Do children have property rights independent of parents?

[CrowEpistemologist]

CrowEpistemologist

 

 

I think the question "do children have property rights..." is meant to be asked in view of philosophic fundamentals not with a view to what any actual STATE or NATION has deemed "legal" (by whatever arbitrary process they have adopted).

 

So...

Upon what basis does one decide, for a person of a certain age, who has come into possession of an item through their own productive work or by valid gift, whether or not it is also that person's "property" in view, specifically, of the "age" of the person?

 

 

Again, the question is asking for the reasons by which you arrive at your answer, not only "because the STATE told me so" or "because its in the constitution", "because its THE LAW" etc..

 

I am curious.

 

Morally, a child's earned possessions should stay under their control unless they commit "crimes" etc. thus forfeiting those rights like any grown-up criminal would.

 

(The OP talked of a baby toy, so there I assumed we weren't talking about earned possessions, but this is an interesting branch regardless).

[Devil's Advocate]

Morally, a child's earned possessions should stay under their control unless they commit "crimes" etc. thus forfeiting those rights like any grown-up criminal would.

 

(The OP talked of a baby toy, so there I assumed we weren't talking about earned possessions, but this is an interesting branch regardless).

 

People should remember that the "property" of a child is always a gift until they are older and can perform productive labor and thus purchase something themselves. As a parent I wouldn't generally (with exceptions) take away something a child bought themselves, and would give them a lot more leeway, but baby toys are not "theirs" in any grown-up sense--i.e. in the sense that they can implement the property in a way that you do not approve.

 

I'm trying to follow the distinction you make between a child receving a gift, and a child buying a pack of gum (earned possession) with their allowance...

 

All gifts to children actually belong to their parents, regardless of the intentions of the person providing the gift, or of the child receiving it... is this correct?

 

All items purchased by children for themselves, by earning allowance for doing chores, etc., belong to them unless they commit 'crimes'... is this correct?

Edited July 31, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Eiuol]

I'm trying to follow the distinction you make between a child receving a gift, and a child buying a pack of gum (earned possession) with their allowance...

 

All gifts to children actually belong to their parents, regardless of the intentions of the person providing the gift, or of the child receiving it... is this correct?

 

All items purchased by children for themselves, by earning allowance for doing chores, etc., belong to them unless they commit 'crimes'... is this correct?

Crow can correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the point is that children in a moral sense have possessions, but not actual property. It's proper to distinguish between gifts and earned possessions in terms of morality. A parent should teach something about what earning means, so it makes sense for parents to let their kids act as if it were full-fledged property. Of course, if a child went and bought a pack of cigarettes, it would be proper I think to take it away and get rid of it.

 

The distinction to remember is a possession (even dogs have possessions) versus property.

[CrowEpistemologist]

I'd say that a lot of the confusion here is based on people confusing the moral with the legal. They are related concepts, and the latter is properly based on the former, but they are not the same thing.

[Nicky]

Crow can correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the point is that children in a moral sense have possessions, but not actual property. It's proper to distinguish between gifts and earned possessions in terms of morality. A parent should teach something about what earning means, so it makes sense for parents to let their kids act as if it were full-fledged property. Of course, if a child went and bought a pack of cigarettes, it would be proper I think to take it away and get rid of it.

 

The distinction to remember is a possession (even dogs have possessions) versus property.

Yes, dogs have possessions, and children have possessions. And adults also have possessions. For instance, if you get a job, the tools of your job are in your possession. You usually have a computer to work on, if you're a cab driver you are in possession of an entire car. Similarly, if a child goes to school, he gets everything he needs to study, from his parents. He also gets a bench nad a locker at school. Etc., etc. All these people/animals possess all these things, but it is not their property.

 

That said, all this is incidental to the thread. The OPs question is about property, not possessions. If a child is GIVEN something as a birthday gift, by someone other than his parents, for instance, that is likely intended as a transfer of property, not possession. If a child works, his pay (be it a few bucks or millions in the case of some children) is also his property, not possession. 

 

It is his property, just like it would be yours or mine. The only difference is that he is not an adult, so, when the property in question is worth millions of dollars, he cannot take possession of that property until he is 18. This state of affairs, if we want to express it in terms of property/possession, is very similar to certain arrangements made between adults: for instance, an employer/employee relationship, or an owners/administrators relationship in a business venture. A property belongs to one person (a child) and is being administered by another (a legal guardian). The owner is temporarily not in possession of his property, but that does not mean the guardian can just treat it as his own property: the guardian is limited in his actions by the nature of his legal role in the arrangement. In the case of an employee or corporate executive, that arrangement is prescribed by contracts and legal frameworks. 

 

In the case of a parent, he must act in the best interest of a child. He is not guided by laws or contracts, of course (which is why you can't automatically answer the OPs question as "No, the parents may not give away that gift"). But, the government does have the right to step in - and the government is guided by laws on when they must step in: when they can objectively prove that a child's interests are being harmed (in the OPs example, the case for an intervention is not strong enough).

 

Finally, to understand the nature of this dynamic between parents and their children's property, it is crucial to first establish that children do indeed have the same rights as adults, including the right to own property.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Devil's Advocate:

Thank you.  I think you're right; inheritance was a flawed way to look at it because, when an adult inherits any given thing, it fully belongs to them without strings or compunctions (unless otherwise specified).

The distribution of rights within a rented home, between the landlord and the tenets, is much more applicable and simply nails the exact thing I was trying to express.  Thank you.

 

Now above my statement, "children are property" has been taken too literally--far more literally than I would have wanted. Obviously I didn't mean that children can be bought and sold like a car

I apologize; I must not have understood you properly.

 

You see, when you said "children are property" I thought you meant "children are property".  I understand now that wasn't your intention.

And by "intention" I mean "linguistic convention".

 

Obviously I didn't mean that children can be bought and sold like a car, etc. I merely meant that parents have full rights over what a child does, where they go, etc. etc. If they run away, they can call the police and have them return their child. Etc.

So "ownership" means something different from "full rights over what it does and where it goes"?  What a "good" "intention".

 

Hmm- Since we're discussing ethics and not just ownership, I wonder if it would be moral for a parent to strip his child of all his clothes, money, & other possessions, kick him out of the house, and send him out into the world with only the hair on his back the moment he turns 18. If children truly can't own anything of their own, I believe the answer would have to be yes. Would you agree?

You are mixing up ownership and possession...

For the love of Galt, stop the conceptual limbo already!

 

Now.  Mdegges asked a perfectly valid and exceptionally pertinent question: if children have no property rights, can one rightfully strip them of all property and leave them to die?

A response such as this. . .

Bad parents actually have the legal right to screw up their children worse than that, and there are countless ways it can happen. Fortunately it doesn't happen very often...

. . . Is an affirmative [yes, he thinks that would be properly-legal] followed by a prompt retreat from the entire realm of morality.

 

Also, understand that "18" is an arbitrary line, and some children can become real "adults" (with full legal rights) as young as 12 in some cases.

 

Oh, and sending a child outside naked is child abuse, and can be punished by prison...

. . . Is a recital of completely irrelevant details, driven by the implicit knowledge that Mdegges' hypothetical would be WRONG but attempting to deny precisely that (and accomplishing nothing whatsoever).

---

 

As Strictly Logical pointed out, we could sit here and recite the American legal code until our children have become adults, and it wouldn't give us any information about the rightfulness of such laws.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The trouble is that a parent is obliged to care for their child's safety and well-being, which material "possessions" are vital towards.  So let's try to isolate our variables.

 

Suppose there is a girl, being raised by her father, whose grandmother dies at some point and bestows a small fortune to him- while demanding that a modest amount of it be set aside for the girl's college fund.  So he does so and several years pass, and eventually he squanders all of the money she left him- suddenly finding himself broke and without income, except for a monthly disability check (which is enough to pay all of the bills, with $50 to $100 remaining for food).

So, at that point, this girl's immediate well-being is assured one way or the other.  The question is this:  Would it be properly-legal for him to empty out her college fund and squander that?

 

I would hope that everyone can agree it to be immoral, but immorality shouldn't necessarily be illegal.  Evasion, for instance, is monstrously immoral- and yet it must remain legal.  So the question, for the sake of clarity, can be rephrased more accurately as:

Do children have property rights, independent of their parents?

 

If not then the girl in this scenario has no right to that money; it belongs to her father and he may spend it however he pleases.

If so then she does and HE DOESN'T.

---

 

There are all sorts of things that parents should not do, many of which they shouldn't even be allowed to do.

 

If you wouldn't give an infant a tattoo then you shouldn't squander its college fund; if so then it has property rights of its own which aren't dependent on you.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Eiuol]

"It follows that it would be legal for a parent to "strip his child of all his clothes, money, & other possessions, kick him out of the house, and send him out into the world with only the hair on his back the moment he turns 18." Doesn't sound right at all."

It doesn't follow. Or at least, you put morality and legality into the same statement. Doesn't sound right to me either, but I can't offer you a legal solution other than too bad. Yeah, some parents are terrible people.

"It is his property, just like it would be yours or mine. The only difference is that he is not an adult, so, when the property in question is worth millions of dollars, he cannot take possession of that property until he is 18."
I don't understand. How can something be property without being a possession? Sounds like a stolen concept to me. The distinction between possession and property is not really incidental because asking about kids in the first place is exactly a borderline case. We can't talk about it like kids have rights in the same sense as adults. Now, it makes sense for a kid to have "their room" or "their TV", but no, basically, I've never heard of this being anything like property that transfers at 18. Being an adult usually is starting from scratch, but hopefully your parents are good people. Possession is a way to distinguish "having" and "the rights to X". The way I see it, you equivocated property rights and possessions. I'm pointing out a distinction that exists so it's easier to talk about this subject.

If you want to get really weird about it, just say that kids "rent". I just think it's a bad term to use. You actually made that distinction, so it seems that your disagreement is kids having *the same* rights as adults. See my cigarette example. If a kid works enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, may the parents legally take them away?

[StrictlyLogical]

I would say the proper objectivist society should adopt the following re. rights as between children and parents in respect of property.

 

1. Parents have no obligation to transfer ownership to the child of any real or personal property.

2. Equally children have no claim to any property of the parents.

3. A child comes to own property like any other individual in a free society, he can receive it as a gift or as a trade from someone who rightfully owns and thus can give or trade the property. 

4. Parents cannot destroy the property, give it away or otherwise divest the child from ownership of it.

5. Given a parent's responsibility (as between the child and parent) to act in the best interests of the child (a separate matter) until the child is a full adult individual, the parent can prevent the child from ACTING in a manner, in connection with the property which is not in the best interests of the child... or perhaps more rationally the best interests of the adult person the child may become.  This means the parent may need to prevent destruction, prevent imprudent sale, prevent gifting... IF the child does not know what he/she is doing and would likely regret doing it etc. i.e.  not in the best interests of child.

6. If to protect the interests of the child the parent must take possession (NOT ownership) of the property, lock it up, or otherwise take control of it, the parent will do so in a manner which protects the value of the property and the rights of the child to that property until such time as the child may regain possession, or until the child becomes a full adult individual at which time the parents shall be obligated to deliver up the property back to their child if so requested by the child.

7.  At all times, until and unless, the child has voluntarily disposed, destroyed, sold, given away etc the property (subject to the parents responsibility to intervene in the child's best interest or in the best interests of the person he/she will become) the property will properly be owned by the child.

8.  If the parents divest the child of ownership, rather than simply dispossess the child of the property, either by destruction, unwanted sale, or gift etc. the child will have, upon becoming a full adult individual the right to restitution from the parents for the unjust theft, destruction etc. of that property by the parents.  The damages shall be at least the value of the property wrongfully destroyed, divested, plus interest, and may include damages connected to the parents unjust benefit from the property (if for example they sold it and kept the money or used it themselves), and possibly damages for any pain and suffering. 

 

Oh yes,  In an objectivist society children should have the right to sue parents for damages once they reach adulthood, based of course on rational standards.

 

so my answer is, morally children HAVE property rights... the mere fact there are parents is an aside and a complicating factor with respect to the way the child can ACT in respect of that property but OWNERSHIP itself, as a right, is unaffected. 

 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

If a kid works enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, may the parents legally take them away?

Only if he doesn't fully grasp what they are.

 

That's the difference between taking a pack of cigarettes away from a small child and taking them away from a 17-year-old (or from a small but exceptionally intelligent child, versus a 17-year-old who has no real grasp of causality).

 

SL:  I thoroughly agree with what you've enumerated and think that just about covers it all. 

Edited August 1, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[StrictlyLogical]

Heh

 

Thanks!

Edited August 1, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[mdegges]

...Oh, and sending a child outside naked is child abuse, and can be punished by prison...

 

The child in question has turned 18 (or gone through the emancipation process, etc) and become an adult- so the concept of child abuse could not apply.

 

Now obviously it would be immoral to send a kid-just-turned-adult out into the world without any money or belongings. But would it be legal? Remember the child has been forcibly removed from his home and all of his possesions have been taken away from him.

 

...Doesn't sound right to me either, but I can't offer you a legal solution other than too bad. Yeah, some parents are terrible people.

 

If children DO have property rights (see Nicky's post for more on this), then this would not be legal- parents would not have full ownership of their children's property. That is the legal solution- the recognition that children do have property rights.

Edited August 1, 2013 by mdegges

[Eiuol]

3. A child comes to own property like any other individual in a free society, he can receive it as a gift or as a trade from someone who rightfully owns and thus can give or trade the

Stop right here. This begs the question. You are saying that children have rights independent from their parents in your argument for that very idea. I really don't understand the idea of having property without possession, either. Nicky mentioned it, and its in your argument too. I'm basing my ideas off of how 1) parents in order to take care of kids properly must have full control of all possessions of their child (which is ownership) and 2) children don't have "full rights", hence the distinction of adult and child.

[StrictlyLogical]

Stop right here. This begs the question. You are saying that children have rights independent from their parents in your argument for that very idea. I really don't understand the idea of having property without possession, either. Nicky mentioned it, and its in your argument too. I'm basing my ideas off of how 1) parents in order to take care of kids properly must have full control of all possessions of their child (which is ownership) and 2) children don't have "full rights", hence the distinction of adult and child.

Have you read my entire post?

 

It's all in there.

 

Your 1) is a bald assertion which is incorrect ... see my post.  Its explains the proper child respecting level of "control" regarding property of the child.

[Devil's Advocate]

If you want to get really weird about it, just say that kids "rent". I just think it's a bad term to use. You actually made that distinction, so it seems that your disagreement is kids having *the same* rights as adults. See my cigarette example. If a kid works enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, may the parents legally take them away?

Not so weird...  In terms of identifying the relationship between parent and child, landlord and tenant is appropriate methinks.  Many, if not all, of the same constraints apply; penalties for damages (grounded),  hours of operation (curfew), and yes, prohibitions against smoking on the premises (confiscation).  A friend once shared with me that his mom actually started collecting rent from him the moment he got his first after school job; her premise being there are no free rides, and income implies an ability to pay for ones cost of living.

 

The parents may morally/legally take child purchased cigarettes away as a matter of asserting their right as property owners, and the moral/legal recourse children have is to abide by the rules of the establishment or find somewhere else to live.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

@ Harrison Danneskjold:  You're welcome, and I'm glad for the oppertunity to help hone your argument, as you have so often done with mine

 

@ Nicky:  Well put, and I agree.

 

@ StrictlyLogical:  I may quibble over some of your points, but I fully agree with your answer.  Yes, children have the same right to property adults have, except children are bound to behave according to the rules of the establishment (as are we all); which gives adults the right (as property owners) to administrate the possession/use of objects owned by their guests.  Garages and attic spaces make wonderful repositories for objects, the possession/operation of which is prohibited by management.

 

@ mdegges:  I agree, and promise not to make a habit of it so that your credibility in this forum remains untarnished

 

I'd say that a lot of the confusion here is based on people confusing the moral with the legal. They are related concepts, and the latter is properly based on the former, but they are not the same thing.

While I agree with you on the relationship between the moral and the legal, I believe the confusion here is inherent in forwarding a premise that the right to life, liberty and property can be diminished according to status, e.g. race, gender, creed or age.  Such a premise makes this foundation of all rights variable and inconsistent, upon which no moral/legal structure can maintain its integrity.

 

I believe the best approach is to justify the transgression of a right to property (done routinely with criminals), rather than to attempt to diminish or dismiss it because your neighbor or child owns/operates something you'd rather not have on your property.  A right to property doesn't provide one immunity from the moral/legal consequences of behaving however one pleases while on anothers property.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Harrison Danneskjold]

"It is his property, just like it would be yours or mine. The only difference is that he is not an adult, so, when the property in question is worth millions of dollars, he cannot take possession of that property until he is 18."

I don't understand. How can something be property without being a possession? Sounds like a stolen concept to me.

Every banker and stock broker in the world would be very interested in that statement.

If an employee of some company has a pension fund set aside, which he cannot access until he retires, does he own it?  If not then we need to round up every single member of the finance industry, to be charged with the largest Ponzi scheme since Catholicism.

 

The distinction between possession and property is not really incidental because asking about kids in the first place is exactly a borderline case.

Agreed.

 

I'm basing my ideas off of how 1) parents in order to take care of kids properly must have full control of all possessions of their child (which is ownership) and 2) children don't have "full rights", hence the distinction of adult and child.

I agree that "full control of X" is ownership of X; that's the identity of property rights.

And your premises, both 1 and 2, would apply with full accuracy to a newborn infant.

But I most emphatically reject that 1 applies to a child, at all.  Not any child whom is capable of conceptualization and deliberate action (which an infant is not).

 

A parent simply has no right to make any decision that their child is capable of rationally considering, in its full context. 

 

So I can confiscate any cigarettes my son might find (because he can't even use full sentences, yet) but I cannot dictate which toys he plays with, when and how (as one must do for an infant, when playing with one).

And when he demonstrates the ability to rationally consider the full consequences of cigarette smoking then he will in fact have the right to smoke them, whether he does so at twelve or twenty-seven.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

You are mixing up ownership and possession...

 

"For the love of Galt, stop the conceptual limbo already!"

 

Crow: I'd like to apologize for this assertion, specifically; I wasn't aware of the distinction at the time.

 

A parent simply has no right to make any decision that their child is capable of rationally considering, in its full context. 

 

So I can confiscate any cigarettes my son might find (because he can't even use full sentences, yet) but I cannot dictate which toys he plays with, when and how (as one must do for an infant, when playing with one).

And when he demonstrates the ability to rationally consider the full consequences of cigarette smoking then he will in fact have the right to smoke them, whether he does so at twelve or twenty-seven.

To clarify this:

 

My fundamental understanding of 'rights' is based on decisions.  That's what I mean when I say that someone has the right to X; it's properly their decision to make and nobody else can interfere with it.

So the right to life is the right to CHOOSE life (or not) but only for yourself.  Property rights are the rights to decide how to dispose of your own property- or not (but disposal in some form, to some extent, is necessary for ownership; you do not own pennies that you drop and forget on the sidewalk).

Now, we all know that adults have certain inalienable rights (choices) which nobody else may make for them.  When I say that a parent "has no right to make any decision which their child is capable of making" I only meant it of those decisions which would properly be an adult's right, such as when the child goes to bed or what they eat; not whether the nextdoor neighbor should have an abortion or not, etc.

 

Now, there are many decisions which a parent DOES have the right to make for their children, which fall into one of two categories:

1.  Anything involving the parent's property or person, by virtue of which is the parent's right to decide already.

     I think Devil's Advocate best summarized this as "my house, my rules" and it would cover everything from jumping on the bed to smoking in the household- but not beyond!  Your individual rights do not extend beyond yourself and your things.

2.  Anything which the child is incapable of deciding rationally.

     This second category would be based on a parent's obligation to care for their children, which includes making decisions which they are unqualified to make yet.  And when I speak of "rationally deciding" or "considering in full context" the capacity I'm referring to is usually called "wisdom" or "maturity".

So of the second category, a parent has the right to make any decision which their child is incapable of making- due to the fact that children are naïve.  This right ceases to exist when the cause of it (the blank slate) ceases to exist.

 

As for determining what a child is qualified to decide for themselves, that would be a bit trickier because the soundness of any decision can only be fully evaluated in retrospect.  But it can be determined by inferring from other comparable decisions the child HAS already made.

 

So, for instance:

When my son is a teenager, if he wants to go to a party with underage drinking, I'll base that decision on whether or not (by my best educated-guess) he's ready to handle such a situation.

So if he's cutting classes, failing school and getting into trouble for fights or graffiti, then I would forbid it- because he would have demonstrated himself unable to project the consequences of those actions and thusly make rational decisions.

But if he's getting good grades, looking into prospective jobs and preparing himself for the real world, then I would supply him with the alcohol myself- because he would have demonstrated the requisite responsibility.

 

With respect to property rights, I think these principles should be implemented exactly the way Strictly Logical described by a simple extension of the reasoning above.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[CrowEpistemologist]

While I agree with you on the relationship between the moral and the legal, I believe the confusion here is inherent in forwarding a premise that the right to life, liberty and property can be diminished according to status, e.g. race, gender, creed or age.  Such a premise makes this foundation of all rights variable and inconsistent, upon which no moral/legal structure can maintain its integrity.

 

I believe the best approach is to justify the transgression of a right to property (done routinely with criminals), rather than to attempt to diminish or dismiss it because your neighbor or child owns/operates something you'd rather not have on your property.  A right to property doesn't provide one immunity from the moral/legal consequences of behaving however one pleases while on anothers property.

 

It's just not accurate to describe what children have as "property rights". If your 14 year old is rude to his grandmother at dinner, and you take away his bicycle as punishment, there's no part of a direct definition or even an analogy that equates this to him being a "criminal" whose rights are being removed by due process.

 

The rights of children are a middle ground. There's nothing subjective or inaccurate to a "middle ground", only there is more complexity in understanding it. It's like a shade of grey that turns into distinct black and white dots upon careful, perhaps painstaking focus.

[Devil's Advocate]

Hmm...  To say the rights of children are middle ground implies a hierarchy of rights, and I don't agree that a parent's right to property is any greater than a child's right to property in terms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  A landlord/parent legitimately has administration of possession as a consequence of their right to property, but that doesn't mean tenant/children surrender ownership of their personal effects simply because they reside with the landlord/parent and obey the rules of the house.

 

The terms criminal and due process are appropriate for describing and justifying the actions of a parent taking possession of a child's bicycle as punishment; presuming the child knowingly disobeyed a parent's rule, i.e. acted criminally, the parent is justified to take possession as a matter of establishing guilt and punishment, i.e. due process.  The issue of actual ownership is tangential to who currently possesses the bicycle because the exchange occurs under the legitimate administration of the parent's property.  The child certainly retains the moral right to challenge the parent's ruling; mine did

 

I guess the only thing I'm questioning here is, if a parent's rules are as legitimate as a landlord's according to their right to property, to establish guest rules, and to punish those who transgress, why is it necessary to further diminish a child's right to property?

[CrowEpistemologist]

The terms criminal and due process are appropriate for describing and justifying the actions of a parent taking possession of a child's bicycle as punishment; presuming the child knowingly disobeyed a parent's rule, i.e. acted criminally, the parent is justified to take possession as a matter of establishing guilt and punishment, i.e. due process. 

 

Maybe there's something in the way that kids are administered that reminds you of the law, due process, crime, etc. but it's not the same thing. Somebody once told me my car looks like a shoe. It's not a shoe though, it's a car.

[Devil's Advocate]

Maybe there's something in the way that kids are administered that reminds you of the law, due process, crime, etc. but it's not the same thing. Somebody once told me my car looks like a shoe. It's not a shoe though, it's a car.

 

Parents administer their children in a social context, which includes the administration of parents according to law, due process, crime, etc;  parents certainly don't maintain the administration of their children without regard to law, due process, crime, etc.  Perhaps you're arguing the legal vs the moral, however in terms of a right to property, the administration of children occurs within the moral context of being equally righted members of society.

 

Is a parent's right to property absolute?  If not, then the presumption remains that parent and child are moral peers with regards to a right to property.

[Devil's Advocate]

A more interesting question is, "If your 14 year old is rude to his grandmother at dinner, and you take away his bicycle as punishment," but the grandmother gave the bicycle and sanctions the rudeness, what moral principle justifies the punishment?

 

What I'm getting at is, punishment is measured as restitution or compensation for injury.  What injury has the parent suffered to justify claiming ownership of an object given by another who denies being injured?

 

Suppose your dependent mother is rude to your 14 year old?  Would you be equally justified to take away her car keys as punishment??  If not, why???

Edited August 4, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[CrowEpistemologist]

Suppose your dependent mother is rude to your 14 year old?  Would you be equally justified to take away her car keys as punishment??  If not, why???

 

No. She's an adult. Adults have full rights as citizens. Children do not.

 

I'm seriously not understanding why this is so complicated...

[Devil's Advocate]

No. She's an adult. Adults have full rights as citizens. Children do not.

 

I'm seriously not understanding why this is so complicated...

If by "full rights as citizens" you mean everything from a right to life to a right to drink. drive and vote, then you are essentially deriving the moral from the legal, i.e. state regulation.  You stated earlier...

 

I'd say that a lot of the confusion here is based on people confusing the moral with the legal. They are related concepts, and the latter is properly based on the former, but they are not the same thing.

So if "the latter is properly based on the former", there must be a moral concept for an age of maturity which the legal is properly based on, correct?  Can you present it??  What I'm looking for is a persuasive moral argument that delimits X year olds without a right to property, from X+1 year olds with a right to property.

 

Also, if grandma (as a fully righted adult) gives the bike to junior and allows rudeness, what moral concept gives dad (as a fully righted adult) the automony to claim ownership of the bike against her wishes?

Edited August 5, 2013 by Devil's Advocate