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

[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.

edit: Whoops!

[Rudd-O]

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 an adult.

Yeah, this is a very good heuristic.  Some adults often humiliate or otherwise abuse their kids in ways that would get their faces split in two if they did the exact same thing to an adult -> it follows that people who do that are cowardly scum.

[MoonShadow]

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.

edit: Whoops!

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.

[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.

edit: Whoops!

Myrkul's baby "Bambam" does a poo.
Myrkul sees no alternative but to call the police and have the obviously intoxicated offender taken away to sober up overnight in a cell.

Bambam throws a toy at him.
This time Myrkul presses charges.

Bambam draws pictures on a wall.
Myrkul sifts through police photos of graffiti and begins to suspect the baby's membership in a local gang. He writes out a $100 cheque to cover cleaning fees.

What?! Treat the child like you would an adult, right?

Except that I wouldn't treat an adult like that.

And my daughters' names are Rowan and Willow. Not Bambam.

[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.

edit: Whoops!

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.

[cunicula]

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.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

[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.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

[cunicula]

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.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

What are you talking about? In Singapore we have always approved of family planning. Of course, if your daughters are of inferior breeding stock we might recommend some stronger measures. If your daughter shows mental incapacity or undesirable tendencies (e.g. libertarian thoughts), the state may authorize sterilization measures on her behalf. At the peak, about 20 percent of our female breeding age population participated in our sterilization programs. Unfortunately, now, after decades of family planning conditioning, we are having trouble convincing people to breed again.

In a speech in support of the 1969 acts, Lee expressed the
degenerationist's support for eugenic policies, both in terms of
raising the quality of racial stock and in reducing public
expenditure on welfare programmes:

One of the crucial yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the
results of the new abortion law combined with the voluntary
sterilization law will be whether it tends to raise or lower the
total quality of our population. We must encourage those who earn
less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate
many children never to have more than two. Intelligent application of
these laws can help reduce the distortion that has already set in ...
we will regret the time lost, if we do not now take the first
tentative step towards correcting a trend which can leave our society
with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally
anaemic.
The 1969 sterilization act set up a five-man Eugenics Board to
authorize sterilizations. While it included two doctors, a social
worker and one 'other', it was chaired by a district judge.

Your country is welcome to continue allowing the poor, uneducated, and mentally incompetent to procreate. We'll compare average IQ scores again in a few decades.
Good luck making up your current deficit. (unless you are in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Japan in which case we plan to surpass you on all lists)  

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

[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.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

What are you talking about? In Singapore we have always approved of family planning. Of course, if your daughters are of inferior breeding stock we might recommend some stronger measures. If your daughter shows mental incapacity (e.g. libertarian thoughts), you can authorize sterilization measures on her behalf. At the peak of our achievement, about 20 percent of our female breeding age population were sterilized.

Ahh, there's the Cunicula we know and love to hate.

Here I thought you might actually have been suggesting that we treat a reproductively mature woman as capable of handling that portion of her life.... Guess not.

[Rudd-O]

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.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

Broken clock.  Right twice a day.  You know the drill.

[cunicula]

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.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

What are you talking about? In Singapore we have always approved of family planning. Of course, if your daughters are of inferior breeding stock we might recommend some stronger measures. If your daughter shows mental incapacity (e.g. libertarian thoughts), you can authorize sterilization measures on her behalf. At the peak of our achievement, about 20 percent of our female breeding age population were sterilized.

Ahh, there's the Cunicula we know and love to hate.

Here I thought you might actually have been suggesting that we treat a reproductively mature woman as capable of handling that portion of her life.... Guess not.

The capability of mature women is up to the district judge to evaluate. In most cases, women were judged capable.

The 1969 sterilization act set up a five-man Eugenics Board to
authorize sterilizations. While it included two doctors, a social
worker and one 'other', it was chaired by a district judge.

[cunicula]

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)?  

[MoonShadow]

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.

edit: Whoops!

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.

[MoonShadow]

Your country is welcome to continue allowing the poor, uneducated, and mentally incompetent to procreate. We'll compare average IQ scores again in a few decades.
Good luck making up your current deficit. (unless you are in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Japan in which case we plan to surpass you on all lists)  

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

Heh.  IQ is a particularly useless metric with regard to measuring intelligence, moreso when trying to apply such a metric to entire populations.  IQ is a relative rate of learning, and was never intended to measure actual intellectual ability.  It was intended to measure the memory retention of applicable data; in mentally defective persons.  By definition, 100 is the average score of a 'normal' person; and is similar in usefulness to the 20/20 vision measurement.  Numbers close to or better than average have no practical meaning, and everything is measured relative to a given population.  Put another way, if your society is, on average, increasing their IQ; that means that your society is improving relative to prior generations not relative to other societies at the same time.  Standardized IQ testing cannot measure people from significantly different educational backgrounds, nor people with different first languages.  This is one reason that homeschoolers in the US consistantly crush these kinds of tests even though they come from across the class & racial spectrum in the US; the tests are designed to measure students from an 'average' educational background, and have no practical way to account for the differences in the quality of educational backgrounds.  While this would imply that the deviation of IQ scores could indicate relative improvements in education (something that I would admit is intuitively likely for Singapore in particular), it's more than the evidence can support to use such metrics as evidence that US poor children are uneducated relative to other countries.  The truth is much more complex.

And the definitions of what is "poor" in the US should give anyone else pause, since only 2% of the official poverty level American household is actually homeless by any standard; and the average poverty level household is likely to have at least one adult with a cell phone, one car 7 years old or less, one flat screen television, one computer, either broadband internet service or cable tv, and more square footage of living space than the average middle class household in 90%+ of the rest of the nations on Earth, including every nation in Europe be they wealthy or not.

[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.

[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.

[cunicula]

Heh.  IQ is a particularly useless metric with regard to measuring intelligence, moreso when trying to apply such a metric to entire populations.  IQ is a relative rate of learning, and was never intended to measure actual intellectual ability.  It was intended to measure the memory retention of applicable data; in mentally defective persons.  By definition, 100 is the average score of a 'normal' person; and is similar in usefulness to the 20/20 vision measurement.  Numbers close to or better than average have no practical meaning, and everything is measured relative to a given population.  Put another way, if your society is, on average, increasing their IQ; that means that your society is improving relative to prior generations not relative to other societies at the same time.  Standardized IQ testing cannot measure people from significantly different educational backgrounds, nor people with different first languages.  This is one reason that homeschoolers in the US consistantly crush these kinds of tests even though they come from across the class & racial spectrum in the US; the tests are designed to measure students from an 'average' educational background, and have no practical way to account for the differences in the quality of educational backgrounds.  While this would imply that the deviation of IQ scores could indicate relative improvements in education (something that I would admit is intuitively likely for Singapore in particular), it's more than the evidence can support to use such metrics as evidence that US poor children are uneducated relative to other countries.  The truth is much more complex.

And the definitions of what is "poor" in the US should give anyone else pause, since only 2% of the official poverty level American household is actually homeless by any standard; and the average poverty level household is likely to have at least one adult with a cell phone, one car 7 years old or less, one flat screen television, one computer, either broadband internet service or cable tv, and more square footage of living space than the average middle class household in 90%+ of the rest of the nations on Earth, including every nation in Europe be they wealthy or not.

Yeah, I mostly agree with this.

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).

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.

[cunicula]

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?

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

[Rudd-O]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.