Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you well know, I can't see a thing you post and have no desire to converse with any of you. The running behind me and posting as if I can is not only silly but simply an exercise in futility.
Are you saying it's legal to sell your children and don't bother you if you want to?
No, I was expressing my opinion that it should be legal. I apologize for any confusion - see, many of us libertarians are in a habit of saying things like "in a free society, there would be blah, blah and blah", speaking hypothetically. At present it clearly isn't legal, and the adoption process is very heavily regulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad-The-Impaler
I suggest that if anyone in any foreign countries has to put up with Human smuggling, human trafficking, slavery, children sold to the sex trade [...]
Slavery, kidnapping / adult abduction, false imprisonment, restrictions of "right to free exit", and so on should definitely be crimes, but parents / guardians should have complete authority over their children, and, sadly, some parents out there will not share your subjective moral values! Violence (which is what the government brings to the equation) is not the answer!
My philosophy is based on the principle of self-ownership (introduction presentation: Flash) which exists in three aspects: life, liberty, and property. A child can have a right to life (from the point of physical autonomy, i.e. birth), but the rights to liberty or property must be withheld until the child is able to make rational decisions, that is reaching a certain age (i.e. 18) or being emancipated by a jury. In absence of those individual rights, someone has to make up the difference and exercise the rights to liberty and property on the child's behalf.
The right to do this is called "guardianship", which should start with the parents by default - some philosophers say it should be a 50:50 split between the parents, some favor the mother, but most encourage the parents to preemptively choose an "ethical authority" (a non-profit that specializes in these sorts of things, religious or secular) to cast the deciding vote in case of a parental dispute. This guardianship right can be held by an individual (i.e. single parent) or shared between multiple individuals, for example a marriage contract in a polygamous family might stipulate that the child's mother gets up to 30% ownership, the father gets 30%, the "sister wives" share 30% between them, and their church gets a 10% tie-breaking vote. When one of the people involved dies or wishes to pass on the responsibility for taking care of the child, his/her share can be transferred like any other property.
Anything that's of value can be owned, and anything that can be owned can be transferred from one owner to another, as a gift or as a sale. The present socialist system of "family law" isn't much different except the government always has a controlling share. It acts benevolently most of the time to maintain its reputation, but the government can currently take away anyone's child with mere bureaucratic technicalities being its only deterrent. In a hypothetical free society, that won't be the case: people would have a choice whether to make the government an authority over their family, and since it's no longer instituted by force it shouldn't really be called "government" any more, but merely a voluntary non-profit organization, one among many that compete with each-other for respect and patronage in a free marketplace.
Since most people share your values that children should not be sold for sex, doing so would be major taboo, but in a flexible non-violent way. Most "family contracts" (a free market alternatives to government-mandated one-size-fits-all marriage) or even casual "sex contracts" would have a provision against this, and people who fail to have their family contract meet a certain certification standard would face tremendous ostracism. Most neighborhood associations won't let them move into any place decent. Most employers won't employ someone whose family may be subject to abuse, or risk boycotts from concerned ethical societies looking out for "public decency". Etc. Things have a way of balancing out for as long as government force isn't involved!
Last edited by Alex Libman; 01-15-2009 at 04:27 PM..
No, I was expressing my opinion that it should be legal. I apologize for any confusion - see, many of us libertarians are in a habit of saying things like "in a free society, there would be blah, blah and blah", speaking hypothetically. At present it clearly isn't legal, adoption process is very heavily regulated.
Slavery, kidnapping / adult abduction, false imprisonment, restrictions of "right to free exit", and so on should definitely crimes, but parents / guardians should have complete authority over their children, and, sadly, some parents out there will not share your subjective moral values. Violence is not the answer.
My philosophy is based on the principle of self-ownership (introduction presentation: Flash) which exists in three aspects: life, liberty, and property. A child can have a right to life (from the point of physical autonomy, i.e. birth), but the rights to liberty or property must be withheld until the child is able to make rational decisions, that is reaching a certain age (i.e. 18) or being emancipated by a jury. In absence of those individual rights, someone has to make up the difference and exercise the rights to liberty and property on the child's behalf.
The right to do this is called "guardianship", which should start with the parents by default - some philosophers say it should be a 50:50 split between the parents, some favor the mother, but most encourage the parents to preemptively choose an "ethical authority" (a non-profit that specializes in these sorts of things, religious or secular) to cast the deciding vote in case of a parental dispute. This guardianship right can be held by an individual (i.e. single parent) or shared between multiple individuals, for example a marriage contract in a polygamous family might stipulate that the child's mother gets up to 30% ownership, the father gets 30%, the "sister wives" share 30% between them, and their church gets a 10% tie-breaking vote. When one of the people involved dies or wishes to pass on the responsibility for taking care of a child, his/her share can be transferred like any other property.
Anything that's of value can be owned, and anything that can be owned can be transferred from one owner to another, as a gift or as a sale. The present socialist system of "family law" isn't much different except the government always has a controlling share. It acts benevolently most of the time to maintain its reputation, but the government can currently take away anyone's child with mere bureaucratic technicalities being its only deterrent. In a hypothetical free society, that won't be the case.
What Planet are you on? I sure in the hell hope your not in America! Try to wean yourself off whatever illegal subtance your on man.
C'mon; how is this accomplishing anything? You can disagree with a post by stating ‘why’ you consider it offensive. However, when you retort by using the same offensive generalization you are condemning, it makes YOU look bad.
You could have made your point by stating, “Your comments are offensive, and an unfair generalization of the family values of my ethnicity. I’m sure you would be equally offended had I made such disparaging comments in reference to yours.”
Sadly, you chose to engage in a tit for tat. In other words, you’re stating, “If you think these are the family values of my people; I think these are the family values of yours…...na na na boo boo.” Do you not see how juvenile this is?
How many times have people tried saying that to her?
Only to get a bunch of s ?
She doesn't clean up her act, and very few of you stick up to her.
The thought of trying to reason with her is hilarious.
As you well know, I can't see a thing you post and have no desire to converse with any of you. The running behind me and posting as if I can is not only silly but simply an exercise in futility.
How are you reading what I said? Do you have another account? You responded in time with my post. Lucky timing? You quoted Blacknight.
Get it straight, I say offensive but TRUE things about ILLEGAL ALIEN latinos. Additionally, I don't make up the stories, I just post them, complete with links. So you all really need to stop twisting the truth. It's not my fault that the majority of illegal aliens are latino, nor is it my fault that you all lump yourselves together. The only sides involved in this situation (you're the only one who delusionally thinks it's an argument) are those who are FOR and those who are AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Sorry I'm all out of cheese, otherwise I would have offered you and your fellow cheerleaders some to go with your collective whine.
You see what I mean...I will continue to fight fire with fire...
You see what I mean...I will continue to fight fire with fire...
I don't recommend it. We're likely to get several infractions or to be banned if we play her game.
She's clearly an offender on this forum, and leans more toward being a troll.
I say we just compile all the offensive things she says and send it to the top mods.
It's unfortunate some of the worst things she said on here were deleted by the mods. I would love to see her supporters defend her little conversation with Sovereignty a couple of weeks ago.
But, how did your comments elevate you to a higher level? You don't correct a wrong by committing a wrong.
Really should stay out of this, but, Benicar is 100% right. Is this a forum or a personal attack? Thought this was about opinions, and everybody's opinion was respected. Maybe i have it wrong. I thought you were refering to one single poster.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
