Children and Self-Ownership: The Theory of Natural Trajectory (Do children possess self-ownership? Yes, they do.)
TL;DR: Video format at the bottom of this page.
The Theory of "Natural Trajectory" as a means of resolving "gray areas" in libertarian philosophy:
Everything in the natural world has a course to follow, and given the presence of required elements for triggering and catalyzing the release of self-contained biological information, within a given biological mechanism, entity, or being, the biological manifestation of some "end" function (a seed becomes a tree with water and sunlight, an egg, a chicken) demonstrates itself unfailingly. Thus, it should be recognized that simply because a biological entity is not yet at a state of full end-function capacity, this does not mean that said full end-function capacity is not present in the form of information and "intention" (natural trajectory) already and fully, within the entity. See: genetics, for example.
In other words, just because children cannot fully exercise the reality of their self-ownership, does not rule out its presence in the "intention"--or trajectory--of nature--its dormant state in the form of unexpressed natural information residing in the being.
Further, attempting to measure this capacity for expression of self-ownership (and as a result the degree to which an individual may be considered to be a self-owner, i.e. to have rights) is an arbitrary process which objectively potentializes violent conflict and abuse as the process involves a certain class of individuals measuring out the rights that others "ought to have." Sadly, many self-proclaimed "libertarians" are attempting to do just this. This is why self-ownership must be, by necessity, all or nothing when it comes to consistent libertarianism.
Two Scenarios.
If we argue that children are not self-owners they are effectively property and may be killed, sold, raped, beaten, etc, all without a single violation of the non-aggression principle occurring. Obviously, this is patently absurd.
If we argue that children are full-fledged "adults" capable of fully exercising their individual self-ownership, then things like stopping a child from running into a busy street or keeping them from the edge of a body of water become NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) violations. Clearly, these acts are defensive acts, done with the sole purpose of preserving the life of a being who was--at that moment--unable to preserve his or herself.
One of my good friends, Gabriel Scheare ( @piedpiper here on Steemit), has remarked that scenario two's situation would still indeed be a NAP violation, albeit a necessary one. One can apologize later, but still take the necessary action to preserve the ignorant party's life.
Another good friend, Chris LeRoux, had this to say about children in regard to self-ownership, and I tend to agree with his stance, and feel it is extremely well-conveyed.
When a couple engage in voluntary sex, they are forming a contract, whether written down or not. They are agreeing to make use of each other's property, their body and mind, for certain purposes, for a certain length of time, with certain potential outcomes. One of these potential outcomes is a new life. They are thus forming a pure, private trust, a contract which could result in a new life they are responsible for creating and caretaking until they are capable of assumming the full expression of their self-ownership, until they achieve adulthood.
This matches up nicely with my ideas regarding the natural trajectories of beings/entities/plants which are found in nature.
My Theory.
A seed, given time and the conditions proper to trigger its natural function and development, will become a tree. The biological technology and information necessary for the full development into a tree are already present and contained within the tiny seed.
A human embryo is the same. The fertilized human egg will not become a dinosaur, or a chicken, or a turtle. The information is there. It is a human in an early stage of development.
Indeed, all the cells in the embryo are already working toward this goal of development. Every cell is hungry and straining forward for more nutrients and growth. "Hungry" and straining not to become a fish or a plant, but a self-owning, human. Indeed, even though infants do not possess the motor skills of adults, they still are in highest direct control via their brains of the skills they have developed. In short, they are individuals, with highest and most immediate and direct control of their bodies and minds as they are "their bodies and minds."
Yeah, one might object, but what about malevolent organisms in nature? What about viruses, bacteria, and cancer? What about neurologically damaged individuals who can no longer feel compassion and are on the "trajectory" of a killer? Should they be allowed to progress simply because they are on a path? Should I leave the cancer alone in my body? Should I let parasites and bacteria devour me? After all, these things do occur in the natural world.
If we hold the sustenance and preservation of human life, and minimal violent conflict as values in our societal equation, we can look at these entities and rightly judge them as objectively invasive and detrimental ("violent") and proceed with defending ourselves against them.
Children, Retards, and "Vegetables."
Children are full self-owners. They are simply not yet capable of fully exercising and expressing said possessed self-ownership. This is because they are still relatively close to the "starting point" on the "line" of their natural developmental trajectory.
The same goes for those with mental disabilities, the physically disabled, and even the braindead, or comatose individuals, often referred to as "vegetables."
The reason being, if we do not recognize any and all of these individuals as self-owners, then the NAP simply cannot apply to them. If the NAP cannot apply to them, then we are in for a world of trouble:
HEY YOU! YEAH, YOU! SEE THAT LADY OVER THERE IN THE HOSPITAL BED! SHE'S BRAIN DEAD. A VEGETABLE. GO AHEAD AND HAVE YOUR WAY WITH HER! IT'S NO PROBLEM. NO NAP VIOLATION! YOU CAN RAPE HER!
HEY! ARE YOU SICK OF YOUR KIDS? JUST KILL THE LITTLE BASTARDS! THEY'RE YOUR PROPERTY ANYWAY!
HEY! SEE THAT MAN OVER THERE WITH THE SEVERE MENTAL DISABILITY!!? YEAH! THAT ONE! GO ON OVER THERE AND TAKE HIS WALLET! HE CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT PROPERTY IS ANYWAY SO THAT MONEY ISN'T HIS PROPERTY! NO NAP VIOLATION, HOMEY! GO MAKE SOME BANK!
See how ridiculous that is? Even so, there are some very prominent anarchists maintaining that the NAP is merely a legal philosophy, and that anyone who cannot conceive of rights--children, the mentally disabled, etc--doesn't have said rights.
However, regardless of the detectable presence of a moral agent by some arbitrary "authority" on the matter which insists we must "compartmentalize" and save morals for another discussion, the fact stands that: EACH INDIVIDUAL'S "INTENDED" (NATURAL DESIGN/STRUCTURE) STATE OF BEING IS ONE OF AGENCY AND AWARENESS. The fact remains that even if someone is on vacation from their home, it is still wrong for another party to occupy said home and utilize it without consent of the owner.
One can "compartmentalize" all one wants, calling some actions NAP violations and others, simply "unsavory acts." This does not change the fact that self-ownership is inextricably and intrinsically tied to, and inseparable from, morality. Indeed, they are one and the same.
The Golden Rule.
The means by which the objective reality of self-ownership (highest direct self-executive capacity relating to one's body and mind) was first recognized were without question observations based on discovering and differentiating right from wrong.
I feel bad when he breaks my house. Why? Because I am an individual and it is right for me to make and create and function as such on my own individual, natural trajectory. He has violated this in breaking my property. It would be inconsistent with my own values (wrong) if I violated him, too, as I value minimal violent conflict in society.
~*~
Here's the video version of this article:
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
Imagine your wife just suffered a concussion and is severely mentally handicapped as a result. She has been effectively reduced to infancy for now but the doctors all assure you that she'll eventually heal and make a full recovery. In the mean time, will you sometimes violate her wishes in order to protect her? Yeah, maybe, but you'll also stand accountable for your violations after she's recovered and you're certain that she'll understand, forgive, and probably even thank you. Violations should never be taken lightly because there's always the possibility that you might never be forgiven. If you're not absolutely sure that the violation will be forgiven, it's generally best not to risk it.
Agreed.
I think the way to look at this is roughly like having durable power of attorney for someone. Just because you give power of attorney to someone else on your behalf does not mean that you stop owning yourself -- it just means that you have specified a caretaker who will exercise ownership choices on your behalf.
For elderly people, this power of attorney is theoretically completed while they are of sound mind with the anticipation that at some point in the future they will not be. For children of course, this situation is the opposite -- power of attorney is automatically deeded to their parents at birth, with the anticipation that at some point in the future they will become mature enough to take over ownership decisions themselves.
Thus the question is not whether they have ownership -- they clearly do from the moment of birth and the law treats them as such. The question is who functions as their caretaker while they mature enough to be able to make ownership decisions themselves.
That's a really interesting way to look at it.
Really a impressive discussion about"libertarian philosophy"..yes,we should raise our children in such a way so that no one can force to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others. Together, we have to teach them to respect for individual right.
I don't know-how much I could relate my views with this post.. Thanks dear friend for sharing such worthful topic connecting with lots of examples of different branches.. Happy steeming!
Extremely lucid post, which captures and expresses well how I have raised my own kids.
Thanks!
great post.......thanks for share us
Very interesting @kafkanarchy84
Nice article..children possessed self ownnership. But society has made the norms in such a way that they cannot exercise their powers..a section of people are there who always try to take advantage of the downtrodden and deprived people . We are sick of these crabs..
Its the system and society which make us according to their will...a child posses self ownership in their very early ages...but ultimately they got the shape of ongoing society....
AWESOME post. Thanks for sharing.