Bension Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 So I understand that communism makes no sense because a person owns the effects of his or her own actions. Woman owns her own vagina, means of production of more humans as Stefan said. This sounds perfectly fair and reasonable when a person cultivates and puts energy into something, making it theirs. So I took this into account when arguing against communism and its attempts to universalize, which it doesn't, *its attempt at egalitarianism when there is still a minority who controls all the guns and means of production. What about children? Do I own my child? Do parent(s) own their children if that child was an effect of their energies? Sorry if Stefan has already blown over this topic.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 You own the effects of your actions. So when you create the child you create a person with self-ownership. You own the responsibility to care for it. You own guardianship of the child. You own the responsibility for its actions until such a time that it can exercise its full self-ownership. Often people will try to say something like "Ah ha, so the child is property and can be destroyed, blah, blah, blah...". What they don't get is that when you create the child you also create all the responsibilities that go with it.
june Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 this is a grey area in property rights because in this case the effects of your actions is a self-owning agent, which cannot be owned by anyone else. so there's a contradictionalso i'm not following the previous posters logic that when you create a child you also create responsibilitie. this does not apply to any other scenarios. when one creates a chair they have ownership of that chair but they do not owe any responsibility to take care of their property. they can do what they like with it
Recommended Posts