Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Do children have property rights independent of parents?

Rate this topic


 thenelli01
 Share

Recommended Posts

 I'm not sure what the argument is against? My position and Crow's seems to be that sure, you can make analogies with rent/agreements/etc, but that doesn't mean children do have rights in the full sense of the term.

I had to look back a bit to see what sense of the term you and CrowEpistemologist are defending...

 

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.

If a right to property depends on autonomy of implementation, then there'd be no proper owners since everyone must avoid the kind of implementation that harms others, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to look back a bit to see what sense of the term you and CrowEpistemologist are defending...

 

If a right to property depends on autonomy of implementation, then there'd be no proper owners since everyone must avoid the kind of implementation that harms others, correct?

 

 

You lost me there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question doesn't help anything. Rights don't derive from self-ownership (I don't even think self-ownership makes sense as a concept).The idea is that children don't have anything to be stolen by their parents. So taking away your kid's bike, cigarettes, XBox, gardening tools, books, computer, etc isn't theft even if the kid acquired it via income from a job. A parent does have moral authority over their child, provided that a parent is not abusive or otherwise inflicting permanent *damage* on the child. It's really that simple. As much as it'd be convenient to say children have rights and just have an implicit agreement to do what their parents want if the child wants to stay in the parent's house, that's not how rights work anyway. I'm not sure what the argument is against? My position and Crow's seems to be that sure, you can make analogies with rent/agreements/etc, but that doesn't mean children do have rights in the full sense of the term.

 

What do you mean by moral authority?  Is this a moral "right" of the parents to ownership of gifts given to their children or "income from a job" their kid had earned?

 

On what Objectivist principle does a parent have moral "right" to such ownership?  Does it derive from the nature of Man "as parent" to actually own (rather than act as steward for) their children's earnings??  Is this actual ownership a blank check (it must be if it is actual ownership by the parents) for the parent to do anything whatever with those earnings?

 

 

Child actors, celebrities or musicians who have had millions of dollars bilked and stolen from them by their parents (examples of which abound) are not victims of any crime?

This in the name of some moral authority??

 

I would need a solid rationale to identify such ugly vice as proper and moral. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he means that unfettered autonomy to do anything and everything with property does not exist for anyone including adults as it is already morally limited by avoidance of harm to others.

 

Okay, that doesn't really clarify anything. Thanks for trying though :-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he means that unfettered autonomy to do anything and everything with property does not exist for anyone including adults as it is already morally limited by avoidance of harm to others.

Yes, thank you.  I took the prior statement by CrowEpistemologist and defended by Eiuol, to mean that proof of ownership relies on being able to do whatever one wants to with their property;  that children cannot without the approval of their parent, and therefore children cannot be proper owners of property.  If this is in fact what they are defending, it falls short in that the administration of parents over children isn't substantially different than the administration of government over parents.  No one gets to do whatever they want to with their property; one obvious limitation being when the implementation of property endangers others.

 

If this isn't what CrowEpistemologist and Eiuol meant by, "but that doesn't mean children do have rights in the full sense of the term", perhaps they can offer a clearer defense of property ownership in the full sense of the term they are using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thank you.  I took the prior statement by CrowEpistemologist and defended by Eiuol, to mean that proof of ownership relies on being able to do whatever one wants to with their property;  that children cannot without the approval of their parent, and therefore children cannot be proper owners of property.  If this is in fact what they are defending, it falls short in that the administration of parents over children isn't substantially different than the administration of government over parents.  No one gets to do whatever they want to with their property; one obvious limitation being when the implementation of property endangers others.

 

If this isn't what CrowEpistemologist and Eiuol meant by, "but that doesn't mean children do have rights in the full sense of the term", perhaps they can offer a clearer defense of property ownership in the full sense of the term they are using.

 

I'd like to know their answers to your and my questions, not in terms of what they FEEL as parents in the legal framework of a modern STATIST society but what they THINK morally...as Objectivists (if the term applies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thank you.  I took the prior statement by CrowEpistemologist and defended by Eiuol, to mean that proof of ownership relies on being able to do whatever one wants to with their property;  that children cannot without the approval of their parent, and therefore children cannot be proper owners of property.  If this is in fact what they are defending, it falls short in that the administration of parents over children isn't substantially different than the administration of government over parents.  No one gets to do whatever they want to with their property; one obvious limitation being when the implementation of property endangers others.

 

If this isn't what CrowEpistemologist and Eiuol meant by, "but that doesn't mean children do have rights in the full sense of the term", perhaps they can offer a clearer defense of property ownership in the full sense of the term they are using.

 

You are just being pedantic. Obviously in the context in which I was speaking, I meant the ability to dispose of one's property in the usual ways, such as to enjoy your toy in your bedroom or drive your car across town (on the roads, following laws). If you are just going to pick apart my speech like that I'm going to assume you aren't interested in a rational conversation...

Edited by CrowEpistemologist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are just being pedantic. Obviously in the context in which I was speaking, I meant the ability to dispose of one's property in the usual ways, such as to enjoy your toy in your bedroom or drive your car across town (on the roads, following laws). If you are just going to pick apart my speech like that I'm going to assume you aren't interested in a rational conversation...

I'm interested in a rational justification for how a parent can morally claim ownership of property either given to a child, purchased by the child's allowance, or earned independently from the parent.  My position is that there isn't a moral justification to the property of children regardless of ones status as a parent or guardian.  If there is, please spell it out or point to the post that clarifies this position. 

 

I actually think this has been discussed elsewhere on this board, so I won't go into it, but for instance there is a specific legal "line" but not a moral one--but the legal "line" shifts as well (a child can emancipate at an earlier age).

I'm taking you at your word that there isn't a moral justification for age as means of claiming ownership of anothers property.  Both you and Eiuol seem to be defending the presumption given to parents that they ought to be allowed to raise their children as they see fit, but this doesn't actually establish a moral claim to their childrens property... does it?

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested in a rational justification for how a parent can morally claim ownership of property either given to a child, purchased by the child's allowance, or earned independently from the parent.  My position is that there isn't a moral justification to the property of children regardless of ones status as a parent or guardian.  If there is, please spell it out or point to the post that clarifies this position.

 

Actually, you have it backwards. Children (as I've defined the term above) have reduced rights, some of which are held by their parents. My justification lies in the origin of the Rights of Man, which are based on the nature of Man, in which we isolate essential attributes within this context. Children generally don't have the attributes of independence (speaking here in brief) required for them to have rights, and as such they don't have the same rights as an Adult (as I've defined the term above), and those rights are held in trust by the parents, who, remember, are the ones who made the child (as in they don't come from God, or a Stork, etc.).

 

Or to put it another way, all you have to do is actually understand the basis of the Rights of Man to understand why (and how) children don't have them all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or to put it another way, all you have to do is actually understand the basis of the Rights of Man to understand why (and how) children don't have them all...

The basis of the Rights of Man that I understand are that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property) are inalienable individual rights acquired at birth, thus inclusive of children.  Locke suggested these particular rights are rights of self-preservation, and most consider them to be essential to survival.  In my reading of Objectivism, and listening to audio tapes by Ayn Rand, I've yet to discover a source that asserts "children don't have them all".  What I do find (listed below) is consistent with my understanding on this issue...

--

"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." ~ Property Rights, ARL

 

"Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another." ~ Individual Rights, ARL

 

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." ~ Individual Rights, ARL

--

What are these "reduced rights" of which you speak; I know not??

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you have it backwards. Children (as I've defined the term above) have reduced rights, some of which are held by their parents. My justification lies in the origin of the Rights of Man, which are based on the nature of Man, in which we isolate essential attributes within this context. Children generally don't have the attributes of independence (speaking here in brief) required for them to have rights, and as such they don't have the same rights as an Adult (as I've defined the term above), and those rights are held in trust by the parents, who, remember, are the ones who made the child (as in they don't come from God, or a Stork, etc.).

The following isn't intended to derive the moral from the legal, but only to indicate the current legal concept of trust...

--

"A trustee takes legal title to the trust res, which means that the trustee's interest in the property appears to be one of complete ownership and possession, but the trustee does not have the right to receive any benefits from the property. The right to benefit from the property, known as equitable title, belongs to the beneficiary."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trust

--

So you can see from our current understanding of the moral and the legal ownership of property, parents administrate but do not own their childrens property either as a trust or as the owner of the residence.  The fact that you say children's rights are held in a trust doesn't mean they have been surrendered, or don't exist.  Parents cannot make a moral claim to their children's property based on being subadults, or dependents, or beneficiaries; so where does that leave us??

 

As an aside, I believe your reference to who made the child only complicates the issue, in that the ability to procreate is hardly a moral claim to own the property of your progeny.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think that's what I've been saying since the beginning.

Fair enough.

Although, just to let you know, not all of your posts conveyed that consistently.  Some implied otherwise; mainly the ones I responded to so vehemently.

 

Now, I don't know where the "tribal premise" stuff came from, except perhaps to imagine I was advocating that one treat other adults as you would your own children, which I don't, and I further don't see how I could have implied such a thing--unless you substituted the words, "unrelated adult" in place of every instance of my using the words, "your own children".

'Parents have full rights over where their children go and what they do,' if left unqualified and unconditional, implies that children are properly-legally an extension of their parents (which they are not; only a fetus holds that status).  The reference to runaways, in particular, is a negation of childrens' rights.  Any child whom can deliberately run away, of their own volition, has the right to.

'I would only be advocating tribalism if you replaced "unrelated adult" in place of every instance where I said "your own children"' is an exact parallel to something else you said to Mdegges; both to the effect that slavery isn't slavery if applied to one's own children (which ties back into runaways).

Again, the problem there arises when that statement is left unspecified.

 

So if you had meant such things literally, exactly as given, it would amount to saying that children are to be treated as infants unconditionally until 18 years old- that they have no rights until then, except those which are derivative of their parents' rights- which would, in fact, make them tribally rightless fodder. . .

 

. . . However, in retrospect, it appears that I may have dropped a little bit of context from your earlier posts when drawing certain conclusions.  Sorry.

 

So... the answer to the OP's original question is, "no" insofar as you define a "child" an entity incapable of fully self-sustaining action. While this almost always is associated with a particular age range, age has nothing to do with it per se...

Exactly.

 

 If you say that this is why children have rights just as adults do, it's a weak analogy: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html

I'm not saying that a child has the same rights, or to the same degree, that an adult does.  It varies from one child to another and is directly proportional to that child's maturity and rationality.

A child who earns full autonomy, no matter what chronological age, is no longer a child.

 

My position and Crow's seems to be that sure, you can make analogies with rent/agreements/etc, but that doesn't mean children do have rights in the full sense of the term.

I am saying that children do have some rights of their own.

 

The idea is that children don't have anything to be stolen by their parents. So taking away your kid's bike, cigarettes, XBox, gardening tools, books, computer, etc isn't theft even if the kid acquired it via income from a job.

Why?

 

Sure, if it's something you paid for, or if you're preventing them from making some error of ignorance, then you absolutely have that right.  But you're specifically saying nothing is forbidden a parent except abuse or permanent damage.

I think that whatever doesn't fall under those two categories (a parent's individual rights and their right to protect their children) is forbidden.

---

 

Suppose my son were playing with his favorite toy.  Would it be moral for me to take that toy from him and smash it to oblivion, just for kicks?

Furthermore, suppose you were present to witness this happening.  Would you consider that my right as a parent (to take toys away and break them, at whim) and accordingly support me in it?

Or if you witnessed that, would you consider that something so profoundly wrong that you should speak up and NOT leave it alone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are just being pedantic. Obviously in the context in which I was speaking, I meant the ability to dispose of one's property in the usual ways, such as to enjoy your toy in your bedroom or drive your car across town (on the roads, following laws).

Please stop doing that.

The context in which you type anything is not always obvious to everyone and sometimes people can innocently come to mistaken conclusions about it.  Case-in-point: the "tribal premise" accusation I made, which was totally and completely wrong.

Please stop assuming that what you mean should be implied by what you actually say.

 

I'm taking you at your word that there isn't a moral justification for age as means of claiming ownership of anothers property.

I wouldn't say that age has anything to do with it; reason and context do.

For instance: with Louie's scenario, it's moral for a parent to confiscate their child's cigarettes- even if they were bought outright- IF that child doesn't fully understand the consequences of smoking.  And since a full understanding of the consequences of smoking involves projecting the entire course of one's lifespan, this condition would cover the vast majority of children.  But not because of chronological age.

 

So it's just as if one were to tackle someone, in order to save them from an oncoming bus which they didn't see.  It's immoral and properly-illegal to run around tackling random people without warning, UNLESS it's done in order to do what they WOULD consent to, if they had the full context.

 

And that principle would cover almost everything your average parent might do in raising their children- but it is a specific principle with limited application (which is where I THINK I still disagree with Louie and Crow).  Just because you see a bus speeding towards granny, doesn't give you the right to break another pedestrian's legs.

 

Or to put it another way, all you have to do is actually understand the basis of the Rights of Man to understand why (and how) children don't have them all...

And see, if you hadn't just clarified your position for me, this is exactly the sort of statement which I would've taken to mean "children have no rights whatsoever".

If you mean that their rights correspond to the degree of their knowledge and rationality, it might help immensely to use "infant" as opposed to "child" for the sake of clarity.

 

The basis of the Rights of Man that I understand are that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property) are inalienable individual rights acquired at birth, thus inclusive of children.

Well, this is a much broader subject than could adequately be covered in this thread (without killing it), but just for future reference:

 

Each man's rights are derived from and based on his mind, and the fact that he has one.  This is why animals and fetuses have no rights; they have no minds.

Specifically, a right is a decision which is one certain person's to make, and nobody else's.  [My own understanding; assumed consistent with O'ism]  This is what 'inalienable' means; NOT eternal and permanent (you can gain and lose rights) but unalterable TO ALL OTHERS.

 

'Inalienable rights' are rights which can only be lost through your own choices; nobody else may interfere.

Since a 'right' is a decision, only a being capable of making decisions can have rights (hence a being with a mind).  But the capacity to make your own decisions is not a binary, yes-or-no sort of deal; there are many degrees and shades inbetween.

For instance: a drug addict is less capable of making his own decisions than a sober person (likely by a marginal amount) because of his addiction; same applies to those with Alzheimer's and, yes, children.

So because volition is variable, rights are subsequently variable and can be increased or decreased by the volitional entity (or lost altogether; see criminals).  They simply can't be influenced by anything or anyone EXTERNAL to that entity.

 

And that's the astonishingly oversimplified version.  :thumbsup:

 

My question is how "children should be treated according to their degree of adulthood" could ever be reconciled with "abuse and permanent damage are the only things a parent may not do to their child".

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basis of the Rights of Man that I understand are that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property) are inalienable individual rights acquired at birth, thus inclusive of children. 

 

Wrong. You are simply listing what Man's Rights are, and taking that definition on faith. You need to understand the logical origin of the Rights of Man in order to understand what to do in edge cases like children. We don't have Rights "just because", we have Rights because of the specific kind of animal we are. If that nature is not present, then so do the logical conclusions based on that nature.

 

In every discussion of Rights e.g. from the Founding Fathers to Ayn Rand, there's an implicit assumption of a "man" being a typical grown-up who is capable of rational thought, decision making, self-sufficiency, etc.

 

I think HD was trying to say the same thing. And yes, I agree, Rights are something inalienable to the subject externally, but the subject itself can change its nature (voluntarily or involuntarily) to change its own relationship with Rights.

 

Parents don't take Rights away from children, they only have a subset when they are born, and to be sure, proper parents (moral and legal here) are actually required (based on the Rights that a newborn human does have) to assist in their obtaining their full set of Rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Harrison Danneskjold & Crow Epistemologist,  thank you both for your last posts which really clarified your positons for me.  I particularily appreciated your explanation and general agreement on inalienable rights, which is much improved over what I've heard in the past from others  :thumbsup:

 

At this point I think the primary bone of contention between us is the degree to which inalienable rights are delimited by ones awareness.  For example an adult parent, being aware of their own inalienable rights, will raise children to become aware of their own.  This being the case, inalienable rights may be said to be delimited by lifespan; latent at birth and dormant during periods of mental infirmity*.  Does this sound correct to you??

 

If so, I'd respond to the OP with 'yes' based on lifespan, whereas you might say 'no' based on the right being latent in children.

 

--

*I believe mental infirmity generally covers criminality and aggression, but that's only tangential to this topic.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know their answers to your and my questions, not in terms of what they FEEL as parents in the legal framework of a modern STATIST society but what they THINK morally...as Objectivists (if the term applies).

I think you're misunderstanding. Children, by nature of not being fully formed, aren't much comparable to adults but still have some important considerations to the extent they are at least human. Parents create a moral and legal obligation to a child by implication of having a child. The implication is to raise the child, take care of them, etc. That's where a parent's moral authority comes into play, on account of being responsible for that child. Pretty much, it's exclusively up to the parent how their child may use anything at all.

Also, I'm not a parent, nor do I want to be. The responsibility is massive, so I choose not to. So, my perspective is uninfluenced by being or wanting to be a parent. I don't know where Statist society matters here. Legally, a parent has authority over any of a child's possessions  and actions. Morally, the authority remains, but there are more specific ways to be moral besides merely being within legality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Harrison Danneskjold & Crow Epistemologist,  thank you both for your last posts which really clarified your positons for me.  I particularily appreciated your explanation and general agreement on inalienable rights, which is much improved over what I've heard in the past from others  :thumbsup:

 

At this point I think the primary bone of contention between us is the degree to which inalienable rights are delimited by ones awareness.  For example an adult parent, being aware of their own inalienable rights, will raise children to become aware of their own.  This being the case, inalienable rights may be said to be delimited by lifespan; latent at birth and dormant during periods of mental infirmity*.  Does this sound correct to you??

 

If so, I'd respond to the OP with 'yes' based on lifespan, whereas you might say 'no' based on the right being latent in children.

 

--

*I believe mental infirmity generally covers criminality and aggression, but that's only tangential to this topic.

 

I'm now wondering if somebody's written up a well thought-out, well-written treatise on "the exact rights of children" and we've just reinvented the wheel here... Anyhow...

 

I'd also add here that not all Rights are the same. Children, most criminals, the incapacitated, etc. all very much deserve their basic right to life, but other rights may be latent, or may be removed temporarily, etc. It's not all or nothing. Again, you can trace this back to the origin of each Right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In every discussion of Rights e.g. from the Founding Fathers to Ayn Rand, there's an implicit assumption of a "man" being a typical grown-up who is capable of rational thought, decision making, self-sufficiency, etc.

 

I think HD was trying to say the same thing.

Exactly.

 

At this point I think the primary bone of contention between us is the degree to which inalienable rights are delimited by ones awareness.  For example an adult parent, being aware of their own inalienable rights, will raise children to become aware of their own.  This being the case, inalienable rights may be said to be delimited by lifespan; latent at birth and dormant during periods of mental infirmity*.  Does this sound correct to you??

Basically.

But it's important to remember what rights stem from (reason) whenever we discuss their application.  So yes, most of an individual's rights are latent at birth- because human beings are born without any knowledge, whatsoever.  If this condition were different then this wouldn't be the case.

If an infant were ever born able to speak, think and apply for a job then that infant would have all of its rights activated, in full, immediately (and its parents would have no rights over its actions or property).

 

If so, I'd respond to the OP with 'yes' based on lifespan, whereas you might say 'no' based on the right being latent in children.

Actually, I'd also respond to the OP with 'yes.'

Children have some degree of property rights, but not to the extent that adults do (until they become de facto adults); it's proportional to their maturity.  I'm fairly sure that this is also what Crow and Louie are arguing, ironically.

 

Their main point seemed to be that children don't have the full rights that an adult does. . .  Which is completely true.  I keep mentioning my son's belongings in order to demonstrate what I do not consider to truly be my property, but in a certain sense his.

Note that none of these belongings have included computers, cigarettes or a car, which I would confiscate from him in a heartbeat- and I think rightfully so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

How can you have the right to own property, but at the same time, someone (parents) have the right to take it away?

 

I don't understand how someone can own property, but not possession. In the case of the business/employee relationship, possession of property is given by voluntary means (contracts). In the parent/child relationship, the possession is taken away by involuntary means.

 

Is it accurate to say that children have the right to own property in the full sense as adults if they don't have full control over their property? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that their right to own property is limited?

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it accurate to say that children have the right to own property in the full sense as adults if they don't have full control over their property? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that their right to own property is limited?

No...

 

Begin with the question, what injury hath the child suffered?  In order to begin to respond to whether a child's rights (or anyone's) have been transgressed, one must ask, what hath thou suffered to make such a claim??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...

 

Begin with the question, what injury hath the child suffered?  In order to begin to respond to whether a child's rights (or anyone's) have been transgressed, one must ask, what hath thou suffered to make such a claim??

 

It would be more appropriate to begin with the question: what rights does a child have? Does a child have the right to own property as Nicky says, or does a child not have any property--only possessions, as other say, or something else...

 

What injury hath the child suffered is meaningless if we don't establish what rights a child has (if any). Consider substituting your statement with animal:

 

Begin with the question, what injury hath the animal suffered?  In order to begin to respond to whether an animal's rights (or anyone's) have been transgressed, one must ask, what hath thou suffered to make such a claim??

...

 

Anyways, I am mostly in agreement with Nicky and his reasoning, though, I don't understand having the (full) right to own property without possession.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thenelli01:

I am going to jump into the middle here without knowing your full position. So, please don't take this as disagreeing (or agreeing) with your position in particular. As the first step in an effort to be constructive, I like the question you ask:

 

It would be more appropriate to begin with the question: what rights does a child have?



It would be even more appropriate and instructive to ask: What is the fundamental nature of rights? What principle in ethics gives rise to the principle of rights? What implication does this have for children (or anyone unable to exercise their rights fully)? What is the nature of property rights? Do they differ from other rights somehow (fundamentally)?

I'll give a hint quoted from Ayn Rand: "rights pertain only to action"

Edited by Marc K.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be more appropriate to begin with the question: what rights does a child have? Does a child have the right to own property as Nicky says, or does a child not have any property--only possessions, as other say, or something else...

 

What injury hath the child suffered is meaningless if we don't establish what rights a child has (if any). Consider substituting your statement with animal:

 

Begin with the question, what injury hath the animal suffered?  In order to begin to respond to whether an animal's rights (or anyone's) have been transgressed, one must ask, what hath thou suffered to make such a claim??

The preamble to the DOI refers to certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness...  so what are the rest of them?  Amendments 9 & 10 of the Constitution also posit rights that aren't enumerated, yet retained/reserved by the people... so what are those??  The presumption appears to be that children as people have many rights that only become numerated when they are in conflict with others, i.e. when someone has suffered an injury.  Therefore the question of injury is appropriate because without it there's no reason to question what right has been violated; one has the right to do as one pleases unless/until it injures another.

 

In the moral relationship between parent and child, the state of a child's rights may be latent, active or dormant, but essentially the same as their parents'.  To claim otherwise places the onus on the parents to demonstrate some injury created by the child's actions.  So it would be appropriate to say a child doesn't have a right to the same property as the parent, but inappropriate to say a child doesn't have the same right to property that a parent has, unless the child's right conflicts with parent's right.

 

I drafted this on the fly so it may contain errors I'll address later, but I'll only respond to an animal's rights when I see it in court :P

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...