1
2

Has nature homesteaded the earth? (self.Anarcho_Capitalism)

capitalistchemistIt's better to be a planner than to be planned が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]BumgardnerAncap is a theory of communication 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

The same thing is true for children or a comatose person. I own the body of these people, because I am performing all the labor that keeps them alive. If the baby, comatose person or the cow doesn't wish to accept my labor inputs into their body, then they should refuse them (and likely die).

Does that mean it's ethical to eat your children?

[–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

Please follow the rules of reddit and avoid voting or comment in linked threads. (Info | Contact)

[–]capitalistchemistIt's better to be a planner than to be planned[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So long as you compensate it later.

[–]aletoledovoluntaryist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Does that mean it's ethical to eat your children?

Well there are social taboos against cannibalism, but if we're ignoring those, then I don't see why it's any different. Maybe to eliminate the implausibility of this scenario (human baby has very little meat), we should consider growing a child for organ transplant. So the question is whether it's immoral to grow a baby with the intent that it will donate it's organs.

According to this article the courts have held that children donors receive compensation in the form of physiological benefit. if we apply this same standard, then why couldn't I shower a child with love and affection, going beyond what the average child receives for a period of time, then harvest all of the childs organs, thus killing them. I have paid the child for this, so it's win-win. They received a superior life and i received fresh organs compatible to my DNA.

If a child can not sell their body, then this leads to women not being allowed to sell their body either (i.e. prostitutes). For that matter, does this mean that no person can ever donate their organs which would result in their death?

the issue to me seems to come back to just compensation. I have a lot of labor invested in my body, so if you expect to enslave me or kill me, then I kinda doubt that you have that kinda wealth to compensate me with. As a parent though, I'm providing the bulk of inputs into a child from the beginning.

[–]BumgardnerAncap is a theory of communication 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Ok, so, exactly how much do you need to improve your child's life in order for it to be ethical to murder and eat them? A child who grows up even in a low income house in the U.S. has a much better life than one who grew up in a relatively impoverished country. If you elevated impoverished child's life to a level that we would consider relative poverty in the U.S. would it then be ethical to eat them? Or is it only OK to murder and eat someone if you make them happy in relation to the rest of society that they are in?

What if having a child makes you more happy than you ever could have been? Is it then ethical for the child to kill and eat you?

[–]aletoledovoluntaryist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Ok, so, exactly how much do you need to improve your child's life in order for it to be ethical to murder and eat them?

I can't answer this in a practical sense, just like I can't answer this as to how much I owe a cow before I eat it as well. So I'm really just talking in a theoretical sense, that once I have repayed the debt to the baby or the cow, then I can proceed to have lunch.

A child who grows up even in a low income house in the U.S. has a much better life than one who grew up in a relatively impoverished country. If you elevated impoverished child's life to a level that we would consider relative poverty in the U.S. would it then be ethical to eat them

Basing labor on societal wealth doesn't seem appropriate to me. it's the labor inputs we're dealing with. A poor child in a 3rd world country might have input the same level of labor into building the muscles of their body as a child in a 1st world country.

Labor is not measured in US fiat currency or material wealth. A snail expends labor as it grows it shell. A child grows it's fingernails at a rate greater than a snails shell. How can we possibly measure the value of labor that goes into a snails shell, let alone the anything more complex (e.g. bones and arteries of a child)?

What if having a child makes you more happy than you ever could have been? Is it then ethical for the child to kill and eat you?

It's not about mutual happiness, but homesteading on the body. If all I do is lay in bed while my child brings me doughnuts to eat, then at some point he will own my body. Without that child, then I would die, so how couldn't he be my owner. He's the one walking around and moving his muscles, not me.

[–]BumgardnerAncap is a theory of communication 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

What do you mean you can't answer it in a practical sense? How do you know when it's OK to murder and eat your child? Or do you just unilaterally decide that you've done enough.

[–]aletoledovoluntaryist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is the same question as to when a child becomes an adult, how much force I'm allow to defend myself with and host of other ancap issues.

IMO the practical application should be explored by many different communities. My initial views might change over time to favor a different approach based on what the evidence shows. The goal is happiness, so if I see some other community that develops a better practical implementation of the LTOP, then I will adopt that. maybe the whole concept of LTOP will be debunked.

[–]BumgardnerAncap is a theory of communication 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So you think that a consequantial approach to ethics is best?

[–]aletoledovoluntaryist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interesting way to pose that. Yes, I am suggesting that we aim for a pre-determined goal/consequence (fair allocation of property for labor inputs), but I'm not suggesting we take shortcuts to achieve this goal.

Where are you seeing a flaw in my logic?