- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You do not think there should be laws against fake child porn? What if it is very realistic?
You cannot hold your absolutist, personally defined, position without condoning such things.
I believe he follows the pick-up basketball rule, no harm no foul (no law).That's what I am trying to get it. How does Ikari's philosophy consider such examples?
How so? What Ikari wrote is correct. A child 'of age or legally emancipated' is an adult and can, therefore, be forced to do almost nothing by his/her parents.Thank you for helping to demonstrate how utterly foolish libertarianism is
More of your ideology I see. Okay, we'll pretend that the real world doesn't exist.
For the sake of argument, based upon your "Harm" theory, could I open a child brothel if the parents sold their children to me and the children wanted to do the work and didn't feel that they were being harmed?
That's what I am trying to get it. How does Ikari's philosophy consider such examples?
Okay, so I don't buy them I just use them as small employees and the parents and children approve. Am I good now?Parents cannot sell their children to you. While on many fronts we seemingly treat children as property, they're not actually property.
That's not morality, it's comments to proper use of government force.
Government is inherently an amoral institution and cannot (or rather should not) be used to endorse personal morality.
The rights of the individual are what matter, and that is what government is created to protect.
Then perhaps you can lay out this demonstration, yes?
Okay, so I don't buy them I just use them as small employees and the parents and children approve. Am I good now?
Not at all, right to life is fundamental and needs to be upheld. Acting counter to that is acting against the rights on a human.
And you'd have to do more than make the claim. Making claims is essentially all that your arguments come down to. They would have to prove the claim.
If it's to the detriment of the child, it should be disallowed.
That's how it works even now. I think you are writing things but don't quite understand how disconnected what you are writing is. An individual of age can consent to his own will and a parent cannot force action. One who has legally emancipated himself from his parents is equally free of their direct control. You wish to contend this point?
LOL! So when you said it was not "just", it had nothing to do with morality!! :roll:
Yes, that would be morally wrong! :lamo
Public accommodations are not individuals.
See Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States
How so? What Ikari wrote is correct. A child 'of age or legally emancipated' is an adult and can, therefore, be forced to do almost nothing by his/her parents.
Define "harm"? They are making money and it's not like kids don't have sex. What's the problem? Sounds rather Big Brother Morality Police State to me? After all, do you know better than the parents and the children? Does society? It sounds like a private and freely made business arrangement to me? Why all the push-back?In many cases you could be. In the case of child prostitution, likely not as a child has no understanding of what they are giving away and child prostitution only serves to harm the child's life, liberty, AND property; so you hit all three. Unless there is medical reason to believe that the child will die less a prostitute. If you can prove that, we may have reason for debate.
But it's also arbitrary since we allow people to kill their children for religious beliefs. With that one still active, there's not really any moral grounds for what you're trying to propose here.
6yo's can't legally emancipate themselves.
But again, I thank you for demonstrating how irrational libertarianism is by explaining how it doesn't allow parents to force their children to get an education
No, he said that no child can be forced to go to school.
In many cases you could be. In the case of child prostitution, likely not as a child has no understanding of what they are giving away and child prostitution only serves to harm the child's life, liberty, AND property; so you hit all three. Unless there is medical reason to believe that the child will die less a prostitute. If you can prove that, we may have reason for debate.
But it's also arbitrary since we allow people to kill their children for religious beliefs. With that one still active, there's not really any moral grounds for what you're trying to propose here.
Define "harm"? They are making money and it's not like kids don't have sex. What's the problem? Sounds rather Big Brother Morality Police State to me? After all, do you know better than the parents and the children? Does society? It sounds like a private and freely made business arrangement to me? Why all the push-back?
How does prostitution harm the child's property?
It's more related to the proper use of government force than personal morality. Many times I am morally opposed to what people do, yet I do not believe that entitles me to use government force against their act. My sense of morality and justice are separated.
No, it's just impractical and dangerous given the competing moralities.
Private business is private property
Corporations and publicly traded companies are not quite private, not quite public; and were not the subject of consideration. What is the subject of consideration is a local bakery refusing to make a cake for a same sex couple. In this case, they should be free to do so as it is their business and it's only a cake.
Define "harm"? They are making money and it's not like kids don't have sex. What's the problem? Sounds rather Big Brother Morality Police State to me? After all, do you know better than the parents and the children? Does society? It sounds like a private and freely made business arrangement to me? Why all the push-back?
Is it an infringement when we make them take a bath, or get a shot? How about when we spank them? My bet is the child would not consent to that but we don't ask them now do we? In that respect, they are property, our property and that we are responsible and pay the bills for.A child cannot cede their own body away, and thus it's innately an act against an non-consenting party. That's infringement upon property.
I didn't say anything to that point. Please read because your outbursts are starting to grow increasingly irrational. I said an individual of age can consent to his own will and a parent cannot force action. One who has legally emancipated himself from his parents is equally free of their direct control.
Ikari believes the govt should not use force to stop individuals from doing what they want as long as they are not infringing on anyone else's right (or making Ikari feel icky)
After becoming an adult or legally the same thing he meant to say.
Because kids do not fully understand the ramifications of action and psychological and physical damage can run deep. It takes awhile for humans to develop and in those early stages their rights are protected by others by necessity of biology.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?