Crosspost from /k/

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 0c8d9b09e5e93f5⋯.gif (475.23 KB, 300x245, 60:49, 0c8d9b09e5e93f5bbfcc339711….gif)

Crosspost from /k/ Anonymous 04/25/18 (Wed) 02:17:34 No.82415

I figured this was a better place for addressing a shitpost.

>what part of 'devolve' do you not understand? i am not saying ancap = feudalism you drooling illiterate potato. who says kids can't consent? who enforces what the NAP means? if I say kids can consent who are to tell me that they can't? if you disagree with me or attempt to stop my use of child workers that clearly violates the NAP.

Consent requires consciousness, forethought, lucidity, awareness and understanding. Kids as a whole do not have all of these until they reach maturity. I can enforce this claim morally by destroying you or hiring people to stop you (such as a voluntary government or a dispute resolution org). NAP is an objective principle, use of forced labour is a clear violation of it.

Pretty simple really- don't hit, don't steal, don't defraud.

Anonymous 04/25/18 (Wed) 03:52:20 No.82429

>>82415

You can't destroy someone's home because you feel like their aggressing against the child in question unless under specific circumstances. If someone is abusing a child sexually or beating them (you know like really beating them) I think it's justifiable to use violence to remove the child. Beyond physical violence you don't have an ethical right to use force to remove a child given a child is free to run away. You could always offer to take the child through exchange (a less lolbertarian way of saying through a baby market) too if you found the parent unfit but that would be a voluntary transaction between you and the parent in question.

Forcing a child to work is no different than forcing a child to clean their room or eat their vegetables. It's aggression but a child isn't a full person, now the child is free to run away and if it is prevented that is where you get the ethical right to remove the child with force but without that you would be aggressing against the parent who cares for the child.

Anonymous 04/25/18 (Wed) 07:42:51 No.82458

Being objective is the problem with NAP. What matters is if the person consented to the protection. If no one did, and the child can't consent, then it is simply a pretext for hurting the agressor.

Anonymous 04/26/18 (Thu) 08:15:30 No.82624

I was going to respond, but this is another child workers/child sex slaves thread.

Eat shit, scrub.