Are Children Property of Their Parents?

When discussing the issue of slavery with a modern American, the first issue that should be dealt with is the issue of human property. How can being a slave master be wrong but being a parent ok? Both involve owning another human being as property. Or do we take the Communist position and say children belong to the State? You think it’s crazy that people today still think slavery is ok? Hey..I think it’s crazy people still think Communism is ok. The death toll of slavery doesn’t even come close to the Communist massacres.

Immediately, the ignorant know nothing modern liberal or libertarian is going to virtue signal and demand,

“they aren’t property at all; why do children have to be someone’s property?!”

So who has dominion over them, the parents or the state? Or do you maintain that children are sovereigns with rights to drive, to own a gun or to vote?

Well no, the Parents have authority over the children of course. 

Well, you know-nothing mental disease; you human tumor; you toad eating fawner, the word property means dominion or authority over something else.





So let’s start over,

How can being a slave master be wrong but being a parent ok?

Wait………….where are you going?




Item List on Modern Theory of Human Rights(MTHR)

13 Reasons Why You Should Not Believe the Modern Theory of Human Rights:

1. The MTHR fundamentally makes a conflation of equality, and in this context equality under the law not equality of ability or equality of outcome, of penal justice with an equality of privilege and franchise.

2. Equality of Opportunity cannot be distinguished from Equality of Outcome. Money is an opportunity, in esse and simpliciter. If one does not have money, ipso facto, he has no opportunities.

3. Making humanity, in abstracto, the basis for equality of privilege and franchise, is literally impossible in Human Civilization seeing infant children are fully human.

4. Making a base standard intelligence/knowledge accumulation, the basis for equality of privilege and franchise, contradicts the liberal idea of relativism, nihilism and subjectivism where there is no objective knowledge.

5. Making an abstract theory of human value, the basis for equality of privilege and franchise, assumes the word value has an objective monolithic meaning which it doesn’t. The word is loaded with a mountain of controversies. What theory of value? The Marxist Labor theory? The Austrian Subjective theory? The Aristotelian Utility theory? Appealing to religion at this point and the Image of God will not work either seeing the Bible denotes man, not woman, as the image of God. Gen. 1:27, 1 Cor. 11:7. Appealing to the Soul will not work either as neither Science nor Scripture has discovered any such Dark Age

6. The MTHR view of Human Property necessitates the Communist view of children and the family. The traditional view is that children are the Personal Human Property of their Parents. Thus, if one denies Human Property, the Communist idea that the children become Public Property of the State necessarily follows.

7. The MTHR cannot justify or explain what a right is. How do we know about rights? Are rights things I can see, touch, smell, hear or taste? If not how do I know about it? Empiricists cannot appeal to innate forms because they believe all knowledge begins with sensation and thus Locke’s Tabula Rasa follows necessarily.

8. The MTHR denies the idea of hereditary imputation yet the advocates of MTHR use the concept of hereditary imputation often when holding white people accountable for their ancestors actions.

9. The MTHR assumes that choices I make cannot harm another person as long as I am not Physically attacking the man. This is an ignorance of basic economics and the Principle of Opportunity Cost. To forego is the same as to disenfranchise. One is either with or against another. There is no neutrality.

10. The MTHR states that, “Law is the expression of the general will.” This is Utilitarianism and has been shot full of so many holes you can drive a Mack Truck through them. On this theory of Law and Morality seeing Nazism was the general will in Germany beginning sometime in the 1930s and following, then ipso facto, being a Nazi was the right thing to do. There are many other examples but I think the intelligent reader can grasp my objection. Moreover, does the general will have to be unanimous? If so, good luck with that one. If not, where does a Government or anyone get the authority to coerce someone else? By what right does a majority coerce a minority? Is the majority decision distinct from common good? If so what is the distinction? Thus, on the MTHR it is impossible to judge another nation because that’s Fascism but then the MTHR turns around and does exactly that in its judgment on Nazi Germany, the Antebellum South, etc.

11. The MTHR view of Freedom of Speech is simply Nihilism and as I already proved, if one takes a Skeptic or Nihilistic position of Philosophy, then he cannot distinguish Rights between and adult and a Child and his entire theory of Society and Humanity comes falling down.

12. The Social contract Theory cannot justify or explain what a “State of Nature” means, promotes a society with the ends being mere Commerce and thus is inherently Nihilistic and Corporatist; the Social Contract states that Civil Government is a deterrent from War, when the exact opposite affirmation is the basis of Anarchism(Strange that Anarchists are usually the biggest promoters of MTHR), which states that Civil Governments are designed primarily to make the rich richer through war and the powerful more powerful; the Social Contract is contradictory in its explanation on the origin of Human Rights. Do rights derive from the Social Contract or are they alienated and surrendered to the contract? Rousseau said both. Moreover, how does one derive the concept of a Moral Person, from Empiricism?