Libertarianism in practice

[henry quirk]

Explain "care taking" versus "slavery".

Look around: I'm sure you can find the obvious differences between the two in the here & now.

The act of licensing medical doctors so that only professionals who can demonstrate years of training and have passed exams may prescribe powerful pharmaceuticals was recently dscribed by you as "slavery-lite"

I don't believe I said that: in-context citation, please.

[FlashDangerpants]

Explain "care taking" versus "slavery".

Look around: I'm sure you can find the obvious differences between the two in the here & now.

The act of licensing medical doctors so that only professionals who can demonstrate years of training and have passed exams may prescribe powerful pharmaceuticals was recently dscribed by you as "slavery-lite"

I don't believe I said that: in-context citation, please.

Here you go

The Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners determines who can market their services as a doctor in your state, controlling lots of transactions and restricting your purchasing options in the process. Are they slave masters?

slaver-lite

[henry quirk]

Explain "care taking" versus "slavery".

Look around: I'm sure you can find the obvious differences between the two in the here & now.

The act of licensing medical doctors so that only professionals who can demonstrate years of training and have passed exams may prescribe powerful pharmaceuticals was recently dscribed by you as "slavery-lite"

I don't believe I said that: in-context citation, please.

Here you go

The Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners determines who can market their services as a doctor in your state, controlling lots of transactions and restricting your purchasing options in the process. Are they slave masters?

slaver-lite

yeah, see what I called slaver-lite, and what you said I called slaver-lite don't exactly match up

[FlashDangerpants]

Explain "care taking" versus "slavery".

Look around: I'm sure you can find the obvious differences between the two in the here & now.

The act of licensing medical doctors so that only professionals who can demonstrate years of training and have passed exams may prescribe powerful pharmaceuticals was recently dscribed by you as "slavery-lite"

I don't believe I said that: in-context citation, please.

Here you go

The Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners determines who can market their services as a doctor in your state, controlling lots of transactions and restricting your purchasing options in the process. Are they slave masters?

slaver-lite

yeah, see what I called slaver-lite, and what you said I called slaver-lite don't exactly match up

So .... the same people are slavers when you describe them as the licensing authority for doctors, but protectors when you describe them as preventing unlicensed medical professionals... really Henry?

[henry quirk]

So .... the same people are slavers when you describe them as the licensing authority for doctors, but protectors when you describe them as preventing unlicensed medical professionals... really Henry?



never said any of that: quit readin' what ain't there

[henry quirk]

for the record, this...

The Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners determines who can market their services as a doctor in your state, controlling lots of transactions and restricting your purchasing options in the process.

...is slaver-lite, while this...

licensing medical doctors so that only professionals who can demonstrate years of training and have passed exams may prescribe powerful pharmaceuticals

...is just unneccessary

[FlashDangerpants]

Erm, sure, whatever. So now that's been sorted out...

so: now you'll ask where is any of this found in the 3?; and I'll say consent is there, embedded; and then you'll say what right do parents have to enslave their children?; and I'll say it ain't slavery it's care-takin' and I'll also say the 3 dictates against violation, not love or common sense; then you'll say...

Explain "care taking" versus "slavery". The Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners determines who can market their services as a doctor in your state, controlling lots of transactions and restricting your purchasing options in the process are apparently some sort of slavers, but they prevent quacks selling bad medicine to the unenlightened, which is surely proection under the those same terms of your "the 3" as above?

[henry quirk]

they prevent quacks selling bad medicine to the unenlightened, which is surely proection under the those same terms of your "the 3" as above?

The 3 offer no protection: they are the codification of natural rights -- moral fact. They offer a foundation for redress and justification for defense. But, as I told skep, they don't make for restraint before harm is done or attempted, only after.

Oh, that quack might hoodwink me cuz I'm a rube! Someone stop him before he does! vs This man willfully, knowingly sold me snake oil. I want compensation or redress.

[FlashDangerpants]

the biggest hurdle, seems to me, wouldn't be the young gettin' emancipated (goin' to court to illustrate competence in self-direction

That's restraint before harm is done or attempted isn't it?

[henry quirk]

the biggest hurdle, seems to me, wouldn't be the young gettin' emancipated (goin' to court to illustrate competence in self-direction

That's restraint before harm is done or attempted isn't it?

nope

this...

children contendin' against parents who may not wanna let 'em go

...neither

[FlashDangerpants]

the biggest hurdle, seems to me, wouldn't be the young gettin' emancipated (goin' to court to illustrate competence in self-direction

That's restraint before harm is done or attempted isn't it?

nope

this...

children contendin' against parents who may not wanna let 'em go

...neither

You are stating that you would interfere with the ability of a person posessed of self-ownership to prevent them from making mistakes are you not?

Otherwise, if they don't have self-ownership, they hold the same moral status as a rabbit and nothing you might do to them is immoral anyway.

[henry quirk]

You are stating that you would interfere with the ability of a person posessed of self-ownership to prevent them from making mistakes are you not?

nope...I'm sayin' children generally can't give consent; I'm sayin' love and common sense don't go bye-bye with natural rights

Otherwise, if they don't have self-ownership, they hold the same moral status as a rabbit and nothing you might do to them is immoral anyway.

they're still persons, guy

[FlashDangerpants]

You are stating that you would interfere with the ability of a person posessed of self-ownership to prevent them from making mistakes are you not?

nope...I'm sayin' children generally can't give consent; I'm sayin' love and common sense don't go bye-bye with natural rights

Otherwise, if they don't have self-ownership, they hold the same moral status as a rabbit and nothing you might do to them is immoral anyway.

they're still persons, guy

Persons... so ...
This "young adult" belongs to herself.
Her life, liberty and property are hers.
She hasn't deprived anyone knowingly or willingly etc.

But you are withholding her liberty.

Which makes you a slaver.

the free men wanna be left alone to live, to transact, to compete & cooperate

the slavers wanna direct the livin', the transactin', the competin' & cooperatin'

You are directing the transactin'

[henry quirk]

Which makes you a slaver.

the child-parent relationship is this...

the child, invited into the world, enjoys and benefits from the protection, love, care, and instruction of the parent till he grows into maturity wherein he can fully self-direct, self-rely, be self-responsible, and grant consent

the parent, who invited the child into the world, enjoys and is morally tasked with protecting, loving, caring for, and instructing his child so the child can mature and fully self-direct, self-rely, be self-responsible, and grant consent

outside the normal process of maturation, emancipation is how the child can establish he is fully self-directing, self-relying, self-responsible, and capable of consent even if mom and pop disagree

it's immoral for parents to invite a person into the world and, while that person is incapable of self-direction, self-reliance, self-responsibility, not offer protection, love, care, and instruction, just as it would be immoral for the parents to hold onto the child after he's established himself as fully self-directing, self-relying, self-responsible, and capable of consent

[FlashDangerpants]

Which makes you a slaver.

the child-parent relationship is this...

the child, invited into the world, enjoys and benefits from the protection, love, care, and instruction of the parent till he grows into maturity wherein he can fully self-direct, self-rely, be self-responsible, and grant consent

the parent, who invited the child into the world, enjoys and is morally tasked with protecting, loving, caring for, and instructing his child so the child can mature and fully self-direct, self-rely, be self-responsible, and grant consent

outside the normal process of maturation, emancipation is how the child can establish he is fully self-directing, self-relying, self-responsible, and capable of consent even if mom and pop disagree

it's immoral for parents to invite a person into the world and, while that person is incapable of self-direction, self-reliance, self-responsibility, not offer protection, love, care, and instruction, just as it would be immoral for the parents to hold onto the child after he's established himself as fully self-directing, self-relying, self-responsible, and capable of consent

You are adding customary traditional ethics there that doesn't derive from your divine 3 at all.
Your 3 is supposed to do everything, it isn't supposed to need assistance.

Your 3 assigns rights entirely on the basis of self belonging, and absolutely on that basis. But now you are giving yourself a new logical problem...

A man belongs to himself. (Or, as my good friend, age put it: A man is free).

It is what it is.

I belong to myself; you belong to yourself.

This is self-evident.

It's not self evident if it can be partial. And it can't possibly apply to a fetus if a 17 year old is required to prove they have it in a court. The chicken that got fucked in the barn evinces more of that quality of self-direction than a 7 week embryo. Yet you say it's not immoral to fuck the chicken.