I will admit something...

[NghtRppr]

Why replace a system, with some faults, with another with different but equally big or bigger faults?

I can't accept any system if one of its faults is that it allows for initiating violence against persons or property as being legitimate when done by certain groups. All human interactions should be voluntary. In my opinion, the current system has such a flaw and it more than outweighs any technical difficulties imposed by competing jurisdictions.

[Anonymous]

The system doesn't even work if it's not already clear. It's really that simple.

[smellyBobby]

All human interactions should be voluntary.

So where does parenting fall into this?

[NghtRppr]

So where does parenting fall into this?

Parents are custodians of their children until those children demand to be free by leaving home and living on their own. Also, if you abuse a child or otherwise treat him or her in a way that he or she wouldn't want to be treated if he or she were a fully rational adult then you lose custodianship and someone else can take over that responsibility.

[smellyBobby]

Parents are custodians of their children until those children demand to be free by leaving home and living on their own.

So a child is in the custody of a legal guardian, right. So who grants custodianship over an individual? A community of peers? That seems to violate two libertarian virtues: The individual is "entitled to themselves" and that no "institution" will decide the future of an individual.

........ if you abuse a child or otherwise treat him or her in a way that he or she wouldn't want to be treated if he or she were a fully rational adult ......

Who decides what a rational adult is? Who decides what abuse is?

I don't think that you can use terms defined by peers to describe a libertarian society. A Libertarian vocabulary is restricted to using words that only concern the individual. To use words whose definition is defined by comparing individuals implies denying the individuals right to define what the word means. Also to use a word whose meaning is agreed upon by a set of peers(aka institution) is an indirect form of institutional influence. To describe an ideology in such a way, implies the need for institutions.

........someone else can take over that responsibility.......

This is open to the points I made above.

[Anonymous]

This is why I don't like the concept of children.

[Basiley]

The system doesn't even work if it's not already clear. It's really that simple.

nothing actually "work" in that sense, then.
people works, rest was rust.

[NghtRppr]

So a child is in the custody of a legal guardian, right. So who grants custodianship over an individual? A community of peers? That seems to violate two libertarian virtues: The individual is "entitled to themselves" and that no "institution" will decide the future of an individual.

Think of it like this. You see a person unconscious and bleeding on a sidewalk. The only thing that will save their life is a blood transfusion. Do you give them one? Well, that depends on what the person would want if they were fully rational i.e. conscious. For most people, the answer would be yes. If they are a Jehovah's Witness then the answer would be no. You treat people how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational.

Who decides what a rational adult is?

Each of us does, by declaring ourselves to be rational and fending for ourselves.

Who decides what abuse is?

Again, each of us does. If we aren't fully rational then we should treat them how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational. Obviously, that can't be done perfectly but that's what we should strive for.

[smellyBobby]

Think of it like this. You see a person unconscious and bleeding on a sidewalk. The only thing that will save their life is a blood transfusion. Do you give them one? Well, that depends on what the person would want if they were fully rational i.e. conscious. For most people, the answer would be yes. If they are a Jehovah's Witness then the answer would be no. You treat people how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational.

This is illogical. So when an agent is unconscious, the external agent is suppose to treat them in a rational(1) way; and rational(1) is defined by the unconscious agent, the meaning of which is unknown by the external agent, therefore the course of action to be taken by the external agent is unknown. How is that suppose to work?

Lets say the unconscious agent has it's own preference on blood transfusion, but for the sake of argument lets include a premise into your scenario; In this situation it is okay for the external agent to revert to its own meaning of rational(2). Unfortunately both agents definition of rational are different resulting in the violation of the unconscious agent's liberties. How does libertarianism deal with this? It cannot restore the unconscious agent's liberties because no such structures exist. This also shows that these set of "libertarian rules" does not guarantee the liberties of all agents.

[NghtRppr]

This is illogical. So when an agent is unconscious, the external agent is suppose to treat them in a rational(1) way; and rational(1) is defined by the unconscious agent, the meaning of which is unknown by the external agent, therefore the course of action to be taken by the external agent is unknown. How is that suppose to work?

No, it's not up to the agent to decide what rationality is. That's presupposed. It's only up to the agent to declare that he or she is rational.

[smellyBobby]

Which agent?

So your saying all agents have an agreed definition of rationality? That is peer definition(aka institution). A concept like rationality is a peer agreed term, therefore if you presuppose rationality then you presuppose the existence of institutions.

[AntiVigilante]

The topic of guardianship and the care for the unconscious is the Godwin's Law topic for libertarians.

Do unto others as they'd have you do unto them is an unworkable model.

If a person is conscious and asks me to kill them, am I compelled to do so? No. Therefore if a person is unconscious, I will do what is in my power to bring them back to being conscious.

[NghtRppr]

So your saying all agents have an agreed definition of rationality?

There is a difference between definitions and meaning. A definition is which meaning we attach to which word.

Do we all agree on the definition of a dog? Maybe not. You could be using the word dog to refer to tables or salt shakers. However, there is a meaning that refers to four legged things that bark, have tails, sharp teeth, were bred from wild wolves, etc. So when I talk about dogs, that's the definition I'm using. You have to go beyond the words themselves to get at the meaning.

When I say rationality, I mean the ability to use reason, logic, etc.

[smellyBobby]

There is a difference between definitions and meaning. A definition is which meaning we attach to which word.

Do we all agree on the definition of a dog? Maybe not. You could be using the word dog to refer to tables or salt shakers. However, there is a meaning that refers to four legged things that bark, have tails, sharp teeth, were bred from wild wolves, etc. So when I talk about dogs, that's the definition I'm using. You have to go beyond the words themselves to get at the meaning.

When I say rationality, I mean the ability to use reason, logic, etc.

This is stupid. In this "libertarian universe" the unconscious agent is lying on the pavement. The external agent comes along and is forced to interact with the unconscious agent according to the meaning of rational defined by the unconscious agent, the meaning of which is unknown by the external agent. Like I said before how is this possible??

Further I will say that is impossible to achieve. For this to work it implies that all agents must have each others set of meanings in order to correctly interact rationally( I mean the "completely shared" libertarian definition of rational). This is necessary because according to "libertarian rules" interactions between agents obligate each agent to interact with prior knowledge of meanings known by the other. And to obligate agents to share their meanings/intelligence is a violation of their "liberties".

[NghtRppr]

The external agent comes along and is forced to interact with the unconscious agent according to the meaning of rational defined by the unconscious agent, the meaning of which is unknown by the external agent.

In my last post I thought I explained that the meaning of rational isn't dependent on the unconscious agent. I think where we went wrong is when you asked "Who decides what a rational adult is?" and I took that to mean, "Who gets to decide if someone is a rational adult?"

The meaning of rationality is shared and normative much like the meaning of table, salt shaker, etc. To answer your question, nobody gets to decide what a rational adult is just like nobody gets to decide what a table or a salt shaker is. We all just settle on the definition by referring to certain meanings.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

[smellyBobby]

Think of it like this. You see a person unconscious and bleeding on a sidewalk. The only thing that will save their life is a blood transfusion. Do you give them one? Well, that depends on what the person would want if they were fully rational i.e. conscious. For most people, the answer would be yes. If they are a Jehovah's Witness then the answer would be no. You treat people how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational.

The meaning of rationality is shared and normative much like the meaning of table, salt shaker, etc. To answer your question, nobody gets to decide what a rational adult is just like nobody gets to decide what a table or a salt shaker is. We all just settle on the definition by referring to certain meanings.

Contradiction, your starting to talk s&$+..... In your first example it seems that everyone is entitled to their own meanings, but now your saying that the society has "shared meanings"........ Which one is it?

[NghtRppr]

In your first example it seems that everyone is entitled to their own meanings...

Can you explain how you come to that conclusion? The first quote you refer to makes no mention of meaning.

Also, please quit with the hostility. It adds absolutely nothing. If you don't have the patience for this then we can simply end the discussion. I have better things to do than be insulted.

[smellyBobby]

(Scenario)

External agent sees an unconscious agent bleeding on a sidewalk. The only thing that will save the unconscious agent is a blood transfusion. The unconscious agent (may | may not) be a Jehovah's Witness.

(Notes)

(Note 1)
In your original example you state that there is an expectation upon the external agent to know if the unconscious agent is a Jehovah's Witness, if you include this then you implicitly say that all agents interact with one another knowing about all other agent's meaning of rational. This is not possible.

(Rules)

(1) Assume that the meaning of rational held by each agent is possibly unique.

(2) Interaction between two agents; Agent(Unconscious)  and Agent(External), expects that they treat the other according to the other's meaning of rational.

(3) This is a libertarian society, therefore it is not possible to infringe upon someone's liberties.

Well in this scenario it is not possible for the external agent to guarantee the liberties of the unconscious agent, therefore nullifying rule 3.

For rule 3 to be valid you need to nullify note 1.

[NghtRppr]

In your original example you state that there is an expectation upon the external agent to know if the unconscious agent is a Jehovah's Witness, if you include this then you implicitly say that all agents interact with one another knowing about all other agent's meaning of rational. This is not possible.

What does knowing the religion of a person have to do with knowing their meaning of rational? Also, I didn't say there is an expectation that you should know the religion of a person. I said we should strive to treat people as they would want to be treated which could depend on a person's rationality. Obviously, unless they have some sort of bracelet or other identifying information on them, it's not possible to know their religion.

(1) Assume that the meaning of rational held by each agent is possibly unique.

No, that's not what I said.

(2) Interaction between two agents; Agent(Unconscious)  and Agent(External), expects that they treat the other according to the other's meaning of rational.

Again, that's not what I said.

(3) This is a libertarian society, therefore it is not possible to infringe upon someone's liberties.

It's possible but not legitimate.

I'm not trying to be rude here but is your first language English? There seems to be some kind of communication barrier between us.

[smellyBobby]

What does knowing the religion of a person have to do with knowing their meaning of rational?

Your kidding right? You don't think an individual's rationality will be shaped by their religion? So now it is ok to give the unconscious agent blood?

Parents are custodians of their children until those children demand to be free by leaving home and living on their own. Also, if you abuse a child or otherwise treat him or her in a way that he or she wouldn't want to be treated if he or she were a fully rational adult then you lose custodianship and someone else can take over that responsibility.

If the concept of definition is not used in a libertarian society then how is it possible to define "child abuse" let alone "rational adult" ? How is it going to be possible to not infringe upon the child's or the parent's liberties, when the external community intervenes in a case of "community defined" child abuse?