In an AnCap society, would it be possible to eat your children?

[dree12]

but it does raise the question how you handle childrens rights when the parents can change the set of laws whenever they please.

How did cavemen deal with children's rights? Obviously, the children grew up to be intelligent folks that invented sliced bread. Believe it or not, humans have a built-in procedure for handling children. Any additional regulation is counterproductive.

[myrkul]

If money is the dividing line between people getting shot and people not getting shot.... people will be shot. 

And sobody who wants to have an abortion needs to go to arbitration first? 

I guess you skipped the part where I said "and it risks lives"? Money isn't the only thing stopping a shooting fight over the issue.

And I take it you've never heard of "precedent". The first dispute - if that - would go to arbitration. All others after that would point to that decision and say "It's been done before. Now shoo."

Myrkul: it's wrong to eat your children, because you take away their chance of a long fulfilling happy life.

In other words, because it's murder. Unless you're suggesting that murder would be acceptable in an AnCap society (something even FirstIdiot hasn't had the audacity to try) then the conversation is over.

Now, because I promised:

Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly?

In a word, yes. It may end up in a rather hairy arbitration, but in general, you can defend a third party, and by extension, can delegate that ability.

[FirstAscent]

The thread title poses an important and legitimate question. It shows one of the many shortcomings of AnCap.

No it doesn't. The thread title is an attempt to associate AnCap with the very, very uncommon, yet emotion-evoking, practice of eating children. Because there is no evidence it has been phrased in the form of a question. There are issues with AnCap but bringing up some fringe scenario isn't productive.

You are mistaken. The thread title shows that if the scenario is not addressed, it might indicate that none of the following are addressed:

- General child abuse by parents
- Cruelty to children by parents
- Torture of children by parents
- Incarceration of children by parents (locking in closets, chaining to bed)
- Abandonment of children
- Killing of children
- Maiming of children
- And by extension, cruelty to animals
- Failing to provide any education to children

[FirstAscent]

but it does raise the question how you handle childrens rights when the parents can change the set of laws whenever they please.

How did cavemen deal with children's rights? Obviously, the children grew up to be intelligent folks that invented sliced bread. Believe it or not, humans have a built-in procedure for handling children. Any additional regulation is counterproductive.

What a weak rebuttal. Just because we're here does not mean that there weren't children abused in the past.

[fornit]

- And by extension, cruelty to animals

in general, i consider how you threat the ones that are not able to exercise their rights themselves a benchmark of a civilized society. besides children that can be prisoners or anyone who has, for whatever reason, temporarily or permanently, diminished responsibility.

[dree12]

but it does raise the question how you handle childrens rights when the parents can change the set of laws whenever they please.

How did cavemen deal with children's rights? Obviously, the children grew up to be intelligent folks that invented sliced bread. Believe it or not, humans have a built-in procedure for handling children. Any additional regulation is counterproductive.

What a weak rebuttal. Just because we're here does not mean that there weren't children abused in the past.

Some things, including caring for our children, are built-in. There does not need to be a law saying "thou must eat", and equivalently there does not need to be a law saying "thou must take care of your children well".

[justusranvier]

Some things, including caring for our children, are built-in. There does not need to be a law saying "thou must eat", and equivalently there does not need to be a law saying "thou must take care of your children well".

History disagrees: http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/01_killermotherland.html

[im3w1l]

Now, because I promised:

Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly?

In a word, yes. It may end up in a rather hairy arbitration, but in general, you can defend a third party, and by extension, can delegate that ability.

Can I hire a US government to prevent drug sellers from tricking poor addicted people into buying drugs? Surely, the addiction affects the mind in such a way that the drug users are unable to give informed consent?

Can I hire a moralistic government to prevent sadists from abusing self destructive consenting masochists?

Could I hire an oppressive government to prevent people from hearing lies and disinformation (like for instance "ron paul is bad") on the internet?

[myrkul]

Now, because I promised:

Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly?

In a word, yes. It may end up in a rather hairy arbitration, but in general, you can defend a third party, and by extension, can delegate that ability.

Can I hire a US government to prevent drug sellers from tricking poor addicted people into buying drugs? Surely, the addiction affects the mind in such a way that the drug users are unable to give informed consent?

No, for two reasons.
1) The US government cannot be "hired." They force their services on people, and then extract payment at gunpoint.
2) The addicted people made the choice to use the drug. You can't defend people from their own choices. Even an intervention is just a group of friends trying to help the addict make the right decision.

[FirstAscent]

but it does raise the question how you handle childrens rights when the parents can change the set of laws whenever they please.

How did cavemen deal with children's rights? Obviously, the children grew up to be intelligent folks that invented sliced bread. Believe it or not, humans have a built-in procedure for handling children. Any additional regulation is counterproductive.

What a weak rebuttal. Just because we're here does not mean that there weren't children abused in the past.

Some things, including caring for our children, are built-in. There does not need to be a law saying "thou must eat", and equivalently there does not need to be a law saying "thou must take care of your children well".

Stop it with the incomplete thoughts. It only necessitates correction in what would otherwise be obvious. Your remark is again incomplete. It's tiresome to have to point out that instincts don't eliminate inappropriate behavior. There really should be a law or something to address the many who do seem to abuse their children, sometimes horrifically.

[justusranvier]

It's tiresome to have to point out that instincts don't eliminate inappropriate behavior.

You would have a great point if you'd acknowledge that laws also do not eliminate inappropriate behavior.

[FirstAscent]

It's tiresome to have to point out that instincts don't eliminate inappropriate behavior.

You would have a great point if you'd acknowledge that laws also do not eliminate inappropriate behavior.

So nothing should be done? No laws? Nothing? Just let parents chain their kids to the bed?

[justusranvier]

I would answer that if it was a bona fide question instead of a smear attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

[FirstAscent]

I would answer that if it was a bona fide question instead of a smear attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

It's like all the libertarians who think environmentalism is about control and power grabs. So wrong, and so mislead they are. Environmentalism has its roots in scientists identifying and compiling facts about the environment - nothing more sinister than that.

Addressing the issues of child abuse has nothing to do with smear attempts. It's about making sure children aren't abused. Nothing more sinister than that.

[myrkul]

I would answer that if it was a bona fide question instead of a smear attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

It's like all the libertarians who think environmentalism is about control and power grabs. So wrong, and so mislead they are. Environmentalism has its roots in scientists identifying and compiling facts about the environment - nothing more sinister than that.

Addressing the issues of child abuse has nothing to do with smear attempts. It's about making sure children aren't abused. Nothing more sinister than that.

Neither of these things - taken alone - are sinister.

It's the fact that your conclusion is "Therefor: Government" that's the problem.

[justusranvier]

Refusing to address the question of whether or not laws are effective at stopping child abuse and instead insinuating that anyone who asks the question supports child abuse is despicable behavior and I will not dignify what you're doing by pretending it's a debate.

[FirstAscent]

Refusing to address the question of whether or not laws are effective at stopping child abuse and instead insinuating that anyone who asks the question supports child abuse is despicable behavior and I will not dignify what you're doing by pretending it's a debate.

I'm not aware of any society statistically significant and so morally corrupt and uncaring that there are not laws with regard to preventing child abuse, and so therefore, would never make the claim that they are not effective. I do know for a fact that in societies with laws dealing with horrific child abuse, judicial action does make an attempt to remove the child from the harmful relationship.

Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.

[myrkul]

Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.

Please quote where any of us said that looking the other way is the solution.

[FirstAscent]

Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.

Please quote where any of us said that looking the other way is the solution.

It is in fact implicit in AnCap, unless I am mistaken. Otherwise, explain the solution.

[silverfuture]

Don't government's Keynesian fiscal policies effectively "eat your children" by placing ever increasing debt upon them?