Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Libertarianism and Ageism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:31:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's an old problem that I haven't seen in awhile.

At what point does one acquire self-ownership? Is there a specific logical starting point? If not, is there a general age at which it would simply be most practical to start pretending as though it was? Do parents own their children? If not, are they still responsible for their children? Does that contradict Libertarianism?

Ultimately, I think the answers to these question really separate two types of Libertarians. The ideologues who see it as a mathematical matter. And the realists who understand it only in it's terms of practical influence.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:10:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nozick defined "ownership" of x as the right to do whatever you choose with x. It follows that the ability to own implies the cognitive ability to make choices.

I'm probably wrong.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:30:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 2:10:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Nozick defined "ownership" of x as the right to do whatever you choose with x. It follows that the ability to own implies the cognitive ability to make choices.

I'm probably wrong.

Who decides whether someone has cognitive abilities to make choices? Does a baby not make choices? Is it driven only by instinct? Are we to suppose that most people 18 years and over are not this way but are more choice-driven?

Does the ability to make such an arbitration not depend on them, before hand, being confirmed as to be of such a cognitive level?

As I am 18, my society generally acknowledges that I have this. Does that then give me the power to make the arbitration? What if I am to decide that all people are completely lost, stupid and shackled by the predictable nature of their minds? Do I change the paradigm? Why not?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:40:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 2:30:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/28/2013 2:10:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Nozick defined "ownership" of x as the right to do whatever you choose with x. It follows that the ability to own implies the cognitive ability to make choices.

I'm probably wrong.

Who decides whether someone has cognitive abilities to make choices? Does a baby not make choices? Is it driven only by instinct? Are we to suppose that most people 18 years and over are not this way but are more choice-driven?

I don't consider myself libertarian nor am I familiar with psychology, so I don't have a satisfactory answer to this question.

Does the ability to make such an arbitration not depend on them, before hand, being confirmed as to be of such a cognitive level?

Confirmed by who? I don't think they need to be 'confirmed' as choice-makers to make a choice and have the ability to own. The ability to own is present as long as the ability to make choices is.

As I am 18, my society generally acknowledges that I have this. Does that then give me the power to make the arbitration? What if I am to decide that all people are completely lost, stupid and shackled by the predictable nature of their minds? Do I change the paradigm? Why not?

I don't know. I'll just wait for a libertarian to answer your questions satisfactorily.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:51:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 2:40:40 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Confirmed by who? I don't think they need to be 'confirmed' as choice-makers to make a choice and have the ability to own. The ability to own is present as long as the ability to make choices is.

Will a society be likely to successfully enforce the integrity of volition without some centralizing idea towards what makes a person a volition-wielding agent?

Without a solid idea of when one becomes self-owning, and self-decision-making, is it reasonable to assume that the market will generally make the right call in protecting what, objectively, could be any kind of grand scheme of liberated choices?

Is it true to say that, if there is no specific point at which one becomes self-owning, a person only gradually becomes fully human?

Perhaps an actual Libertarian could address these.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:58:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ayn Rand objectivists argue for self-ownership regardless of age, and that consent is a matter of individual reasoning even in terms of low-age.

I think parents have a right to take away some rights from their children, until it can be evaluated that they are within reasonable bounds to be self-owned to a full degree.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:13:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 2:30:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/28/2013 2:10:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Nozick defined "ownership" of x as the right to do whatever you choose with x. It follows that the ability to own implies the cognitive ability to make choices.

I'm probably wrong.

Who decides whether someone has cognitive abilities to make choices? Does a baby not make choices? Is it driven only by instinct? Are we to suppose that most people 18 years and over are not this way but are more choice-driven?

Complex, abstract, "human" thinking kicks in around age 10. Obviously children under 10 aren't rabid animals acting completely on instinct, but a lot of that is a factor of them being controlled. See Lord Of The Flies for more information...or, The Blue Lagoon (hubba hubba).


Does the ability to make such an arbitration not depend on them, before hand, being confirmed as to be of such a cognitive level?

As I am 18, my society generally acknowledges that I have this. Does that then give me the power to make the arbitration? What if I am to decide that all people are completely lost, stupid and shackled by the predictable nature of their minds? Do I change the paradigm? Why not?

If you enjoy your place in the current society, you do. Society involves compromise. Your choices need, necessarily, to not infringe on mine.

You know this, and this is rhetoric on your part, but whatever...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:26:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm going to say that it's something that will vary, from one individual to the next, and that it is not simply a matter of math. I would also say that the individual is free to relinquish his or her self-reliance to another person as a free exchange or non verbal contract, but both sides must be in agreement on this arrangement; which is why altruism is dangerous to the individual.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 6:36:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've always seen libertarianism as being simply opposed to the state. The reasons vary. But, in order to make a case against libertarianism, you have to make a case for statism.

I don't define myself as libertarian although I am sympathetic to libertarianism on many issues (particularly economic and social policy)
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 10:05:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a gray area of Libertarianism, and one which depends heavily on respective families and only finds illuminating, objective answers through the progress of neurobiology. At any rate, I don't think states can manage age-limits as well as family members.

An interesting problem involves the age of consent. If Libertarian Bob says that self-ownership kicks in fully at age 10, then he implicitly concedes that there is nothing wrong with a persuasive 50-year-old entering into voluntary intercourse with a 10-year-old girl. This is just the problem in principle; in practical terms the parents and close family and friends would likely disallow any such interaction to take place. But then do they infringe on her self-ownership like a state would? Something to think about.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 10:12:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It would be impractical to individually evaluate everyone. The line must be drawn, no matter how arbitrarily.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:44:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think dem Objectivists get it closest and this is actually how I approach the issue (phiosophically at least). When you're rational and able to actually claim your right to own yourself, that's when it happens. I think this is also how Hoppean ethics would fit in i.e., since it depends on the nature of discourse/argumentation to justify self ownership, it would logically follow from that point where you can engage in discourse/argumentation in the first place.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 1:21:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 1:31:23 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Here's an old problem that I haven't seen in awhile.

At what point does one acquire self-ownership?
When you can reason.

For legal purposes short of murder prosecutions: When you can articulate a complaint to the court (Along the lines of "My parents are doing something to me I don't want, and I would like to sever all relations between us over this.")

If not, is there a general age at which it would simply be most practical to start pretending as though it was?
For the purposes of outright murder: Birth. For other purposes:No.

Do parents own their children?
No.

If not, are they still responsible for their children?
Only those that they have not renounced and have not renounced them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 12:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Self-ownership should be awarded if and when the adolescent sociopathy that inspires libertarianism is outgrown.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:49:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 12:16:55 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
Self-ownership should be awarded if and when the adolescent sociopathy that inspires libertarianism is outgrown.

Sociopathy is such an ugly word. Psychopathy is a lot better.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 5:57:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 12:16:55 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
Self-ownership should be awarded if and when the adolescent sociopathy that inspires libertarianism is outgrown.

I have to say, those words have a nice sting to them.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord