Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) "Anchor Baby" B.S. (Read 11130 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43769
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #160 - Oct 3rd, 2015 at 8:41am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 10:01pm:
If the decision of who is to take care of the baby now is not the mother's, it is no one's, because when the mother loses guardianship, there could be no guardian at all.

When mothers abandon their children, they abdicate the right of making decisions for the child.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43769
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #161 - Oct 3rd, 2015 at 8:45am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 10:01pm:
It's very much to the point because it illustrates that a baby can make a NAP-approved shield.

Sorry, I can't imagine how the NAP could possibly approve of a criminal using a baby as a shield in a gunfight.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10042
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #162 - Oct 5th, 2015 at 3:17am
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 4:59am:
That's obviously false. Are you off your meds again?


So who's the rightful guardian when the State takes guardianship away? (According to what is right, not necessarily US law. And assuming the previously rightful guardian named no other.)

Furthermore, why do you think that a deported mother or one in jail loses say-so over her child? If she calls from jail and tells her kid to go to bed by 9:00 PM, it no longer has to?

Jeff wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 8:41am:
When mothers abandon their children, they abdicate the right of making decisions for the child.


let stay somewhere else ≠ abandon

Do you think that just because a baby is staying with its aunt right now, the mother has abandoned the child and forfeited all her parental rights?

Jeff wrote on Oct 3rd, 2015 at 8:45am:
Sorry, I can't imagine how the NAP could possibly approve of a criminal using a baby as a shield in a gunfight.


If the NAP doesn't approve of you shooting the aggressor holding the baby, it's giving a sort of passive license to the behaviour of using a baby as a shield. The NAP still calls using a baby as a shield aggression, no doubt, but that makes little difference if it also prevents you from shooting.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alan Jones
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2721
Joined: Apr 19th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #163 - Oct 5th, 2015 at 3:43am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 3:17am:
So who's the rightful guardian when the State takes guardianship away? (According to what is right, not necessarily US law. And assuming the previously rightful guardian named no other.)

There is no specific "rightful" libertarian answer to that question, only answers that are consistent with libertarianism. Most likely the other parent, relative, volunteer foster parents, etc would take over guardianship.

The Opposition wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 3:17am:
Furthermore, why do you think that a deported mother or one in jail loses say-so over her child? If she calls from jail and tells her kid to go to bed by 9:00 PM, it no longer has to?

Of course not, but it has nothing to do with being a "rightful" answer, or me thinking that she should lose say-so. It's because the mother lacks the practical ability to enforce her wishes directly.

It's like asking me why I think Stephen Hawkings shouldn't be able to walk, as if it's a matter of what I think. Like the mother losing her say-so, it's just an observation on my part, not a verdict.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
jzk
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 222
Location: Chicago
Joined: Oct 4th, 2015
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #164 - Oct 5th, 2015 at 8:07am
Print Post  
Is it not the libertarian view that immigration should be open, but without benefits?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43769
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #165 - Oct 5th, 2015 at 10:52am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 3:17am:
let stay somewhere else ≠ abandon




If the NAP doesn't approve of you shooting the aggressor holding the baby, it's giving a sort of passive license to the behaviour of using a baby as a shield. The NAP still calls using a baby as a shield aggression, no doubt, but that makes little difference if it also prevents you from shooting.

If a mother being deported leaves her baby with someone who is legally in the U.S., grants them legal guardian status, then it's not exactly abandonment (although the child might think it is) but if she just refuses to take her baby with her and leaves it's fate to CPS or whatever government agency, she's abandoning it.
In either case, it doesn't "anchor" her in the U.S.

The NAP does, in some circumstances, approve of aggressors being shot, but no civilized person approves of using a baby as a shield.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10042
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #166 - Oct 6th, 2015 at 4:01am
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 3:43am:
There is no specific "rightful" libertarian answer to that question, only answers that are consistent with libertarianism. Most likely the other parent, relative, volunteer foster parents, etc would take over guardianship.


So what's the libertarian answer when the mum says all those people are unfit to take care of her baby? Ignore her wishes?

Of course not, but it has nothing to do with being a "rightful" answer, or me thinking that she should lose say-so. It's because the mother lacks the practical ability to enforce her wishes directly.

Alan Jones wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 3:43am:
It's like asking me why I think Stephen Hawkings shouldn't be able to walk, as if it's a matter of what I think. Like the mother losing her say-so, it's just an observation on my part, not a verdict.


That's interesting. So you think parental "rights" are more like child non-rights. There is no inherent right for the parent to control the child, just no help for the child which does not want to be so controlled.

Jeff wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 10:52am:
If a mother being deported leaves her baby with someone who is legally in the U.S., grants them legal guardian status, then it's not exactly abandonment (although the child might think it is) but if she just refuses to take her baby with her and leaves it's fate to CPS or whatever government agency, she's abandoning it.


Except that she's not doing that. The government, through force, is ripping her from the baby. She's not leaving anyone anywhere. If it starves because of this action, it is now the government's fault. This does present a potential anchor mechanism.

Jeff wrote on Oct 5th, 2015 at 10:52am:
The NAP does, in some circumstances, approve of aggressors being shot, but no civilized person approves of using a baby as a shield.


But the NAP does condemn you for shooting at the person who does use a baby as a shield. At least, I'm fairly certain it does.

Again, think of the way hostage situations are handled. Total disregard for the hostages lives as a policy would result in no one ever taking hostages again, because it would not benefit them to do so. Instead, the police regard the lives of the hostages highly, changing their behaviour to minimise risk to the hostages, and affording the criminals that extra protection. I believe it is the NAP the police act upon.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43769
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #167 - Oct 6th, 2015 at 9:27am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 4:01am:
Except that she's not doing that. The government, through force, is ripping her from the baby.


But the NAP does condemn you for shooting at the person who does use a baby as a shield. At least, I'm fairly certain it does.


The government is using force to deport her, the decision about whether to take her baby with her, or abandon it, is purely hers.

You don't understand the difference between aggression and self defense. Until you do, you won't ever understand the NAP.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alan Jones
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2721
Joined: Apr 19th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #168 - Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:46am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 4:01am:
So what's the libertarian answer when the mum says all those people are unfit to take care of her baby? Ignore her wishes?

When her wishes are to be free to commit crimes and never be locked up? Yep, ignore them, I say.  Roll Eyes

The Opposition wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 4:01am:
That's interesting. So you think parental "rights" are more like child non-rights. There is no inherent right for the parent to control the child, just no help for the child which does not want to be so controlled.

I don't know where you got that, or even what you mean. Are you asking whether an incarcerated parent has an inherent right to control their child, in the same way that Stephen Hawking has an inherent right to walk?

The Opposition wrote on Oct 6th, 2015 at 4:01am:
But the NAP does condemn you for shooting at the person who does use a baby as a shield. At least, I'm fairly certain it does.

Libertarians disagree on that, but I think most don't interpret the NAP that way. For one, the NAP is a political philosophy, applicable to determining whether such a defensive shooter should be imprisoned for defending himself. The NAP doesn't apply to such a "lifeboat" situation directly, since lifeboat (him or me) situations aren't questions of what kind of laws to enact or enforce. Nor would such concerns (about being criminally liable) be on the mind of anyone in such a situation. The guy is trying to save his hide, not make law. I think even libertarians who would condemn him morally, wouldn't condemn him from a legal or political POV.

Second, the NAP doesn't explicitly require that a person harmed by defensive force and the aggressor be the same person. The force is used for the purpose of self-defense, not retaliation or punishment, where that would necessarily be implied. Again, it's similar to the classic lifeboat example: you take the lifeboat to save your life, not to punish or retaliate against an aggressor.

And again, this is a question of morality, not political philosophy. Political and legal concerns would be the furthest thing from the mind of anyone in such a situation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10042
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #169 - Oct 11th, 2015 at 10:02pm
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:46am:
When her wishes are to be free to commit crimes and never be locked up? Yep, ignore them, I say.  Roll Eyes


You're dodging the issue and you don't know that. She may really believe all those people will abuse her baby. Mothers can get possessive. The question is whether she has a right to exclude people from taking care of her child.

Alan Jones wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:46am:
I don't know where you got that, or even what you mean. Are you asking whether an incarcerated parent has an inherent right to control their child, in the same way that Stephen Hawking has an inherent right to walk?


I suppose I'm asking whether the babysitter violates the parent's rights in any way when she acts against the wishes of the parent. (Inherently, not due to agreement.)

Alan Jones wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:46am:
Libertarians disagree on that, but I think most don't interpret the NAP that way. For one, the NAP is a political philosophy, applicable to determining whether such a defensive shooter should be imprisoned for defending himself. The NAP doesn't apply to such a "lifeboat" situation directly, since lifeboat (him or me) situations aren't questions of what kind of laws to enact or enforce. Nor would such concerns (about being criminally liable) be on the mind of anyone in such a situation. The guy is trying to save his hide, not make law. I think even libertarians who would condemn him morally, wouldn't condemn him from a legal or political POV.

Second, the NAP doesn't explicitly require that a person harmed by defensive force and the aggressor be the same person. The force is used for the purpose of self-defense, not retaliation or punishment, where that would necessarily be implied. Again, it's similar to the classic lifeboat example: you take the lifeboat to save your life, not to punish or retaliate against an aggressor.


That opens the door to every use of force the government employs being labelled defensive. That opens the door to, "if it saves even one life..." If you want to slam the door on that bubbling crock of mud pies, you must make peoples' rights sovereign unless they specifically act aggressively.

Alan Jones wrote on Oct 11th, 2015 at 11:46am:
And again, this is a question of morality, not political philosophy. Political and legal concerns would be the furthest thing from the mind of anyone in such a situation.


Probably best not to say that when I'm sitting right here reading it. My morality ticker doesn't work very well, so it would be much on my mind, as well as the question of how most people would interpret the situation.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy