Search Ideas

Someone’s personhood has no bearing on whether you should be able to evict them, right? It’s your property, so it’s your choice.

(Amaro)

There’s ‘evictionism’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

I like this view because it sidesteps the issue of personhood and at what point it arises. It says you’re free to evict anything, person or not. We don’t know how creativity (ie the universal-explainer software mentioned in #119) works so this is handy.

(Amaro)

A parent facing the consequences of his/her actions isn’t “force”.

It’s not right to force a parent to take care of a child they didn’t want. The result is often tragic. Abortion relieves parents of that responsibility and prevents this outcome. Parents don’t owe their children anything, and children don’t owe their parents anything.

(Amaro)

I agree that a non-aborted child’s quality of life matters. For that reason, I think the process of giving a newborn child up for adoption should be as easy as possible. I don’t think killing an unborn baby who may as well already be a person and thus have rights is the right way to prevent him having a bad life.

A non-aborted child’s quality of life matters, too. One benefit of allowing abortion at any time is that, if a mother decides not to abort despite having had ample opportunity to do so, she is definitely responsible for the child’s wellbeing. Then she can’t blame lawmakers or having had too little time; she can’t evade accountability for the living child as easily.

(Dirk)

Building on #123, cutting the umbilical does not make the baby an “independent person”. The baby still depends on the parents physically, financially, emotionally, etc.

There’s ‘evictionism’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

I like this view because it sidesteps the issue of personhood and at what point it arises. It says you’re free to evict anything, person or not. We don’t how creativity (ie the universal-explainer software mentioned in #119) works so this is handy.

(Amaro)

Why would a fetus without a nervous system not be a person?

While the fetus is attached to the mother, it’s her property and she is free to do what she wants with it. Therefore, she can abort the baby at any time prior to being born and the umbilical being but, at which point the baby is an independent person.

(John)

It’s arguably a sexually active woman’s responsibility to monitor whether she’s pregnant.

If it weren’t her responsibility, then a burden would fall on the baby, which can’t be right because the baby only exists because of the mother’s choices.

There are some practical considerations, too.

There’s no point allowing abortion only in the first six weeks because many women don’t realize they’re pregnant until later.

(Danny)

It’s arguably a sexually active woman’s responsibility to monitor whether she’s pregnant.

If it’s not her responsibility, then a burden falls on the baby, which can’t be right because the baby only exists because of the mother’s choices.

There are some practical considerations, too.

There’s no point allowing abortion only in the first six weeks because many women don’t realize they’re pregnant until later.

I’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.

Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.

Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.

Clearly, a fetus without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.

One difference between having multiple objectivist countries and having private arbitration services is that the latter can operate in the same territory whereas the former have distinct territories. So this may not be a stolen concept after all.

This is an example of version control for ideas. As I revise this idea, new versions are created and automatically diffed. Click the arrows below to cycle through the version history.

Say you make a tpyo. Then you can fix it.

That is not what freedom means.

Freedom does not consist in the guarantee of certain thoughts or scope for action.

Roughly speaking, freedom is when you are left alone by others when you want to be left alone.

If you are sent to school against your will, you are not free. School is forced.

Forcing children to be free is a contradiction in terms.

The freedom of one person, including a child's, ends where the freedom of another begins.

(Kant)

A multidisciplinary project involving programming, mathematics, philosophy and biology should be made possible for all young people - shouldn't it? - and would promote future skills for the digital age: expertise, critically constructive and independent thinking, skills to act and judge, epistemology, ethics and anthropology, and ecology. That would emancipate children in the enlightenment sense.

(Kant)

A multidisciplinary project involving programming, mathematics, philosophy and biology should be made possible for all young people - shouldn't it? - and would promote future skills for the digital age: expertise, critically constructive and independent thinking, skills to act and judge, epistemology, ethics and anthropology, and ecology. That would emancipate children in the sense of the enlightenment.

(Kant)

It doesn't matter that he is a physicist, because his thoughts on the subject are of a philosophical/ epistemological nature.

You are referring to ideas by David Deutsch. He is a physicist; he deals with inorganic matter. His ideas on educating children are therefore irrelevant.

(Kant)

It was only in the 2000s that school became a compulsory program, as the teaching of skills was geared to the needs of the market rather than to enlightenment values and independent thinking.

(Kant)

Freedom of choice is not restricted at school. For example, students can choose between different languages. They can choose their exams and what to read, etc.

(Kant)