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

[MoonShadow]

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

My logic assume no such thing.  This is why it's best to call the cops, even if you are an ancap, and let the agents of the state hash things out.  Under no conditions am I obligated to intervene at all.

Of course it doesn't.

If "the cops" exist, I will call them after there is probable cause for an arrest, and it will not be after I allow it to escalate to murder or attempted murder. Under no conditions are the cops obligated to intervene at all, merely fill out crime reports and perhaps transport arrestees to jail, presentment to magistrate. If two people are having sex in public, then the 1st (rolling video, then yelling) and 2nd Amendment (mere visibility of arms, then active use thereof) force scale gives them a chance to stop and explain themselves when I shout "hey, what are you doing?" at them. Then if the rapist/victim gives me probable cause (rapist covers mouth, I see a weapon being used by either party, victim screams rape, help, etc...), and "step away from each other and lay face down with your arms above your head" doesn't work, then the actual intervention and liability begins, which as a human being I must oblige, even in the total absence of a practiced religion.

You do realize that your ongoing rape strawman situation has next to zero to do with this topic right?

[1714886601]

1714886601

[1714886601]

1714886601

[1714886601]

1714886601

[1714886601]

1714886601

[1714886601]

1714886601

[1714886601]

1714886601

[MoonShadow]

I noticed that you never did mention how old your daughters were.  Have you ever had your daughters get into a fight?

[MoonShadow]

I noticed that you never did mention how old your daughters were.  Have you ever had your daughters get into a fight?

Hmm, are you afraid to answer this question because I might use it against you?

Assuming that you have ever encountered one sibling attacking the other, what did you do?  Did you try to reason with the attacker?  Did you put her in a 'time out'?  While my methods certainly don't teach my children that hitting is wrong, what do your methods teach the victimized sibling about justice?  From my perspectives, it would teach them that the only way that they will get justice for being wronged by their sibling is to exact that justice themselves.  This is very much a problem with pre-K daycare centers, as all the children learn early on that the consequences of their actions that are likely to be imposed upon misbehavior by the caretakers are almost always less troublesome than the actions themselves.  Some children learn this, and take advantage of it while dominating their peers.  Others children learn this, and come to understand that the caretakers can't always watch over them, can't see all of them, and don't impose consequences evenly, nor in a fashion that is equatable to the crime; and those children learn to defend themselves in kind and exact their own form of justice, or they simply curl up and suffer.

[myrkul]

And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

It doesn't, it merely conditions an irrational child to associate certain behaviors with certain consquences.

So we're back to treating our children like animals, are we?

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

I didn't say it justified their actions, I just pointed out that the potential of misinterpreting a situation is high, and carries it's own consquences.

Ahh, but there's the rub. He correctly interpreted the situation, but had the misfortune to come to the defense of the victim of the Praetorian Guards. Interestingly, the parallels to our discussion are very strong.

Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

No, you are not obliged to intervene. But I'm sure that if it were you on the ground, you'd like the passerby to stop, yes? Or Does "Do unto others" not mean anything? I thought you were a Christian. My opinion of you, your morals, and your intellectual integrity has dropped dramatically over the course of this thread, and I don't think I can comfortably say I would want to live anywhere near you anymore.

I feel the same about you, I must say.  I think having someone so cocksure of himself and so ready to default towards the use of force against others would be unwise to invite into my own sphere of relations under any conditions.  Most likley, however, you're not really a hypocrite; just young and inexperienced.  I'm sure that you will grow out of it.

I do not default to the use of force against others, but if someone is using force against another, I will intervene. That may require the use of force, though I will attempt a peaceable solution, first.

[TheButterZone]

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

My logic assume no such thing.  This is why it's best to call the cops, even if you are an ancap, and let the agents of the state hash things out.  Under no conditions am I obligated to intervene at all.

Of course it doesn't.

If "the cops" exist, I will call them after there is probable cause for an arrest, and it will not be after I allow it to escalate to murder or attempted murder. Under no conditions are the cops obligated to intervene at all, merely fill out crime reports and perhaps transport arrestees to jail, presentment to magistrate. If two people are having sex in public, then the 1st (rolling video, then yelling) and 2nd Amendment (mere visibility of arms, then active use thereof) force scale gives them a chance to stop and explain themselves when I shout "hey, what are you doing?" at them. Then if the rapist/victim gives me probable cause (rapist covers mouth, I see a weapon being used by either party, victim screams rape, help, etc...), and "step away from each other and lay face down with your arms above your head" doesn't work, then the actual intervention and liability begins, which as a human being I must oblige, even in the total absence of a practiced religion.

You do realize that your ongoing rape strawman situation has next to zero to do with this topic right?

Myrkul=/ me, analogies=/strawmen.

It's telling that you chose not to respond to:

Yes, because real life is a MMORPG, where you have a tag hovering over your head constantly that says Parent and all children have a Child tag hovering over their heads that indicates they are within striking distance of their Parent.

Because your rationalization is absolutely irrational to the rest of us who can't tell who Parents and Children are in relation to each other, in public. All we see is AN adult perpetrating violence against A child. No fracking identity tags, ZERO evidence that the child has any relation to the adult WHATSOEVER. Unless you believe that any adult perpetrating violence against any child makes that child "belong to" or "be in lawful custody of", the adult.

[MoonShadow]

And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

It doesn't, it merely conditions an irrational child to associate certain behaviors with certain consquences.

So we're back to treating our children like animals, are we?

If that is how you wish to look at it, go ahead, but it does not change the reality that your perspectives have zero bearing on my children.  Once again, I must point out that, (under this reality one such as an ancap) it's not your opinion that matters with regard to my children; it's mine.  Your opinion is inmaterial.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

I didn't say it justified their actions, I just pointed out that the potential of misinterpreting a situation is high, and carries it's own consquences.

Ahh, but there's the rub. He correctly interpreted the situation, but had the misfortune to come to the defense of the victim of the Praetorian Guards. Interestingly, the parallels to our discussion are very strong.

How exactly?  Are you of the opinion that the skinhead doesn't hold any responsibility for the outcome?  Or that the interloper was obligated to defend someone he doesn't know from the Praetorian Guards?

Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

No, you are not obliged to intervene. But I'm sure that if it were you on the ground, you'd like the passerby to stop, yes? Or Does "Do unto others" not mean anything? I thought you were a Christian. My opinion of you, your morals, and your intellectual integrity has dropped dramatically over the course of this thread, and I don't think I can comfortably say I would want to live anywhere near you anymore.

I feel the same about you, I must say.  I think having someone so cocksure of himself and so ready to default towards the use of force against others would be unwise to invite into my own sphere of relations under any conditions.  Most likley, however, you're not really a hypocrite; just young and inexperienced.  I'm sure that you will grow out of it.

I do not default to the use of force against others, except if I perceive someone is using force against another, I will intervene. That may require the use of force, though I will attempt a peaceable solution, first.

FTFY

[myrkul]

And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

It doesn't, it merely conditions an irrational child to associate certain behaviors with certain consquences.

So we're back to treating our children like animals, are we?

If that is how you wish to look at it, go ahead, but it does not change the reality that your perspectives have zero bearing on my children.  Once again, I must point out that, (under this reality one such as an ancap) it's not your opinion that matters with regard to my children; it's mine.  Your opinion is inmaterial.

This isn't a matter of opinion. it's fact. You're treating a person with rights as though they had none, and were in fact, an animal, incapable of thought. No matter how you shy from this realization, that's exactly what you're doing, abusing them.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

I didn't say it justified their actions, I just pointed out that the potential of misinterpreting a situation is high, and carries it's own consquences.

Ahh, but there's the rub. He correctly interpreted the situation, but had the misfortune to come to the defense of the victim of the Praetorian Guards. Interestingly, the parallels to our discussion are very strong.

How exactly?  Are you of the opinion that the skinhead doesn't hold any responsibility for the outcome?  Or that the interloper was obligated to defend someone he doesn't know from the Praetorian Guards?

The off-duty policemen thought they had every right to beat up the skinhead. They initiated violence upon him, and the defender got the shaft. If you're blaming the skinhead for being beaten by a gang of thugs with tin shields because he mouthed off to them and tossed peanuts, you might as well blame the rape victim for her rape, because she was wearing a tight skirt. But, then, you consider beating your kids a suitable way to treat a defenseless person with rights, so I suppose your values are pretty skewed to begin with.

I would strongly suggest you take a good long look at the things you have defended in this thread, and see how many you defended because they are just, and right, and how many you defended because they parallel you beating your kids, and you can't defend that without defending them, as well. Start with that story about the off-duty pigs.

[Rudd-O]

Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

Well said.

I'm mostly shielded from MoonAbuser's garbage, but the few things he has said that have snuck through comment quotes reveal the absolute putrefaction and perversity rotten in his mind.  Some "Christian" he is.

[cunicula]

The State assigns parental rights to MoonShadow. This allows him to raise his children as he likes within fairly broad boundaries. That is called freedom. Without the restrictions, questions like "should we take away his children?" would be ambiguous. This ambiguity would force MoonShadow to conform to everyone else's beliefs. That is how I expect an AnCap society would be. All laws and rights are ambiguous, so you would need conform with everyone else's views to avoid risk of violent confrontation. I prefer freedom and individuality thus I choose Statism.

Have I got this right?

[myrkul]

Have I got this right?

You can safely assume the answer to this question is pretty much always "No."

[MoonShadow]

I see that we need to return to first principles, Myrkul.

Correct me it I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will, but isn't one of the core principles of an AnCap society that every adult is soverign over their own affairs?

If that is true, is it not also true that my views about how I raise my children are a matter between myself, my wife and my children?

Just as you are soverign over your own affairs, and can raise your children as you see fit, as I have no say in your affairs; correct?

Do you not see the contradiction in your own philosophy?  One the one hand, you profess that men should be able to govern themselves (for which I agree) and see no problem with taking that to it's absolute (for which I don't agree); but on the other hand, you also profess that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to raise children.  Sure, you have the right to believe that, even to profess that; but you don't have the right to impose your beliefs upon others.  Should you choose to do so, and cannot get compliance with words alone, you have professed a moral obligation to use force.  Granted, violence is the last argument of the sovereign, but it is also about as likely to be his last argument ever. 

I do see the contradiction of anarchism, for it fundementally assumes that every adult has, not just the right, but also the willingness and ability to self-govern.  (This ability also presumes self-censorship, as in the skinhead in the barfight example; while none of us has the right to not be offended, offending others still has natural consequences) The root problem with this theory is that there will always be a subset of people for which this assumption does not apply.  Some will grow into it, others never will, but never can all the people be able to self-govern at the same time.  So what is the pensive ancap to do?  If you really believe that corporeal punishment is child abuse, are you not obligated to intervene?  But how, if every adult is presumed capable of self-government, and is sovereign over his own affairs?  If you step in personally, and things go sour, do you imagine that my children will be thankful that you have relieved them of a tyranical parent?  Or is it more likely that you would have started a blood feud between my surviving family members and your own?  This is not a trivial question, since we can't assume that everyone who lives in an ancap society would agree with your own belief system.

Granted, our real world has many contradictions.  Yet one sign of maturity is the ability to incorporate such contradictions into one's worldview.

And to the "point" about my not being a good Christain because I don't see the "Golden Rule" in the same context that you do, the best understanding in English for the Golden Rule is not "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (otherwise you have this very event.. http://www.dilbert.com/strips/2012-12-09/ ) it's more correct to say "Do not do unto others for which you would not have done to you".  The distinction is not trivial.

[MoonShadow]

The State assigns parental rights to MoonShadow. This allows him to raise his children as he likes within fairly broad boundaries. That is called freedom. Without the restrictions, questions like "should we take away his children?" would be ambiguous. This ambiguity would force MoonShadow to conform to everyone else's beliefs. That is how I expect an AnCap society would be. All laws and rights are ambiguous, so you would need conform with everyone else's views to avoid risk of violent confrontation. I prefer freedom and individuality thus I choose Statism.

Have I got this right?

If your version of statism exists only to protect the rights of the individual, and society from external threats, then yes.

However I strongly doubt that is what you mean.

[FirstAscent]

This isn't a matter of opinion. it's fact. You're treating a person with rights as though they had none, and were in fact, an animal, incapable of thought. No matter how you shy from this realization, that's exactly what you're doing, abusing them.

That's the second time you've done that. Instead of trying to differentiate treatment of people and children from treatment of animals, for the most part, you should consider that animals are capable of feeling pain and suffering, and various types of thoughts. I think it demonstrates a deficiency in your thinking, and to some extent, disqualifies you from discussion. Better to think that animals also deserve to be treated well.

Anyway, your arguments are rather weak. First, be very clear on the exact offense you claim MoonShadow is engaging in (slicing out a child's eyeballs, whipping a child with a belt, patting a child on the bottom, etc.). Second, since you're such a man of action, please share the times you've intervened to disrupt violent actions.

[myrkul]

I see that we need to return to first principles, Myrkul.

Correct me it I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will, but isn't one of the core principles of an AnCap society that every adult is soverign over their own affairs?

True, their own affairs.

If that is true, is it not also true that my views about how I raise my children are a matter between myself, my wife and my children?

As long as you're not violating their rights, yes. And might I remind you...

...we recognise that he will have rights in the future, and thus he has them now.

Just as you are soverign over your own affairs, and can raise your children as you see fit, as I have no say in your affairs; correct?

Correct, again, assuming I do not, myself, violate my kids' rights.

I understand where you're coming from... Daddy Government has to violate a little of our rights to protect us, so it's naturally OK for Daddy to violate a little of his kids' rights to protect them. Of course, it's demonstrably true that you don't need this type of hypocrisy, that those who protect our rights need not violate them themselves. The same is true for parenting. Your "a little abuse is OK, if it's the last resort" mentality comes directly from, or at least shares the same root, as your "a little government is OK, as long as it only protects those rights it doesn't violate itself" mentality.

That, I think, explains your vehement defense of pain-punishment as an acceptable practice. If you truly believed that parents had the ultimate say in how they raised their kids, you'd be OK with them using their children for sex. But if you admit that you don't need to violate their rights to protect them, you might have to admit that the government is in the same position.

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

[foggyb]

Criminals almost universally were victims of child abuse -- verbal violence, physical violence, sexual violence.

Cry a river for these criminals, will you? There is hardly a criminal in prison who doesn't deserve to be where they are.

Who are you to tell anyone that your morality is morally superior? Great example of circular reasoning.

Violence among adults is learned largely from spankings? Ridiculous. Even if that were true, ending spanking would not solve crime. Every human being knows how to make a fist.

ALL the people I know who were spanked as kids (hundreds, I live in a small town) are good people, successful, a benefit to society, not prone to violence. I don't know a single person in prison, who has been to prison, or who has been charged with a crime. I speak from EXPERIENCE, not from a position of imagined moral or intellectual superiority.

The argument in this thread against spanking is logically unsound in several key areas. What does that say about the premise itself?

[Rudd-O]

Criminals almost universally were victims of child abuse -- verbal violence, physical violence, sexual violence.

Cry a river for these criminals, will you? There is hardly a criminal in prison who doesn't deserve to be where they are.

Who are you to tell anyone that your morality is morally superior? Great example of circular reasoning.

Violence among adults is learned largely from spankings? Ridiculous. Even if that were true, ending spanking would not solve crime. Every human being knows how to make a fist.

ALL the people I know who were spanked as kids (hundreds, I live in a small town) are good people, successful, a benefit to society, not prone to violence. I don't know a single person in prison, who has been to prison, or who has been charged with a crime. I speak from EXPERIENCE, not from a position of imagined moral or intellectual superiority.

The argument in this thread against spanking is logically unsound in several key areas. What does that say about the premise itself?

This comment contains pretty much every barbaric dismsssal and apology for  child abuse commonly vomited by sociopaths who can't stand abuse being discussed and feel the urgent need to sabotage said discussions.

I won't be responding to their sort of garbage, because it is pretty clear that this schmuck did not bother to actually give a responsive reply to what I said, preferring instead to go with the misrepresentation / manipulation angle (e.g. I never spoke about what criminals deserve) and the faux indignation lecture ("who are you to...").  This retard is not making a genuine effort to engage rationally, I feel no obligation to do so myself, and I won't bless garbage with a response reserved only for actual arguments.

You had a chance to make an argument, you chose attacks and fogging. Congratulations, you earn a speedy ticket to my ignore list.

[FirstAscent]

Congratulations, you earn a speedy ticket to my ignore list.

I can't wait until you've ignored every person who doesn't hold your views.

[cunicula]

The State assigns parental rights to MoonShadow. This allows him to raise his children as he likes within fairly broad boundaries. That is called freedom. Without the restrictions, questions like "should we take away his children?" would be ambiguous. This ambiguity would force MoonShadow to conform to everyone else's beliefs. That is how I expect an AnCap society would be. All laws and rights are ambiguous, so you would need conform with everyone else's views to avoid risk of violent confrontation. I prefer freedom and individuality thus I choose Statism.

Have I got this right?

If your version of statism exists only to protect the rights of the individual, and society from external threats, then yes.

However I strongly doubt that is what you mean.

Okay then is it okay.for.the.state to.tax you.in order.to fund provision of these services?

Or. should the.state rely on voluntary contributions?

Or should the.state be entrepreneurial like Singapore and fund its own services through business activity?

My feeling is that the.second and third.options lead to a regime with two classes of citizens.

[myrkul]

Methinks cunicu-bot is having issues.

[cunicula]

Methinks cunicu-bot is having issues.

Me bad at smartphone. apologies