Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby What if the child does not consent to being sacrificed? On the other hand, if the child can consent to being sacrificed, do you think that children should be able to enter into legal contracts as well? If the child does not consent, then that ...
06-18-2008, 03:11 PM
| #121 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people  Paleolibertarian 
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby 
If the child does not consent, then that would be considered murder. I'd have no problem with children entering legal contracts. | ||||
     |
|
06-18-2008, 03:14 PM
| #122 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Dylith
No, it would not be ok, because I don't think they should be doing that. | ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:14 PM
| #123 | ||||
| Member  Liberal
| Originally Posted by lew So I could trade with say a 6 year old child $10 for a new comic book in exchange for his word to be my bonded laborer?
| ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:15 PM
| #124 | ||||
| Member Liberal
| Originally Posted by lew What is morally wrong about it? Why is it politcally wrong?
| ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:17 PM
| #125 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator  Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by lew So should children be able to be considered legal owners and have proprietary obligations as well? If a child fails to maintain his place of business and that results in the injury or death of a customer, should the child be tried for criminal negligence?
I think it would be rather irresponsible to have a government that recognizes children as being completely equal to adults, but at the same time I totally get where you're coming from. My solution would be to have custodial rights vested in the parents and proprietary rights vested in the child. So the parents are charged with the duty of maintaining (or closing) the place of business and the child is charged with the duty of selling the property. 
__________________ $$_/^_^\__*<}{~))}}""?  ????   ? //\\  **!!]" | ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:25 PM
| #126 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby
I would say that children should not be completely equal before the law to normal adults. But neither should be retarded adults. But I believe both should have recognizable individualistic rights to self and property. | ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:26 PM
| #127 | ||||
| Bokonist  Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by lew
While it's obvious that is the question of the last couple and the next couple pages. No I don't think they are capable of making informed decisions. | ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:26 PM
| #128 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Dylith
There's nothing necessarily "morally" wrong about it. But when writing the constitution for the localized government, I would put that in; that localized governments could not collude for any purposes at all, with the exception of perhaps a few services. | ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:28 PM
| #129 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft
But who can make a decision about suicide? Most people would agree that suicide is sad because the person committing it does not believe he has any other options. In fact, he's not completely "informed" since he could realize that there are numerous alternatives for him to live out his life rather than kill himself. So then, shouldn't all suicides be illegal? | ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:28 PM
| #130 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by Dylith
Would you allow a 26 year old to engage into the same type of agreement? | ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:35 PM
| #131 | ||||
| Bokonist Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by lew What most people would agree on for an adult doesn't matter. You are free to make whatever poor decisions you want for yourself. What most people think is acceptable for a child does matter though because children are not in control of their own lives. There's no arguing about individual rights for kids, they are hardwired to do what their parents say, and are legally, physically forced to in most situations. You think the doctors pulled the girl aside and said do you want medical care?
| ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:42 PM
| #132 | ||||
| Governments should fear their people Paleolibertarian
| Originally Posted by nbiggershaft
And I'm saying the exact same reason that you claim is the reason why children cannot decide on their own to commit suicide, can be applied to adults. | ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 03:47 PM
| #133 | ||||
| Member Liberal
| Originally Posted by lew why not? There can be greater efficiency in collusion and in the pooling of resources/infrastructures.
| ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 05:29 PM
| #134 | ||||
| Bokonist Independent Kansas City
| Originally Posted by lew No not really, my reason for why children can't be allowed to commit suicide is because they are not in direct control of their lives. Whats best is decided for them, and a small minority of parents and group leaders can't be trusted with that.
Your argument is that it's all relative, whats right for all adults can't be decided so we can't decide for an child either. If I am willing to accept adults can commit suicide but not agree with that decision then they are equivalent to children. It's a series of stretches to begin with, because I don't find a mind capable of suicide to be inherently damaged or ignorant. It also is not similar to the situation of children. | ||||
| |
|
06-18-2008, 11:25 PM
| #135 | ||||
| Baka  Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by 7960 They would however be wrong about that. Letting people die because of a fantasy someone isn't acceptable.
| ||||
| |
|
06-19-2008, 12:57 AM
| #136 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist
| Originally Posted by Kytro And this is the core of the issue.
YOU say it's fantasy. YOU don't believe what they KNOW. They KNOW they're going to be eternally damned if they violate the word of god and you're pushing your belief on them becuase you disregard it as "stupid" or whatever you want to classify "fantasy" as. | ||||
| |
|
06-19-2008, 01:25 AM
| #137 | ||||
| Left Wing Hack  Democrat Hastings, NE
| Originally Posted by 7960 Fine by me. They can spend X number of years in jail and be barred from raising/killing anymore kids if they KNOW going to hell is worse than the punishments us mortals will deal out to them for violating the law.
__________________ If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong | ||||
| |
|
06-19-2008, 02:40 AM
| #138 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by 7960 What they believe they know, more to the point, but since as a society we can only ever guess about afterlife (at least with our tech) we have to make rules according to what happens in this life, not the next.
Originally Posted by 7960 There is no way everyone can have what they want and have society exist in any sort of cohesive form. While I do consider it stupid, that isn't why they should have their beliefs ignored. It is because someone unable to protect themselves will be hurt in this life, where there are real, knowable consequences.
They can believe whatever they like, but they cannot do whatever they like, no matter what they "know". | ||||
| |
|
06-19-2008, 03:04 AM
| #139 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by Kytro allowing JW's to refuse blood for their kids is not going to destabilize our society.
| ||||
| |
