In a free market you can sell drugs to kids...

[ClayTrainor]

In a free market you can sell and advertise drugs to kids...?

Discuss.

[JoshLowry]

Parents should parent.

[Elwar]

How do you define "kids"?

[CoreyBowen999]

Let parents parent is exactly right.

[Pod]

What is the difference between a drug and a medicine?

[klamath]

In a free market the parents should be able to beat the C**p out of drug sellers.

[Theocrat]

You don't need a free market to advertise and sell drugs to kids. We do that already in our socialist economy, both on a public level (medical industries) and on a private level (street/black markets).

[BuddyRey]

I would think that, in a free market, parents would have more power and discernment over these issues, especially knowing that along with freedom comes responsibility. With the government no longer promising to shield the little urchins from everything from naughty things on TV to "exploitative" child labor, future generations might get their heads out of the clouds and learn to be a bit more self-reliant; and lazy, ineffectual parents would lose one of their most trusted crutches (television) and actually start talking to their kids for a change.

P.S. On the subject of child labor, just ask a certain 16-year-old who suffers unending boredom and monotony during the summer, and who longs for enough money to take her friends on a week-long beach trip, if she feels she's being "exploited" as she cleans up her Grandma's house for 50 bucks...I know the answer she'd give, because she's my kid sister! ;) She's wanted a job since she was 11 years old, but Mommy Government insisted that she had no right to exchange her labor for money (and pride) she could call her own.

[Golding]

And?

In this market, drugs are still easily accessible to kids.

[moostraks]

Whatever Happened To Justice tackles this issue, my son is reading it for gov't this year.
The common law solution was contract voidability for a minor and so the pushers would not find it profitable to sell to them as they could use the drug up and still claim a refund. The industry self moderates. My son and I both think this is a fabulous solution to the problem.

[heavenlyboy34]

In a free market you can sell and advertise drugs to kids...?


Not if the parents disapprove of their children buying drugs. Companies can advertise all they want, but the responsibility ultimately lies on the parents in a free society. :cool:

[FSP-Rebel]

Drug sellers in a free market would have reputation ratings, as would all the rest of us. Likely if you sold drugs to a defined child then your rating would be shot and adults would not do any further business with you.

[Kraig]

In a free market you can send your kids to a good private school where they will do a good job of keeping drugs out, rather than herding them into a one size fits all public school where drug dealers can easily target hundreds of kids in one shot. There is a high school here in San Antonio that is so crowded that kids walk down the hallway smoking a joint and aren't caught, and drugs are rampant in middle school if not even lower.

[TinCanToNA]

This issue doesn't have so much to do with parents as it does with the granting of the right to destroy yourself. Minors are not entitled to that right.

A person who has not attained the age of maturity, which is presently and necessarily defined in an arbitrary manner, should not be given the full capacities as adults, especially when it comes to making decisions that have obvious and significant negative consequences. Only after attaining the age of maturity can one be granted the full rights enjoyed by adults, and among those could be incredibly stupid decisions that will result in horrible consequences to yourself such as becoming addicted to smack or not buckling your seat belt.

Children are a special case in law and in philosophy because of their underdeveloped nature. The government's case that it is protecting us from drugs is essentially a case that we are all children.

So in a truly free market, drugs may or may not be available to kids, but it would not be the child alone that makes the decision. That is a case where government intervention is perfectly acceptable in my book.

[tangent4ronpaul]

In general, adolescents have a very hard time buying beer and hard alcohol because they are legal and regulated. Ditto cigs. OTOH, they have NO problem buying pot, coke, crack, LSD, X and H because they are illegal. hmmm... let me think - what's wrong with this picture...

-t

[speciallyblend]

In general, adolescents have a very hard time buying beer and hard alcohol because they are legal and regulated. Ditto cigs. OTOH, they have NO problem buying pot, coke, crack, LSD, X and H because they are illegal. hmmm... let me think - what's wrong with this picture...

-t

common sense, they have none!

[tangent4ronpaul]

A person who has not attained the age of maturity, which is presently and necessarily defined in an arbitrary manner, should not be given the full capacities as adults, especially when it comes to making decisions that have obvious and significant negative consequences. Only after attaining the age of maturity can one be granted the full rights enjoyed by adults, and among those could be incredibly stupid decisions that will result in horrible consequences to yourself such as becoming addicted to smack or not buckling your seat belt.

Children are a special case in law and in philosophy because of their underdeveloped nature. The government's case that it is protecting us from drugs is essentially a case that we are all children.

So in a truly free market, drugs may or may not be available to kids, but it would not be the child alone that makes the decision. That is a case where government intervention is perfectly acceptable in my book.

In general, as to your opinions.... FUCK YOU!

We DO NOT agree here!

-t

[acptulsa]

Whatever Happened To Justice tackles this issue, my son is reading it for gov't this year.
The common law solution was contract voidability for a minor and so the pushers would not find it profitable to sell to them as they could use the drug up and still claim a refund. The industry self moderates. My son and I both think this is a fabulous solution to the problem.

This.

The legal term is to use 'necessary' as a noun. If the product is not a 'necessary', the contract can be voided. The reason it doesn't work now is because black market contracts aren't exactly subject to either law or common law.

[ChaosControl]

You can sell drugs to kids in any market.
You just need the drugs and the kid alone and it wont matter if you're in a free market, a hybrid market, or a communist market.

[TinCanToNA]

In general, as to your opinions.... FUCK YOU!

We DO NOT agree here!

-tAh, the legendary "Love" of the Revolution. Between that and the 9/11 truthers, we will never find mainstream acceptance.

But thank you for the logical response of how you think my reasoning is incorrect. Also, thanks for being cordial! It's important when discussing matters of philosophy to maintain the decorum of civilized discourse, lest the argument boil down into a puerile flame war.

[slothman]

I should be able to sell to kids if I want.
The people ahould be able to boycott me if they want.
The problem is: what if a big store like Walmart sells them.
It can't really be boycotted to go out of businnes.(sp)

[ClayTrainor]

I should be able to sell to kids if I want.

yes



The people ahould be able to boycott me if they want.

yes



The problem is: what if a big store like Walmart sells them.
It can't really be boycotted to go out of businnes.(sp)

You're saying individuals can't make their own choices as to what products they buy, if a company gets too big? I, as an individual can't boycott walmart if they are too successful?

I can buy cigarettes anywhere i want, anytime i want, but i choose to boycott them for my health :)

[Elwar]

Everything becomes foggy when it comes to children. You cannot ask questions about what is or is not ok without first defining who is or is not a child.

These days, the law has decided on an age of 18. But what about that 13 year old genius who has the maturity to go out on his own to college ala a "Doogie Howser". Or what about the mentally challenged individual who still has trouble dressing himself at the age of 30.

We could just say that a child becomes an adult when the parent decides, but what about unhinged parents that might want to keep their children under their thumb for their whole lives, or the parent who decides at age 8 that they just don't want to be parents anymore...

And then there's the idea of the government stepping in when they don't think the parent is making the right decision, from requiring a child get cancer treatment to taking children away from parents who might not be meeting some community standard for rearing.

The basic tenant of liberty is that you own your body. Which is why preventing someone from taking drugs is a breach of liberty. But at what age do you start to own your body? Do you have the right at 5 years old to leave your home and go walk across the street as you please? Do your parents have the right to stop you from running into the street, or keeping you queit in a restaurant, or making you go to church or eat all sorts of horrible things?

These are the things that need to defined. While you may own your body, your parents have the right of control to a certain extent. It's when the control is handed off that is the question.

[tangent4ronpaul]

You can sell drugs to kids in any market.
You just need the drugs and the kid alone and it wont matter if you're in a free market, a hybrid market, or a communist market.

The kid also needs cash - hence parental consent or negligence or a bit of prostitution or theft....

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ah, the legendary "Love" of the Revolution. Between that and the 9/11 truthers, we will never find mainstream acceptance.

But thank you for the logical response of how you think my reasoning is incorrect. Also, thanks for being cordial! It's important when discussing matters of philosophy to maintain the decorum of civilized discourse, lest the argument boil down into a puerile flame war.

LOL!

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Everything becomes foggy when it comes to children. You cannot ask questions about what is or is not ok without first defining who is or is not a child.

These days, the law has decided on an age of 18. But what about that 13 year old genius who has the maturity to go out on his own to college ala a "Doogie Howser". Or what about the mentally challenged individual who still has trouble dressing himself at the age of 30.

We could just say that a child becomes an adult when the parent decides, but what about unhinged parents that might want to keep their children under their thumb for their whole lives, or the parent who decides at age 8 that they just don't want to be parents anymore...

And then there's the idea of the government stepping in when they don't think the parent is making the right decision, from requiring a child get cancer treatment to taking children away from parents who might not be meeting some community standard for rearing.

The basic tenant of liberty is that you own your body. Which is why preventing someone from taking drugs is a breach of liberty. But at what age do you start to own your body? Do you have the right at 5 years old to leave your home and go walk across the street as you please? Do your parents have the right to stop you from running into the street, or keeping you queit in a restaurant, or making you go to church or eat all sorts of horrible things?

These are the things that need to defined. While you may own your body, your parents have the right of control to a certain extent. It's when the control is handed off that is the question.

The public fool system has no problem with the forced drugging of your children to bring them into line - this largely at lobbyist design.

I've had roommates with kids - one had a strict rule: NO LSD till you are 14yo!

another couple had a policy of inviting their offspring in to watch mommy and daddy make whoopy - these are a couple of kids that grew up with no sexual hangups...

Those former roomies would make CPS have a cow and automatically trigger a kidnapping had they known about them!

-t

[Mani]

yes



yes



You're saying individuals can't make their own choices as to what products they buy, if a company gets too big? I, as an individual can't boycott walmart if they are too successful?

I can buy cigarettes anywhere i want, anytime i want, but i choose to boycott them for my health :)

This is where the media can actually come in handy. Damage control for that Walmart that's discovered is selling drugs to kids.

Parental/community boycotts and bad press can make a company decide to change their policies pretty quick.

[ClayTrainor]

What is the difference between a drug and a medicine?

Most people will respond to this with something like

"the difference between what most would consider a "drug" and a "medicine" is that a medicine has an actual purpose other then getting you high. "


How would you respond to the above?

[Elwar]

Most people will respond to this with something like

"the difference between what most would consider a "drug" and a "medicine" is that a medicine has an actual purpose other then getting you high. "


How would you respond to the above?

Like Xanax?

[Flash]

This issue doesn't have so much to do with parents as it does with the granting of the right to destroy yourself. Minors are not entitled to that right.

A person who has not attained the age of maturity, which is presently and necessarily defined in an arbitrary manner, should not be given the full capacities as adults, especially when it comes to making decisions that have obvious and significant negative consequences. Only after attaining the age of maturity can one be granted the full rights enjoyed by adults, and among those could be incredibly stupid decisions that will result in horrible consequences to yourself such as becoming addicted to smack or not buckling your seat belt.

Children are a special case in law and in philosophy because of their underdeveloped nature. The government's case that it is protecting us from drugs is essentially a case that we are all children.

So in a truly free market, drugs may or may not be available to kids, but it would not be the child alone that makes the decision. That is a case where government intervention is perfectly acceptable in my book.

I agree. Although even if drugs aren't allowed to be sold to minors, they'll still get their hands on it one way or another. The smarter ones will stay away from it, and the ones that aren't so smart will become addicts. Survival of the fittest. I know since a young age I've stayed away from all drugs except for Marijuana. And the ones that decided to do more hardcore drugs became increasingly insane.

[Feenix566]

The government's case that it is protecting us from drugs is essentially a case that we are all children.


The pro-state position of every debate is based on the idea that we are all children. (except the politicians, of course!)

[Feenix566]

I should be able to sell to kids if I want.
The people ahould be able to boycott me if they want.
The problem is: what if a big store like Walmart sells them.
It can't really be boycotted to go out of businnes.(sp)

Walmart sells knives and baseball bats to whomever wants them. No age restrictions apply. Why haven't we seen hordes of toddlers battling it out in the streets with knives and baseball bats yet?

[Elwar]

Walmart sells knives and baseball bats to whomever wants them. No age restrictions apply. Why haven't we seen hordes of toddlers battling it out in the streets with knives and baseball bats yet?

I sense a new reality show idea coming on...

[acptulsa]

Tonight on this channel, our new reality blockbuster Lord of the Flies! Don't miss it!

[Freedom 4 all]

At least in a free market you can go to the depanneur to buy your crack. Under our current system some of the best places to score dope are schoolyards. Not only does the free market take drugs off the schoolyards, but it also keeps junkies away from schools.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Walmart sells knives and baseball bats to whomever wants them. No age restrictions apply. Why haven't we seen hordes of toddlers battling it out in the streets with knives and baseball bats yet?

Maybe not toddlers - but MSM reporting is VERY selective!

I remember a neighborhood race riot that never made even the local news...

-t

[brandon]

You don't need a free market to advertise and sell drugs to kids. We do that already in our socialist economy, both on a public level (medical industries) and on a private level (street/black markets).

^^THIS

When I was a kid I both bought and sold drugs.

I'm still alive.

[acptulsa]

When I was a kid I both bought and sold [lemonade].

I'm still alive.

Hell, the current system gives kids incentive to deal. After all, their competition is up for adult charges if caught...

[tangent4ronpaul]

brandon - suggest you edit your last message before google harvests it...

SHIT - you got quoted... :(


-t

[ClayTrainor]

Hell, the current system gives kids incentive to deal. After all, their competition is up for adult charges if caught...

man, that's such a brilliant point.

[brandon]

brandon - suggest you edit your last message before google harvests it...

SHIT - you got quoted... :(


-t

Don't care. I'm not ashamed of my past. I haven't used or sold illegal drugs in about 5 or 6 years now, so I have nothing to hide.

[acptulsa]

Don't care. I'm not ashamed of my past. I haven't used or sold illegal drugs in about 5 or 6 years now, so I have nothing to hide.

You're that sure of the statute of limitations in you state? If so, carry on...

[pcosmar]

The question should be,
Can Kids still sell drugs to Adults?

[jkr]

Parents should parent.

winner!

[BillyDkid]

Just like you can in an unfree market. It is hardly the market's job to raise your children.

[powerofreason]

Apparently you've never heard of Ritalin.

[powerofreason]

Don't care. I'm not ashamed of my past.

Good for you. :)

[tangent4ronpaul]

Don't care. I'm not ashamed of my past. I haven't used or sold illegal drugs in about 5 or 6 years now, so I have nothing to hide.

Not a matter of you being "ashamed" of it or not - it's a matter of your landing in jail for it.


I agree about the "I don't care" part. I am so fucking sick of our government!... well, lets not go there...

-t

[Optatron]

Parents should parent.

couple that with anti-abortion, that'll just be heaven.

Teenagers hooked on drugs and sex pop out crack babies.
If they're not crack babies the teenagers are idiots so the child doesn't get enough care.

Remember "PARENTS SHOULD PARENT" so the State stays the hell away from the child, and lets the child starve, be beaten, whatever the parent is capable of.
What happens when the drug addicts have children? The children get recruited straight into the drug family.

These children grow up to be freedom lovers who are stuck on drugs, sex, prostitution, because who are we to judge what they do, it's not illegal if they don't harm us.

Child molestation, domestic abuse, teenage birth, STDs, human trafficking wouldn't need to be hidden or shamed, because nobody would bother thinking about these people who are in "bad neighborhoods" as long as they stay inside.


Sounds awfully nice until we got human rights liberals telling us we owe these people health care and police protection. That letting them take responsibility for their own choices is morally wrong.

[Optatron]

In a free market the parents should be able to beat the C**p out of drug sellers.

not if you live in this country where everybody is entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and justice is not priority.

[Optatron]

Everything becomes foggy when it comes to children. You cannot ask questions about what is or is not ok without first defining who is or is not a child.


Can you have sex with a 3 year old?

Is being 18 a good measure of whether a person is capable of consenting to sex?



These days, the law has decided on an age of 18. But what about that 13 year old genius who has the maturity to go out on his own to college ala a "Doogie Howser". Or what about the mentally challenged individual who still has trouble dressing himself at the age of 30.


Exactly, which is why we should use IQ tests in replacement of age stages, age stages is an incredibly outdated collectivist, "one size fits all" standard that doesn't work.




We could just say that a child becomes an adult when the parent decides, but what about unhinged parents that might want to keep their children under their thumb for their whole lives, or the parent who decides at age 8 that they just don't want to be parents anymore...


Exactly, thanks to those who can't tolerate a minute of thinking that the State can take away children from abusive parents, basically saying that parents are allowed to kill or molest their child if they wish.




And then there's the idea of the government stepping in when they don't think the parent is making the right decision, from requiring a child get cancer treatment to taking children away from parents who might not be meeting some community standard for rearing.


I'd like to hear somebody say that parents should be allowed to molest and kill their child if they wish. Any takers?



The basic tenant of liberty is that you own your body. Which is why preventing someone from taking drugs is a breach of liberty.


even if you're 3 years old.



But at what age do you start to own your body? Do you have the right at 5 years old to leave your home and go walk across the street as you please? Do your parents have the right to stop you from running into the street, or keeping you queit in a restaurant, or making you go to church or eat all sorts of horrible things?

These are the things that need to defined. While you may own your body, your parents have the right of control to a certain extent. It's when the control is handed off that is the question.

maybe this will help

If I own my body, can I use it to harm others? No.
By that coin, shouldn't a person prove he's able to control himself upon taking drugs, using a gun, or drinkin, to be allowed the freedom to do so?

Don't give me that "who gets to decide" bullshit, we DO decide who gets to be free and who gets to be executed.

[LibertyEagle]

This issue doesn't have so much to do with parents as it does with the granting of the right to destroy yourself.
It has everything to do with the parents. Or should. Parenting the child should not be the government's business at all.


Minors are not entitled to that right.
In the form of government that our Founders gave us, government did not grant us our rights; they are inalienable, which means that we own our rights. I'm not sure if you want to go down this path. I mean, think about it. If you believe that government grants your rights, then government has the authority to take them away.


A person who has not attained the age of maturity, which is presently and necessarily defined in an arbitrary manner, should not be given the full capacities as adults, especially when it comes to making decisions that have obvious and significant negative consequences. Only after attaining the age of maturity can one be granted the full rights enjoyed by adults, and among those could be incredibly stupid decisions that will result in horrible consequences to yourself such as becoming addicted to smack or not buckling your seat belt.

I agree with you that children should not have the purview to make these decisions for themselves until they are mature enough to do so. HOWEVER, we differ greatly on who should oversee the children. It should be the parents and only the parents. Government should have no role in the raising of our children.


Children are a special case in law and in philosophy because of their underdeveloped nature. The government's case that it is protecting us from drugs is essentially a case that we are all children.
You didn't fully explain yourself here. I'm hoping that you do not agree with the statement you just made above.


So in a truly free market, drugs may or may not be available to kids, but it would not be the child alone that makes the decision.
It should be up to the parents. It is none of the government's business.


That is a case where government intervention is perfectly acceptable in my book.
Do you honestly believe that the government can do a better job of raising your children than you can yourself? Really? Do you realize the slippery slope you are on here?

[Optatron]

It has everything to do with the parents. Or should. Parenting the child should not be the government's business at all.


In the form of government that our Founders gave us, government did not grant us our rights; they are inalienable, which means that we own our rights. I'm not sure if you want to go down this path. I mean, think about it. If you believe that government grants your rights, then government has the authority to take them away.


I agree with you that children should not have the purview to make these decisions for themselves until they are mature enough to do so. HOWEVER, we differ greatly on who should oversee the children. It should be the parents and only the parents. Government should have no role in the raising of our children.


You didn't fully explain yourself here. I'm hoping that you do not agree with the statement you just made above.


It should be up to the parents. It is none of the government's business.


Do you honestly believe that the government can do a better job of raising your children than you can yourself? Really? Do you realize the slippery slope you are on here?

So in a truly free market, is there such a crime for Filicide?

[Standing Like A Rock]

Young kids are not going to want to buy drugs and even if they did, they could certainly not afford them. Teens seem to have no problem buying drugs right now anyways.

[Catatonic]

You can sell drugs to kids in a free market, but there's more profit incentive to do so if there is prohibition.

Whats the incentive if drugs are legal? Because you hate children?

[Bradley in DC]

A free market is based on contractualism. Contractualism is based on consent. Do kids consent? Discuss.

[Kludge]

In a free society, children are not required to be parented, which means they're free to leave whenever able. If a kid is in the parents' custody, but the grandparents want to take the kid, and the kid agrees, the kid may leave.

[FindLiberty]

You can sell drugs to kids in a free market, but there's more profit incentive to do so if there is prohibition.

+100

++++

Anyway, they'd give the drugs to kids... and then sell to them when they
get older and have more money! (enabled only if there's drug prohibition*).

No point in going into this kiddy (or adult) business* at all if all drugs are
just made legal and parents get back to parenting!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*pssst, hey buddy, got some homemade aspirin here. It's really a good batch
this time, well it's a little greenish but almost as good as the stuff they sell in
every store. Want to score some from me (real cheap) ? [of course not!]

[Met Income]

In a free society, children are not required to be parented, which means they're free to leave whenever able. If a kid is in the parents' custody, but the grandparents want to take the kid, and the kid agrees, the kid may leave.

Most children don't want to be parented?

[ClayTrainor]

So in a truly free market, is there such a crime for Filicide?

You can't be this stupid....

[Kludge]

Most children don't want to be parented?

Then they can learn if they're parasites or not. This society is extremely entitlement-minded. Were a parent to host a child when not required to, I think that child would be far more grateful to have guidance, food, and a house. Doing chores wouldn't be thought of as arbitrary slavery, but as assistance to pay their parents back for the goods and services they provide. If children don't respect their parents, the parents are in the clear to toss them out.

[Sandman33]

The state gives your kids drugs that are much worse than the shit they find on the street.

[Met Income]

Then they can learn if they're parasites or not. This society is extremely entitlement-minded. Were a parent to host a child when not required to, I think that child would be far more grateful to have guidance, food, and a house. Doing chores wouldn't be thought of as arbitrary slavery, but as assistance to pay their parents back for the goods and services they provide. If children don't respect their parents, the parents are in the clear to toss them out.

We're talking about voluntary actions vs. involuntary actions. Parenting = voluntary. Government intervention = involuntary

[Kludge]

We're talking about voluntary actions vs. involuntary actions. Parenting = voluntary. Government intervention = involuntary

I guess I don't understand the point you're trying to make. My argument was that the government wouldn't be able to force parents to.... parent in a free society.

[Objectivist]

Parents should parent.

End of topic^^^^^

And at last check the current method isn't preventing children from buying drugs... some do end up in jail though.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

So in a truly free market, is there such a crime for Filicide?


filicide
1. a parent who kills a son or daughter.
2. the killing of a son or daughter by a parent. — filicidal, adj.


"Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well." --- Ron Paul


You, just like the current fascist corporate government hybrid we call Federal, have just equated life with a commodity. This makes sense since it is now legal for life to be patented. (http://www.bioethics.gov/background/workpaper8.html)


However, I think twisting the logic of a free market system in order to justify ownership of a human being, even if that ownership exist between family members, is seriously ....um, twisted.

[0zzy]

Is market anarchy the same thing as the free market?

[Liberty Rebellion]

In a free market you can send your kids to a good private school where they will do a good job of keeping drugs out, rather than herding them into a one size fits all public school where drug dealers can easily target hundreds of kids in one shot. There is a high school here in San Antonio that is so crowded that kids walk down the hallway smoking a joint and aren't caught, and drugs are rampant in middle school if not even lower.

A private school won't keep the drugs out. I went to an expensive, private school that had dropped their JROTC program the year before. I could get anything I wanted, if I wanted it, when I wanted it because there were a bunch of rich kids from all over the metro area in attendance.

I quit that school after a year and a half b/c I felt bad for the money that my parent's were paying, plus it was a 30 minute drive to school every morning, and then attended the public school in my area. In terms of drugs they were the same except that whenever the public school was dry I could always call up my friends from the private school to get stuff.

[Kludge]

However, I think twisting the logic of a free market system in order to justify ownership of a human being, even if that ownership exist between family members, is seriously ....um, twisted.

The free market does not permit ownership of children. Instead, it permits parents to cease subsidizing the existence of children. In a roth-cap "non-archy", murdering the parasite would not be permitted. However, as the parent's sustenance is a generous privilege and NOT an entitlement, the parent may cease subsidizing the parasite at any time. In anarchy, of course, anything goes.

Abortion would be considered the cessation of charity to a parasite, whether you think it's a person or not.

[Met Income]

I guess I don't understand the point you're trying to make. My argument was that the government wouldn't be able to force parents to.... parent in a free society.

Correct - and most would want to, anyway.

Statists believe we need gub'mint to save us from ourselves. Guess what, if left alone, we'd do a better job of taking care of ourselves.

[Kludge]

Is market anarchy the same thing as the free market?

I'm unaware of any situation in which a free market would not necessarily require complete anarchy or "voluntaryism"/roth-capism

[Optatron]

We're talking about voluntary actions vs. involuntary actions. Parenting = voluntary. Government intervention = involuntary

how is parenting voluntary?

did the children consent to it?

[Optatron]

You can't be this stupid....

well I am! I'm not the one who said parents should parent, as if a child's life isn't somebody else's business.

[Optatron]

The state gives your kids drugs that are much worse than the shit they find on the street.

so you're OK with the State giving drugs as long as street drugs are worse??

[Optatron]

filicide
1. a parent who kills a son or daughter.
2. the killing of a son or daughter by a parent. — filicidal, adj.


"Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well." --- Ron Paul


You, just like the current fascist corporate government hybrid we call Federal, have just equated life with a commodity.


The same way people have when they say we "own" our lives, or our lives and body are our "property".

I'd love to hear people say that you can't own a life or you don't own your own life & body.




This makes sense since it is now legal for life to be patented. (http://www.bioethics.gov/background/workpaper8.html)


However, I think twisting the logic of a free market system in order to justify ownership of a human being, even if that ownership exist between family members, is seriously ....um, twisted.

So it's not black and white whether a parent owns a child 100%?
It's not black & white whether a child's life is the responsibility of the law & State?

[Sandman33]

so you're OK with the State giving drugs as long as street drugs are worse??

Nope, never said that. I'm just making a point that the war on drugs is a hypocrisy.

And a complete failure.

PARENTS are the key.

[Objectivist]

how is parenting voluntary?

did the children consent to it?

Unless you're parents practice a religion that promotes immoral arranged marriages, they screwed each other without the government holding a gun to their heads.

Hence the use of the word "voluntary".

[torchbearer]

how is parenting voluntary?

did the children consent to it?

yes. otherwise, they could get their own place to live and pay their own bills and be independent.
Until that point, they voluntarily submit to their parents rules.
Property rights- ya know. My roof, my rules.
Every person a king of their own property, and all those who live as subjects on his/her land are subject to those rules.

[Met Income]

how is parenting voluntary?

did the children consent to it?

Separate a child from his mommy and watch what happens. Come on, this isn't complicated. You try to take the devil's advocate on EVERYTHING. Sometimes, it doesn't apply.

[Optatron]

Unless you're parents practice a religion that promotes immoral arranged marriages, they screwed each other without the government holding a gun to their heads.

Hence the use of the word "voluntary".

My parents voluntarily met and married. That's marriage and relationship, that's not PARENTING.

I never agreed to be parented by my parents, did you?

[Optatron]

Separate a child from his mommy and watch what happens. Come on, this isn't complicated. You try to take the devil's advocate on EVERYTHING. Sometimes, it doesn't apply.

Separate a child from a mommy who only beats him, and give him a lollipop, see what happens.

Parenting isn't just feeding, it's ruling, spanking, and education too. Children don't want all of it, just the good parts.

[Optatron]

yes. otherwise, they could get their own place to live and pay their own bills and be independent.
Until that point, they voluntarily submit to their parents rules.
Property rights- ya know. My roof, my rules.
Every person a king of their own property, and all those who live as subjects on his/her land are subject to those rules.

so can I child legally choose to switch parents?

Let's say I'm willing to pay to parent a child, so money isn't the concern for the child, does he have the right to choose to come with me, or does his parents have the right to superceed his decision?

[Objectivist]

Separate a child from a mommy who only beats him, and give him a lollipop, see what happens.

Parenting isn't just feeding, it's ruling, spanking, and education too. Children don't want all of it, just the good parts.

Character evolves from the totality of ones upbringing. I see where your parents fell short by your answer.... have a nice day!:)

[torchbearer]

so can I child legally choose to switch parents?

Let's say I'm willing to pay to parent a child, so money isn't the concern for the child, does he have the right to choose to come with me, or does his parents have the right to superceed his decision?

Do you want the real life answer of a fascist governments rules or the philosophical argument of self ownership/property rights?

The philosophical/correct position is.. a child can leave anytime they want.
But you will accept the liability of your new purchase.

[Optatron]

Character evolves from the totality of ones upbringing. I see where your parents fell short by your answer.... have a nice day!:)

same to you.

what's worse than ad hominem? attacking and judging a person's parent!

[Andrew-Austin]

You can sell drugs to kids in a not so free market too.

Thing is, if they were legal they would just be sold in stores like everything else. And I think its pretty reasonable to think store owners would practice more discretion in whom they sell too than criminal street dealers.

[Optatron]

Do you want the real life answer of a fascist governments rules


No, I know that one.



or the philosophical argument of self ownership/property rights?


I can get that from Conza

I'm interested in your opinion.



The philosophical/correct position is.. a child can leave anytime they want.
But you will accept the liability of your new purchase.

Obviously, the person who wishes to adopt a child doesn't have a problem with the responsibilities (especially as an adult).

So you just told me that a child has the right to walk away and find other parents if he feels like he can survive. Cool.

[torchbearer]

So you just told me that a child has the right to walk away and find other parents if he feels like he can survive. Cool.

Every parent should tell their child- you can leave here anytime you want... but when you do- you take the responsibility for yourself with you.
Had I been told that.. I still would have stayed.

[Met Income]

Separate a child from a mommy who only beats him, and give him a lollipop, see what happens.

Parenting isn't just feeding, it's ruling, spanking, and education too. Children don't want all of it, just the good parts.

Ok? Fine.

[coyote_sprit]

I'm fairly certain that a 7/11 will have higher standards then a street dealer who occasionally sells to kids but mainly to adults. Not only will the street dealer go out of business to the 7/11 but he won't be able to sell drugs to kids. If the the event that kid does get a hold of drugs though it's not my problem, it's his/her parent's.

[ChooseLiberty]

Didn't read the entire thread, but isn't that sort of like saying in a free market you're free to hire someone for murder?

Free market doesn't abrogate criminal law AFAIK.

Unless you're a pirate. Oddly enough, under Pirate Law, free market principles rule completely and without redress. Parley? :D


In a free market you can sell and advertise drugs to kids...?

Discuss.

[Kludge]

Didn't read the entire thread, but isn't that sort of like saying in a free market you're free to hire someone for murder?

Free market doesn't abrogate criminal law AFAIK.

You can't have free markets and also have the government determine/grant property rights (property rights in the "philosophy of liberty" sense, which is the root of all other rights, given self-ownership).