but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.
I'm sorry, but I thought you recognized these children as your property. How is it different from 'raping a fleshlight'? Do I sense statist backsliding? I also find it really ironic that this religious wacko is a libertarian. Accept some personal responsibility like god wants you to, LOL. Well, hello Cunicula. Am I out of the penalty box, or did you lift your ignore just for this special occasion? As for the children as property statement, I don't actually regard my children as property, I was presenting that argument because it's a common atheist/libertarion one with regard to the reality of children in the absence of any recognition of a God. The religious argument being quite different, and as you pointed out, being a religious wacko I tend towards that one; yet I don't consider that one intelletually satisfying either. Still, you don't even have a coherent philosophical perspective here to cling to. What has Paul Krugman said about this topic? You'd better go check. |
|
|
|
Is interesting to note that no user in this discussion have argued from a naturalist point of view. There are many examples in nature which shows that certain species have to endure violence before to reach maturity and act outside the protection of its progenitor. That does not imply that every rational animal - human beings - should or could be violent. It only demonstrates that violence is not an unnatural aspect of human behavior.
I considered that perspective, actually, but chose not to go there mostly because simply restating the position from the religious and libertarian/ownership perspectives created a lot of confusion. I also don't consider the 'naturalness' of the use of force to be a particularly relevent point, one that I'm not willing to attempt to defend. I'd lose anyway. After all, the instinct to reproduce is a very natural drive, but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape. |
|
|
|
To my mind, it has been resolved,
Not an argument, Myrkul. I've come to expect much more from you than this. You can argue the finer points of ancap theories and Austrian economic theories, but you can't present something here better than "I believe" or "I feel"?
and all those previous arguments are an attempt at rationalizing away the cognitive dissonance caused by the realization that using force is wrong and the fact that their parents (whom they consider to be quite good) used force upon them. Another form of Stockholm Syndrome.
Perhaps I do have some cognitive dissonance here. So show me, I'll listen. BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious. I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours. Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner. I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed. My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission. My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse. I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker. No, sorry. But no stockholm sysndrome here. Parental cruelty has little to do with the methods employed.
As to why it is your responsibility to teach them how to operate their body without causing harm to themselves or others, as you pointed out, it's your doing. If you break a window, it's your responsibility to see that the owner of that window is compensated for its loss. If you create a person, it's your responsibility to make sure that person is civilized.
Strange, an AnCap arguing that I have a responsibility to serve someone that I have not harmed nor agreed to serve. If I have zero ownership, I have zero responsibility. I don't owe them anything, do I? If I do, how did I incure such a debt? If you don't yet see where I'm going with this, it's you that has cognative dissonance. Likewise, the child's care and feeding until such time as it can take care of those operations itself is your responsibility the same as though you had caused a person to become incapable of doing those themselves - because you did. You created a person who is incapable of taking care of themselves. Now, it's possible to delegate that responsibility, for either case. In the case of causing an adult to lose those capacities - say, by putting them into a coma in a car accident - this delegation is called "paying their hospital bills." In the case of a child, it's called "hiring a nanny." the end result is the same.
I commited an action that resulted in a new life. I commited that act for my own reasons, the life that resulted was a secondary event. What harm have I committed against that life? None that I can think of. So therefore, to whom do I owe this debt/obligation of responsibility? Tell me, what does spanking a child after they have endangered themselves do, besides instill a fear not of the dangerous situation, but of the parent? The child very much wants you to be happy with him or her, and simply telling him or her that going out into the road like that could get them hurt, and their getting hurt would make you sad will amply drive the point home that running out into the street is not something Mommy and Daddy approve of. But what if simply telling them does not drive that point home? What then? If you do exactly as you say, and never utilize corporal punishment as behavior modification despite the fact that your child repeatedly ignores your verbal warnings of the potential for great harm, and he finally runs out in front of traffic and is killed. Have you, then, not failed as a parent? How is that not neglect? Indeed it is, because you have failed to impress upon the child how dangerous walking into the street unescorted can be. Perhaps you should not have just told him. Perhaps you should have been more proactive, and showed him, and demonstrated the correct way to do it. Just because you can't hit him doesn't mean you can't teach him. You dodged the point, and you know it. You know, intuitively, that not every child will have the capacity at an early age, towards reason or towards recognizing hazards, even after all of your efforts. Yet, you also know, intuitively, that as the parent I have an obligation to do all that I can to protect this child until he is old enough to reason. To whom, then, do i owe this obligation (debt)? You know that answer intutively also, you just can't bring yourself to say it. Cognative dissonance, indeed. If you want to raise self-owning adults, you should treat them as self-owning children.
Certainly as soon as that is possible. But what if it's not? Then what you have is an animal, not a human being. What is the difference? What if a chimp taught sign language was able to communicate an understanding of individual rights, self-awareness and reason via said sign language. Would that chimp still be a animal, owned by a zoo? Not free to choose to return to the jungles? Oh, and I have twin daughters, whom I will be raising in this manner. I'll let you know how they turn out.
Then you should consider yourself lucky in this regard, and I'm sure that you will do fine. Most of the time, a strict no-spanking parentling style would work well enough, and is actually unlikely to expose the child to a great many hazards in our modern & hyper-vigilant & safety consious society. But I'm not taling about the rule, I'm talking about the exceptions. Girls are also easier to raise in this regard, until about 14. It's usually the boys that are truely "fearless". |
|
|
|
OK so that headline isn't exactly accurate. I read an article about Bitcoin Friday where the founder or organizer or whatever said that 78% of Bitcoins weren't being used and something had to be done about it. Hence Bitcoin Friday. I'm glad at least that the "something being done about it" was encouraging people to act of their own free accord to spend Bitcoins as opposed to suggesting we rewrite the code to create a use'm or loose'm type system.
But here's my point. Isn't savings a good thing?
Yes. I understand why it's bad for the group.
It's not bad for the group, either. |
|
|
|
I do not like the imagination of such a concept but I rather prefer it to a total capitalism.
Why? I do think that there are some tasks that are better performed by the market and some that are better performed by a state. Was it a good thing when firefighters were private enterprises and your house would just burn down if you weren't able to buy their services?Yes, it is. <- Notice that I used the present tense there. I did so intentionally.
If you lower all the taxes (health care, social security, etc) especially poor workers wont get more for their work since the market will immediatly adopt to the situation and lower wages to the new level of minimum accepteable compensation. Taxes on wages are also a gurantee for a minimum of social security.
Taxes colected are bad managed in a degree that is unbearable. But I'm not ready to abandon the concept for a "If we just would have the REAL market" idea.
Well, I've got some bad news for you then, because by my reconning, we are going to get a real free market within a decade whether we as a people are prepared for that or not. |
|
|
|
I do not like the imagination of such a concept but I rather prefer it to a total capitalism.
Why? |
|
|
|
It was never "for free" however, there was always a non-written agreement that stated "you owe me something". So they were basically gift economies based on credit relations.
I don't agree with this statement, and would like you to support it. |
|
|
|
There's an interesting thread in here somewhere. As a quick straw poll, who here actually has kids?
I have five.
It's interesting to me as I'm raising a 2-year-old at the moment, and persuading them to do or not do things is a fascinating challenge. I tend away from using extreme physical power not because I'm ethically against it, but because I don't believe it's an effective teaching tool. In other words, I don't believe that tying together a particular target (the child) in a particular situation with physical force from a particular person (me) encourages the child to think for themselves. And at the end of the day, there's no way I have time or patience to tell them what they should or shouldn't do as new situations come up.
Indeed, it's certainly preferable to talk it out with your child whenever that is a practical option. I don't and haven't contested that. As I mentioned before, I very rarely use corporal punishment and never do with my adopted children, but for different reasons that relate only to them. But that doesn't mean that corporal punishment isn't a vaild method, when others fail. And I assure you, they will fail sometimes. But that's also a general issue around judgement. I do not believe judgement should be assessed from an "imaginary" point of view, ie. imagining what someone else would like us to do. Survival requires adaptation and learning. Experimentation and subtle, Bayesian-style feedback is far more important than the social judgement invoked whenever one person directly uses extreme force - physical or mental - on another.
Obviously, though, I have to use some kind of "force" to influence my child's behaviour, otherwise they probably would get run over indeed. However, the key point is that this force is always appropriate force - appropriate to avoiding a situation getting worse.
No, the bigger question is who gets to determine what level of force is appropriate. I say it's (almost) always the parent. These other guys seem to think that they get to decide for me, and don't consider that statism.
Crossing the road is a good example. You could spank your child to be afraid of running into roads. Or you could introduce them to roads in a safer manner - even hand-holding is a form of "corporal" power in this case (as it physically restricts a person's movements), as is putting a child on your shoulders. However, they have far subtler effects and side-effects than extreme physical power.
True enough, but again, corporal punsishment is a sliding scale; a matter of relative degree and not an absolute. Is it corporal punishment for me to slap the hand of my child before he puts his hand into the blue flame? Yes, and it does hurt; but it is both less harmful and far less lasting than a third degree burn. Yet, what if, instead, I grab his hand to prevent the contact, and then smack his hand? ave I just commited a crime against my child? While it's possible that he might associate fear of parent with the stovetop, and that is undesireable, is that not still more desireable than a third degree burn next time? |
|
|
|
They are their own property at birth. If ownership is defined as exercising exclusive control over a scarce, tangible resource then children own their bodies as soon as they develop a nervous system capable directing the actions of their body. This would place the beginning of self-ownership prior to being born. That also shows why parents can't be said to own their children. Only the child can control his own body and parents are restricted to persuading, threatening or physically coercing the child into taking or refraining from actions. This is prima facie evidence of who actually owns the child's body. Bingo. I think you may have also defined a good cut-off point for abortion. Oh, but wait! Why are they only self-owned at birth? If they own themselves at birth, dispite lacking the capacity to reason, converse or even eat without aid; why don't they own themselves the day before? Why not the month before? Why not nine months before? Why not a month before conception? If the potential to be a human being with self-ownership (by the logic of being able to reason, or any other logic) why don't they have such rights across time? Wouldn't contraceptives be akin to murder? |
|
|
|
I'm glad to see a couple of thinking adults have joined the coversation. They are their own property at birth. As the person who gave them that property, it is your responsibility to educate them on how to properly use it so as to not destroy it.
Okay, if they are their own property at birth, why is it my responsibility to do anything? I know, rationally, that they exist as a result of my own actions, and that they will likely perish without my parenting. But if they are my responsibility, how am I not the slave, then? And what about my religious perspective argument "All children are God's children, and I'm his representative"? Again, I'm not pulling these arguments out of my rear. All versions of the pro-corporal punishment argument that I have thus far presented have already been argued extensively by libertarian philosophers for decades. Pre-age-of-reason children remain an unresovled issue.
The "hot stovetop" example was used early on in this thread. It is morally acceptable to intervene to prevent damage to their property (ie, slap their hand away) but not to punish them after the fact. If your child is jumping (or about to) on a glass tabletop, it is acceptable to intervene to prevent damage by grabbing them off the table, but not to then spank them after the fact. Children are smarter than you think. As soon as they can talk, you can reason with them. You may have to use simpler concepts, but if you can talk to them, and they can talk to you, reasoning is possible.
Why is behavior conditioning not morally acceptable? You know, Myrkul, that stating your position, even repeatedly, doesn't an arguement make. As for reasoning with a toddler, this is possible & desireable under ceratin conditions and with certain children; but it does not apply to all situations or all children. I'm arguing that corporal punishment, used sparingly, is an effective method of behavior modification and that it's use (as a last resort) does not qualify as abuse. Others are arguing that corporal punishiment is always and in every situation abuse. That's an absolute position to take, and there are very few absolutes in the real world.
Tell me, what does spanking a child after they have endangered themselves do, besides instill a fear not of the dangerous situation, but of the parent? The child very much wants you to be happy with him or her, and simply telling him or her that going out into the road like that could get them hurt, and their getting hurt would make you sad will amply drive the point home that running out into the street is not something Mommy and Daddy approve of.
But what if simply telling them does not drive that point home? What then? If you do exactly as you say, and never utilize corporal punishment as behavior modification despite the fact that your child repeatedly ignores your verbal warnings of the potential for great harm, and he finally runs out in front of traffic and is killed. Have you, then, not failed as a parent? How is that not neglect?
If you want to raise self-owning adults, you should treat them as self-owning children.
Certainly as soon as that is possible. But what if it's not? |
|
|
|
Ummmm I can assure you that almost none of my opinions are obtained from an Econ 101 textbook. I'm merely thinking inductively. If I were a caveman (which we know existed), and I had possession of some object (which we know occurred), I would sometimes trade it for other objects. Noticing other cavemen doing similar activities, I'd adjust my trades so as to acquire goods which could be traded easily to others.
Unless you can prove that my hypothesis there is wrong, then money was indeed formed naturally from barter. I'm not using a book to figure this out, I'm just using my brain.
In addition, it's a established fact that many aboriginal cultures did barter, and others had developed money out of that. The fact was that they bartered between tribes, but used a gift economy within a tribe. The American Indian tribes that existed near the East coast during the early colonial days would do this with other tribes as well as the European settlers. Many island cultures would do the same, ultimately developing to the use of money such as Rai stones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones). And despite the long standing use of carved stones as money, the Yapese people had no concept of credit. It only takes one counter example to disprove the theory, and there it is. |
|
|
|
I have presented many other theories of parental rights, and every one of them has been expressed by libertarian thinkers as one point or another. This isn't about how you feel about it, make a real argument. Please! Hell, I can do better than this arguing your side, but your side isn't mine.
...Are you guys just spouting off without reading what I've already wrote about this topic? If so, you should go back and read the arguments presented, all of which are in support of the idea that children are owned, and all of them are libertarian arguments. My opposition has yet to offer anything other than an emotional appeal.
Permit me to recite question number 1 from Rudd-O's very curious flowchart, https://i.imgur.com/DEhIC.jpg : Can you envisage anything that will change your mind on this topic?
 I guess not! I tried to present an argument along the lines: A government's supposed 'violence' against its citizens is analogous to a parent physically disciplining their child. In much the same way that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, (as long as there is some kind of 'social contract' based on culture and evolution), the government's actions can be seen as correct and legitimate, and no violation took place."
Silly me! I thought it would be pretty simple: describe a clear-cut case where a parent pretty much had to physically discipline their child because all the other options were worse. I even spelled out the circumstances: a dangerous situation for the child; the child's young age, that communication was essential to prevent further danger, and that it was impossible to communicate the danger using non-physical methods. People could have argued the point: -that the analogy was crap, that it doesn't hold true for some other reason. - They could argue that adult crimes are not comparable to childhood antics, -or that the analogy misses some key difference between criminals who can't be reasoned with, as opposed to small children who can't be reasoned with. -Or they could have presented some clever non-physical alternative, which, by extension might also provide some kind of breakthrough in our horrible, violent society. But no, what do we get instead? Accusations of abuse, psychoanalysis, and repetition that physical discipline is evil because it's evil because it's EVIL!... The true irony is that I don't agree with your analogy because of your second point; but the nature of government force is no longer the topic here. |
|
|
|
Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option. It's the fact that they are mine that does so. And yes, they are mine. They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense. I created them, thus they are mine. I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine. They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others. Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want? Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option. It's the fact that they are mine that does so. And yes, they are mine. They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense. I created them, thus they are mine. I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine. They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others. Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want? Or sell them to someone who wants children? Or use them for slave labor? Or havest them for compatible organ replacements? The idea than any human being owns any other human being at any point for any reason is an utter abomination. I would have imagined that we would (collectively) evolved beyond such thinking by now. I have presented many other theories of parental rights, and every one of them has been expressed by libertarian thinkers as one point or another. This isn't about how you feel about it, make a real argument. Please! Hell, I can do better than this arguing your side, but your side isn't mine. I would point out that even the state disagrees with the assertion that parents "own" their children. Until the age of majority parents acts as guardians, acting (hopefully) in the best interest of children but they never own them.
You are correct, from the state's perspective, the state owns them and you. Are you guys just spouting off without reading what I've already wrote about this topic? If so, you should go back and read the arguments presented, all of which are in support of the idea that children are owned, and all of them are libertarian arguments. My opposition has yet to offer anything other than an emotional appeal. |
|
|
|
If I had a Bitcoin for every time someone in favor of beating children up has told me "If I accept that using violence against children is very wrong, then the world will turn into Lord of the Flies", I'd own the entire Bitcoin economy.
You'd have, at most 3 BTC. |
|
|
|
I only took one glance at this and immediately knew what it was about though I read through just to be sure, the problem with these 'corporal punishment' advocates is they assume they are correct in what they are teaching their children, they aren't, in a lot of cases I've seen parents use violence against their children they are nothing more than power tripping cuntbags.
Another person who can't form an argument. I only took one glance at this and immediately knew what it was about though I read through just to be sure, the problem with these 'corporal punishment' Anti-spanking advocates is they assume they are correct in what they are teaching their children telling other parents how they should act, they aren't, in a lot of cases I've seen parents use violence insulting languate against their children parents they don't know, they are nothing more than power tripping cuntbags. There, I fixed that for you.
You should check out one of George Carlins video where he rants entirely correctly about how children should be taught to question what they read and how parents won't teach them to question anything because they're afraid their own bullshit will be questioned as well.
Did you really just reference a George Carlin comedy routine? Do you think that helps the case you haven't presented yet? This is all it is, it's power tripping, in most cases the parents are wrong and children are far more intelligent than adults are ever willing to admit, haven't you ever wondered why in a lot of criminal cases etc. involving children or in documentaries about children there often isn't a child to be found? Or for that matter if they are talked to it's usually with a bloody parent hovering over them making sure they don't say anything they don't like. It's a bit like with how stupid parents blame video games for their children's violence yet what they do is leave their child alone for ages, never talking to them and so the child only really has a video game to go on when it comes to what the real world is like.
If you need violence to communicate words then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't have had kids in the first place, ever tried speaking to your child? Or are you so thick you can't form a coherent sentence?
You guys are continuing to prove my point. |
|
|
|
At what point does this get fairly locked, since the mod always has the last word before the lock?
Why would I lock it? I really don't mind them trolling me. It's why I split the thread. |
|
|
|
I don't even have to look at that one before I can undermine your use of it. What you've done is extremely intellectually dishonest but I can help but aesthetically admiring such an exquisite example of sophistry. Since you're going to play word games with the book title instead of actually examining the arguments there is no possibility for further discussion. Sure there is. You could attempt to summerize the arguements you would like to make, instead of attempting to send your opposition off to read some tome you believe supports your case. You have to present a case before you can reference outside sources. Thus far, you have failed to actually present a case at all. All that the lot of you have been doing is declare myself (and by extension, anyone who might even consider corporal punsishment a valid parental tool) to be violent abusers |
|
|
|
governments exist at all because having a permanent criminal class...
...might as well make the criminal class a professional trade, amirite? It already is. |
|
|
|
Fine. Come up with others, I'm willing to engage you on any front.
Nah, you're not willing to engage with anyone. You're only attempting to excuse your parental abuse (or wishes thereof). That's why you say (appalling) nonsense and contradict yourself at every turn. Nor are you willing to engage in an adult conversation, instead you desire to spew unsubstantiated claims about myself based upon little evidence. I expect that you are attempting to provoke an over-reaction, but you overestimate my consideration of your opinion. |
|
|
|
Do I really need to point out that it's the lot of you guys that have been trying to impose your opinions of my parenting methods upon me? That's not the case at all. If I witnessed you attempting to murder someone and I acted to stop you my intervention would not be justified on opinion, but on the fact that your actions violate an ethical standard which is provably universal. Ethics are the opposite of subjective personal preferences. Indeed, ethics are the opposite of subjective personal preferences. So back up your statement and attempt to establish that my "actions violate an ethical standard which is provably universal". That's going to be a trick, since it's pretty easy for me to show that your position is far from a universal standard, but I'd love to see you try. This is not at all about anyone imposing their opinions on you, but the legitimacy of you imposing your opinions on children which are completely unable to defend themselves. It is you who bears the burden of proof that your actions are not abusive.
Perhaps, but I certainly don't have to prove that to you. Fine. Come up with others, I'm willing to engage you on any front.
Ethics, defined as defined as universally preferable behavior, is a valid concept. [/quote] I don't even have to look at that one before I can undermine your use of it. It's called universally preferable behavior. No matter how well argued it might be, it's ultimately and expression of the author's preferances. Mine, or your's, could be different without violating any ethical principles. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
