Peter Joseph debate

[STer]

I wholeheartedly agree, especially the bold part.

 

I kept waiting for PJ to finish his basic point already, and he does tend to do it through lots of seemingly unnecessary intellectual babble, and technical terms, but ultimately I think his main point was salvaged. And it's a pretty good attack on the free market, good in the sense that it completely agrees with it, but then bypasses that by looking above and beyond that "box" as he calls it. It's good in the sense that it is a great weapon in the hands of believers and seems to have the aura of thinking outside of the box, and with more depth (which in PJs mind seems to be equivalent to "broadness" and big picture thinking, not realizing this actually makes him miss some very important details). While watching occams razor came to my mind; I was wondering if PJ was familiar with the concept (though I'm sure he is). Usually when someone needs so many intellectual hoops to jump through, coming out as what appears as intellectual mumbo jumbo, it's a red flag for me.

 

What I take away from the debate though is recognition of the greater need to address the perception of the free market as strictly all about selfishness (however enlightened it may be), primacy of trading (like PJ said "you have to trade", which is false), and most of all the fear of failure in a market void of safety nets currently established by government. I mean, one way I can understand PJs view that there's inherent tendency in a free market that leads it to creation of governments (making governments essentially an emergent property of free markets) is this fear of falure, and the reaction to failure. Fear of failure makes people incentivized to take any opportunity they get to stay afloat or ahead which in extreme cases may lead them to break the cardinal Non-Aggression Principle. When push comes to shove, you're gonna put your needs above those whom might be violated especially if you are far enough removed from the violated ones to not be able to experience the empathy towards them. Similarly, if you do fail, and there's no safety net of any kind, and you're desperate to survive, it's not surprising that you'll under pressure develop negative traits such as anger and subsequent tendency towards aggression.

 

Left at that, I can perfectly see how a government or any form of institiutionalized coercion, may be the end result.

 

BUT, the simple fact being ignored here is that there's absolutely nothing about the definition of a free market and the NAP that stands in the way of establishing these safety nets and softening the blow of failure. If this service is such a valuable thing then by the operatives of the free market itself it WILL be provided. 

 

That's all fine, and easily understood for voluntaryists and ancaps, but I think people like PJ illuminate the need for us to emphasize those kinds of points more loudly. Way WAY too many people view the free market as a kind of archetypical embodiment of primacy of selfishness over concern for others, primacy of trade over other human interactions, primacy of competition over cooperation etc. when this is absolutely false.

 

Instead of talking about a free market as a market of individuals whom only voluntarily trade and compete incentivized by their self interest we should probably talk about a free market of individuals who voluntarily interact with each other in pursuit of their self interest, but as part of that also their ideals and aspirations regarding society in general. I mean, if in this current system there are people concerned about changing the world for the better there certainly would be such people in a free market, and their hands wouldn't be tied to establish organizations (aggregates of interaction not all of which may be trade and not all of which would center on competition) that would solve certain problems that can remain in a free market without breaking the NAP, and in doing so in fact preventing these "structural pressures" from leading anyone to the point of wanting to break the NAP.

 

This would be a way of presenting the free market outside of the confines of the typical perception of it and in a way that addresses a huge swath of issues that people like proponents of the Zeitgeist movement have with it. It would also go to show that the free market doesn't in fact fundamentally operate solely on scarcity (really now... scarcity has been less and less of an issue, but that doesn't automatically make NAP unnecessary or voluntary interaction irrelevant) or operate solely on competition and gaining advantage etc. which are the things they believe make the free market susceptible to emergence of state.

 

They believe so only out of a grave misunderstanding of what a free market is which views it as far more rigid than it really is, seeing obstacles and rules where they don't exist. And WE, the proponents of the free market, keep harping on words like "trade", "self interest" etc. without realizing we are reinforcing those people's established perceptions. Our presentation needs to try harder to get outside of the box that they see us in. We need to make them see that there in fact isn't a box. Nothing about NAP requires there to be a box. There are no other rules or expectations of a free market society whatsoever other than NAP. Even Zeitgeister's Resource Based Economy based cities could be established within a free market society so long as they don't force participants in. 

 

Really.. maybe the problem is with the word "market". It has these dirty connotations much like the word "anarchy", for some people anyway. What we're in fact talking about is a free society period. The "market" just happens to be an inevitable and necessary component of it, but it is a less fundamental component than the NAP.

 

All you need is NAP, and NAP creates a free society. Yes.. that also means a market. But so what.

I agree that this whole debate might be better served if the phrase "free market," which has become so loaded with baggage that people can't even understand what it means anymore, were replaced. Imagine, for example, a dialogue that was framed as being about the relationship between a Resource-Based Economy and a Voluntary-Interaction Based Moral System. I think this would help avoid some of the distraction caused by focusing on misunderstandings of "free market," it would clarify that the latter is an ethical viewpoint, not just a market or economy, and it shows much better that these ideas are not in direct opposition necessarily, but one is a particular methodology that could exist within the paradigm of the other.

About systemic violence... yes, there is such a thing. remember when you were growing up, and although everybody you come in contact with, is super friendly, non-aggressive towards you, but you still grow up in poverty, because the system steals money, from your parents, that they would otherwise spend on other things, maybe invest it in your future... and calls it 'taxation'. The fact of the matter is, this system is not a free market. It's a system based on violence, that violently coerces almost everybody in one way or the other, and there we have it systemic violence. And all the statistics he read about how terrible systemic violence is, I totally agree with those. Yeah, he can bring a hundred of those and still has not shown how this violence is anything but a result of government, and corporatism. Yes, it's bad. No, it's not the free market.

 

Probably the most frustrating thing for me about this debate was that there seemed to be a central argument going on but it was never really clearly articulated. Peter kept trying to articulate it but not doing so very well. Perhaps a wise moderator would have been able to focus them in on this.

 

What I saw was a chicken/egg debate. Stefan says that all of the ills arise from the state. Peter says - though not in these words, so frustratingly it never seemed to become the focus - that the state itself didn't arise from nothing. The state is a symptom, not a root cause. The root cause is that which led to the state coming into being in the first place, which, in his view, is an ethical paradigm that values dominance and competition. In his view, as long as that desire for dominance and competitive advantage is valued, even if you got rid of the state, people would re-create it or something like it (just as it was created the first time around so you can't claim that can't happen) or use other means to enact those values.

 

Stefan says the state is used as a tool to gain advantage so we should get rid of the state.

 

Peter "says" - far too verbosely and unclearly - that the underlying ethic values constantly seeking advantage, so the state was brought into being to serve that purpose (and is not the only thing used to serve it).

 

Stefan sees the state as root cause of the problem. Peter sees the state as the most powerful, but still just one, outgrowth of a dominance-minded ethical viewpoint.

 

I would really like to see these two talk again with a moderator well-versed on these topics and who has a particular talent for noticing core leverage point areas in the discussion that are being overlooked so they can be focused on those better.

 

One more point. I have constantly mentioned the book The Evolution of Cooperation on these forums. This whole debate just showed once again how crucial the science in that book is. Both Peter and Stefan want cooperation to flourish. But they differ in what it takes to bring it about. Peter even brings up game theory and evolution. That is what that book is all about. Perhaps it could inform any future discussions.

[Sashajade]

  I really enjoyed the podcast with Peter Joseph. I hadn't heard of him till the podcast. It was very entertaining, right from the start.

I was suprised that he started out with that offputting comment rite in the beginning. Like as if he was offended before the debate

even began. Or on the defensive, like just frazzeled bc he knew it was going to be difficult to try to make his arguments.

He started to sweat pretty badly, it was priceless to watch Stef correct him. Peter just kept trying to repeat the same stuff

over again and just couldn't get anywhere. Not to sound mean but the guy had it coming lol! Stef I love watching you debate.

You turn these guys into dogs who limp away with their tails between their legs. Also loved the Joe Rogan podcast.

I thought u too hit it off well, considering having such different styles. My little bro Pete, loves Joe Rogan, and my

fave is Stefan. So when i told him u guys were doing a podcast together it was awesome. He tuned in as well.

Thank u so much. I feel like im rambling on, so until my next post, this is it for now lol!

[NotDarkYet]

If:   

 

Two people aggreeing to trade = evil.

 

 

Then:

 

 

Two people having sex is rape.

 

1 = 2

 

Up = down

 

Right = left

 

TRUTH doesn't exist.......

 

 

 

Getting Peter Joseph to parse EXACTLY where things become immoral would show the insanity of his position.

[dsayers]

Structural violence:

 

 

Sorry for the bump, but this is one of the funniest things I've seen in awhile.

[nathanm]

Funny that you mentioned that, as I was working on this drawing just the other day.  So now I had to finish it.

 

 

 

[june]

i thought stefan gave a pretty good example of structural violence in his recent "Justin Beiber: What They Aren't Telling You!" video:

-- "'Gotta remember too [that] when you become rich and famous you end up surrounded by people whose very livelihood depends upon you being a crazy... powerbar eating workaholic. I mean that's just the way it is. There are hundreds of people around Justin Bieber who rely on him for their income — are those people going to give him clear and objective advice about what is best for his own long-term mental emotional and spiritual health? Of course not! Or at least it's quite unlikely... so they want to keep you on the treadmill, they want to keep you working. It's like being an actor who's in demand: your agent stands to make 100/200,000 or more from you landing a film role — is that agent gonna say: "no no no, it's important to rest... balance of life is important"? No, their financial incentive is to keep you working as hard as possible, [and] working that hard takes a huge toll on a person... the jet lag, the travel, the constant sense of threat from paparazzi, from crazy fans... and so what happens is you end up surrounded by people who really really have a huge incentive to have you work like crazy, and that's what they do. The workaholicism [then] takes its toll and you turn to stimulants... you have a headache and you've got... 20,000/50,000 people who paid tickets, [and] you have to go on [stage]. The poor guy threw up on stage, got up and kept going, I mean that's impressive in terms of his dedication, but that's the world that you live in."

[dsayers]

All I see are people making decisions. You seem unclear as to the contradiction of terms that "structural violence" actually is. If "the system" is abusive, it's because people made it that way in the past and use it as an excuse in the present. Referring to it as an inanimate force is a way to not accrue responsibility to the responsible. Usually to usher in one's own initiation of the use of force upon people who will not hold them responsible. Wretched.

[june]

Referring to it as an inanimate force is a way to not accrue responsibility to the responsible.

firstly, i dont view it as an "inanimate force". i view it as a set circumstance which has inevitable effects when combined with other factors. for instance, in stefans quote he acknowledges that the agent has a huge incentive to gain profit because his livelihood depends on it, and the agent will even go so far as to promote physically and emotionally negative advice onto a teenager to gain this profit. the 'incentive'/'structure'/cause... or whatever you want to call it... is stemming from this necessity to gain profit -- or to go slightly deeper, it is basically stemming from the need of survival (it just so happens that gaining money is one such way to achieve optimal survival at this point in time).secondly, i dont then view this as "not accruing responbility to the responsible". the agent is "responsible" (or "accountable" -- i feel that is a more applicable term) for his actions, but he is not only only party that exists in this scenario, the "incentive"/"structure" is also a factor that has to be taken into account. "violence is a process, not a singular action". it is vital that this is understood, because only when things are understood can they then be properly improved. for instance, if you do not agree with what i have just said, and you place sole accountability onto the agent with no regards to the "incentive/structure", then your solution can only involve change to that single agent/person. whereas if you agree with what i said -- that the incentive/structure is also accountable -- then you can look at that incentive/structure and alter it for the beter (if possible of course) creating true solution, e.g. if profit wasn't such a necessity for survival, would the agent have acted the way he did? so to be clear, this is not about making excuses for peoples behaviour and blaming it on the "structure", but rather it is about understanding the reasons for the behaviour (which inevitably accounts for both the person and the environment) so that they can be truly altered for the better (as opposed to the standard ancap perspective in which only the person is to be altered (education -- morals, ethics etc), this means that all relevant factors need to be altered as best as possible, which again, is both people and enivorment)

[dsayers]

I am interested in your reply. I've read it a few times trying to figure out exactly what is being said. As I understand it, what you're talking about could not be classified as structural violence. "Suboptimal" and "eligible for improvement" is not the same as "violence." The way you're talking about it, if I watched a goofy movie instead of reading an informative book, I could be described as a victim of structural violence for not complying to an objective standard for valuation (another contradiction in concepts).

 

I think we differ on the view of the agent to talent relationship. An agent's value is real and their incentive is no different from that of the talent themselves: to acquire the most amount of resources with the least amount of effort. For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?

[june]

I am interested in your reply. I've read it a few times trying to figure out exactly what is being said. As I understand it, what you're talking about could not be classified as structural violence. "Suboptimal" and "eligible for improvement" is not the same as "violence." The way you're talking about it, if I watched a goofy movie instead of reading an informative book, I could be described as a victim of structural violence for not complying to an objective standard for valuation (another contradiction in concepts).

 

I think we differ on the view of the agent to talent relationship. An agent's value is real and their incentive is no different from that of the talent themselves: to acquire the most amount of resources with the least amount of effort. For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?

""Suboptimal" and "eligible for improvement" is not the same as "violence.""this is not what i am saying. my point is simply that there is more to be accounted for in "violence" than just the final act. that's it. "violence is a process, not a singular action". this is why i think stefan's quote provided a good example of the term "structural violence", because he acutely described the "process" of how a teenage boy is inflicted with negative physical and mental consequences because of his agent/workers and how they have damaging "structural" incentive (profit).earlier you stated that this is an attempt to "not accrue responsibility to the responsible", but this is not the case at all. it is merely recognising that there is more factors that take part in the "process" (of EVERYTHING, not only violence) and thus they must be taken into account. if you disagree with this and believe that the person/final action holds 100% full responibility of a violent action, then if you ever want to solve that problem you can ONLY look at the person/act and cannot take into account outside influences, and that would pretty much destroy stefans whole position on the importance of good parenting (because parenting is an influence which would then not be taken into account because it is not held accountable). i'm not sure if you subscribe to stefan's thoughts on parenting though, so feel free to point that out if it is the case"An agent's... incentive is no different from that of the talent themselves...."what is your argument for this? stefan quote is in clear disagreement of your proposal. eg:

"There are hundreds of people around Justin Bieber who rely on him for their income — are those people going to give him clear and objective advice about what is best for his own long-term mental emotional and spiritual health? Of course not! Or at least it's quite unlikely...""... your agent stands to make 100/200,000 or more from you landing a film role — is that agent gonna say: "no no no, it's important to rest... balance of life is important"? No, their financial incentive is to keep you working as hard as possible, [and] working that hard takes a huge toll on a person... and so what happens is you end up surrounded by people who really really have a huge incentive to have you work like crazy, and that's what they do. The workaholicism [then] takes its toll and you turn to stimulants... you have a headache and you've got... 20,000/50,000 people who paid tickets, [and] you have to go on [stage]."For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?"interesting. so no violation of property rights = no violence. i have made previous arguments against this very notion before (please view my thread partly on this topic: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37657-nap-property-rights-how-it-applies-to-children/#entry344502 ).

but to make an argument in this thread to acquire a direct response/feedback (and this query is open to anyone): if someone has a child, then that child then earns 100% property rights over itself. yes? so at this point what obligation does the parent have to interact with this childs property in any form? would it not be completely within the bounds of property rights for this parent to simply walk away and let the child live on its own devices and property rights? of course the child will likely starve and die, but that is the childs doing for not taking care of its own property. nothing to do with the parent. would you consider this "violence" by the parent.. and if so, what "rights of property" did they breach?

[dsayers]

"For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?"

 

I am aware of your parents as inherent aggressors stance. Not talking about parents here. You have an agent and the talent he represents. Something you claim is a good example of "structural violence." To which I've asked this very simple question, which I'm afraid you have not answered.

[june]

I am aware of your parents as inherent aggressors stance. Not talking about parents here. You have an agent and the talent he represents. Something you claim is a good example of "structural violence." To which I've asked this very simple question, which I'm afraid you have not answered.

"I am aware of your parents as inherent aggressors stance. Not talking about parents here."you made a statement/proposed an argument ("For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?") and i proposed a refutation ("... the child will likely starve and die, but that is the childs doing for not taking care of its own property. nothing to do with the parent. would you consider this "violence" by the parent.. and if so, what "rights of property" did they breach?") which just so happened to involve parents. either it's an act of violence by the parents or it isn't; which do you believe? if you classify my example as an act of violence then i have answered your question/refuted your proposition that violence can in fact occur when property rights are not breached.

[dsayers]

Statements don't end in question marks. This reply of yours also does not answer the question. You are confessing that your claim of structural violence is invalid.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

but to make an argument in this thread to acquire a direct response/feedback (and this query is open to anyone): if someone has a child, then that child then earns 100% property rights over itself. yes? so at this point what obligation does the parent have to interact with this childs property in any form? would it not be completely within the bounds of property rights for this parent to simply walk away and let the child live on its own devices and property rights? of course the child will likely starve and die, but that is the childs doing for not taking care of its own property. nothing to do with the parent. would you consider this "violence" by the parent.. and if so, what "rights of property" did they breach?

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

[june]

Statements don't end in question marks. This reply of yours also does not answer the question. You are confessing that your claim of structural violence is invalid.

ugh, are you really going to argue pointless semantics? "For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?" the way this is phrased implies that you are both stating your assertion (beginning the sentence with "for") and also asking a question. but whatever, i am not going to go down this semantic path. i have already provided my argument to rebut your question, a refutation which claims that something can be deemed as "violent" when property rights are not breached, which is to the contrary of your very claim. what now is your counter-argument against my claim?

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

thank you for providing a constructive argument in this discussion. this is the type of input that holds information that can be looked into and argued for and/or against.okay, so your argument pertains to a moral standpoint, and to that i have to ask: what is every parents moral obligation to their child, and does it change if it is "unchosen"? those are 2 questions that should be asked in regards to your moral position. i'm looking forward to the potential dialogue with regards to your stance here, however....... lets not to deviate too much here, what is your stance in the realm of property rights? in realm of property rights -- which this discussion is largely centered upon -- has their been a breach of such rights by the parent? and if not, would you still consider the parents action (or inaction i should say) as "violent"?

[Isthmus]

This is ridiculous. Why can't he debate someone on par with him? Peter Joseph is just a guy with a little bit of info, who made a nice movie that people like. I'd love to see Stefan debate someone who actually knows what they're talking about... This is just a "let's make an example of these guys" kind of debate. Stef - go argue someone on your level from the opposite side, i dare you.

[dsayers]

No, june, YOU made the claim that the agent/talent relationship is a good example of structural violence. I pointed out that their interaction was voluntary and asked where the violence was. You continue to demonstrate that you understand that the violence you claimed to be there is not actually there.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

ugh, are you really going to argue pointless semantics? "For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?" the way this is phrased implies that you are both stating your assertion (beginning the sentence with "for") and also asking a question. but whatever, i am not going to go down this semantic path. i have already provided my argument to rebut your question, a refutation which claims that something can be deemed as "violent" when property rights are not breached, which is to the contrary of your very claim. what now is your counter-argument against my claim?

thank you for providing a constructive argument in this discussion. this is the type of input that holds information that can be looked into and argued for and/or against.okay, so your argument pertains to a moral standpoint, and to that i have to ask: what is every parents moral obligation to their child, and does it change if it is "unchosen"? those are 2 questions that should be asked in regards to your moral position. i'm looking forward to the potential dialogue with regards to your stance here, however....... lets not to deviate too much here, what is your stance in the realm of property rights? in realm of property rights -- which this discussion is largely centered upon -- has their been a breach of such rights by the parent? and if not, would you still consider the parents action (or inaction i should say) as "violent"?

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.

[june]

No, june, YOU made the claim that the agent/talent relationship is a good example of structural violence. I pointed out that their interaction was voluntary and asked where the violence was. You continue to demonstrate that you understand that the violence you claimed to be there is not actually there.

yes... i claimed that stefan's quote was a good description of structural violence; you then disagreed and asked how can something be violent if there is no breach of property rights; i then proposed an alternate, more extreme example of how something may be considered violent without the breach of property rights; instead of providing an actual counter-argument to my claim you just accuse me of not answering your question; and now here we are, arguing over nothing instead of staying within the bounds of the argument at hand. sigh.

 

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.

thanks again for sticking to relevant points in regards to our discussion. you have stated several things here but i will look to respond in concern with property rights"The parents choose to care for the child when they choose to have one... Property rights are valid and property exists objectively. If a parent abandons their child after birth then have murdered it."when a baby is born it is given full 100% property rights over itself as a sovereign being, so what obligation, in regards to property rights, does a parent have to interact with the child in anyway, after the birth? in this scenario the parent isn't "abandoning" their child, they are respecting the childs rights of property/self-ownership, are they not?"They choose guardianship of the child's property rights until such time as the child can exercise them."what is "guardianship", can you provide your definition? who is entitled to claim "guardianship" over another sovereign human-being, and what does this title grant them? does "guardianship" overrule the childs right of self-ownership?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

"The parents choose to care for the child when they choose to have one... Property rights are valid and property exists objectively. If a parent abandons their child after birth then have murdered it."

when a baby is born it is given full 100% property rights over itself as a sovereign being, so what obligation, in regards to property rights, does a parent have to interact with the child in anyway, after the birth? in this scenario the parent isn't "abandoning" their child, they are respecting the childs rights of property/self-ownership, are they not?"They choose guardianship of the child's property rights until such time as the child can exercise them."what is "guardianship", can you provide your definition? who is entitled to claim "guardianship" over another sovereign human-being, and what does this title grant them? does "guardianship" overrule the childs right of self-ownership?

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.

[june]

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.

"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."when you have a child you create a sovereign being with 100% property rights over itself. to not interact with that child is to respect it's property rights. to say "the child might be harmed if you don't do anything" is an argument from consequences, not from property rights, which is: "to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life""Part of the child's property rights is the right to be cared for and that right is one created by the parent."a sovereign being with 100% ownership over itself has the right to be cared for by someone else? can you explain, specifically, how a person (the parent in this case) can be in breach of someones elses 100% right to self-ownership by not interacting with them in any way shape or form?so far your argument has been (paraphrased): "they did interact with the child, by having the child", but again, in regards to property rights, the child only gains it's rights at birth (or conception, depending on what you believe) and that is the point -- the point at which the child gets property rights -- in which the parents decide to not interact with the child and to respect it's property rights as a sovereign being. so again: how, specifically, does this constitute as a breach of property rights?"It's not like the baby created the situation."no, it did not. so (and this is a new, separate question) would you say the act of having a child is a breach of property rights, seeing as it did not consent?"It does not own the effect of of being helpless. The parent owns that."the parent owns the action of creating the baby (which is a separate matter that i have asked for your opinion on, just above). once the baby is conceived (or birthed; whichever point in time you believe self-ownership to begin) then that baby now has 100% selfownership rights over itself. the parents do not own anything at this point, it is the child who owns, because it now has full self-ownership.

[PatrickC]

So June, tell us about your own experience as a child?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

"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."

 

when you have a child you create a sovereign being with 100% property rights over itself. to not interact with that child is to respect it's property rights. to say "the child might be harmed if you don't do anything" is an argument from consequences, not from property rights, which is: "to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life"

 

"Part of the child's property rights is the right to be cared for and that right is one created by the parent."

 

a sovereign being with 100% ownership over itself has the right to be cared for by someone else? can you explain, specifically, how a person (the parent in this case) can be in breach of someones elses 100% right to self-ownership by not interacting with them in any way shape or form?

 

"It's not like the baby created the situation."

 

no, it did not. so (and this is a new, separate question) would you say the act of having a child is a breach of property rights, seeing as it did not consent?

 

"It does not own the effect of of being helpless. The parent owns that."

 

the parent owns the action of creating the baby (which is a separate matter that i have asked for your opinion on, just above). once the baby is conceived (or birthed; whichever point in time you believe self-ownership to begin) then that baby now has 100% selfownership rights over itself. the parents do not own anything at this point, it is the child who owns, because it now has full self-ownership.

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.

[june]

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.

"Yes you created a sovereign being but you also created the moral obligation to care for it."

 

you keep having to go outside the bounds of property rights to defend property rights.

 

"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."

 

so you are saying that someones property rights can be breached by not interfering with their property rights.

 

"Abandonment of a child is the same thing as active murder of the child. I made no argument from consequences."

 

you just did.

 

"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."

 

i do not remember. please provide a link to your argument and i will either respond to it or inform you why i did not respond previously ( if it recalls any memory).

 

"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."

 

i dont see how your logic follows. yes, a parent literally creates a child, and therefore the childs property rights too, but that is where the buck stops, because once these rights are established then the child is it's own sovereign entity, so where does the obligation "to be cared for" come from?

 

and also what does "to be cared for" actually mean anyway, define it, define the standard of "being cared for". this is very serious question because whatever parent falls below your definition of "to be cared for" is the initiator of a breach of property rights (if we follow your argument) and thus retribution can be acted upon them.