March 29, 2016 at 12:35 pm #20432visu21Participant
“The concept of self-ownership would seem to exclude the idea of a community overriding one’s own decisions about one’s sovereignty.”
Yes, you’re correct. I did not say you could override someone’s decisions, but you can make one for them if they are incapable of doing so themselves. That is what I was referring to.
A child, at any age, may deem his parents unfit for any reason and choose to leave his home. He is not the property of his parents. So long as the person is not an imminent threat to other people (as in the case of some of the mentally unstable), the use of force against that person is an abuse of the principle of self-ownership.
Michael – the original question he raised is how the NAP framework is applied in certain situations, and instead you used the statist framework…not really sure why.March 29, 2016 at 1:27 pm #20433michael.taboneMember
I assumed a minarchist mind set when the term Libertarian was used in the original post. While that could be my own projecting, I tend to think that libertarians generally do not see themselves as full on anarchists. When I come into contact with a Libertarian in my daily life, when push comes to shove on a stateless society, generally they will always grasp to some semblance of a state. One minute we are laughing together at someone who says “Muh Roads” and the next they are defending some type of public good/service because _________________.
The jumping to a Minarchist mind set is mine and I can concede that.
-MikeApril 2, 2016 at 10:06 am #20434seraphim37Member
<< This is a popular Venn Diagram, and a good starting point I feel, for the breakdown of different political concepts as discussed above: https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/philosophical-circles.jpg” >>
Nice diagram, thanks!
It seems that Voluntarism is equivalent to Anarcho-Capitalism?
<< Look into these classifications as a base line. Then your question exists in several different shades of Libertarian thought, and even beyond.>>
I don’t think there are really so many shades. Either the answer is trivially easy to answer (assuming Minarchism or worse, wherein a community can simply decide on an arbitrary “age of responsibility”) or intractable, such as with Voluntarism.April 7, 2016 at 12:16 am #20435cheekjulieMember
<<Was the person originally held against their will and then they decided to submit and follow their “captors” demands?>>
yes, but the dissociated self decidedApril 7, 2016 at 12:51 am #20436cheekjulieMember
<<That’s a very general question. I think Stockholm syndrome is a fascinating and tragic psychological phenomenon. But I’m not sure that’s the answer you are looking for?>>
Piggybacking on the question of when do the mentally ill own themselves.
Forgive me for thinking outloud, this is an extreme outlier… Should a torturer/kidnapper be held liable for his crimes if the victim later willingly accepts the treatment, but operating out of a persona distinct from the personality state present at the onset of the relationship?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.