat their children as their property.

[shortus cynicus]

 

Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could
be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves
and keep them imprisoned.

 

That was good. Thank you.

The other tragic example is government having a claim
on most of your income because they are work by giving you permission
to exist.

[Joey M]

 

 

Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could
be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves
and keep them imprisoned.

 

That was good. Thank you.

The other tragic example is government having a claim
on most of your income because they are work by giving you permission
to exist.

 

 

 

That's a great exmaple as well. I'd forgot to point out that when I was using the word "you" I didn't mean you literally, just the claim itself.

[Makalakumu]

So how do people define ownership anyway, I'd like to hear?

 

perhaps this is the best place to start. Let's define ownership and property and then see if those definitions apply to children.

 

[Makalakumu]

 

 

If ownership is obtained because people own themselves and the products of their labor, do parents own their children? Children are produced by parents labor and are therefore products of that labor. Therefore it could be argued that parents own their children.

I would love it if someone would poke holes in that argument for me, because right now it's been weighing heavily on my thoughts, when I divert them to philosophy.

 

 

It seems that you're misconstruing the definition of ownership, and forgetting that morality is the ultimate goal. Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves and keep them imprisoned. What needs to be remembered is that ownership of a human being is slavery, which we both know is immoral. I believe parents have an inherent responsibility to take care of their children peacefully, that doesn't mean they can treat their children as their property.

 

How am I misunderstanding ownership? Could you provide a definition? 

[Joey M]

 

 

 

If ownership is obtained because people own themselves and the products of their labor, do parents own their children? Children are produced by parents labor and are therefore products of that labor. Therefore it could be argued that parents own their children.

I would love it if someone would poke holes in that argument for me, because right now it's been weighing heavily on my thoughts, when I divert them to philosophy.

 

 

It seems that you're misconstruing the definition of ownership, and forgetting that morality is the ultimate goal. Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves and keep them imprisoned. What needs to be remembered is that ownership of a human being is slavery, which we both know is immoral. I believe parents have an inherent responsibility to take care of their children peacefully, that doesn't mean they can treat their children as their property.

 

How am I misunderstanding ownership? Could you provide a definition? 

 

Misconstruing in the sense that people cannot be owned and it be considered moral, which I explained further in my post.

[David L]

Guests who are invited to a dinner typically do not feel they need to own anything there. Any attempts to do so would be considered bad manners indeed.  

Perhaps the issue of ownership has arisen because we've lost all awareness that we are just guests here on this planet, not permanent occupants.

 

[Makalakumu]

 

 

 

 

If ownership is obtained because people own themselves and the products of their labor, do parents own their children? Children are produced by parents labor and are therefore products of that labor. Therefore it could be argued that parents own their children.

I would love it if someone would poke holes in that argument for me, because right now it's been weighing heavily on my thoughts, when I divert them to philosophy.

 

 

It seems that you're misconstruing the definition of ownership, and forgetting that morality is the ultimate goal. Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves and keep them imprisoned. What needs to be remembered is that ownership of a human being is slavery, which we both know is immoral. I believe parents have an inherent responsibility to take care of their children peacefully, that doesn't mean they can treat their children as their property.

 

How am I misunderstanding ownership? Could you provide a definition? 

 

Misconstruing in the sense that people cannot be owned and it be considered moral, which I explained further in my post.

 

Why would morality exempt something from being owned?

[Makalakumu]

 

Guests who are invited to a dinner typically do not feel they need to own anything there. Any attempts to do so would be considered bad manners indeed.  

Perhaps the issue of ownership has arisen because we've lost all awareness that we are just guests here on this planet, not permanent occupants.

 

 

Does property exist then?

[Joey M]

 

 

 

 

 

If ownership is obtained because people own themselves and the products of their labor, do parents own their children? Children are produced by parents labor and are therefore products of that labor. Therefore it could be argued that parents own their children.

I would love it if someone would poke holes in that argument for me, because right now it's been weighing heavily on my thoughts, when I divert them to philosophy.

 

 

It seems that you're misconstruing the definition of ownership, and forgetting that morality is the ultimate goal. Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves and keep them imprisoned. What needs to be remembered is that ownership of a human being is slavery, which we both know is immoral. I believe parents have an inherent responsibility to take care of their children peacefully, that doesn't mean they can treat their children as their property.

 

How am I misunderstanding ownership? Could you provide a definition? 

 

Misconstruing in the sense that people cannot be owned and it be considered moral, which I explained further in my post.

 

Why would morality exempt something from being owned?

 

It's not something, someone. Owning someone as a piece of property, slavery, I've brought all of this up already.