--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Silver Sphere" > <septithol@> wrote: > > > > I think Bonneau's statement that children are bound by whatever > > agreements their parents happen to make, > > I agree that Paul has really big problems here. >
He has a few big problems here, some of them having to do with Initiation Of Force; those are easy to analyze and dispense with. Libertarianism itself has "problems" with Incompetents generally, and I do not feel on firm ground making pronouncements in this area. The attitude of L.Neil Smith is that Parents are the sole arbiters of their children's fates. I am not sure whether he considers them Property or Wards or what. I have argued against his position, but he has a point: If not the Parents, then who? The alternative is that the NEIGHBORS (i.e. The State, The City, The Posse, The Community) have a moral right to step in and punish the Parent if he does not rear his kids according to Community Standards. One thing against his position is that there is no such thing as "The Parents". All of us (until we get Cloning working) have TWO Parents, and they often disagree. Another thing working against his position is that a Consequentialist argument, which I don't like but it's all I've got: If Parents can do whatever they like to their kids, they can eat them, or rent them out as sex slaves. But even Neil's position does not support Bonneau's. Children are TEMPORARY Incompetents. After some point (Calendar Age, height ["Are You Shorter Than A Fifth Grader"], MMQT Maturity Assessment Test, whatever), the Individual is no longer Incompetent. Thus he may be rented as a Slave for the duration, but then must be Manumitted. NO CONTRACT of the Parent can be binding upon the former Child after that time. > > I was very unhappy with his idea that the age of > majority can be set by unanimous consent, > presumably of those who are already authorised to vote. > Ah, no problem, of course ANYTHING that can be Articulated can be set by Unanimous Consent. (There are some who speak of Unanimous Consent without mentioning what is Consented to; I still can't work those guys out). If there are Incompetents who do NOT Vote, then they are not bound by the Vote, only their Guardians are - and the Incompetents must do as their Guardians decree (until they are no longer Incompetent, at which time they must Agree or Leave). Once the Vote is taken and is Unanimous, then every Competent who arrives later must agree also, so it remains Unanimous. No Problem. This works for any kind of Enslavement or Outrage, even "No Trash Cans Curbside After Ten AM" or "No Pink Lawn Flamingos". > > So, let me see, a 34 year old arrives in a community > where the age of majority is 35 and above. > He is not qualified to vote. But, those who are have > unanimously consented to the 35 year age requirement. > What exactly is the status of such a person? Slave? > His status is that he cannot Vote, and he has accepted whatever everyone else has accepted, which may or may not make him a Slave. His alternative is not to arrive in that community. Anyone may agree to be a Slave for a period of time or for the rest of his life. If he does agree, we may for entertainment speculate as to his motivation, but none of that can have any moral bearing on whether or not he IS then a Slave. He may do so in exchange for money to save his mother's life, or to impress Jody Foster (lotsa luck), or to be allowed to live in a prosperous community, whatever; we cannot second-guess his motives and say that is irrational and WE wouldn't have made the same CHOICE. He is a GrownUp and is bound by his Contracts.
