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

[MoonShadow]

http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/stories/pregnant-woman-beaten-up-by-supermarket-for-stealing-milk.html

Interested as to what libertarians will think of this story.

Pregnant woman shoplifts baby milk powder (~US$20). Detected by supermarket manager she is detained for ransom (~US$500).
After contacting her family and finding no one willing to pay the ransom. Supermarket employees beat her for 30 minutes, breaking her arm and causing a miscarriage.

Most Legit Chinese Netizens: Beating up a pregnant women is outrageous and criminal.
Hired State Goons (aka '50 centers' because the piece-rate is 0.50 per post) posing as Netizens: She stole private property. The store owner was protecting his property. She violated the one-child policy. The fetus would have grown up to be a thief anyway, etc, etc. anyway.

My Position: Turn her over to State thugs to deal with. Any private enforcement action besides detaining her is unlawful and illegitimate. The store employees and owner should also be turned over to State thugs. Kidnapping and assault are crimes.

Now that is what I think. What is the correct position (i.e. the view deduced from the Axioms of Natural Law)?  

First, I find this event to be morally abhorent on so many levels.

Second, while she was wrong to steal the powder, that does not justify the use of force enough to even detain her, much less harm her.  There is also the question of appropriate use of force; for even initiation of force does not justify returning of force in (significantly) greater degree than was even threatened.  I had to take courses in the legal use of force to get my CCL, and the classic example is the shooting of an armed mugger.  If a mugger were to corner you, and threaten yourself (or another person with or near you) with a weapon, and you shot him once, that's legally justifiable self-defense whether he dies from that single wound or not.  However, if you shoot him after you gave up your wallet and he had turned around to leave, it's not justifiable or self-defense because he was no longer an immediate threat, because he was leaving.  Or, if you shot him twice standing, and then three more times after he had fallen down; it may self-defense but not justifiable, because you greatly exceeded the appropriate level of force that is justifiable.  An appropriate use of force with this woman amounts to whatever is required to remove the stolen products from her possession, and no more.

Of course, all this automaticly assumes that this is the first time this woman was caught stealing from this particular vendor, which is something I find unlikely.

Okay, what about handing her over to State Thugs. Is that kosher?

Simply stated, no.  However, the state is the only 'justice' system available, so I can understand that the shop owners didn't see as they had much choice.  To simply let every shoplifter with a sob story go without any consequences, no matter how many times they have been caught, makes you a mark and that will get around to those who might seek out your store just to steal from it with reduced risk.

If not, what if she steals again? Can we up it a notch and try to negotiate a private settlement via kidnapping and ransom?

I think that it depends upon the case, and this is where the lack of case law makes private security/justice systems hard to argue for.  The official state system has history of actually working in living memory, while non-governmental justice systems really haven't existed for hundreds of years outside the realm of international trade litigations.

[MoonShadow]

Yeah, I mostly agree with this.

Wait, what?  Did you just agree that your use of a statistical metric or it's results didn't actually support your own argument?

IQ=f(intelligence(genetics, environment),error(genetics,environment,measurement error))

We know that genetics are profoundly important in this equation. It is difficult to tell if that is because of intelligence(genetics, environment) or error(genetics,environment,measurement error).

Genetics are important in this equation for any particular individual. (I don't agree that they are profoundly important, outside of the context of identifiable genetic disorders that are known to affect cognative development)  However, genetics play almost no role whatever upon the averages, because there is no society or race that exists with any meaningful genetic advantage in this context.  Many studies have been done on this topic, and at most the greatest advantage that any race might have here are ethnic Jews at about 3 IQ above the overall mean, on average.  Again, a measurable yet meaningless difference as applied to an individual.  If your IQ testing rang in at 103, you would have nominally zero cognative advantages over your 100 IQ point peers.  I know from personal experience that even a very high score isn't, alone, an indication of future success.  I rang in the lower 140's during high school, and earn just about $100K per year; while my little brother range the bell on every IQ test he ever took, meaning that he was at least 160 IQ but the standardized tests that were provided were incapable of any accurate measurement.  Yet, despite two different BS degrees from two different universities, my brother has never earned more than $30K in a single year.  You see, my brother also has Asberger's Syndrome, and can't quite fake a "social IQ" well enough to keep any job, which tends to be important for success in adulthood.

[myrkul]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child.  What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation?  Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home.  Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will?  Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted?  Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view?  If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell.

Unfortunately, she is a prisoner in her parents' house. Held not by her parents, but by the State. And we know what happens when one party is made to be a prisoner, and one is made to be a guard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

If she were free to leave, it would be a different matter.

I have to admit, you have a point here.  Yet, we live in a world where states force this issue; not one that conforms to anyone's ideal.  This fact doesn't really change the questions posed, since she is (literally speaking) not a prisoner and her parents are not her wardens.

But she is, and they are. If she were to escape, the State would bring her back, unless she could prove abuse, which in this case, the State would not side with her on. If she were to be thrown out, the State would levy fines or penalties against her parents. And, like a felon, her employment options are severely limited, again, by the State. She cannot find work sufficient to support herself, nor is she allowed to leave, even if she could support herself. Prisoner, slave, call it what you will, she's stuck where she is. And why is this? Because she has not attained some magical arbitrary age where suddenly she's responsible for herself.

And what happens when she finally reaches this magical age? After 18 years of being told she can't be responsible, now she's suddenly told she must be! And people wonder why teens act so irresponsibly!

Yes, we live in a world where States force this issue. And that's the problem. "My house, My rules," is fine when the other party is free to go. In fact, it's to be expected. But when the other party is not free to go, it becomes a prison sentence, with the date of parole circled on the calendar. Yes, the State will most likely force me to be a warden at some point in my daughters' lives. It is my most fervent hope, however, that my rules will be acceptable enough that they will want to stay, and I will not be forced to force them.

100% of what Myrkul said here is true.

I don't contest that, in practice, that what Myrkul said was true.  Yet, even he should admit, that if own of his own daughters didn't want to live with him or his wife anymore at 16; she should have the right to leave regardless of what the state wanted.  In most states in the US, she could file for "emancipation" (a not un-ironic name for early legal self-ownership) that should be approved without issue if her parents were in agreement.  It actually happens quite often for ambitious homeschoolers who 'graduate' early and leave home for college.  It's not often done for teens who simply wish to move out of their home and get job, because it's not practially necessary.  If a teenager wishes to move out and start adulthood early, they just need their parents to not interfere. The state isnt going to return a runaway unless 1) that runaway's parents filed for their disappearance or 2) that runaway is homeless.

More magic numbers. And that poor girl is 15, a bit shy of even that goal. Child labor laws limit the hours she can work in a day, and the total hours per week. There are some jobs she simply can not get, no matter how qualified she is. She is essentially limited to minimum wage work at a fast food joint for less than part time. Not a chance in hell she can support herself on that.

If my girls want to leave at 16, I won't stop 'em. If they want to leave at 15, I'll have to.

[MoonShadow]

I don't contest that, in practice, that what Myrkul said was true.  Yet, even he should admit, that if own of his own daughters didn't want to live with him or his wife anymore at 16; she should have the right to leave regardless of what the state wanted.  In most states in the US, she could file for "emancipation" (a not un-ironic name for early legal self-ownership) that should be approved without issue if her parents were in agreement.  It actually happens quite often for ambitious homeschoolers who 'graduate' early and leave home for college.  It's not often done for teens who simply wish to move out of their home and get job, because it's not practially necessary.  If a teenager wishes to move out and start adulthood early, they just need their parents to not interfere. The state isnt going to return a runaway unless 1) that runaway's parents filed for their disappearance or 2) that runaway is homeless.

More magic numbers. And that poor girl is 15, a bit shy of even that goal. Child labor laws limit the hours she can work in a day, and the total hours per week. There are some jobs she simply can not get, no matter how qualified she is. She is essentially limited to minimum wage work at a fast food joint for less than part time. Not a chance in hell she can support herself on that.

If my girls want to leave at 16, I won't stop 'em. If they want to leave at 15, I'll have to.

Granted, but we weren't talking about how government interference affects things, were we?  I wasn't.  I was talking about the role of parents this entire thread.  What if this kind of government interference didn't exist, what then?  Would compelling their daughter to hold a sign with details of her personal life at a street corner be a viable punishment, assuming that she had the choice to leave?  If not, why not?  If your 15 year old daughter chooses to repeatedly violate household rules, but no actual laws, what recourse do you have as a parent if they refuse to listen to a voice of wisdom?

[MoonShadow]

Environmental factors are much more difficult to identify empirically. Since the collapse of Fascism, it has become difficult to manipulate environment in any kind of randomized way.

Since we have hit the side topic of education, I thought I might post this link here.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-royal-pain-in-ass.html

I was literally laughing out loud.  It's even a fairly accurate description of written English, even if the revolutionary generation of Americans nearly acheived universal literacy at the time, even though that wasn't a goal of any government, and using a broader vocabulary than is acheivable by most high schools in modern times.

[myrkul]

What if this kind of government interference didn't exist, what then?  Would compelling their daughter to hold a sign with details of her personal life at a street corner be a viable punishment, assuming that she had the choice to leave?  If not, why not?

I've answered this already. If you wouldn't do it to an adult in the same situation, you shouldn't do it to a child. There is only one viable consequence for flagrant, repeated violation of the rules of a household: eviction. Now, if she were to suggest something like this, in lieu of eviction, I would consider it, on the condition that she stop the behavior.

If your 15 year old daughter chooses to repeatedly violate household rules, but no actual laws, what recourse do you have as a parent if they refuse to listen to a voice of wisdom?

I'll let Mr. Bigglesworth answer that one:

[justusranvier]

If your 15 year old daughter chooses to repeatedly violate household rules, but no actual laws, what recourse do you have as a parent if they refuse to listen to a voice of wisdom?

It's your problem, not hers and the time to avoid it was 15 years ago.

If she doesn't respect to you at age 15 years it's because your so-called wisdom is crap and she's figured it out. If you've built your relationship on using your position of superior power to enforce your rules on to her then of course she's going to ignore them once she starts to get some power of her own. If you ran roughshod over her preferences when she was young instead of treating her with respect and negotiating she's going to run roughshod over your preferences when she gets the chance, just like your example taught her.

If you treat your children from the beginning with the deference and respect you want them to treat you with in the future, you won't have to live in fear of what they're going to do when you're no longer able to dominate them.

[myrkul]

If you treat your children from the beginning with the deference and respect you want them to treat you with in the future, you won't have to live in fear of what they're going to do when you're no longer able to dominate them.

Much better said than how I said it.

Don't raise a slave, you won't have to fear a slave revolt.

[Rudd-O]

If your 15 year old daughter chooses to repeatedly violate household rules, but no actual laws, what recourse do you have as a parent if they refuse to listen to a voice of wisdom?

It's your problem, not hers and the time to avoid it was 15 years ago.

If she doesn't respect to you at age 15 years it's because your so-called wisdom is crap and she's figured it out.

BOOM!  Well said.  I can personally verify this is true.

[Rudd-O]

If you treat your children from the beginning with the deference and respect you want them to treat you with in the future, you won't have to live in fear of what they're going to do when you're no longer able to dominate them.

Much better said than how I said it.

Don't raise a slave, you won't have to fear a slave revolt.

Jesus this thread is full of win.

[MoonShadow]

If you treat your children from the beginning with the deference and respect you want them to treat you with in the future, you won't have to live in fear of what they're going to do when you're no longer able to dominate them.

Much better said than how I said it.

Don't raise a slave, you won't have to fear a slave revolt.

Good luck with that.  Teenagers always have other reasons to revolt, particularly daughters.  You've a major shock coming yet.

[MoonShadow]

Okay, what about handing her over to State Thugs. Is that kosher?

Simply stated, no.  However, the state is the only 'justice' system available, so I can understand that the shop owners didn't see as they had much choice.  To simply let every shoplifter with a sob story go without any consequences, no matter how many times they have been caught, makes you a mark and that will get around to those who might seek out your store just to steal from it with reduced risk.

It sounds like you're trying really hard to justify blatant thuggery and use the State as a scapegoat no matter what happens. This time it's the State's fault for being too small and Libertarian.

One of us is really confused.  I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm just a realist.  And that last sentence didn't even parse.

As for an AnCap justice system, Hell will freeze over before a civilised, workable system is described in detail.

this has already been done.  Is hell cold?

[justusranvier]

Good luck with that.  Teenagers always have other reasons to revolt, particularly daughters.  You've a major shock coming yet.

This is a very precarious position for you to take now that an increasing number of parents are adopting peaceful parenting methods and producing evidence to the contrary.

In the future when your views of childhood and parents have been so utterly and completely debunked that the truth is impossible to ignore you won't be able to claim, "I didn't know."

Remember how radically the generally accepted standards of behavior changed in terms of race relations in the 20th century.

Do you want to be that guy who blindly follows tradition by joining the KKK, just before the civil rights movement starts?

[myrkul]

As for an AnCap justice system, Hell will freeze over before a civilised, workable system is described in detail.

this has already been done.  Is hell cold?

No it has not been done. Myrkul's ramblings about multi-tiered private arbitration and justice mysteriously "floating to the top" sounded quite vague.

If you're using this forum as the sole source of libertarian thought, that might explain why you're unaware of these things.
http://wiki.mises.org/ is a good place to start.

[MoonShadow]

Good luck with that.  Teenagers always have other reasons to revolt, particularly daughters.  You've a major shock coming yet.

This is a very precarious position for you to take now that an increasing number of parents are adopting peaceful parenting methods and producing evidence to the contrary.

This is not happening.  There is no evidence to the contrary.  Even if there were, it still wouldn't invalidate my core argument, that it's not your place to decide for my children, it's mine.

[myrkul]

Good luck with that.  Teenagers always have other reasons to revolt, particularly daughters.  You've a major shock coming yet.

This is a very precarious position for you to take now that an increasing number of parents are adopting peaceful parenting methods and producing evidence to the contrary.

This is not happening.  There is no evidence to the contrary.

Not just a river in Egypt, apparently.

Even if there were, it still wouldn't invalidate my core argument, that it's not your place to decide for my children, it's mine.

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

[cunicula]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

[myrkul]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard! 

[cunicula]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard! 

I'm fine with private indoctrination centers too. It just needs to be audited and regulated so that we can be sure that no child abuse is going on. I'm not sure that auditing home-schools is practical.

[cunicula]

As for an AnCap justice system, Hell will freeze over before a civilised, workable system is described in detail.

this has already been done.  Is hell cold?

No it has not been done. Myrkul's ramblings about multi-tiered private arbitration and justice mysteriously "floating to the top" sounded quite vague.

If you're using this forum as the sole source of libertarian thought, that might explain why you're unaware of these things.
http://wiki.mises.org/ is a good place to start.

LoL - did you edit some of those pages? The vague utopian writing style -- peppered with pejorative terms whenever referring to a government activity -- seems awfully familiar. I did manage to find a page called "restorative justice", but despite all the rhetoric and well-meaning criticism of the ways governments do things, details on implementation remain absent. Basic sanity-check questions remain unanswered:

a) how do you make sure the victim in a conflict is "mysteriously restored" to his position before the conflict?
b) how do you make sure the criminal in a conflict is mysteriously restored to a "state of integration with society"?
c) how do you correctly identify the victim vs. the criminal?
d) Presumably the victim would have to be the driving force for justice. Where does the victim get all his money and power from to stand up against the criminal?
e) What incentive does the criminal have to co-operate with this restorative justice ritual, rather than just intimidating or silencing the victim?
f) What if the victim goes too far? How is this prevented or dealt with? When does the process end?
g) How is making the process private and profit-driven supposed to actually help? What are these "efficiency gains" they speak of?
h) In a profit-driven system, how do you prevent 'arbitrators' from milking the system, creating more crime, or prolonging proceedings? It is their business after all. If the crimes are too simple or there is just not enough of them, the arbitrators won't get enough money! The US is infamous for its bloated lawyer industry. Wouldn't that kind of parasitism just get worse?
i) Why should arbitrators compete against each other, when they can just form a cartel?
j) What if neither side has any money? What incentive do arbitrators have in getting involved?
k) What if the criminal has no money? After the victim initially finances the proceedings, does the criminal get enslaved and forced to work off his debt?

Don't waste your time with anything that has Mises von Shithead in the title. When I originally set out to learn economics I read all the classics: Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes. I eventually headed on down to Mises. And I thought what's this? This is propoganda and fucking philosophy, not economics. Marx is better. Fortunately, nothing von Shithead wrote made it into the educational curriculum. Our children are safe.