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

[myrkul]

Methinks cunicu-bot is having issues.

Me bad at smartphone. apologies

lol.. apology accepted.

But seriously.... Use a keyboard. Don't post on here from your phone. Take a break, walk away, decompress. You'd be surprised how much it helps.

And it prevents you from having to apologize for these sorts of things.

[MoonShadow]

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.

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.

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.

You can look at it however you wish to look at it.  But no matter how you look at it, you have no say in it.  Until you accept this basic truth, you will continue to spin.

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.

No, you're missing the point.  Let me offer a slightly different analogy for you to ponder.  As a Christian, I'm also not okay with a much worse violation of the rights of children, namely abortion.  I find it morally abhorrent, and quite literally murder of a human life.  To take your perspective, I'd be within my right to shoot abortion doctors as serial murderers.  After all, if I'm morally obligated to defend the victims, what other option do I have?  There can be no peaceful disagreement, in your worldview.  Every perceived violation of human rights must be met with force if reason is not sufficient, after all.  But I can't do that, now can I?  Certainly some have done exactly this, and they have gone to prison as murderers.  The problem is that some aspects of Juris Naturalis have a consensus.  I.E., Thous Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Bear False Witness, etc.  What does not have a consensus is "what, exactly, is 'murder'?  Is fighting in a war, even one that would qualify under the 'just war' doctrine, murder?  For some, the answer there is yes; but for most, the answer is most certainly no.  So the same rationale applies to yourself, and your desires to interfere in how I raise my children.  If you were to actually see me spank a child on the street, your moral code compels you to intervene.  Yet, if you harm me in doing so, the law will not respect your moral obligations any more than it would respect mine, or those of the 'honor killing' types.  I respect that you really do believe that what I am doing is wrong, and do believe that you are sincere in your good intentions.  However, we both know how the path to hell is paved.  Furthermore, you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that you are bound by your absolutist ancap philosophy.  While I could change the legal definition of the beginning of life to conception by lobbying congress and convincing a significant majority of the current population that my views are correct, and then proceed to engage the government's monopoly on force to suppress the crime of abortion; you would have to lobby the whole of your society and achieve a consensus, and even then you would be powerless to react should someone come along later who disagreed.  It is not a contradiction for me, as a libertarian and not an anarchist, to expect the government to use it's regulatory powers or monopoly on force to protect the rights of children (as I interpret them).  It is, however, a contradiction for you, as an ancap, to attempt to impose your interpretations of same upon myself, in any fashion whatsoever.

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

[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.

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.

All three lead to regimes with two or more classes of citizens, eventually.  There is no solution to that.

[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.

All three lead to regimes with two or more classes of citizens, eventually.  There is no solution to that.

Yes, but it is not a black and white issue. It is not just equal or unequal, there is a whole spectrum in between. To attain as much equality under the law as possible, you want the state to be financed by as broad a group as possible. This is achieved through broad-based involuntary taxation, not from voluntary contributions or state entrepreneurship.

e.g. Singapore and China basically run on the state entrepreneurship model. Singapore has kind of perfected this model. With respect to freedom, the Singaporean outcome is not nearly as free as the US. With respect to achieving national prosperity, I am not sure what works best. Different states have succeeded (and failed) with different general approaches. The details seem to matter a lot.

[myrkul]

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.

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.

I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

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.

You can look at it however you wish to look at it.  But no matter how you look at it, you have no say in it.  Until you accept this basic truth, you will continue to spin.

Again, if you truly believed this, you would be absolutely fine with parents raping their children. After all, you have no say in it, right?

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.

No, you're missing the point.  Let me offer a slightly different analogy for you to ponder.  As a Christian, I'm also not okay with a much worse violation of the rights of children, namely abortion.  I find it morally abhorrent, and quite literally murder of a human life.  To take your perspective, I'd be within my right to shoot abortion doctors as serial murderers.  After all, if I'm morally obligated to defend the victims, what other option do I have?  There can be no peaceful disagreement, in your worldview.  Every perceived violation of human rights must be met with force if reason is not sufficient, after all.  But I can't do that, now can I?  Certainly some have done exactly this, and they have gone to prison as murderers.  The problem is that some aspects of Juris Naturalis have a consensus.  I.E., Thous Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Bear False Witness, etc.  What does not have a consensus is "what, exactly, is 'murder'? 

Really, you should read or listen to UPB. It will change the way you see the world. (Yes, it answers what "murder" is.) And no, it is not a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a parent from beating their child, no more than it is a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a rape.

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

Sadly, it was a flawed premise. A monopoly is not a good provider of security, no more than it is a good provider of any service.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

I appreciate the offer, but I do believe I'll pass. As you point out, I have my daughters to raise. However, since you consider pedophilia to be a violation of the rights of children, perhaps you should apply the same logic you use to come to that conclusion to the striking of a child, see what comes of it.

[MoonShadow]

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.

No, you're missing the point.  Let me offer a slightly different analogy for you to ponder.  As a Christian, I'm also not okay with a much worse violation of the rights of children, namely abortion.  I find it morally abhorrent, and quite literally murder of a human life.  To take your perspective, I'd be within my right to shoot abortion doctors as serial murderers.  After all, if I'm morally obligated to defend the victims, what other option do I have?  There can be no peaceful disagreement, in your worldview.  Every perceived violation of human rights must be met with force if reason is not sufficient, after all.  But I can't do that, now can I?  Certainly some have done exactly this, and they have gone to prison as murderers.  The problem is that some aspects of Juris Naturalis have a consensus.  I.E., Thous Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Bear False Witness, etc.  What does not have a consensus is "what, exactly, is 'murder'? 

Really, you should read or listen to UPB. It will change the way you see the world. (Yes, it answers what "murder" is.) And no, it is not a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a parent from beating their child, no more than it is a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a rape.

Is it a contradiction for a Catholic to intervene in an abortion?

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

Sadly, it was a flawed premise. A monopoly is not a good provider of security, no more than it is a good provider of any service.

AnCap is a flawed premise as well, as I have already stated.  The premise being that all people are capable of governing themselves, which is demonstratablely false, and the only reason that some kind of government will continue exist.  The real reason that so many people have a real problem with imagining an ancap society is because it cannot exist, and that is the real contradiction.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

I appreciate the offer, but I do believe I'll pass. As you point out, I have my daughters to raise. However, since you consider pedophilia to be a violation of the rights of children, perhaps you should apply the same logic you use to come to that conclusion to the striking of a child, see what comes of it.

Oh,I have.  You should try it yourself.  Step outside of your little box, and try to consider yourself from the perspectives of others.  It's incrediblely enlightening. Of course, since I'm an INTP, it's literally impossible for me to not continually question myself, as that is part of what I am.  I am also of the opinion that ancap is impossible for another, more subtle, reason; that being, if Myers & Briggs were even close to correct, there is a minority of the population that is fundamentally incapable of self-government on any practical level, and not because they have criminal tendencies.  Simply because they depend upon a perceived, external moral authority in order to form a personal code of behavior.  These are the kind of people that would condone the violation of minority rights, simply because that was the law where they grew up.  I know it's hard for you to imagine, because you believe that since you think a certain way, that most people think in the same way.  This is not the case.  These same people would be lost and easily swayed in an ancap society, lacking any dominant moral authority, and in just a few generations your stable ancap society would self-destruct.

If I were to guess, Cunicula probably falls into this catagory.  And no, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, but it is not a black and white issue. It is not just equal or unequal, there is a whole spectrum in between. To attain as much equality under the law as possible, you want the state to be financed by as broad a group as possible. This is achieved through broad-based involuntary taxation, not from voluntary contributions or state entrepreneurship.

And yet, this is a contradiction as well.  The benevolent state apparatus that wields a monopoly on the use of force and is funded by involuntary taxation (no matter how 'fair') cannot maintain it's benevolence over time.  It may start there, but it will not end there.  It took less than a generation for that one to screw up the best intentions of the framers of the US constitution.  And they still claim that taxation is voluntary, because so is work, and the food that work buys.

[cunicula]

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.
I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

Who are you to make up laws restricting who is allowed to enter in to contracts? Are you the dictator? If not, then what are you doing going around making laws?

The ancient Greeks and Romans had sex with their children as a normal thing. How do you know it is harmful? Maybe the harm is socially constructed by Judeo-Christian culture. The Japanese used to bath naked together. Children and adults of both sexes. Is that abuse too?

[MoonShadow]

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.
I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

Who are you to make up laws restricting who is allowed to enter in to contracts? Are you the dictator? If not, then what are you doing going around making laws?

The ancient Greeks and Romans had sex with their children as a normal thing. How do you know it is harmful? Maybe the harm is socially constructed by Judeo-Christian culture. The Japanese used to bath naked together children and adults of both sexes. Is that abuse too?

"Used to"?

[myrkul]

Is it a contradiction for a Catholic to intervene in an abortion?

If he beats his kids, it is. You cannot, on one hand consider a human to be a person, worthy of outside protection at conception, but then consider that person to lose that worth once born. To be perfectly consistent, a Catholic who strikes his child should be fine with abortions right up to, and in fact, after, birth. (In point of fact, this was the case, historically - The Pope even made a statement to the fact that while infanticide is horrible, nothing can really be done about it.)

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

Sadly, it was a flawed premise. A monopoly is not a good provider of security, no more than it is a good provider of any service.

AnCap is a flawed premise as well, as I have already stated.  The premise being that all people are capable of governing themselves, which is demonstratablely false, and the only reason that some kind of government will continue exist.  The real reason that so many people have a real problem with imagining an ancap society is because it cannot exist, and that is the real contradiction.

One need not be capable of governing themselves, merely capable of selecting capable governors. For themselves. Forcing the choice of one incapable of governing themselves on one who is capable is beyond immoral.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

I appreciate the offer, but I do believe I'll pass. As you point out, I have my daughters to raise. However, since you consider pedophilia to be a violation of the rights of children, perhaps you should apply the same logic you use to come to that conclusion to the striking of a child, see what comes of it.

Oh,I have.  You should try it yourself.  Step outside of your little box, and try to consider yourself from the perspectives of others.  It's incrediblely enlightening. Of course, since I'm an INTP, it's literally impossible for me to not continually question myself, as that is part of what I am.  I am also of the opinion that ancap is impossible for another, more subtle, reason; that being, if Myers & Briggs were even close to correct, there is a minority of the population that is fundamentally incapable of self-government on any practical level, and not because they have criminal tendencies.  Simply because they depend upon a perceived, external moral authority in order to form a personal code of behavior. 

Then let them follow. Not everyone needs to be a leader, or even march to their own drum. But that is not a valid argument for forcing everyone to march to the same drum.

[cunicula]

Yes, but it is not a black and white issue. It is not just equal or unequal, there is a whole spectrum in between. To attain as much equality under the law as possible, you want the state to be financed by as broad a group as possible. This is achieved through broad-based involuntary taxation, not from voluntary contributions or state entrepreneurship.

And yet, this is a contradiction as well.  The benevolent state apparatus that wields a monopoly on the use of force and is funded by involuntary taxation (no matter how 'fair') cannot maintain it's benevolence over time.  It may start there, but it will not end there.  It took less than a generation for that one to screw up the best intentions of the framers of the US constitution.  And they still claim that taxation is voluntary, because so is work, and the food that work buys.

Again, this is not a black and white issue. You have to compare the US to some other state which supports itself through other means. For example, Singapore is much less free than the US. The use of state-directed entrepreneurship to fund Singapore Inc. plays a large part in that. The fact that we have both extremely low taxes and less personal freedom is not a coincidence. Liberally issuing rights to individuals is at odds with the state's profit motive.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, but it is not a black and white issue. It is not just equal or unequal, there is a whole spectrum in between. To attain as much equality under the law as possible, you want the state to be financed by as broad a group as possible. This is achieved through broad-based involuntary taxation, not from voluntary contributions or state entrepreneurship.

And yet, this is a contradiction as well.  The benevolent state apparatus that wields a monopoly on the use of force and is funded by involuntary taxation (no matter how 'fair') cannot maintain it's benevolence over time.  It may start there, but it will not end there.  It took less than a generation for that one to screw up the best intentions of the framers of the US constitution.  And they still claim that taxation is voluntary, because so is work, and the food that work buys.

Again, this is not a black and white issue. You have to compare the US to some other state which supports itself through other means. For example, Singapore is much less free than the US. The use of state-directed entrepreneurship to fund the state plays a large part in that. The fact that we have both extremely low taxes and less personal freedom is not a coincidence.

I didn't claim that it's black and white.  I am more than aware that all of life can be found in many shades of grey.  What matters is working towards the light as far as that is reasonable.

[cunicula]

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.
I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

Who are you to make up laws restricting who is allowed to enter in to contracts? Are you the dictator? If not, then what are you doing going around making laws?

The ancient Greeks and Romans had sex with their children as a normal thing. How do you know it is harmful? Maybe the harm is socially constructed by Judeo-Christian culture. The Japanese used to bath naked together children and adults of both sexes. Is that abuse too?

"Used to"?

Nakedness is still socially obligatory. However, sex segregation is now standard, whereas mixed sex bathing was standard before the mid-19th century.

The Meiji government passed a law segregating the sexes in public baths in 1890. Basically, the Christians came in the late 19th century and said "this mixed sex bathing is barbaric stuff." The Meiji felt embarrassed so they legislated conformity with Western values. Today, mixed sex public bathing exists, but it is pretty rare.

It is true that families still often bath together in private.

[MoonShadow]

Is it a contradiction for a Catholic to intervene in an abortion?

If he beats his kids, it is. You cannot, on one hand consider a human to be a person, worthy of outside protection at conception, but then consider that person to lose that worth once born. To be perfectly consistent, a Catholic who strikes his child should be fine with abortions right up to, and in fact, after, birth. (In point of fact, this was the case, historically - The Pope even made a statement to the fact that while infanticide is horrible, nothing can really be done about it.)

The irony of that is the above historical note was a practical observation by the Pope.  Think about that for a minute.

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

Sadly, it was a flawed premise. A monopoly is not a good provider of security, no more than it is a good provider of any service.

AnCap is a flawed premise as well, as I have already stated.  The premise being that all people are capable of governing themselves, which is demonstratablely false, and the only reason that some kind of government will continue exist.  The real reason that so many people have a real problem with imagining an ancap society is because it cannot exist, and that is the real contradiction.

One need not be capable of governing themselves, merely capable of selecting capable governors. For themselves. Forcing the choice of one incapable of governing themselves on one who is capable is beyond immoral.

Then you are not an ancap!  That's a representative democracy!  And some people are not capable of doing even that, as our own past 20 years or more should be evidence enough.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

I appreciate the offer, but I do believe I'll pass. As you point out, I have my daughters to raise. However, since you consider pedophilia to be a violation of the rights of children, perhaps you should apply the same logic you use to come to that conclusion to the striking of a child, see what comes of it.

Oh,I have.  You should try it yourself.  Step outside of your little box, and try to consider yourself from the perspectives of others.  It's incrediblely enlightening. Of course, since I'm an INTP, it's literally impossible for me to not continually question myself, as that is part of what I am.  I am also of the opinion that ancap is impossible for another, more subtle, reason; that being, if Myers & Briggs were even close to correct, there is a minority of the population that is fundamentally incapable of self-government on any practical level, and not because they have criminal tendencies.  Simply because they depend upon a perceived, external moral authority in order to form a personal code of behavior.

Then let them follow. Not everyone needs to be a leader, or even march to their own drum. But that is not a valid argument for forcing everyone to march to the same drum.

Between the two of us, I'm not the one advocating for everyone to march to the same drum, forced or not.  You're the one who insists that I comply with your moral interpretations, under final threat of force.  You have already stated as much, and argued to length.  Why can't you accept that you don't get to decide mores for me?  You seem to think that you can win this argument.  You can't, and neither can I.  Because it's unwinnable.  It's not an argument that can be settled by logic or reasoned debate.  It's entirely a matter of personal perspectives.  We both look at the same basic principles and come to different conclusions.  And this is despite the fact that, on so many other things, we agree.  How on Earth can you rationally expect that a real ancap society wouldn't continually be in a state of low level civil war?  

And don't forget that followers of this kind will cling to any assertive authority.  The Third Reich depended upon it.

[MoonShadow]

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.
I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

Who are you to make up laws restricting who is allowed to enter in to contracts? Are you the dictator? If not, then what are you doing going around making laws?

The ancient Greeks and Romans had sex with their children as a normal thing. How do you know it is harmful? Maybe the harm is socially constructed by Judeo-Christian culture. The Japanese used to bath naked together children and adults of both sexes. Is that abuse too?

"Used to"?

Nakedness is still socially obligatory. However, sex segregation is now standard, whereas mixed sex bathing was standard before the mid-19th century.

The Meiji government passed a law segregating the sexes in public baths in 1890. Basically, the Christians came in the late 19th century and said "this mixed sex bathing is barbaric stuff." The Meiji felt embarrassed so they legislated conformity with Western values. Today, mixed sex public bathing exists, but it is pretty rare.

It is true that families still often bath together in private.

Damn Christians, keep interfering into a perfectly disfunctional social habits.

[cunicula]

To be perfectly consistent, a Catholic who strikes his child should be fine with abortions right up to, and in fact, after, birth.

This should indicate to you that 'perfect consistency' is an idiotic aim. However, you seem to be drawing some other type of conclusion from this. What might that be?

Are you opposed to abortion because it violates the NAP? i.e. Pope the state Dictator AnCap Elected Governor Myrkul should tell women what to do with their bodies because Divine Natural Law says that he should.

[cunicula]

Damn Christians, keep interfering with perfectly functional social habits.

Fixed some typos for you.

I know. They have some book which says everyone should be ashamed. When people aren't properly ashamed they get angry and ridicule them. Awful, isn't it?


In case you are serious, I recommend you live in Japan for a while before making fun of their social habits. The degree of concern for others in Japanese society is pretty awe-inspiring. On the downside, caring for others requires a huge amount of mental energy.

[myrkul]

Is it a contradiction for a Catholic to intervene in an abortion?

If he beats his kids, it is. You cannot, on one hand consider a human to be a person, worthy of outside protection at conception, but then consider that person to lose that worth once born. To be perfectly consistent, a Catholic who strikes his child should be fine with abortions right up to, and in fact, after, birth. (In point of fact, this was the case, historically - The Pope even made a statement to the fact that while infanticide is horrible, nothing can really be done about it.)

The irony of that is the above historical note was a practical observation by the Pope.  Think about that for a minute.

Because children weren't considered "people" until three days after birth. Think about that for a minute.

One need not be capable of governing themselves, merely capable of selecting capable governors. For themselves. Forcing the choice of one incapable of governing themselves on one who is capable is beyond immoral.

Then you are not an ancap!  That's a representative democracy!  And some people are not capable of doing even that, as our own past 20 years or more should be evidence enough.

What part of "For themselves" did you miss? If they want to pick a leader to follow, that's fine by me. They don't get to pick my leader, nor force me to follow theirs.

Why can't you accept that you don't get to decide mores for me?

I'm sure pedophiles say the same thing. All I am demanding is that you treat your children like the people they are, not things which you can force to do what you want. If you want a dolly to play with, I'll gladly buy you one. If you want to raise children, you can't abuse them. PROTIP: beating your kids, even as a "last resort," is abuse.

Your kids have rights. Respect those rights. Take corporal punishment off the table. They are people, and deserve to be treated as such, not as cattle, too stupid not to wander into the road without pain to teach them to stay away.

[cunicula]

Because children weren't considered "people" until three days after birth. Think about that for a minute.

Hmmm. Seems like a good rule.

[myrkul]

Wandering slightly off-topic, I found this - very apropos to our side discussion - quote, by a name I'm sure you recognize:

"Government seems to operate on the principle that if even one individual is incapable of using his freedom competently, no one can be allowed to be free." ~ Harry Browne