Are young children property?

[TLD]

'phibetakappa' 

This is a bromide, it is not an argument.  "naturally" have the right to raise their children.  As I stated in a collectivist state parents would not have the right to raise their children.  More parents every year in America are being told by various forms of government how they can and can not raise their children.[/code]


Careful. Rights are inalienable; being able to exercise them is a different issue.

[phibetakappa]

'phibetakappa' 

This is a bromide, it is not an argument.  "naturally" have the right to raise their children.  As I stated in a collectivist state parents would not have the right to raise their children.  More parents every year in America are being told by various forms of government how they can and can not raise their children.[/code]


Careful. Rights are inalienable; being able to exercise them is a different issue.

(Note: I edited the above post, so this quote is incorrect.)


Yes, they are inalienable but that does not mean rights can be violated by the state, i.e., taken away via force.


There is no "right" to raise children.


There is a "right' to raise [b]YOUR[/b] children, i.e., the children that [b]BELONG[/b] to you, i.e, your [b]OWN[/b], children, the children you [b]OWN[/b].


(Highlighting all the words which indicate ownership)


There is a right to property; and children are produced, gained and/or kept like any other value.


This just reminded me of another aspect that children have in common to any other form of property, they can be stolen, i.e., kidnapped.  Who are they returned to when found?  The parents, the legal owners of the children.


They remain such until the relationship changes based on the maturity of the child into an adult; and the parent and child form a new relationship, one that is more appropriate for two adults.

[masked]

The part you quoted is about life being "self-sustaining" and 'self-generated" is about life in general: plant, animal, including human.

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life.

The Ayn Rand Column, 83

A child exists ONLY because some one produced it and permits it to use their product/service. Since the right to life is the source of all rights, a child who is not self-sustaining has no rights.

[softwareNerd]

A child exists ONLY because some one produced it and permits it to use their product/service. Since the right to life is the source of all rights, a child who is not self-sustaining has no rights.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Are you claiming that Objectivism does not see children as having a right to life? If so, you're mistaken; it does.

Or are you claiming that children ought not to have a right to life, even though Rand said they do?

Edited February 4, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Jake_Ellison]

There is a "right' to raise YOUR children, i.e., the children that BELONG to you, i.e, your OWN, children, the children you OWN.

Good one. I guess David's lesson in grammar a few posts back went right over your head.

Oh well, since David is MY fellow earthling, i.e. he BELONGS to me, i.e. I OWN him, I guess I'll just direct him to elaborate on that, until you get it.

'Cause that's solid reasoning, anyone who doesn't approve is a moron. Either that, or it's the stupidest argument I've seen on this forum to date.

The fact of the matter parents do direct their children's lives. That is what to dispose of means.

Do all your arguments rely on missing the meanings of common words by miles? Dispose doesn't even come close to meaning " to direct someone's life".

The fact of the matter is that children are not men.

Of course they're not. Children are birds, the word "my" implies ownership, "to dispose of" has to do with directing children's lives, and your mastery of the English language is excellent.

You are being obtuse.

Yeah well, I'm also 'being' less than convinced that you even know what that means.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

I don't follow your argument.

I don't either. That was clearly a typing error or an unfinished thought. Sorry about that.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

I disagree.

You disagree that children, by nature, will grow up to be comprehensive and volitional?

[softwareNerd]

PhiBetaKappa, If I understand you correctly, you're not saying that kids are property, but that the relationship between a parent and a child has many aspects similar to one's relationship with property. E.g. while a man may kill his pet, he may not kill his child; yet, he is within his rights to do various things (e.g. teach the child religion) which are irrational and in such cases, the government may not step in and say that the best interest of the child lies in being an atheist. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

Edited February 5, 2010 by softwareNerd

[JMeganSnow]

When discussing whether children are property, it is necessary to determine whether they fulfill ALL the requirements of property, not just SOME of them. Yes, parents and/or guardians MUST make SOME decisions on behalf of children, but there are some decisions they cannot properly make (they cannot decide, say, that the child would look better without a left arm and peremptorily cut it off--but they COULD do this with a statue). The reason why they cannot make these decisions is because children properly have rights, even if they are not capable of exercising those rights on their own behalf until a later stage of development.

An item that truly is property has no rights--not even the right of self-preservation should the owner of that property decide to dispose of it, dispose as in "get rid of" or "destroy" as opposed to "arrange" which is an alternate meaning according to Merriam-Webster. "Ownership" of children is not like ownership of property--it is contingent upon the "owner" of those children taking responsibility for the child's care, well-being, and development.

The fact that parents/guardians are entitled to choose the methods by which they provide for that care, well-being, and development is a result of the fact that because children will grow up to become volitional creatures capable of making changes to their own lives to make up many "deficiencies" that may have been fobbed off on them by their parents. Instructing a child in religion does not turn that child into a religious automaton incapable of exercising judgment, while chaining that same child up like a dog will have effects that no amount of later action on that child's part may resolve. There may be some limits on defining exactly what may and may not cause permanent irreparable harm and is thus not properly open to the parent/guardian's choice, but from what I personally have seen if a child has plenty of food, shelter, warm clothing, and even fairly limited liberty to explore and learn, that child will be functional enough.

So, in short, no, children are not property even though they share SOME characteristics with property, just as chimpanzees are not humans even though we share many characteristics with chimpanzees.

[Hotu Matua]

Instructing a child in religion does not turn that child into a religious automaton incapable of exercising judgment, while chaining that same child up like a dog will have effects that no amount of later action on that child's part may resolve. There may be some limits on defining exactly what may and may not cause permanent irreparable harm and is thus not properly open to the parent/guardian's choice, but from what I personally have seen if a child has plenty of food, shelter, warm clothing, and even fairly limited liberty to explore and learn, that child will be functional enough.

This is a very interesting subject for a thread, Megan: Psychological violence in children.

In one previous question I made about whether psychological coerction exists, I was persuaded by our fellows that it does not.... in adults.

But surely in small children the situation is different. Their mind is under development, their understanding of reality limited, and there is no escape from home.

Parents can harm a small child's mind, which will be their tool for survival. So parents can really harm their children's ability to survive and flourish qua man.

Of course many children are very resilient and can recover from strong psychological damage, but the same could be said about recovery from physical injuries. The State can intervene when a child is being put under starvation, or when the parents burn the kid's skin with a lit cigarrette, even when the child will recover from this physical damage. But then, what about persistent verbal violence? Should the State intervene? And then, what would be the threshold, the borderline that would keep the State away from parent's right to educate their children?

[masked]

When discussing whether children are property, it is necessary to determine whether they fulfill ALL the requirements of property, not just SOME of them. Yes, parents and/or guardians MUST make SOME decisions on behalf of children, but there are some decisions they cannot properly make (they cannot decide, say, that the child would look better without a left arm and peremptorily cut it off--but they COULD do this with a statue). The reason why they cannot make these decisions is because children properly have rights, even if they are not capable of exercising those rights on their own behalf until a later stage of development.

I agree that in order to qualify something as property, it must have all of the characteristics of property. The list of characteristics that defines something as property is subjective. As such, it would be impossible for me (or anyone) to list every possible characteristic.

The logical approach is for me to make a statement that young children are property because they have all of the characteristics of property and for you (or anyone) to refute that statement using examples.

The example that you provide shows how children do not have characteristics of non-living property and since children are in fact alive, your example is not valid.

Edited February 10, 2010 by masked

[RationalBiker]

The list of characteristics that defines something as property is subjective.

For political purposes, it is defined legally and does not include humans, at least in the US.

[DavidOdden]

The list of characteristics that defines something as property is subjective. As such, it would be impossible for me (or anyone) to list every possible characteristic.

The logical approach is for me to make a statement that young children are property because they have all of the characteristics of property and for you (or anyone) to refute that statement using examples.

That would not be logical, under your assumptions. It would never be sufficient for you to state an arbitrary conclusion -- you must, logically, state an argument that leads to that conclusion. Once you've presented an argument, we can attempt to refute the argument, but until you give an argument, you haven't done anything, and there's nothing to refute.

However, you've thwarted yourself in advance, if you stipulate that it is impossible to define property, then according to you, there isn't even a meaningful proposition that could be made. I suggest that you rethink the claim that "property" is undefinable.

[masked]

For political purposes, it is defined legally

Property is legally defined as anything that is owned by a person or entity.

and does not include humans, at least in the US.

You are assuming that a young child has the same rights as an adult human being.

[masked]

I suggest that you rethink the claim that "property" is undefinable.

I never claimed that "property" is undefinable. I said that there is no way to know how each person in the world characterizes property and thus I can never show that young children have ALL characteristics of property.

All I can say is that children are treated as property and thus they are property, but I can not give you a list of all the possible ways to treat property...

Edited February 10, 2010 by masked

[JMeganSnow]

I never claimed that "property" is undefinable. I said that there is no way to know how each person in the world characterizes property and thus I can never show that young children have ALL characteristics of property.

This is tantamount to saying that objectivity is impossible--which means that Objectivism, the PHILOSOPHY OF OBJECTIVITY, doesn't exist. So why the heck are you here?

It is quite possible to formulate a demonstrably objective definition of property, just as it is possible to formulate demonstrably objective definition of ANY proper concept. This isn't the proper thread to create an exhaustive definition, but one of the absolute requirements for anything to qualify as property is that it must not have any individual rights of its own.

Children have individual rights, ergo, they cannot be property. QED.

[masked]

Children have individual rights, ergo, they cannot be property. QED.

Why do you assume that children have rights?

Legally, children are unable to enter into a social contract and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of rights.

Philosophically I am going to have to quote Ayn Rand:

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life.

The Ayn Rand Column, 83

A child exists ONLY because some one produced it and permits it to use their product/service. Since the right to life is the source of all rights, a child who is not self-sustaining has no rights.

[softwareNerd]

A child exists ONLY because some one produced it and permits it to use their product/service.

This is simply an assertion, without any reason or proof. All you provide is a Rand quote. However, that is not an argument. What has the fact that someone else produced it or that it requires assistance have to do with rights?

Since the right to life is the source of all rights, a child who is not self-sustaining has no rights.

I don't follow the logic of this. Where does the right to life come from? What is this notion of being "self-sustaining": what does it mean and why is is relevant to the issue of rights? Edited February 10, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Jake_Ellison]

A child exists ONLY because some one produced it and permits it to use their product/service. Since the right to life is the source of all rights, a child who is not self-sustaining has no rights.

Consider yourself forewarned that children's rights are protected by law, and that you will face severe consequences if you violate them. In most states, you will rightfully face the death penalty for the most severe offence (deliberately taking a child's life, be it your offspring or anyone else's). If that doesn't drive home the point that children have rights, it's safe to assume nothing will.

[masked]

This is simply an assertion, without any reason or proof.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Are you proposing that I need to provide proof to show you that a newborn can not survive with out assistance?

I don't follow the logic of this. Where does the right to life come from? What is this notion of being "self-sustaining": what does it mean and why is is relevant to the issue of rights?

First of all, I am not an expert on rights so if anyone can see flaws in my logic please let me know. I am here specifically to see other viewpoints (aka get information on Objectivism), which I think is a valid use of this forum JMeganSnow. I don't believe that I am breaking rules or forcing anyone to respond.

My understanding is that a right is simply a freedom of action. A right to live means that no one can stop you from living. It does not mean that anyone has to help you live. Living is the process of self-sustaining. The right to life therefore means the right to engage in self-sustaining action. A young child can not sustain itself and is alive only because of some one else. The parents are not slaves to the child and therefore have the right to refuse supporting it. Since the child can not support itself, the refusal of the support by the parents would mean that they (indirectly) have the right to stop the child from living. If some one has the right to stop you from living, it means that you do not have the right to live. If an entity does not have the right to life, it logically can not have ANY other rights. I hope that this makes sense.

BTW, I think that I am arguing 2 different ideas of rights. One is a philosophical and one is legal. The above statement was my view on rights philosophically.

If that doesn't drive home the point that children have rights, it's safe to assume nothing will.

Legally, a baby has no rights. They can not own property, they can not vote, they can not access the courts, they do not have the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly or petition. They have protections, but not rights. Your pet also has protection and killing it can also send you to jail. In fact, there is a very recent case of a girl baking a cat and getting jail time for it.

I am not a lawyer, but I think that you are mistaking what legal rights are. Maybe some one (a lawyer) can confirm/deny my claim?

[softwareNerd]

Okay, let's start from one place where I agree: "A right to live means that no one can stop you from living."

Morally and legally I may not strangle my baby (crazy scenarios excepted). Therefore, my baby has at least one specific right: i.e. the right not to be strangled.

Edited February 10, 2010 by softwareNerd

[masked]

Okay, let's start from one place where I agree: "A right to live means that no one can stop you from living."

Morally and legally I may not strangle my baby (crazy scenarios excepted). Therefore, my baby has at least one specific right: i.e. the right not to be strangled.

This is a great place to start!

So, the first assumption that you are making is that the reason that morally you should not strangle the baby is because it has a right. The second assumption that you are making is that it is not legal to strangle your baby because it has a right.

The reason that I say that you are making an assumption is not because I am trying to offend you, but because you offer no proof.

I think that morally it is wrong to strangle your baby because of your love for it, which is the love for you property. If the baby is somehow a leach (perhaps a 30 year old "baby" who is forcing you to work and feed it) than I would argue that you have the moral right to strangle it (joking). This is also an assumption, but I am just trying to demonstrate that your way of looking at it is not infallible and that my way of looking at it would fit just as well.

Legally, I think that the child has protections, not rights. I could be wrong about this, but I would only trust an actual lawyer to be an expert on this subject.

[DavidOdden]

The reason that I say that you are making an assumption is not because I am trying to offend you, but because you offer no proof.

This being an Objectivist forum, it is not necessary to re-prove every point already (publically) proven by Rand and other Objectivists. It is thus legitimate, given the nature of this forum, to assume e.g. the essay "Man's Rights". Whether or not you agree with it, you must at least understand it. It's clear that you don't properly grasp the concept "rights". So I suggest that you first read the essays in Virtue of Selfishness. That will help you to correct your errors, I think.

[ed]

Also there are numerous errors in yuor legal assumptions. A baby has full legal rights of any human save for a small class of actions that are age-limited. They can own property, they can access the courts, they have the basic 1st amendment rights.

Edited February 10, 2010 by DavidOdden

[Jake_Ellison]

They can not own property

Miley_cyrus_the_richest_teen_in_the_world

they can not access the courts

http://www.warrickcasa.us/history.htm

they do not have the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly or petition.

The First Amendment doesn't mention any exceptions allowing Congress to restrict children's freedom to do any of those things, if that's what you're getting at:

They have protections, but not rights. Your pet also has protection and killing it can also send you to jail. In fact, there is a very recent case of a girl baking a cat and getting jail time for it.

Legal protections are the means of objectively protecting rights. Animals should not have legal protections, those protections exist solely as a result of most modern Americans misunderstanding the concept of rights. But that's an aside, there is no logical link between children's rights and baked cats. Here's a picture anyway:

Edited February 10, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[TLD]

DavidOdden

This being an Objectivist forum, it is not necessary to re-prove every point already (publically) proven by Rand and other Objectivists. It is thus legitimate, given the nature of this forum, to assume e.g. the essay "Man's Rights". Whether or not you agree with it, you must at least understand it. It's clear that you don't properly grasp the concept "rights". So I suggest that you first read the essays in [i]Virtue of Selfishness[/i]. That will help you to correct your errors, I think.[/code]


I have to second that. He shows a very low level understanding of Obj. concepts which has really dragged this discussion out and down. There is a line to draw between helping someone understand Obj. and that person taking some responsibility on this forum to study.