No comment. If you don't even believe in property we have nothing to talk about.
Meaning what -- your definition of property rights, and yours alone, are axiomatic? You get exclusive powers to decide that your interpretation of "property rights" is the correct one? No one can possibly inquire into the nature of property rights?
And it's not that "I don't believe in property." It's that I recognize that property rights are a social construction, and are not universal or intrinsic -- and do not apply to actual human bodies.
My entire dispute is based on the idea that people own themselves and that no one can take that away from you or stop you from acting on that right.
What a bizarre concept. I am not property; I don't want to be treated like property; the integrity of my body and my person has nothing to do with "ownership." The very phrasing of "I own myself" suggests that someone else can legitimately "own me." In fact, the idea that "a human body is property" is a core requirement for chattel slavery.
Along similar lines, a parent does not "own" a child, and it is not a contractual arrangement. So you tell me, what links a parent and child?
And again, the adult child of someone who suffers from dementia, and who receives power of attorney, has both significant control over the patient and all of their assets and property. In this situation, the caretaker does not "own the body" of the patient, and can instruct a doctor to perform a wide variety of invasive procedures. This is neither a property relationship nor a contractual arrangement.
US law, by the way, doesn't depend on the idea that human rights are founded in property rights. The relevant concepts to the DNA collection issue are based on privacy rights and personhood. (In fact, you wouldn't
want it to be based on property rights, as the government retains the power to seize property for "public use," as long as you are compensated.)
The only reason I even permit parental rights is to due the basic inability for the child to maintain their health and get treatment when they need it. DNA and fingerprints should not be a question of who owns them as they are part of the child's body and there will never be a reason for the parents to act on them.
Oh, you "permit" parental rights. How nice.
It is very clear that parents have vital interests in the life of the child, which license procedures far more intrusive than a DNA test. A parent can authorize invasive medical procedures, IQ tests, personality tests, mental health evaluations and more. They can change residences, get divorced, give up the child for adoption regardless of the wishes of the child.
And as I've already mentioned, DNA is used for paternity tests, and can be used to test for medical conditions -- an increasingly common practice. A parent may choose to record the child's fingerprints on their own recognizance, to help identify the child in some other context.
You also do not "own" your fingerprints. Or at least, on that basis you cannot prevent police from recording them upon arrest.
Since however you believe the government is the arbiter of your right to life, liberty, and estate....
I believe no such thing.
It's that we, as a society, determine what rights we have and want to protect. They are not intrinsic or universal, they are decided by social agreements, both informal and formal. In an electoral society, laws codify the ways we want the state to negotiate, protect and/or enforce those rights.
So, if "we the people" do not want the state to collect DNA upon arrest, there's an easy fix:
Rescind those laws. In theory, we can pass a federal law barring states from passing such laws as well.
you [will never] understand what it means to be believer in free will.
Of course I do. I also realize that "will" is conceived of quite differently in different cultures, that "free will" is a highly problematic concept, and that it is eminently possible that our conceptions of free will are incorrect. Anyway....
I really can not believe anyone actually believes that basically all you can't do to children is rape, kill or beat them. Sick.
No, it's that parents ought to have a great deal of latitude for raising a child. If that happens to include sequencing the child's DNA, that is the choice of the parent.
And again, this is based on a recognition that a minor will not always have the maturity or capability to decide what is in their own best interests. Once they are 18, ready or not, they are an adult and can make their own decisions.
The child may, in turn, reverse various decisions made by the parents. For example, the commercial DNA sequencing service "23andMe" will sequence a child's DNA. When the child reaches the age of majority, they can close the account and remove that individual's data.