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

[myrkul]

I never could understand the religious argument. If God wanted it so that fetuses could live without their host, He would have designed the human reproduction cycle differently. For example, birds have fully contained eggs that do not require a specific host. Fish don't even have to attend to their eggs. But since God designed fetuses so they they could not live outside their host, He is obviously indifferent to their fate once evicted.

Humans are mammals, with all the benefits and problems that come with that.

[CryptoFreak33]

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

It would be horribly wrong.
But for the more twisted people: The threat of a long prison sentence. Would this also happen in AnCap, even though the child has no defence company? Could a company do it "pro bono"? Would regulating affairs between non-customers open up for morality laws?it). Ok

Do you believe that laws and the fear of prison are what stops people from eating their children? Really? I mean I'd think most people don't eat their children because they love then and, well, it's pretty universally accepted (with exceptions) that eating people is bad. Government doesn't have anything to do with that.

You could eat your children now. Are you saying that the main thing that stops you from doing so is that you're afraid of prison?

[grondilu]

[tiberiandusk]

[bb113]

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

It would be horribly wrong.
But for the more twisted people: The threat of a long prison sentence. Would this also happen in AnCap, even though the child has no defence company? Could a company do it "pro bono"? Would regulating affairs between non-customers open up for morality laws?it). Ok

Do you believe that laws and the fear of prison are what stops people from eating their children? Really? I mean I'd think most people don't eat their children because they love then and, well, it's pretty universally accepted (with exceptions) that eating people is bad. Government doesn't have anything to do with that.

You could eat your children now. Are you saying that the main thing that stops you from doing so is that you're afraid of prison?

No you misunderstood, if he didn't put it that way noone would want to discuss how child abuse could be handled without everyone assuming the local government knows what to do about it.

Really that is an interesting question though. What do they do? My niave understanding is that usually they remove the kids from the bad situation and put in the care of family, if possible, and if not, in the hands of some kind of local community run association.

[FirstAscent]

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

It would be horribly wrong.
But for the more twisted people: The threat of a long prison sentence. Would this also happen in AnCap, even though the child has no defence company? Could a company do it "pro bono"? Would regulating affairs between non-customers open up for morality laws?it). Ok

Do you believe that laws and the fear of prison are what stops people from eating their children? Really? I mean I'd think most people don't eat their children because they love then and, well, it's pretty universally accepted (with exceptions) that eating people is bad. Government doesn't have anything to do with that.

You could eat your children now. Are you saying that the main thing that stops you from doing so is that you're afraid of prison?

No you misunderstood, if he didn't put it that way noone would want to discuss how child abuse could be handled without everyone assuming the local government knows what to do about it.

Really that is an interesting question though. What do they do? My niave understanding is that usually they remove the kids from the bad situation and put in the care of family, if possible, and if not, in the hands of some kind of local community run association.

The point isn't whether fear of punishment reduces the number of abused children. Punishment is one thing. The more important goal is to save the child. Does AnCap have a solution in place to save the child?

[myrkul]

The point isn't whether fear of punishment reduces the number of abused children. Punishment is one thing. The more important goal is to save the child. Does AnCap have a solution in place to save the child?

Yes, of course it does. The same solution for any problem: People contracting freely for services that would likely look very similar to the ones we have today, aside from the fact that they would not be monopolies, and would not take their money by force.

[Fjordbit]

I never could understand the religious argument. If God wanted it so that fetuses could live without their host, He would have designed the human reproduction cycle differently. For example, birds have fully contained eggs that do not require a specific host. Fish don't even have to attend to their eggs. But since God designed fetuses so they they could not live outside their host, He is obviously indifferent to their fate once evicted.

Humans are mammals, with all the benefits and problems that come with that.

Which is exactly my point. From a religious perspective, knowing that God is all powerful, and He decided to make us mammals and He decided that aborted mammal fetuses have no survivability shows that it is His will that our fetuses die from the abortion procedure. Anyone who argues otherwise is a disciple of Satan as they call into question God's infinite judgement in the same way that Lucifer himself once did.

[im3w1l]

I never could understand the religious argument. If God wanted it so that fetuses could live without their host, He would have designed the human reproduction cycle differently. For example, birds have fully contained eggs that do not require a specific host. Fish don't even have to attend to their eggs. But since God designed fetuses so they they could not live outside their host, He is obviously indifferent to their fate once evicted.

Humans are mammals, with all the benefits and problems that come with that.

Which is exactly my point. From a religious perspective, knowing that God is all powerful, and He decided to make us mammals and He decided that aborted mammal fetuses have no survivability shows that it is His will that our fetuses die from the abortion procedure. Anyone who argues otherwise is a disciple of Satan as they call into question God's infinite judgement in the same way that Lucifer himself once did.

Can't tell if joking, strawman, or serious.

[JoelKatz]

The point isn't whether fear of punishment reduces the number of abused children. Punishment is one thing. The more important goal is to save the child. Does AnCap have a solution in place to save the child?

Yes, of course it does. The same solution for any problem: People contracting freely for services that would likely look very similar to the ones we have today, aside from the fact that they would not be monopolies, and would not take their money by force.

Exactly. Advocates of AnCap can't predict how a problem will be solved, but if there's people who care about solving it enough to put their own money up to solve it, then someone will find a way to solve it. Then someone else will find a cheaper and better way to solve it.

[FreeMoney]

Seemingly more pressing question "Is it possible to eat your children in our current society?"

Yes, it is possible.

[FreeMoney]

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

It would be horribly wrong.
But for the more twisted people: The threat of a long prison sentence. Would this also happen in AnCap, even though the child has no defence company? Could a company do it "pro bono"? Would regulating affairs between non-customers open up for morality laws?it). Ok

Do you believe that laws and the fear of prison are what stops people from eating their children? Really? I mean I'd think most people don't eat their children because they love then and, well, it's pretty universally accepted (with exceptions) that eating people is bad. Government doesn't have anything to do with that.

You could eat your children now. Are you saying that the main thing that stops you from doing so is that you're afraid of prison?

No you misunderstood, if he didn't put it that way noone would want to discuss how child abuse could be handled without everyone assuming the local government knows what to do about it.

Really that is an interesting question though. What do they do? My niave understanding is that usually they remove the kids from the bad situation and put in the care of family, if possible, and if not, in the hands of some kind of local community run association.

My slightly less naive understanding is that they usually do nothing <insert insane stat about how everyone most children get abused> and when they do do something it often involves placing the children with abusers and rapists and the people hiding behind the organizations that do it are never considered accomplices.

[myrkul]

I never could understand the religious argument. If God wanted it so that fetuses could live without their host, He would have designed the human reproduction cycle differently. For example, birds have fully contained eggs that do not require a specific host. Fish don't even have to attend to their eggs. But since God designed fetuses so they they could not live outside their host, He is obviously indifferent to their fate once evicted.

Humans are mammals, with all the benefits and problems that come with that.

Which is exactly my point. From a religious perspective, knowing that God is all powerful, and He decided to make us mammals and He decided that aborted mammal fetuses have no survivability shows that it is His will that our fetuses die from the abortion procedure. Anyone who argues otherwise is a disciple of Satan as they call into question God's infinite judgement in the same way that Lucifer himself once did.

Can't tell if joking, strawman, or serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

[Fjordbit]

Can't tell if joking, strawman, or serious.

That's Beelzebub messing with your ability to think.