Er… this risk…
No you don’t. Personally I’d want to do something about it, because I think child abuse is wrong. I think most people do.
Or the largest PDA will become the most abusive and be justified simply by size, Again you have outlined justification for oppressing the minority via majority rules.
I would never expect a libertarian to have no faith in voluntary human action, or more commonly known as free markets.
Thanks to your ideologically oriented PDA and ideologically zelous subscribers you have stolen my property and turned it into a milk farm. 
I ofcoarse, living in a rural area felt no need to hire a PDA short a very minimal small insurence company. Being rural they were generally small and did not have the resources to defend myself legally against your imperialism.
Yes as clearly explained as ok via the non-aggresion principle. Indirect defense without contractual consent however is not defense at all, but offense. Defense on behalf of another without consent is a very dangerous thing to do, not to mention irresponsible.
filc, please read Kinsella’s Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, and I will try to finish up what I was writing in a bit.
I’ve only skimmed through most of this and I admit I need to do more reading. My issue behind these ideas are that punishment for some reason always need to be violence. The paper starts off on the premise that punishment is simply violence and must be forced.
My argument is punishment need not be violence at all.
At any rate I’ll pull myself from the discussion as I think i have stated most everything I need to say and to be fair I’ll have to read up further on some of the stuff you guys have posted.
Let me give you a scenario. I want to better understand what you mean by indirect defense.
Suppose you and I are having a drink in a pub and you happen to have your phone out on the table in front of you. A hoodlum approaches us and he goes to grab your phone. It is obvious to both of us that he is about to steal it from you. Are you justified in using coercion (i.e. force, violence) to try and stop him? Am I?
Suppose he actually grabbed your phone. Now he is mocking you with it. You try voluntary actions to try and convince him to voluntarily give you your phone back. They don’t work, he refuses to do so. Are you justified in using coercion against him to try and get your phone back? Am I?
Yes, I agree voluntary actions alone could be enough in a rural area. But what about in cities?
And if my PDA started committing aggression against you or anyone else, I’d withdraw my custom immediately and find a more ethical (and cheaper, too) alternative PDA.
A) Neither of us are violating the hoodlums rights when defending myself to get my phone back.
B) I could easily verbally consent for your help to defend on my behalf. Without that consent though you may not realize that this hoodlum is my best friend and this is a long standing joke we have between each other. If you operate without my consent your instigating a fight with the supposed hoodlum without knowledge of the situation. A responsible person would ask if I knew the guy then promptly offer their assistance. They wouldn’t forcefully push their assistance without consent.
C) The property owner of this bar would need to be responsible and probably ban that hoodlum from ever entering again. The owner of the bar could defend his property by force. But this is a defensive stance, not offensive as you stated. The property owner of the bar can take whatever means necessary without my consent because I am at his place voluntarily. If he wants to keep me as a customer he will do what pleases me. Pissing off my friend however would not be pleasing me.
Being rowdy on the other hand may disturb other customers and as such perhaps both myself and my friend would be ejected from the bar.
Would be far more effective in a city as voluntary cooperation is more important. In a rural area it’s easier to be self sufficient. In a city individual cooperation is required to survive. Not everyone can have a self sustaining garden hanging off the balcony of their condo. In a voluntary society people can publicly declare criminals and business’s would not do business with criminals for fear of associating with the guilty. Insurance providers would drop their service to known criminals until that person voluntarily returned his dues to society and society after a while felt they could do business with him again.
Criminal lists would be maintained by insurance providers or PDA’s or community coops. Arbitrators could decide what a criminal would have to do to make up his wrong doing to society. That could be anything from selling their property to giving up their abused child. The actions would have to be done voluntarily but community voluntary persecution would continue until the criminal complied or left. In any of this no force is necessary beyond self defense. Self defense does not involve invading another man’s property, regardless of his criminality.
It’s great that your so rightchous but society has demonstrated that it is not. You may leave to an alternative PDA meanwhile more ideological zelouts would rally to the PDA exploiting folks whom they felt deserverd to be exploited based on whatever world view they held.
Considering how political the use of coersion could become you could face public scrutiny amongst peers for switching PDA’s during such a time.
“Child abuse” is completely subjective. It sounds to me like you advocate mob rule. A lot of people think smoking marijuana is wrong as well as speeding. So what?
Give an example of murdering or raping a child that you would not call ‘child abuse’.
Murder, is not child abuse. Murder is murder, and in a stateless society, there would be no organization to punish the parent because some neutral third party thinks the parent should be punished.
Most people would probably agree that “rape” is child abuse. So what? You think the mob can extract or even will extract vengeance on the parent? I do not think anyone would, except the immediate family.
I cannot answer this setup question but what I can provide for you is an example of what some people consider to be child abuse and others not.
Corporal Punishment.
Myself personally find that corporal punishment is both necessary and beneficial to the child. To others it’s abusive. Hence, the term is completely subjective. So the question is, am I abusing my child and by whos standards? If it’s by the standards of a large PDA influenced by a large ideological body then the situation is no different then that of today. Someone else’s ideological views are oppressed onto me and my family.
Spidey, do you think your views have anything to do with respecting individual freedom ? And I’m certainly NOT talking about the non-existent freedom of parents to abuse ‘their’ children. Do you realize that you are coming across, at least partially, as trying to justify the opposite of freedom as far as children are concerned ?
This is semantic bullshit.
And you are the one whining about some solutions being ‘coercive’ ? Maybe you should be beaten up.
So what ? Well it turns out they are objectively wrong, not the people who smoke marijuana or drive too fast.
I agree. So both preventative coercion and restitutive coercion are justifiable under libertarian law, because they are defensive coercion. Libertarian law only prohibits aggressive coercion.
You’re right, there could be a knowledge problem. But my scenario was to establish principles.
I agree with all you say about voluntary actions. They would be an important part of social order.
Ethics matter to some people. Others (probably the majority) only care about the price. They will tend to choose cheaper PDA’s, and purely defensive PDA’s will (other things being equal) be cheaper than aggressive PDA’s.
I don’t think that many people will want to aggress against others so much that they’re willing to pay a high cost to do it. I think even in the worst-case scenario - a popular, wealthy neoconservative cult that wanted to kill some group - the reputable PDA’s and non-cult individuals would outnumber them and protect the threatened group and end the violence ASAP.
But the question of how a free society can stay free is an important. AJ recently made a great post about this, which I think hits the mark.
Check my premise and my argument. I have not contradicted myself. I have a right as owner of my property to discipline it as I please within reason obviously. If society feels I have crossed the line they are completly able to address me voluntarily in the manners I have demonstrated above.
Please don’t derail the actual discussion at hand Juan.
And as I have stated above if I am infact causing harm to that child in the views of society I will be punished. It will be bad for me and my image to do so. The free market will operate on an individual level as normal and I could suffer all forms of losses of productivyt as society decided to persecute me for my actions.
Juan I think it’s important for you to understand that I am not attacking you or anyone here. Quiet the opposite. I would appreciate it if you didn’t try to find cheap red herrings to deter us from the discussion at hand. Thanks.
In my system I am free to practice whatever beleifs I like. Society will judge me freely on the open market whether or not it is accepted. In system provided by “Liberty” I am not granted that freedom. Instead another majorities beliefs will be oppressed on to me via force.
My way is the way of true libertarianism. If Muslims establish themselves in a geographical region no one has any moral right to take that land from them regardless of their ideological beliefs. In my society if people felt that strongly about it they could literally stop doing business with them. My way is the way of the market. Your way is the way of forcing people to comply into someone else’s system.
Children. Are. Not. Your. Property.
Maybe you need to be beaten up by a guy four times your size until you get it ?
Accept that if you attacked the criminal without my consent or the consent of the bar owner you would be instigating the aggresion, not him. We are individuals, not ants. We are not a collective mind. We operate individually. So if you took action without consent you would be aggression.
Also, in this scenario lets say the thief made it to his home. Even with my consent if you broke into his house and took my phone you would be just as much of a criminal as him. My method is to make his home and his person publicly known and scrutinized. Your method is to walk up to his house and perpetuate the use of violence.
I wish this were true but if our current culture is a representation of how perverted the idea of defense is then your statement is wrong. As republican’s currently think its entirely OK to aggresse against others. My example is the war in the middle east.
Excuse me ?
lol