NAP & Property Rights, how it applies to children

[june]

hi, i have recently been introduced to stefan's ideas and am enjoying his content (especially his call-in shows). so far it seems his strongest 'goals' are essentially to remove violence/force/coercion, which is best achieved through good parenthood. agree? okay, so i was wondering how these specific ideas conflate specifically with the 'being' of children. i will state my queries bluntly:



1a) a child has no say in being born, therefore is it an act of force for a parent to have a child?

there may be an argument that it is 'natural' for people to have children and therefore permissable under the circumstances, but that would then lead to various other avenues such as "if eating is natural, and someone cannot attain food, would it then be 'natural' and therefore permissable for this person to steal food, or take it by force?". there can be a lot to say when going down these avenues, but primarly i am interested in the distinction of "is it force/breaching voluntarism to have children?"

1b) a child has no meaningful say in his/her upbringing, is it force when a parent restricts/rules over aspects of that childs life?

e.g. a child picks a leaf from a tree and tries to eat it, the parent then stops the child from doing so and carries her away from the tree to stop her from doing it again. is that force/breaching voluntarism?

it is the childs choice and want to eat the leaf, and yet her parent stopped her from doing so. there might be an argument that the child isn't wise enough to make her own decision yet, but does that logic then allow others to make/force their decision onto her?

2) is a child the property of the parent/s, the child itself, or a merge?

-- if the child is property of the parent alone, then it can be presumed that the parent can do what they wish with the child, even to destroy it if they want, because it is their property

-- if the child has full ownership over itself, then is it not force/breaching voluntarism when a parent supercedes it's will (this question is tied with 1b)?

and following this thought, as the parent by definition would be an non-owner (morally, not legally), doesn't this allow any adult or person to interfere with any children just as much as the biological parent, because their status as property holder over the child are both equally null?

-- and finally, if ownership is merged... (well, i don't know what that means really, if this is the answer then i would need it explained) then, again, who gets the final say over the actions of the child, the child or parent? if it is the parent then, as stated, the parent can choose to destroy their property if they wish, if it is the child, then the parent has no right to breach the childs voluntarism.




so there are my main concerns about these ideas so far, i hope they come across clear enough, and i hope you guys can help me & whoever else may have similar questions. thank you

[Guest - Josh -]

1a sounds like a "structural violence" problem, where nature in all its unfairness is labeled as violent, in order to distract from real violence.

 

The creation of a life is consensual outside of rape. No one is being aggressed against by having a child of one's choosing, and the child certainly isn't being aggressed against by coming into existence. He or she doesn't have a will while a fetus, but the fact that such a life has the potential to one day reason and be granted adult status means that childbirth should not be likened unto pet adoption.

 

Perhaps if the free market ever invents a time machine, we can go forward in time and ask people if they wish they had never been born, and then we can go back and inform the couples not to go through with it. Oh wait, I forget that in the future most people won't feel that way because they won't have abusive upbringings.

 

1b could be an example of self-defense on the child's behalf. People are responsible for what they do to each other and if you bring a life into the world, that responsibility falls squarely on you to make sure they’re kept safe from harm. If a child tries to stick his finger in an electrical outlet, or in your example, if a child tries to eat a leaf when you aren't sure it is poisonous or not, you should intervene on their behalf.

 

One would not say it is violence to perform a tracheotomy on someone with a pen if they've been stung by bees and their airway is cut off. They can grant permission for any harm caused in the process of saving their lives later. Similarly children can say to parents who’ve done their jobs right, "Thanks mom and dad for deciding to have me and for giving me a great home to live in. I love you!"

 

As for 2 I would say that if you decide to become a parent then you become the steward of that child. If I work for a company I do not own the tools at my disposal or the staff who report to me, but I am primarily responsible for everything I've been tasked with -- in a job of my own choosing. Maybe it's not the perfect job, but it's still my choice. Maybe the baby has genetic diseases, but I would have made the choice to get a woman pregnant, and now I'm responsible for everything I've ultimately tasked myself with. If that child faces "structural violence" of genetics, it will be my responsibility to make sure his medical needs are provided for to the best of my financial ability. If he is raised in a loving home, even if he is mentally deficient, I'm sure he will never think or feel any emotion which would amount to the question "why didn't you abort me?"

 

Anyways, that's my take. I hope this helps.

[Guest darkskyabove]

If a child tries to stick his finger in an electrical outlet, or in your example, if a child tries to eat a leaf when you aren't sure it is poisonous or not, you should intervene on their behalf.

Excellent reply.

 

As to the quoted portion: wouldn't these qualify as perfect opportunities to apply some peaceful parenting by explaining why it is not a good idea to randomly sample unknown substances, and turn the event into a learning experience by researching the plant, or electricity, etc.

 

Never underestimate the power of a human brain.

[Josh F]

1a) a child has no say in being born, therefore is it an act of force for a parent to have a child?

 

This is just a biological inevitability, I don't think the NAP is the best tool for understanding where babies come from--- but if I had to give an answer, it does not violate the NAP because no one wants to be dead at the moment of birth or conception.

 

1b) a child has no meaningful say in his/her upbringing, is it force when a parent restricts/rules over aspects of that childs life?

Yes, to the degree that those rules are enforced without voluntary consent.  As an early child who can't speak then calmly removing something bad from their hands is highly recommended, since you've implicitly agreed to care for the child.  If peaceful negotiation is an option it should be exercised. 

 

2) is a child the property of the parent/s, the child itself, or a merge?

 

A child owns itself.  Owning other humans is an NAP violation. 

[Mike Fleming]

The child owns itself, the parent is looking after he/she until they are able to look after themselves.  

 

Too many parents I think treat their children as if they do own them and the child becomes more like a pet who is human.   One way to know if this is probably the case is when parents say something like "they were so cute before they grew up".

 

 

-- if the child has full ownership over itself, then is it not force/breaching voluntarism when a parent supercedes it's will (this question is tied with 1b)?
 

 

The parent should negotiate with the child along the lines of what Stef does.   You are bringing a little human being into your life, not a pet.   

 

If there are good reasons why the child's position is not valid, they should be explained, if the child is able to understand them.

[june]

wow everybody, thanks for all your responses! i'll do my best to get back to everyone individually, even just for the fact that i hope to get many viewpoints on this topic from different people just to re-iterate, my main query is about how these scenarios apply to the nap and property rights


 

1a sounds like a "structural violence" problem, where nature in all its unfairness is labeled as violent, in order to distract from real violence.

 

i don't understand your dinstiction between between 'real violence' and 'not-real violence (?)' in this context. to re-state my position: although there are many avenues this question can go down (which i would love to see discussions on!), the primary purpose is to understand if these scenarios are classed as breaches of the nap or not. so in the case of nap, the severity of the violence is not the issue, the fact that it is breaking the nap at all (or not) is.

 

The creation of a life is consensual outside of rape. No one is being aggressed against by having a child of one's choosing, and the child certainly isn't being aggressed against by coming into existence. He or she doesn't have a will while a fetus, but the fact that such a life has the potential to one day reason and be granted adult status means that childbirth should not be likened unto pet adoption.

the creation of life is only consenual for 2 out of the 3 parties. the child does not and can not consent. you say "the child isn't certainly isn't being aggressed against by coming into existence", well, why? again, the child did not give any consent to being born.

 

If a child tries to stick his finger in an electrical outlet, or in your example, if a child tries to eat a leaf when you aren't sure it is poisonous or not, you should intervene on their behalf.

 

again, i'm not specfically talking about 'should they or shouldn't they' (but do welcome discussion on it!) but much moreso about the nap. so i simply ask, why should you intervene? the child made their decision to eat the leaf or to put their finger in an electrical socket, so who are we to stop them? yes, you can attempt to educate with words, but what if they don't listen and still attempt to put their finger into the socket? most parents at this stage would use force to stop the child. is this not a breach of the nap?

and this doesn't have to apply only to dangerous situations either, it can happen in a lot of casual ways because of course parents all have their own do's and don'ts  -- just use the same scenario as above except replace the electrical socket with ice cream, or when it's time for bed, etc.

Excellent reply.

 

As to the quoted portion: wouldn't these qualify as perfect opportunities to apply some peaceful parenting by explaining why it is not a good idea to randomly sample unknown substances, and turn the event into a learning experience by researching the plant, or electricity, etc.

 

Never underestimate the power of a human brain.

 

ideally, yes, they could serve as great learning opportunies. but what if the child does not heed your message and decides to eat the leaf or put their finger in the electrical socket regardless. if the child does not heed your teaching then at this point some parents may use force to physically stop them from doing so; and then, is this not a breach of the nap?

 

1a) a child has no say in being born, therefore is it an act of force for a parent to have a child?
 

This is just a biological inevitability, I don't think the NAP is the best tool for understanding where babies come from--- but if I had to give an answer, it does not violate the NAP because no one wants to be dead at the moment of birth or conception.

 

1b) a child has no meaningful say in his/her upbringing, is it force when a parent restricts/rules over aspects of that childs life?

Yes, to the degree that those rules are enforced without voluntary consent.  As an early child who can't speak then calmly removing something bad from their hands is highly recommended, since you've implicitly agreed to care for the child.  If peaceful negotiation is an option it should be exercised. 

 

2) is a child the property of the parent/s, the child itself, or a merge?

 

A child owns itself.  Owning other humans is an NAP violation. 

 

1a) "because no one wants to be dead at the moment of birth or conception." -- i dont understand this part. my point is that the parents are making a decision for the child that has huge consequences directly unto that child, all without the childs consent. is this not a breach of the nap?
 

1b) but the child didn't consent for you to be it's carer, nor do children always peacefully consent. so if you ask them to not do something and they refuse, then you physicaly remove the item from their hands, is this not a breach of nap?

2) nice and blunt. i agree with you, and was hoping that would be the answer my follow-up question to this would be: if the child is solely the property of itself, then what role is the parent/carer playing here. wouldn't then the parents/carers rights be just as null as any other random adult in the street, e.g. so my neighbour could interact with my child just as much as myself, because we both have no actual property rights over the child? we're both as null as each other right (morally, not legally)?
 

If there are good reasons why the child's position is not valid, they should be explained, if the child is able to understand them.

oh, that's a very heavy statement. "the child's position is not valid". could you expand on this? why isn't the child's position valid?

[Josh F]

1a) "because no one wants to be dead at the moment of birth or conception." -- i dont understand this part. my point is that the parents are making a decision for the child that has huge consequences directly unto that child, all without the childs consent. is this not a breach of the nap?

The NAP isn't only about explicit consent.  So, for example, if I am walking across the street and about to get hit by a bus accidentally, and the only way to stop me is to grab me, does that violate the NAP?  I did not explicitly consent to this action, but you operate on an implicit consent.  You operate under the assumption that once it is possible to explicitly consent Iwill do so....much as you can assume a baby, at least at that age, wants to be alive.  Not a lot of 2 year old suicides. 

 

1b) but the child didn't consent for you to be it's carer, nor do children always peacefully consent. so if you ask them to not do something and they refuse, then you physicaly remove the item from their hands, is this not a breach of nap?

 

Yeah, that would be a violation of the NAP, if they articulated that they didn't want to do something.  The onus is on you to explain the dangers and convince your child. 

 

 

2) nice and blunt. i agree with you, and was hoping that would be the answer my follow-up question to this would be: if the child is solely the property of itself, then what role is the parent/carer playing here. wouldn't then the parents/carers rights be just as null as any other random adult in the street, e.g. so my neighbour could interact with my child just as much as myself, because we both have no actual property rights over the child? we're both as null as each other right (morally, not legally)?

 

The child isn't unowned, it owns itself.  So the amount of time it spends with you or the neighbor should be its choice as much as it is yours and your neighbors.  I think on a biological level most children raised peacefully will prefer to stay with their parents and likely not consider leaving.  In the case of abusive parents, I recommend the kid move in with a non-abusive neighbor! 

[Mike Fleming]

 

oh, that's a very heavy statement. "the child's position is not valid". could you expand on this? why isn't the child's position valid?

 

I simply meant if they want something that isn't possible or is not a very good idea.  If say the child says that it wants to drive the car or wants to put it's hand in the oven or something like that.

 

If say, pulling a child out of danger, thereby acting, at least initially against the child's will is a concern, ask the question of two adults.  Let's say one adult is in the path of an onrushing car and for whatever reason doesn't see it, maybe he's busy talking on his mobile or something.  Another adult grabs him and pulls him out of the way.  That's not a violation of the NAP.  You are not being aggressive.  You have used the required force to pull that person out of danger.

[Ahren]

hi, i have recently been introduced to stefan's ideas and am enjoying his content (especially his call-in shows). so far it seems his strongest 'goals' are essentially to remove violence/force/coercion, which is best achieved through good parenthood. agree? okay, so i was wondering how these specific ideas conflate specifically with the 'being' of children. i will state my queries bluntly:1a) a child has no say in being born, therefore is it an act of force for a parent to have a child?

there may be an argument that it is 'natural' for people to have children and therefore permissable under the circumstances, but that would then lead to various other avenues such as "if eating is natural, and someone cannot attain food, would it then be 'natural' and therefore permissable for this person to steal food, or take it by force?". there can be a lot to say when going down these avenues, but primarly i am interested in the distinction of "is it force/breaching voluntarism to have children?"1b) a child has no meaningful say in his/her upbringing, is it force when a parent restricts/rules over aspects of that childs life?

e.g. a child picks a leaf from a tree and tries to eat it, the parent then stops the child from doing so and carries her away from the tree to stop her from doing it again. is that force/breaching voluntarism?

it is the childs choice and want to eat the leaf, and yet her parent stopped her from doing so. there might be an argument that the child isn't wise enough to make her own decision yet, but does that logic then allow others to make/force their decision onto her?

2) is a child the property of the parent/s, the child itself, or a merge?

-- if the child is property of the parent alone, then it can be presumed that the parent can do what they wish with the child, even to destroy it if they want, because it is their property

-- if the child has full ownership over itself, then is it not force/breaching voluntarism when a parent supercedes it's will (this question is tied with 1b)?and following this thought, as the parent by definition would be an non-owner (morally, not legally), doesn't this allow any adult or person to interfere with any children just as much as the biological parent, because their status as property holder over the child are both equally null?

-- and finally, if ownership is merged... (well, i don't know what that means really, if this is the answer then i would need it explained) then, again, who gets the final say over the actions of the child, the child or parent? if it is the parent then, as stated, the parent can choose to destroy their property if they wish, if it is the child, then the parent has no right to breach the childs voluntarism.

so there are my main concerns about these ideas so far, i hope they come across clear enough, and i hope you guys can help me & whoever else may have similar questions. thank you

Well if it is force to bring a child into this world then we all should universally stop having children. If we do then the human race would cease to exist and the this question would be meaningless. When these types of conclusions can be found through the logical progression of such questions they can be safely discarded.

[june]

The NAP isn't only about explicit consent.  So, for example, if I am walking across the street and about to get hit by a bus accidentally, and the only way to stop me is to grab me, does that violate the NAP?  I did not explicitly consent to this action, but you operate on an implicit consent.  You operate under the assumption that once it is possible to explicitly consent Iwill do so....much as you can assume a baby, at least at that age, wants to be alive.  Not a lot of 2 year old suicides. 

 

but is this not essentially saying that it's okay to violate someone's voluntary choice, because the violator assumes they know best for the other person? this logic can lead to very shaky ground once extended further 

 

 

Yeah, that would be a violation of the NAP, if they articulated that they didn't want to do something.  The onus is on you to explain the dangers and convince your child.

but children cannot always be convinced or reasoned with. if a child is biting a small plastic toy and looking as if it will eventually swallow it, it's not like the child will always listen to your explaintation of why swallowing the toy is bad and will cause harm (maybe the child doesn't even know language). so what other practical choice does the parent have but to physically/forcefully remove the toy from the childs hands (which as you stated, is a violation of the nap)? 

The child isn't unowned, it owns itself.  So the amount of time it spends with you or the neighbor should be its choice as much as it is yours and your neighbors.

hypothetically, does this mean i am perfectly free (in the context of property rights) to lure someone elses child towards me with enticing goods like sweets and toys and lots of other pleasureables? i may not have the childs long-term interest at heart, but as long as i can provide what it wants (again, young children aren't always 'reasonable' in that they dont/cant look at the long-term) then that is fine? 

I simply meant if they want something that isn't possible or is not a very good idea.  If say the child says that it wants to drive the car or wants to put it's hand in the oven or something like that.

but who are you to decide for the child what is/what is not a good idea? 

 

Well if it is force to bring a child into this world then we all should universally stop having children. If we do then the human race would cease to exist and the this question would be meaningless. When these types of conclusions can be found through the logical progression of such questions they can be safely discarded.

partially, yes this is correct. but there are 3 options here that i see:1) abide by the nap; having children is not force. keep having children2) abide by the nap; having children is force. stop having children3) the nap cannot withstand practicality or logical scrutiny; discard the nap 

[Ahren]

but is this not essentially saying that it's okay to violate someone's voluntary choice, because the violator assumes they know best for the other person? this logic can lead to very shaky ground once extended further  but children cannot always be convinced or reasoned with. if a child is biting a small plastic toy and looking as if it will eventually swallow it, it's not like the child will always listen to your explaintation of why swallowing the toy is bad and will cause harm (maybe the child doesn't even know language). so what other practical choice does the parent have but to physically/forcefully remove the toy from the childs hands (which as you stated, is a violation of the nap)? hypothetically, does this mean i am perfectly free (in the context of property rights) to lure someone elses child towards me with enticing goods like sweets and toys and lots of other pleasureables? i may not have the childs long-term interest at heart, but as long as i can provide what it wants (again, young children aren't always 'reasonable' in that they dont/cant look at the long-term) then that is fine? but who are you to decide for the child what is/what is not a good idea?  partially, yes this is correct. but there are 3 options here that i see:1) abide by the nap; having children is not force. keep having children2) abide by the nap; having children is force. stop having children3) the nap cannot withstand practicality or logical scrutiny; discard the nap

How likely is it that how there continues to be life on the planet is an act of immorality? The child can not consent because the child does not yet exist. Only until the child exists can they consent and this question can only be asked when they come to an age where they are able to understand it. Not bringing the child into the world denies them even the ability to consent.

[Mike Fleming]

 

but who are you to decide for the child what is/what is not a good idea? 

 

You're going to stand by and do and say nothing while your child attempts to put their hand in a hot oven?  Or if your child wants to cross the road without looking while cars are constantly whizzing past?

 

Be real and quit with the stupid shit questioning. 

[june]

Only until the child exists can they consent and this question can only be asked when they come to an age where they are able to understand it.

 

so until this point in time, the child's consent is invalid? and who determines when the child is at an age of understanding? 

You're going to stand by and do and say nothing while your child attempts to put their hand in a hot oven?  Or if your child wants to cross the road without looking while cars are constantly whizzing past?

well if i physically, forcefully intervene, then is that not a breach of the nap? that is my question. 

Be real and quit with the stupid shit questioning.

i am putting the nap under logical scrutiny. this is how you react to an examination of principles?my arguments are looking quite strong thus far. no one has yet to offer a solid response to dispel my qualms. your input has been great people, thanks

[PatrickC]

but is this not essentially saying that it's okay to violate someone's voluntary choice, because the violator assumes they know best for the other person? this logic can lead to very shaky ground once extended further

 

Interesting, since I had this experience recently of an older lady rushing out into the road as a speeding ambulance suddenly decided to switch lanes. She was very thankful that I saved her, as her nose narrowly missed a tragic event.

 

I do recall my cortisol being filled and was very uneasy with my decision to grab her so roughly after the fact. But for her it was the best decision I could have taken.

[june]

But for her it was the best decision I could have taken.

 

or more specifically, it was the best decision you assumed was the best for her.and if this logic is accepted and extended, then it's perfectly fine for a person to enact force upon another all because that person assumes they know what is best for the other....... so does this not invalidate the nap entirely? 

[PatrickC]

or more specifically, it was the best decision you assumed was the best for her.

 

No, it was the best decision for 'HER', I have no doubt. Or more importantly perhaps, she didn't doubt it.

[june]

No, it was the best decision for 'HER', I have no doubt.

but this is false. you did not know 100% what the 'best' decision for her was, and even if you did, you did not have her consent; you made a decision for her, and then acted on that assumption with force. that is breaking the nap. what if afterward she scorned you for using force on her?

[PatrickC]

Tell that lady it was false, as she narrowly missed a ton of metal at high speed.. If you don't get that situation, then I have no idea what you are talking about. There is a point 'sometimes' with empathy in which you have to make sharp decisions. I never use 'force' in my life, but I certainly understood the benefits of it in that moment. As did that lady.

This is similar to a surgeon using a knife on a patient.

[june]

If you don't get that situation, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

i've stated what i'm talking about several times — you used force on another person without their consent and are now attempting to justify it (the act before the consent). imagine if this logic was extended to parents who hit their kids and attempt to justify it by saying: "kids need to be hit, it will give them character!"you're transferring the rights of decision making of a person and handing it to the violator.

[PatrickC]

So you suggest that I should have just left her to her fate? You got to realise how 'effed up' that opinion is.

[june]

So you suggest that I should have just left her to her fate? You got to realise how 'effed up' that opinion is.

no. that is a far deviation from the topic of conversation. we are talking about the nap (and property rights secondarily) and how it applies. what i am suggesting is that actions, such as what you performed, are a violation of the nap. can you refute this? can anyone?

[PatrickC]

Then you need to let go of the NAP and start studying UPB, which is a much better explanation.. My actions were akin to a surgeon using a knife to save someones life during an operation. The fact that she wasn't aware in the first instance of my attempt to help her, is neither here nor there. She was certainly aware of them afterwards. Any violation that I did, was entirely understandable on the part of this lady. I neither broke the NAP or violated UPB. To have done so would have resulted in possible charges being levied against me. She was in fact most thankful, which I would have been myself, if it had been her doing the same for me.

 

You are trying to square a round circle with this argument.

[june]

Then you need to let go of the NAP and start studying UPB, which is a much better explanation.. My actions were akin to a surgeon using a knife to save someones life during an operation. The fact that she wasn't aware in the first instance of my attempt to help her, is neither here nor there. She was certainly aware of them afterwards. Any violation that I did, was entirely understandable on the part of this lady. I neither broke the NAP or violated UPB. To have done so would have resulted in possible charges being levied against me. She was in fact most thankful, which I would have been myself, if it had been her doing the same with me.

 

You are trying to square a round circle with this argument.

you have still not confronted my main argument. the surgeon example is not proof of anything, it's an exact replica of the scenario i'm trying to present an argument against (your real life example of the lady in the street)! you are transferring the decision-making of a person over to the violator of that person. if i attempted to commit suicide and a surgeon forced his will upon me and brought me back to life... then yes, that is a breach of force, is it not?

[PatrickC]

if i attempted to commit suicide and a surgeon forced his will upon me and brought me back to life... then yes, that is a breach of force, is it not?

 

You are conflating. The lady in question had no intention of dying. If she had, it would have been entirely noticeable that she was deliberately walking into oncoming traffic.. As it was, I was conscious she wasn't investigating her environment properly. These are split second decisions that you take of course, which in a 'material world' you attempt to make a correct assessment of in the moment.

 

Attempting to suggest that I broke the NAP, is all types of annoying to me. Get into the material world and stop conflating the experiences of others you have no experience of.

[june]

You are conflating. The lady in question had no intention of dying. If she had, it would have been entirely noticeable that she was deliberately walking into oncoming traffic.. As it was, I was conscious she wasn't investigating her environment properly. These are split second decisions that you take of course, which in a 'material world' you attempt to make a correct assessment of in the moment.

 

Attempting to suggest that I broke the NAP, is all types of annoying to me. Get into the material world and stop conflating the experiences of others you have no experience of.

sigh. i only know the scenario from the information provided. if you now suggest that you were studying her behaviour and reactions enough to know she didn't want those events to occur (even though you could not actually be 100% certain) then i admit, that brings this scenario into even more shaky ground, and it's pointless debating this particular example if you can keep applying new details. my main point, which you ignored, is that you are transferring the decision-making of a person over to the violator of that person. and that leads to very dangerous avenues

[Josh F]

but is this not essentially saying that it's okay to violate someone's voluntary choice, because the violator assumes they know best for the other person? this logic can lead to very shaky ground once extended furtherYou're saying it is someone's choice to get hit by a bus?  Are you saying babies are suicidal and thats why they can't fend for themselves? 

 

but children cannot always be convinced or reasoned with. if a child is biting a small plastic toy and looking as if it will eventually swallow it, it's not like the child will always listen to your explaintation of why swallowing the toy is bad and will cause harm (maybe the child doesn't even know language). so what other practical choice does the parent have but to physically/forcefully remove the toy from the childs hands (which as you stated, is a violation of the nap)?Of course you can always convince and reason with a child, they're far less obstanant or abused than most adults and are generally prone to trust your guidance.  If you're suffering to reason with children, you must be really suffering to reason with anyone.

 

hypothetically, does this mean i am perfectly free (in the context of property rights) to lure someone elses child towards me with enticing goods like sweets and toys and lots of other pleasureables? i may not have the childs long-term interest at heart, but as long as i can provide what it wants (again, young children aren't always 'reasonable' in that they dont/cant look at the long-term) then that is fine?What do you mean lure?  You're presenting a situation that sounds like someone about to molest a kid and comparing it to a nieghbor who helps prevent a child from being abused.  Just giving candy to children isn't a problem, its quite common actually. 

[Carl Green]

i am putting the nap under logical scrutiny. this is how you react to an examination of principles?my arguments are looking quite strong thus far. no one has yet to offer a solid response to dispel my qualms. your input has been great people, thanks

 

You're scrutinizing NAP to pretty much a physics level.  I think the "two headed horse exception" of violating NAP and forcably preventing a child from burning their hand on a stove doesn't necessarily invalidate it. (just because a horse can be born with 2 heads doesn't invalidate the concept of a horse)

270: Perfection is the Enemy of Virtue

 

at least that's how I see it.

[june]

 

but is this not essentially saying that it's okay to violate someone's voluntary choice, because the violator assumes they know best for the other person? this logic can lead to very shaky ground once extended furtherYou're saying it is someone's choice to get hit by a bus?  Are you saying babies are suicidal and thats why they can't fend for themselves?

 

but children cannot always be convinced or reasoned with. if a child is biting a small plastic toy and looking as if it will eventually swallow it, it's not like the child will always listen to your explaintation of why swallowing the toy is bad and will cause harm (maybe the child doesn't even know language). so what other practical choice does the parent have but to physically/forcefully remove the toy from the childs hands (which as you stated, is a violation of the nap)?Of course you can always convince and reason with a child, they're far less obstanant or abused than most adults and are generally prone to trust your guidance.  If you're suffering to reason with children, you must be really suffering to reason with anyone.

 

hypothetically, does this mean i am perfectly free (in the context of property rights) to lure someone elses child towards me with enticing goods like sweets and toys and lots of other pleasureables? i may not have the childs long-term interest at heart, but as long as i can provide what it wants (again, young children aren't always 'reasonable' in that they dont/cant look at the long-term) then that is fine?What do you mean lure?  You're presenting a situation that sounds like someone about to molest a kid and comparing it to a nieghbor who helps prevent a child from being abused.  Just giving candy to children isn't a problem, its quite common actually. 

 

 

1. no. i am saying it is someones choice to walk where they want to walk. they may not have a full range of the information of a given scenario (an oncoming vehicle in this instance), but they still made their own voluntary decision. if someone intervenes with force (to push them out of the way)  then they are breaching the nap.2. "Of course you can always convince and reason with a child". i plainly disagree. i mean young children don't even have the ability to understand speech. but i'll move on from this topic3. no one is thinking about molesting anyone. this example was in regards to property rights. it was established that children are in full ownership of their own bodies (i dont know if you disagree with this or not). therefore i asked if under the definition of property rights, is it okay for me to lure someones elses child away with sweets and ice cream (or whatever else would work on a young child) and keep that child away from it's parent? the child voluntarily wishes to follow me and my sweets, and the child is wholly in ownership of itself, therefore any forceful intervention on behalf of the parent to bring back the child would be wrong a breach of property rights. 

You're scrutinizing NAP to pretty much a physics level.  I think the "two headed horse exception" of violating NAP and forcably preventing a child from burning their hand on a stove doesn't necessarily invalidate it. (just because a horse can be born with 2 heads doesn't invalidate the concept of a horse)

270: Perfection is the Enemy of Virtue

 

at least that's how I see it.

you are right, and i should have worded that better. it does not inherently invalidate the nap. but it does reduce the nap to the point of absurdity.

defintion of nap from wikipedia: the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.this principle is clearly defined. the example of a forcing a baby's hand away from the oven is a breach of the nap, by definition. so either you: 1) follow the nap and allow the baby to put their hand in the oven, or 2) do not follow the nap and remove the babies hand from the oven.

[Josh F]

1. no. i am saying it is someones choice to walk where they want to walk. they may not have a full range of the information of a given scenario (an oncoming vehicle in this instance), but they still made their own voluntary decision. if someone intervenes with force (to push them out of the way)  then they are breaching the nap.

 

I articulated a convincing argument to the contrary, please address it, it is in this topic. 

 

 

3. no one is thinking about molesting anyone. this example was in regards to property rights. it was established that children are in full ownership of their own bodies (i dont know if you disagree with this or not). therefore i asked if under the definition of property rights, is it okay for me to lure someones elses child away with sweets and ice cream (or whatever else would work on a young child) and keep that child away from it's parent? the child voluntarily wishes to follow me and my sweets, and the child is wholly in ownership of itself, therefore any forceful intervention on behalf of the parent to bring back the child would be wrong a breach of property rights.

 

Again, why lure?  Like I gave some candy today to my girlfriend's niece.  She was then invited to hang out with us at my place.  Later in the night she wanted to go home, and so she left.  Are you saying I lured her away from her mom?  I think your scenario needs clarification, because what you're doing is painting a sinister image where there is none.  I often spent time at neighbors houses, and some times just for the good food.  Whats the problem?

[june]

a new hypothetical has crossed my mind and i would be very interested to hear peoples' takes on it ( also posted here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38135-is-it-is-immoral-to-initiate-a-cause-of-harm-more-comprehensive/ ):seeing as a child owns full property of itself, if a parent gives birth to a child and then simply does not interact with the child at all, causing the child to starve and die, hasn't this parent NOT violated the nap (no initiation of force), and thus is totally morally permissable? i.e, can a person stand-by and have their baby starve to death and still be acting within the nap?

[dsayers]

a child has no say in being born, therefore is it an act of force for a parent to have a child?

 

Morality requires choice. Birth is an autonomic biological process.

 

seeing as a child owns full property of itself, if a parent gives birth to a child and then simply does not interact with the child at all, causing the child to starve and die, hasn't this parent NOT violated the nap (no initiation of force), and thus is totally morally permissable? i.e, can a person stand-by and have their baby starve to death and still be acting within the nap?

 

If I tie you up in my basement or your parents birth you, you are in a place involuntarily. As such, the person who has you someplace involuntarily is responsible for your health, feeding, etc. The exception to this would be a lack of understanding that nourishment is a requisite of survival. This doesn't apply to people who have been nourished for so long that they have survived to the point of developing functional reproductive organs.

[june]

Morality requires choice. Birth is an autonomic biological process.If I tie you up in my basement or your parents birth you, you are in a place involuntarily. As such, the person who has you someplace involuntarily is responsible for your health, feeding, etc. The exception to this would be a lack of understanding that nourishment is a requisite of survival. This doesn't apply to people who have been nourished for so long that they have survived to the point of developing functional reproductive organs.

i cannot respond to your second paragraph because to do so relies on clearing our differences of opinio in regards to your first paragragh/sentence, so that is where i will focus."Morality requires choice. Birth is an autonomic biological process."So having children is not a choice, in your opinion. Okay. I have a couple of queries with that. Firstly, what is your explaination for peopele who do not have children? Secondly, if children (or the attempt of having children, as some people are biologically unable) is an absolute human need without choice, what if a man or woman cannot find a voluntary partner to pair with, is it subsequently not a choice (and therefore not a moral issue) if that person rapes another person in the hope of producing children?

[dsayers]

So having children is not a choice, in your opinion.

 

I did not speak about having children. I spoke of birth.

 

Yes, we have contraception. Yes, we have abortion. This does not change the fact that once a sperm couples with an egg and that zygote attaches to the uterine wall, gestation and birth are autonomic biological processes and therefor amoral.

 

By the by, in this thread, I have yet to share an opinion.

[june]

Thats like saying the act of a punch to the face causing harm is not a choice because pain receptors are autonomus biology. This conversation is obviously about the act/choice of having a child. Rather pedantic argument you have made here