Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money

[MoonShadow]

How 'bout this one, the religious argument....

All children belong to God, and as the parent, I've been appointed by God to care for His property until they are of age.  So, while I cannot deliberately bring them (unjustifiable) harm, I must answer only to their true owner, God.  In His absence, I am the final arbitor of what is in the best interests of my own children.  Neither you guys, as individuals outside of my own family, nor society at large, has any authority over myself or my management of God's children in my care.  You literally have no 'standing' to interfere; not under your own philosophies or any other (except collectivism, but I hope that one is beyond consideration here, because I'd have a field day with anyone who is going to claim that my children belong to "the state" or "society").  This is because, while I don't own my children, I have a (supportable) claim to represent Him in this matter, while you do not.

The end result is exactly the same as if I used the (partial/economic) ownership-of-children theory, as is expressed well enough in The Diamond Age; or if I used the individual-rights-in-escrow theory expressed by a great many Libertarian philosophers in many different ways.  I, not you, gets to decide what is in the best interests of my own children.  Nor would I get to decide what is in the best interests of your children, once you have some.  I've personally seen (quite literally) dozens of young people express these same kind of ideological sentiments, only to toss it all out the window once their first child enters the "terrible twos" (which is really the terrible threes)

What you might consider emotionally terrifying or to be (unjustifiable) physical harm is entirely irrelevant.

[justusranvier]

There's no need to rebut a contradiction.

They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.

Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own

So do you really own them, in every philosophical sense, or do you not really own them?

Pick one and be consistent.

[MoonShadow]

There is nothing to rebut, you gave your opinion of what your kids are to you. I find that sad as hell as that's not what mine are to me, but it's an entirely subjective matter. I could offer my opinion of what mine are to me, but somehow I don't think you are terribly interested in that.

I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like.  Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet.  You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude.

If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me?

[MoonShadow]

There's no need to rebut a contradiction.

They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.

Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own

So do you really own them, in every philosophical sense, or do you not really own them?

Pick one and be consistent.

I can't, that's the point.  Neither can you.  Believe it or not, we share a (general) philosophy; but it's an incomplete one.  Libertarianism (and all of it's variants) are based upon two central principles.

1) Property rights are paramount, are necessary for the functioning of a free society, are the roots of economic success, as well as the roots of all human rights because....

2) I own myself.

But why do I own myself?  Because I'm a rational, thinking adult; and therefore capable of understanding my rights & property, I'm capable of expressing those rights and demanding them from others, and responsible enough to respect those same rights in other people.

But children before a certain age cannot do these things.  So who owns them?  The question is not academic, and it's not one easily solved or ignored.  Literally speaking, it's easy enough to say that they own themselves even before they can assert that, but then who represents them until then?  This rabbit hole is deep.  If they own themselves as infants, and their parents hold their rights in escrow, who owns them before birth?  It's getting dark down here, isn't it?

[Rudd-O]

It was just a contrived example. Perhaps the child wriggled out of reach, or did something else like crawled onto a glass coffee table for the first time and started jumping on it? The point was that it was something dangerous for the child,

...it falls onto you, the adult, to be the responsible one and make sure that the child develops in an environment where these calamities are not possible, to the extent that is humanly possible and any reasonable person would or could have guessed that a calamity could take place.  Letting your child run through a busy street, letting your child crawl onto a breakable deadly thing, those are miserable failures on your part as a parent.  This should not happen to you, and I feel sorry for your child if he lives in an environment where these deadly calamities might happen.

Frankly, it baffles me that adults would ask me these questions about child-rearing.  I don't know if they're playing dumb or just are dumb.  "But how will I prevent my child from putting metal things in power sockets, if I cannot terrorize him with physical violence?"  Ummmm, if you're asking this question, either you're not qualified to be a parent because you can't Google elementary things about child safety, or you're not qualified to be a parent because you're looking for shitty reasons to beat your child up.

verbal communication or understanding was impossible due to age, whereas a simple "smack on the bottom", if deemed appropriate by the parent, would communicate everything the child needed to know

Translation from "everything the child needed to know": I better act differently because otherwise this big giant who could murder me will inflict pain and terror on me.

Is it any wonder that statism is rampant these days?

Where does Anarchy and Capitalism come into it?

At the risk of playing Captain Obvious here:

That which you are doing to your kid, when you brutalize him and terrorize him when he disobeys you, is exactly what the State does to you when you disobey the State.

If you can't see it, it's because you were abused enough times and with enough intensity to come to the conclusion that said abuse is "normal".

[justusranvier]

I can't, that's the point.

That would be a fine admission in other circumstances. If you can't be consistent then what you are asserting can't be true, which moves it into the category of opinions. This would be fine, except that you presume to impose your opinion on other people.

Neither can you.  Believe it or not, we share a (general) philosophy; but it's an incomplete one.  Libertarianism (and all of it's variants) are based upon two central principles.

I'm not a Libertarian and I do not accept those premises as axioms.

[niko]

Slavoj Žižek explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEtmZZvGZA#t=1m45s

[MoonShadow]

It was just a contrived example. Perhaps the child wriggled out of reach, or did something else like crawled onto a glass coffee table for the first time and started jumping on it? The point was that it was something dangerous for the child,

...it falls onto you, the adult, to be the responsible one and make sure that the child develops in an environment where these calamities are not possible, to the extent that is humanly possible and any reasonable person would or could have guessed that a calamity could take place.  Letting your child run through a busy street, letting your child crawl onto a breakable deadly thing, those are miserable failures on your part as a parent.  This should not happen to you, and I feel sorry for your child if he lives in an environment where these deadly calamities might happen.

Frankly, it baffles me that adults would ask me these questions about child-rearing.  I don't know if they're playing dumb or just are dumb.  "But how will I prevent my child from putting metal things in power sockets, if I cannot terrorize him with physical violence?"  Ummmm, if you're asking this question, either you're not qualified to be a parent because you can't Google elementary things about child safety, or you're not qualified to be a parent because you're looking for shitty reasons to beat your child up.

I bet you consider this to be a rational perspective, perhaps even an argument.

I consider it to be the seed of the tyrannical state.  What you are saying here is, "if I were king, you would be locked up or have your children removed from your home because I disagree with your parenting methods and consider you a bad parent."

Care to grow a bit, and approach this topic from an adult viewpoint?

[lebing]

There is nothing to rebut, you gave your opinion of what your kids are to you. I find that sad as hell as that's not what mine are to me, but it's an entirely subjective matter. I could offer my opinion of what mine are to me, but somehow I don't think you are terribly interested in that.

I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like.  Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet.  You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude.

If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me?

We are getting to deep into moral relativity waters and the interwebs are simply not made for this type of discourse. I'm not going to try and prove you wrong. I respect your opinion, though in a potentially pompous way, I find it sad.

[MoonShadow]

I can't, that's the point.

That would be a fine admission in other circumstances. If you can't be consistent then what you are asserting can't be true, which moves it into the category of opinions. This would be fine, except that you presume to impose your opinion on other people.

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?

Neither can you.  Believe it or not, we share a (general) philosophy; but it's an incomplete one.  Libertarianism (and all of it's variants) are based upon two central principles.

I'm not a Libertarian and I do not accept those premises as axioms.

Fine.  Come up with others, I'm willing to engage you on any front.

[MoonShadow]

There is nothing to rebut, you gave your opinion of what your kids are to you. I find that sad as hell as that's not what mine are to me, but it's an entirely subjective matter. I could offer my opinion of what mine are to me, but somehow I don't think you are terribly interested in that.

I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like.  Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet.  You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude.

If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me?

We are getting to deep into moral relativity waters and the interwebs are simply not made for this type of discourse. I'm not going to try and prove you wrong. I respect your opinion, though in a potentially pompous way, I find it sad.

I know full well that you don't respect my opinion, although you might respect my right to express same.  I question even that, but you don't have any power to prevent it, so there it is.

That said, I can accept your concession.

[Rudd-O]

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.

There you go.  MoonShadow considers his children to be chattel or equivalents thereof.  I called it earlier today.

It used to be that negroes, women and children were chattel.  Then that changed to include only women and children.  Then that changed to include only children, and you're witnessing the last vestiges of this bigoted discrimination in MoonShadow's words of "I have a right to beat up my children because I own them".

It's called moral progress and we're two down, one to go.  Woohoo!

Of course, MoonShadow's children won't be saved from the feudo-medieval beliefs he holds.  They will, unfortunately, be beaten up by this man.  And that pains me, honestly... but there's nothing much we can do about it right now -- the man has violent beliefs, he is anonymous on the Internet, he is refusing to listen to reason, the practical effect is that we cannot influence his behavior.  All that remains is to wish that, perhaps, one or more of his children will recognize that MoonShadow is an abuser and will grow up to not be an abuser themselves.

[Rudd-O]

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?

Of course.  Isn't that what slaveowners used to do, when negroes were property too?

MoonShadow, I hope you enjoy those sexy children you have there, in full compliance with your belief system that your children are yours.

[Rudd-O]

There's no need to rebut a contradiction.

They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.

Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own

So do you really own them, in every philosophical sense, or do you not really own them?

Pick one and be consistent.

He can't, because doublethink.  On one hand he wants to justify his brutal and violent behavior against his children by saying "they're mine, so it's okay to beat them up like any other beast of burden I might have".  On the other hand, he knows full well that his children aren't his property because observable reality, so he has to disclaim that belief somehow.  To rescue his own self-image of an "upstanding father", doublethink must necessarily ensue.

You've taken his beliefs and torn them apart quite well.  I congratulate you for putting this child abuser in his proper place.

[justusranvier]

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.

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.

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.

[Rudd-O]

I bet you consider this to be a rational perspective, perhaps even an argument.

I consider it to be the seed of the tyrannical state.

Well, you're a tyrant with defenseless creatures, so of course you would be terrified at the idea that a bigger tyrant could put you in your place in regards to your abhorrent behavior with children.  The "seed of the tyrannical state" is obviously a threat to the "seed of the tyrannical MoonShadow".

[lebing]

There is nothing to rebut, you gave your opinion of what your kids are to you. I find that sad as hell as that's not what mine are to me, but it's an entirely subjective matter. I could offer my opinion of what mine are to me, but somehow I don't think you are terribly interested in that.

I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like.  Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet.  You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude.

If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me?

We are getting to deep into moral relativity waters and the interwebs are simply not made for this type of discourse. I'm not going to try and prove you wrong. I respect your opinion, though in a potentially pompous way, I find it sad.

I know full well that you don't respect my opinion, although you might respect my right to express same.  I question even that, but you don't have any power to prevent it, so there it is.

That said, I can accept your concession.

I hope someday you look back and are able to laugh at the angry man you left behind

[Rudd-O]

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.

[Rudd-O]

I know full well that you don't respect my opinion, although you might respect my right to express same.  I question even that, but you don't have any power to prevent it, so there it is.

That said, I can accept your concession.

I hope someday you look back and are able to laugh at the angry man you left behind

And be able to look straight at the angry adults he raised, who will hate him.

[MoonShadow]

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.