For all we know, the state might become a tyrant-for-hire. Oh, wait, it already has.
Edward Feser? You mean, Edward “Rothbard is unoriginal because he quoted Aristotle and other dead philosophers, btw, I guess that makes me unoriginal too” Feser?
I know I love going to a car dealership that tells me I can buy their car, but only if I use the turn signal for at least three seconds anytime I make a turn. Oh wait, none of them do! And you base your hypothesis on what again? Fantasy? Because it most definitely is not based on reality.
Then it is not a market. Because there would be other PDAs offering services, that would not take away my parental rights. And the PDA that offered to take away my parental rights would go out of business really fast.
Based on what principal??? How is this consistent with children not having rights RIGHT THEN? The man who is asleep doesn’t meet your criteria for someone having rights!
Incorrect. You are forgetting that PDAs are for-profit (well, earn from their service anyhow).
Would you like to pay more for a PDA that defends child molesters, or less because they profit from taking them in? I’m not sure about you, but I don’t think most people object to punishing child molesters (even when it is their own kid). They don’t even need to understand the whole philosophical argument where you are coming up short too.
Keep in mind that you are not hiring a personal mafia. You are purchasing a service designed to protect people besides yourself. You do not have access to hitmen ready to risk their lives on your whim. In order to maintain a profitable business, the PDA needs to make it clear that they will protect a customer from another customer.
Because if someone is asleep, one can wake him up and ask him if it is OK to harm him. One cannot just “wake up” a child and ask him if it is OK to kill him. Seems pretty simple to me.
Aren’t you aggressing against him by waking him up? What gives you the right to do so? He must have no rights while asleep and I could shoot him in the head then.
Of course not! Haven’t you read anything I have posted? The PDA may decide I am molesting my child and come after me! Why would I want to pay them to do that??!?!?!?!?
Do you pay car dealerships to go after people that buy their cars and don’t use their turn signals, when you buy one of their cars? Nope? Well then, what do you base your assumptions on? Definitely not reality.
Nope. Not if it is just to ask him a question and let him go back to sleep.
The right to wake someone up? Are you mad? Where in reality has there ever been a case of someone taking someone else to court over being woken up?
As an arbitrator, I would say you are in the wrong, since you did not wake him up and ask him first.
Well, it is a big risk for them to do this without some EVIDENCE… I would like my company to have a reputation for not invading peoples’ homes without evidence, because this ends up costing more too… If I trust that my company does its due diligence before arresting people, why would I care that I have to agree to not molest my own children.
Anyhow, we’ve come full circle again and it is not worth repeating this with you. The car dealer analogy isn’t applicable… use security examples.
First of all, is there going to be more than one PDA? Second of all, how would my PDA investigate the molestation of the child of someone else and get past their PDA? Also, why would I pay some company to make sure I am not molesting my own children? Lastly, what the hell is “molesting” anyways?
…So, you are okay with someone walking into your house, up the stairs, and waking you up at 3 A.M. to ask if having just done so is okay?
Stop with this nonsense and just admit you are wrong.
If what you are saying is that it is reasonable to expect that the man, when woken up, would object to a certain set of negative rights being violated, I say that it is reasonable to expect the same from a child when he grows up. You are trying to make some arbitrary distinction based on the time required. I say that the principal of potentiality is universal.
well this is essentially the example… except probably the road owner would make the rules and you would agree to their abridgment of your rights because its their property and you have no right to be on it.
So where most roads require you to follow certain rules i think most PDAs will require you to follow certain rules. My question is, don’t you think that the PDAs will require you not to abuse your children? Even though you think you have the libertarian right to do so, wouldn’t you probably wind up ceding that right over anyway?
Actually people feel very strongly about babies and stuff. Its not unreasonable to think that in an anarchist society people might violate the NAP to stop child abuse.
-
undoubtedly
-
They happen upon evidence of molestation. Please think creatively, it isn’t that hard.
-
You don’t have the option not to, or at least I don’t suspect that PDAs who defend child molestors would be popular and common.
-
I am not bothering with a good answer for this now.
I’m not sure why everyone’s gone off on a tangent on a series of simple, commonly asked questions. Doing some research in ancap you would have had the answer to this before you asked.
Negative. Ancaps don’t believe in egalitarianism. It is understood that people’s level of productivity vary. Our answer has been an economic one, always has.
Inside those two concepts you will find marginal productive workers still able to offer a competative value on the market. They also help the market as a whole, and society as a whole. THey are a part of the economic growth system. On the other hand, if we promote welfare marginaly productive individuals are removed from system. Not only are they no longer proudcing for the market as a whole, but their sustenance and lively hood is maintained by extracting wealth from the market and the economy as a whole.
So welfare operates by removing marginally productive workers from the economy than taxing the market to maintain them. Ancap’s offer the opposite, we allow them to continue to work. Offering economic output to society and maintaining a living on their own while doing it.
As for Abortion. The market will find a way. See Block’s argument about Abortion as Eviction.
And for whatever genius brought up the PDA’s turning into Tyrants argument. Lets keep that thread to another discussion. We understand you would like to arbitrarily remove PDA’s from the laws of Profit and Loss. The rest are not so delusional.
Look em up.
And you derived this from what I said how?
Stop making assumptions about my stance.
Really? You think waiting years is reasonable huh? I have to wait until my child is six years old before I can find out if I can spank her at 1? Tell me, how do I go back to when she was one year old to spank her?
You think road owners will have rules? Why? To be more specific, let’s say I own a road. I would probably paint some lines on it and put up lights or what have you. But otherwise, I would not care what the drivers did. The reason being, is that if a driver causes an accident by not following the guidelines, I as the road owner have no standing in the case. The problem is between the driver of the car that caused the accident, and the person he caused an accident with.
Really? Then why wouldn’t I just go find one that doesn’t require me to follow parenting rules as established by the PDA?
Why would they? The PDA that does not require me to not abuse my children would be the PDA that would get my money, because I have no desire to raise my children how someone else would want me to raise them. Not only that, but there is the problem of determining what exactly “abuse” means.
And actually, people feel very strong about parental rights, and stuff.
Did I ever say it was unreasonable?
-
So why would I not choose one that does not dictate to me how to treat my child?
-
Can you please answer the question in full?
-
So, you don’t think there is a huge market for “defense attorney’s”?
-
Figures.
Agreed.
Feser has a bad haircut, and is a bit of a crank. Adam Knott’s writings examining NR theory of the Rothbardian strain are much more lucid IMO.
This is true, however it only applies to Rothbard’s conception of ancap, not to David Friedman’s.
I have read Rothbard and Friedman and can’t tell a difference, aside from style of presentation, emphasis and their persuasion technique.