Under capitalism, is breastfeeding impossible, or is it merely illegal?

[Boojatta]

Accordingly, all relationships under capitalism must be formed voluntarily between consenting adults.

Link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378409/posts

Suppose that an adult is breastfeeding somebody who isn't an adult, and suppose that there is a relationship between the adult who is providing the milk and the non-adult who is drinking the milk. If the individual who is drinking the milk isn't an adult, then the relationship isn't a relationship between adults. Thus, under capitalism, the relationship must not be.

[Zalatix]

1. It violates the TNSTAAFL rule.

[11 Bravo]

5. To this day, I still loves me some Heinlein.

[lapislzi]

9. Disagree.

Both parties benefit. The parent has a genetic interest in propagation, including nurturing the offspring to adulthood. This is evolved behavior. Hormones are evolved to promote emotional bonding with the infant (who, when newborn, resembles a most un-lovable chicken).

Also evolved behavior is the infant's instinct to obtain nourishment by whatever means it can, and so to attain reproductive age and status...in order to propagate the species.

I would suggest that capitalist "laws" cannot be applied to biological processes. You could reductio ad absurdum and take it down to a cellular level...but...really?

[Zalatix]

10. Apologies. I was being sarcastic.

I was expressing what I felt to be a corollary to the madness of capitalism run amuck.

Not only would the relationship described in the OP be proscribed by capitalism, but also, breastfeeding a child gives the child a free lunch; such is not possible under the narrow-minded rules of capitalism. Yes, I know, dark humor, and probably not funny. But if you drink the capitalism kool-aid you must agree. That milk must be bought from someone.

[lapislzi]

13. Don't worry, so was I

Biologically speaking, the payback occurs in about 18 years when the gametes move on to the next generation. Breastfeeding is an investment with a delayed payoff. Just playing a little reductio ad absurdum of my own

[Land Shark]

17. Wet nurses knowingly feeding other's babies defy capitalism

as do those who donate blood, etc.

[Boojatta]

18. Actually, I think that wet nurses are

considered okay under capitalism. The feeding of the baby is done for a paying customer who is an adult and who simply doesn't happen to be the baby. The baby could be merely a hallucination in the mind of the customer and the transaction would be okay under capitalism. After all, nursing a non-existent baby consumes time but not milk, allowing for the wet nurse to increase revenue by serving additional customers.

[TheWraith]

2. Is you posting a coherent question impossible, or merely illegal?

Since it seems like 90% of your traffic is posting these bizarre, almost Dadaist questions that juxtapose two things which have nothing to do with each other.

[Boojatta]

4. If you require,

before two things are discussed, that they be shown to have something to do with each other, then your requirement sounds rather vague.

[white_wolf]

3. The Non-Aggression Principle is a joke.

The Freeper logic is built on the NAP, and it is really the basis for all Libertarian and Objectiveist morals. Someone on another forum did a good job of destroying it when arguing with a Libertarian,and I'm going to quote her criticism of it here:


"No. The NAP is a flawed basis for any ideology. The NAP is inconsistent and immoral which is why I oppose it. Almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Also consider that it legitimizes non-physical violence such as verbal defamation, discrimination, and mental abuse. Finally, it doesn't contribute to the total sum of human happiness for those reasons. Since property was obtained by force and it allows for other kinds of violence, it is simply an inconsistent basis for any ideology that supposedly extols non-aggression.

It is not authoritarian to oppose an immoral justification for theft, violence, and abuse."

[MisterP]

6. oh, like Freepers would ever read Polanyi!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Wouldn't this moral taint be inherited by all future users; even a non-capitalist one? n/t

[white_wolf]

14. In a socialist society I would say no...

because the no one owns the land anymore it would be shared by all. Also, I should have posted more context, but the person I'm quoting was arguing with an anarcho-capitalist who held that based on the NAP it was immoral to take his property, the user I quoted was pointing out that property rights themselves violate the NAP and therefore the NAP isn't a valid way to defend property rights.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Well, that is convenient.

However, the state still owns the land and they'll use force to keep it that way.

[Zalatix]

8. Wow, that's some serious bold reasoning there.

Totally true, though.

[mathematic]

16. That's a terrible, poorly constructed argument and should convince nobody of anything

Let's consider. I'll paraphrase a bit to make this more readable.

Since you can only steal property, 'all land was stolen at one time' implies that all land was legitimate non-stolen property at some time. Therefore the claim that 'property over land is based on the initiation of force' is not true. Property can exist without the initiation of force and, in fact, the particular property discussed, land, absolutely existed at one time without the initiation of force.

Also note that the distribution of property is not the same thing as property rights. This part of the argument blurs them. The distribution of property was unjust therefore individual property rights are unjust. The problem with the argument is that individual property rights can be exercised in a just OR unjust distribution of property.

'Property legitimizes non-physical violence' is a dropped-in conclusion that seems like a non sequitur. What does property have to do with non-property interactions?

'Property doesn't contribute to the total sum of human happiness' is just absurd. I'm absolutely positive that "human happiness" has no algebraic structure. It cannot be added, subtracted, multiplied, or divided. And it certainly can't be summed up. There is no universal unit of human happiness. Any argument that purports one is breathtakingly naive.

Finally, this argument against property is intended as an argument against the non-aggression principle. The argument ignores that the non-aggression principle applies to both legitimately owned property AND people.

[craigmatic]

11. Personally I've always felt that it depends on the quality of the milk.

[Starry Messenger]

12. Mom can keep a tab and then present a bill when Junior gets his first job.

[Faryn Balyncd]

19. Did not Oliver Wendal Holmes say "A minor's right to swing his mouth stops at the tip of....

(Well, in any event, before the milk flows) so, yes, and yes.....impossible AND illegal !)






http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oliverwend103754.html