If I molest my baby/toddler, what are you going to do about it, if anything? If you are going to do something about it, why do you think you have any right to do anything about it?
(I am starting this one over. I will copy over any of the other posts from the other thread that I believe were relevant.)
As far as I know, children are still being molested.
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for the free market. But I argue that it is up to parents how they treat their children, until the point at which the child can claim his or her rights. But it does not matter what I think. What matters, is what would anyone do about it if I did? And what would society think about that person for doing something about it? And so, once the government is gone, I want to know what you anarchists would do about it, if anything, if you found out your neighbor was “molesting” his or her child? Because there are quite a few on here that think that killing or molesting a baby is immoral beyond belief.
Not really. Just that it is morally right to kill babies/toddlers.
So is killing animals then.
And if an animal does not consent to being killed, then it is murder.
And you are obviously wholly unwilling to recognize that in reality, babies/toddlers, just like animals, have no way to give consent, and therefore, no one has any right to complain if someone molests his or her own child or kills his or her own animal.
This seems to be the most rational response I have seen so far.
It may be possible. I am not really sure what the market would decide.
Look Juan, regardless of the morality of it, what would you do about it? If you found out your neighbor was molesting his or her child, what would you do?
Yes.
That would be 2 votes for this strategy. It seems reasonable to me.
How many times are you going to ignore the reason you are wrong in thinking that infants are the same as other animals or material objects?
Children are potential moral agents. I’ve pointed out the serious flaws in your way of thinking before, and as I recall it anyhow, you’ve ignored them. Just to name one, you would have to never allow punishment for anyone making threats, regardless of how imminent and serious they are.
We can’t determine your maximum punishment with incomplete information. Assuming you once sodomized a toddler and show no signs of enjoying being violently sodomized yourself, the first aspect of proportionality would allow for you to be sodomized twice over. A more interesting question might be who if anyone could make a claim under the “premium for scaring” factor.
There are differences in the manner of action required for ownership of different things, based on these things’ natures. The special case of children can be safely divided into ‘guardianship’ as a subset of ownership. Children’s basic negative rights are not very different than your own.
So, if there is no government, what are you going to do about me sexually molesting my child? What more do you need to know? I am not really concerned about the morality of it. People will do it regardless of whether or not you think it is immoral. I just want to know what you would do about it, if anything.
The point I am trying to make is that none of us really know what would happen without a government. Or more rightly, that anything would happen. As someone else pointed out, nothing really happens in today’s society. Generally speaking, it is almost impossible to find out someone is molesting his or her child.
Regardless, a couple have said they would just try to make a big stink about it. I don’t know how effective this would really be. It would just be hearsay.
Another has said if he witnessed it, he would intervene directly. I don’t know if he really would or not. We can only take his word on it.
I have a family. I don’t know that I would want to risk my families safety to intervene. I don’t even know that the child’s life would be better without her father, even an abusive one.
In reality, what do most people do that know about someone sexually abusing his or her child? As far as I know, nothing.
There can be some communication problems when we use the words “moral” and “ethical”. Child molestation would be considered criminal in a stateless society under libertarian law, so it would be handled similarly to murder, theft, etc.
I would thus prefer to employ a security agency who punishes this crime, and works with similar agencies. Beyond that, other institutions like churches and schools can develop ways to screen for convicted molesters. Yes, I would personally be happy to pay a bit extra for such a ratings system being used wherever my children would be out of my sight.
It probably is true that this is a crime that often goes unpunished. I don’t see what we can do about that other than assigning an appropriate punishment and hoping that whatever extra-juridicial measures which prove most most effective are adopted. Sure, the mere lack of government doesn’t guarantee that people will do anything in particular. I won’t go into all of my ideas on punishment theory now but I think that libertarians need to come to a consensus on issues such as this and abortion.
I don’t think that calling an anonymous tip line would necessarily put you at risk. I don’t think that most people just throw up their hands and do nothing when they spot abuse. Claiming it is “nearly impossible” to discover the crime has taken place doesn’t mean it should be ignored. There are hundreds of thousands of registered sex offenders in the US.
This type of “theft” can’t be undone, so we would prefer the victim’s guardian and the criminal to be able to reach an agreement for restitution. It is likely that 3rd parties would regularly be involved in this process for all crimes. I could use some more reference material for ostracism, and I am not 100% on the ethics of forcing the criminal to get the equivalent of a nazi symbol tattooed on their forehead. 3rd parties might be most likely to “sweeten the pot” to accomplish these ends in situations like this.
There would be no “law”. There would be dispute resolution.
I have another thread on murder. It would not be handled the same way as theft. In theft, the victim can bring suit against the perpetrator. In child molestation, the child has no ability to bring suit against a perpetrator.
This stuff is complete nonsense. What do you think will happen in a stateless society? You think all the “right to lifers” will get their security forces to fight the security forces of the “right to choicers”? Sounds like a world of chaos to me. Maybe the anti-anarchist crowd is right?
The religion I used to belong to looks the other way all the time when it comes to child molestation.
Who gets to “assign a punishment” in a stateless society? There would be no rulers to enforce such a thing.
And that is all you can do, is hope. But really, we have no idea what would happen in a stateless society. All we know is that you can act, which is why I ask what you would do?
That is an impossibility. We have no way of knowing what would happen in a stateless society. But given what happens today (mostly nothing), it is a good guess that nothing would happen in a stateless society.
In regards to “security agencies” or “PDAs”, what security agency or PDA would punish parents, who would be their own customers? Parents would be the ones paying them. It would be a horrible business practice.
No, I am sorry, but in a stateless society, there will be no “law” enforcing your dictates. And this is why children, in a stateless society, will not have any rights. Except those, that neighbors like you, are willing to enforce. So, again, what are you going to do about it?
Sorry but this is simply you not understanding private law and you are terribly wrong. I will answer you in detail in a bit and edit in a separate thread with some reading material here when I make it later.
There is the overwhelmingly most common objection of the “Bill Gates” with his own private court getting off the hook for everything. The short answer to this is that he is then just a sort of state or rogue PDA to be dealt with similarly to the ones we have now. The average person though will not have the funds to wage war, and a large reason why our world is so violent is the popular acceptance of states who expropriate the costs of war on their citizens. Average customers are not violent, will want to distribute risk, and lessen their own costs. PDAs who we can safely assume would thrive would have preexisting contracts with their customers. One facet of these would be that their own customers are not safe from punishment for their own crimes. PDAs would develop agreements on arbiters, reciprocally binding their customers.
The vast majority of people object to crimes like child molestation, so we can again safely assume that PDAs and private courts would make their general guidelines (and laws) known beforehand and that they would be similar. This is ‘common law’. There would be no legislation or ‘civil law’, and the uncertainty it brings, in a stateless society.
I will, again, prefer that my security agency punishes child molesters. Security can be viewed as a mere service. Anonymous tip lines work and some amount of offenders are caught.