Thanks.

There's no goal of agreement for this conversation. I literally just wanted to know what you were communicating. In the other conversation, there was literally a contradiction of terms within your own usage that I was trying to get you to address. ("Property rights" are not actually real, but they justify forceful action on others in defense of them. I do not believe that there was any lack of understanding of what you meant.)

That being said, if the parents bought the XBox and are the ones who granted the original ability to use it, in what sense is it unjust to take it away? Isn't it theirs to do with what they want?

If its the parents possession, sure. I am sure that if asked under normal conditions, both parents and child would agree that its the childs possession.

If your rules are to be consistent, then if I give anything to anyone, I can take it away whenever I like.

I'm doubtful of this, at least for children under age about 14 or so.

But this also does bring back the question of the fundamental issue with your concept of property rights. Who *actually* possesses anything? And on what basis is possession established? If there is disagreement between the parent and child, can one side actually assert any authority?

So children under 14 cant ( or dont?) own anything? Presents given by parents are still the property of parents?

you might be right, and thats how most people see it, but I think thats a ****ty , hypocritical , unfair way of doing things.

I agree that determining who owns what is a difficult issue. But at a basic level, we understand that giving a present transfers the property rights of the present to the receiver. That is, if your friend gives you a present, and then a month later demands it back, or demands that you stop using it, you would find that bizarre and annoying. If they,when they gave the present, had stipulated conditions like "I still own this item, and still control it and its use" then you would probably be like "no thanks, keep it". If the parents made these conditions clear to the child, and the child accepted, as the only way to get some use of an Xbox, then ok, but its a ****ty way to try and control your child, and not in any way moral or fair.

You sound like someone who is not a parent, or someone whose parenting views are far outside the norm.

Children under the age of 14 usually don't have the income to purchase such an item. And most parents do establish boundaries on their children (the "my house, my rules " clause). The idea that children (especially younger children) are somehow of equal status when it comes to establishing household rules and boundaries is a pretty unusual way to see things, and probably utterly impractical in reality.

But this really just continues to show the unerlying weaknesses in your philosophy, as "ownership" doesn't actually exist, and so this is all illusory talk about something that doesn't matter. You're free to continue to pretend that your perspective is meaningful.

Obviously anything a 14 year old "owns" is ultimately not his because his parents can take it away at will. That is also true for the parents since if the government decides to take their **** there isn't much they can do about it. Then you have states where the government doesn't even own things because dictators (Saddam, Ghadaffi, Bush etc) can overrule certain decisions and make executive orders.

Basically "owning" is a concept that we made up. I think the most important aspect is who controls the most power in deciding who owns what.

Im not sure what relevance it is as to whether the child can purchase such an item, if they are given it as a gift?


If someone gave you a present with such conditions as I outlined, would you accept the present, or be happy about it?

Where does your sense of justice fit into this?

In the same way that you think you're justified in applying physical force to prevent someone from taking something you think you own, parents are justified in seizing control of something that they believe they own (or at least have dominion over).

Your assumption that all gifts are unconditional is false. Parents are viewed as having authority in their own homes even over gifts that other people give. For example, let's say that the parents have established a rule of "No electronic devices during meals." If an uncle gives that child a new iPhone, that iPhone already falls under the pre-existing rule.

Am I your kid? If so, it probably doesn't matter.

That's not my sense of justice, that's just how I think the world works.

Ooops. That was a typo. The underlying claim is that such an action is "not just" and this is the question I'm exploring. There's definitely a difference between "just" and "justice."

Telling kids to respect other peoples property, and even punishing them for not doing so , while not respecting theirs, is hypcritical, unjust, and unfair

Not going to read far back enough to know where this tangent started. But. The concept of possession of items (this is mine, that is my brothers, this other thing is my mom's) is introduced in most families far before the age of 14. This is good and healthy, and we don't need to get ontological about what property right really are here. Children absolutely have a meaningful sense of ownership of certain items in their lives in stereotypical families.

The basic of neeeel's position is that property rights don't even exist in reality, but that they're a fiction. He has not yet squared this concept up with the protection of personal objects by use of force because he is anti-use-of-force against others, except in the case of this fictional relationship with an object called "property rights."

[Edit: Neeeel also rejects the existence of things like "the government" to protect rights and that sort of thing. It's a highly reductionist view, but still relies on abstract concepts like "property rights" to advance various positions. I think it's self-contradictory in rather plain ways (I believe Original Position also pointed out this hypocrisy), and he has not really tried to reconcile it in any meaningful ways.]

But as far as ownership goes, I don't deny that there's a concept there. But the concept is not something like "ultimate" or "unfettered" ownership or control over the object. Most parents have dominion over their household insofar as taking away objects as a consequence of misbehavior is part of what's understood as "parenting".

I know of very few parents who would say of their middle school child, "Well, it's his/her toy. There's nothing we can do about it."

You've just pulled back on your argument. Your original statement was with regards to punishment, seemingly in any form, not just actions taken against the child's "property" (even though it's not yet established that kids have any ultimate ownership of anything -- you've not really refuted the parent's dominion over the household vis-a-vis the electronics example).

It seems that a consequence of neeeel's philosophical perspective is that any boundary-setting by parents is unjust, as it is an exertion of power over another person. Is this an inaccurate assessment?

How have I pulled back on my argument? punishment, in any form, is not moral( while still possibly not being immoral either) and not fair.

I dont know where "parents dominion" came in.


Yes, its innacurate


Just because its accepted that parents are able to take away objects as a consequence of misbehaviour, does not mean its moral, or fair

Then let's get to punishment in any form and away from property rights.

What is not fair and not just about punishment in general?

It comes from the concept that parents are an authority over their children.

Please explain what's inaccurate.

Are you going to do anything more than assert the unfairness of parenting?

physical assault of a child is immoral.

arbitrarily applied consequences are not just.

If moral rules apply to children, they also apply to adults. If it is morally wrong for children to do something, it as also morally wrong for adults to do it. So its horribly hypocritical,unjust, and unfair, for example, to spank a child for hitting their sibling. Its hypocritical,unjust, and unfair to punish a child for taking a toy from someone by taking their xbox from them.




Ok, Im not sure thats the same as "dominion"? And it doesnt give parents an out when applying moral rules. And it doesnt make punishments they apply automatically moral or fair.

Why are you equating setting boundaries with punishment?



Are you going to do anything more than assert the fairness of parenting? Throwing "parental dominion" in there does nothing to prove that its moral or fair.

At what point has anyone suggested assault?

Who said it was arbitrary?

Your claim was that punishment of any type was unjust.

I think it's morally wrong for a 5 year old to be engaged in sexual intercourse. Therefore, nobody should ever be engaged in sexual intercourse.

Ummmm... okay. But this doesn't make any general sort of argument.

Is it unjust that if I try take your possessions (which, by the way, you don't actually possess), that you can punish me via physical assault? Or that you some other form of force ("government" even though that doesn't actually exist, either) can implement some form of punishment?

What are the consequences of broken boundaries? Usually, those consequences are punishments. Do you disagree?

I don't need to. You're the one who made the assertion that any type of parental punishment is not just. I'm asking you to defend that assertion. All you've done is repeat it while providing basically not justification.

spanking is assault.




Yes, I disagree. So for example, if your 3 year old is hitting someone with a stick, you take away the stick. That isnt a punishment.

At what point has anyone suggested spanking?

You were saying earlier that depriving access to video games was a punishment. How is depriving access to a stick any different? Recall that your definition of punishment included "applied 'consequences' in response to an action." Is that not an applied consequence?

Also, please address your conception of morality with regards to my example:

heh, interesting, I guess I view taking the stick as morally justified, but taking the xbox as not morally justified.

That is, I am taking the stick to protect someone else, and dont view it as punishment. If he was hitting someone with an xbox, I would take it from him too. But, if its a threat eg "tidy your room, or Im going to take your xbox" then I view that as punishment, and unfair. I have thought about this a bit, and cant really say what it is that is different.

This would indicate that you value intention as part of your moral reasoning as a way of separating out different types of actions and assigning different moral values to them.

That is, if you're taking the stick away to protect someone else and I take the stick away as punishment, even if the action is the same you would say that my action is unjust.

And that would open up a huge can of worms because there are other actions I could do to a child with the intention of preventing that child from harming themselves, including taking the XBox away.

Do you believe taking the xbox results in a better behaved child, regardless of it's morality?