Child abuse

Economics Political Theory
121

And unless I am wealthy, I would have no need for a personal army.

Why would some Pervhunt Inc. swarm my home? What standing do they have? Or do you not know what “standing” is in legal terms?

As if the school I am paying for would get involved in my personal affairs…

No they will not. They are not their children, so they have no business messing in their affairs.

I doubt PDAs will exist. I am sure courts, arbitrators, security companies, and investigators will though. But nothing to provide massive defense.

And millions of people are parents, and no security firm would dare think to tell parents how to treat their children. Maybe you should study Mises more about how humans act? You obviously do not understand how markets work, and apparently neither does Rothbard, if he advocates PDAs. No parent would pay a firm that would be so naive as to think to tell the parent how he or she can treat his or her child. You see, the parent is paying for the service, not the child. Do firms try to satisfy their customers or some third party that is not paying them? If you are unable to answer this question, then you can continue living in your fantasy world where you do not understand how the market works.

Please do not misunderstand me. I would never molest or kill or intentionally harm my child. I asked what you would do about it if I did.

Mob rule huh? Because you get to decide what molesting my child is right?

In a stateless society, first of all, children would be able to help themselves at a much younger age. Second of all, a lot more of them would probably be working, not going to school. Lastly, if the child was so young that the parent has to pay for the child to attend the school, then I doubt the school would report the behavior, for fear of losing one of its patrons and making an invalid accusation.

This is true. Unless the neighbor is willing to do something about it.

I am not talking about reason, I am talking about reality.

Then everyone who is for parent’s rights would hire their own defense agency to fight your agency. Again, sounds like chaos to me. Or do you just like to deny the reality of all the people that are pro-choice?

There is no “libertarian law”. There is the market.

Huh?

What are you talking about? When have I made such an argument?

Why? Again, you seem to ignore reality that parents would not have anything to do with an organization that would think to take their child away. The only way a court could secure payment from parents would be to promise them that the court would not get involved in matters of their children, until such time of course that the child could afford to procure their services.

First of all, some libertarians are pacifists, and do object to all uses of aggression. Second of all, a small child is unable to respond to the initiation of aggression.

Huh?

Sure you can, if no one will stop you. And no one will, unless it is immediate family or neighbors.

No, a child is never “unowned” unless both parents either die or give up custody. And for reference to this thread, I am talking about neither parent objecting to the treatment of the child. Of course, both parents own the child, and it might be argued that the mother has more ownership rights than the father.

It appears you are the one that needs to grasp some simple concepts.

No, it does not, because in a stateless society, there would not be anyone to enforce such punishments.

Common law would be based on dispute resolution. Since there would be no dispute, there would be nothing in the law about it.

122

In the future, I am not even going to respond to posts like yours. If I ignore something, it is because there is no need to repeat myself and you are just being stubborn/irrational. I will edit out this sentence and bump this thread when I get around to finishing my reply.

“And unless I am wealthy, I would have no need for a personal army.”

“I doubt PDAs will exist. I am sure courts, arbitrators, security companies, and investigators will though. But nothing to provide massive defense.”

PDA stands for private defense agency. Right now states claim sovereignty to basically all of Earth’s habitable land mass. We have to account for a transitional period before some time in the future where such is not true. If you’re at all familiar with Block’s paper on handguns and nukes, you will understand why our law would say that it is a threat to simply own a nuke. This assumes that there are not states with nukes external to this transitional society. I think that it would be legitimate to own nukes in the transitional society, so long as the intention is to repel these states. Eventually, I see only a few probable outcomes for mankind: either global governance and/or nuclear holocaust, or people near totally rid themselves of government like the idea of the sun revolving around the Earth or other extinct beliefs.

All you’re doing here is playing word games. I agree that most people will not need massive defense beyond the age of states. Whatever amount which exists to maintain order will depend on the strength of “rogue PDAs”. Even if there are truly voluntary governments, we’d still view their actions as unjust. If they’re armed with tanks and such, we would still have some benefit from being able to defend against them if/when they try to expand as coercive states.

As in my previous post, I want to point out the distinction between how I might use the words ‘defense’ and ‘security’. Police security refers to the post-transitional society where disputes are largely between individuals rather than having the threat of large scale military conflicts. Sometimes, I will just use PDA out of convenience, but this doesn’t refer to any specific trait of the agency. The whole idea of enforcing libertarian law is defensive. A private defense firm is just whatever person(s) who take whatever measures necessary to apprehend criminals and/or defend their clients.

PDAs/security firms/private police are just one part of the process of maintaining a polycentric legal order. They may handle what we think of as police investigation, or they may be only concerned with capture as with Pervhunt’s SWAT team. The same company may or may not employ judges and jurors, executioners, rehabilitative counselors, or prison guards.

“[libertarian law does not prescribe punishment for child rape/murder/abuse], because in a stateless society, there would not be anyone to enforce such punishments.”

People near-unanimously value their children not being raped at the same time as wanting to punish others in society who rape people’s children. I think they will be happy to voluntarily cede their rights to object to punishment for raping any child, as they wish any punishment to child rapist to be justified.

“What are you talking about? When have I made such an argument?” ..

“Given that they do not have the ability to grant consent, [children] do not have rights.”

“However, children do not have rights, because as has already been established, they do not have the mental ability to grant consent. This is also why people in a coma do not have rights, since they no longer have the mental ability to grant consent.”

“If such a view was widely accepted, people would be regularly robbed when they are away at work or asleep, and nobody would act against it.”

The last 2 bolded quotes are yours from this thread. I stopped paying attention to that thread because of its signal to noise ratio. I explained more implications of your absurd rights justification in another thread I think but am not wasting more time on this now. What I left out of my selective quoting referred to determining “age of adulthood”. In a following post, I will try to aid developing such a theory. You still obviously aren’t ready for the complicating factors of partial moral agency. We’re talking about pre-rational infants and toddlers, or possibly some children under the age of 10. It is pointless to attempt to say exact ages.

“No, a child is never ‘unowned’ unless both parents either die or give up custody. And for reference to this thread, I am talking about neither parent objecting to the treatment of the child. Of course, both parents own the child, and it might be argued that the mother has more ownership rights than the father.”

“Guardianship is a subset of ownership and these are juridical statuses which private courts are likely to uphold.”

“Why? Again, you seem to ignore reality that parents would not have anything to do with an organization that would think to take their child away. The only way a court could secure payment from parents would be to promise them that the court would not get involved in matters of their children, until such time of course that the child could afford to procure their services.”

Why would I pay for a PDA who won’t defend my own children? I personally would prefer to pay for such a company’s services which is based on logical rules of enforcement of the non-aggression axiom. It just so happens that my preference coincides with the cultural norms of most people, whether or not they, at this time, have any clue what the NAP or libertarianism is.

If the firm won’t defend my own children from you, I’m lent to not employ them. My own business is then that they protect myself and my children. If I am not a child rapist, why would I object to my firm punishing such people? You seem to conveniently forget that private justice is for-profit.

123

Yeah, you just advocate mob rule. I hope everyone else can see this. There is no mob in anarchy. If the majority of people dislike dog fighting, it will not matter. If the majority of people are opposed to abortion, it will not matter. The rights of the minority will be completely protected under anarchy. But it appears that there is no way to convince you until we have reality and you can see with your own eyes that you are wrong.

124

Say I believe that I can rob, murder, or rape anyone I wish. How will you protect my minority rights?

I will tell you when I am done with my edit.

125

You can already rob, murder, or rape pretty much anyone you wish, regardless of whether or not there is a government. In a stateless society, if you do rob or rape someone however, and your victim finds out who you are, then they will have the option to either seek retribution using vigilantism or by asking you to go to court to settle the dispute. The motivation of the criminal to go to court would be so that the victim does not extract vengeance privately. If you kill someone, well, the person’s family or friends may be pissed off, and so you would probably want to go to court to resolve the dispute, to avoid vigilantism.

I mean really, who wants a “family feud” where two families are trying to kill each other because one member of one family harmed a member of another family? I would guess most families would want to go to an arbitration court, and get the dispute resolved, so they can all go on about their lives.

126

You still aren’t answering my question. Take a minute to consider that your expectations are unrealistic and please don’t make statements like the bolded without putting more thought to their implications related to the rest of your “theory”. It will be necessary eventually to be fairly exact about evidence and actors in hypothetical conflicts…

How will an elderly woman with little or no kin/friends even think of engaging in a “feud” without hiring other people (a PDA)?

Say that I am a 35 year old guy with a 2 year old daughter. I work at a factory and it takes about half of a month’s disposable income to buy a pistol. My wife died and I have few friends/kin.

I like raping my daughter. I don’t agree with whatever you say about rights and I feel that I own her and can do whatever I want with her since she can’t protest or run away. There exists this horrible libertarian syndicate who plans to manumit my daughter and punish me. What will you personally do to take on this rogue PDA? C’mon man, what will you do to protect my minority rights?

127

Strawman, I never said people would not hire other people to help them. But maybe you will stop avoiding my questions. How are PDA’s going to resolve the dispute between people that believe women should be able to have abortion’s and people who do not?

Is it possible to rape a 2 year old? I think it is only possible to touch them sexually. Maybe insert some really small object in them.

And given the privacy of your home, I probably would never know that you did it. But for arguments sake, I will assume that I somehow find out about it.

And there exists another syndicate whom you hired to stop them.

First of all, why is it “rogue”? Second of all, I will probably do nothing, given that your syndicate would be sufficient to stop the other syndicate. Not only that, the other syndicate would not exist, because it would not have any customers. Why would anyone hire a PDA that would not guarantee their parental rights?

I hope this article helps you: http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_3/2_3_5.pdf

Again, you just keep ignoring the fact that me harming my child is not injurious to you, as such you have no standing in a court.

128

Quite simple, children have rights, although it can be difficult to enforce them. However child rape would likely have pro bono representation, as most people on a personal level think its horrible. So once the child is able to object, court representation would be possible.

If your child like sexual acts with the parents, then there really isn’t much that will likely be done. Although there is nothing about anarchist law that states it must be libertarian. So possibly people will pay others to spy on other individuals, watch for child rape, convict them in court, and seek punishment or restitution, this all depends on how many wish to pay money to stop child molestation. If few will pay money pretty much nothing will happen. But the outcomes are fairly similar to what might happen in a government where the people had strong opinions and wish to pay with their own personal cash, thus resulting in a more libertarian society, unless a very large population see differently.
Similiarly if a society hated red heads in anarchy, sure there might be a genocide, but that is more likely under governments. In this case it is unlikely consensual sexual acts with a child will not be prosecuted, while if the child opposes, then free representation is quite probable, providing society cares enough.

129

So you would agree that babies/small children do not have rights?

And if people do not like people having extra-marital sex, then could they not also pay people to spy on people having extra-marital sex and then sue?

So you think no one would provide a product or service even if there is only one person willing to pay for it, as long as the price is right?

There is no reason to believe genocide would occur in anarchy.

130

It is fascinating that you keep advocating for child molestation. Your logic is flawed because it does not factor in reality. The vast majority don’t think child molestation is acceptable and they are willing to use violence to stop it. That is what will happen they will use violence against you.

131

It is fascinating that you keep advocating for X, your logic is flawed because it does not factor in reality. the vast majority don’t think X is acceptable and they are willing to use violence to stop it. That is what will happen they will use violence against you.

Max, how do you respond to people who might use this argument against you?. If X is “secession”, or “liberty”, or more narrowly stuff like , “freedom from taxation” or “polycentric law”, or whatever etc etc.

132

In the market place, it does not matter what the vast majority think. The market place provides for the minority.

And yes, individuals may use violence against child molesters. I have never said they would not. I am only claiming that there is no reason to believe that their actions would be considered legal.

I am sure there are people that think dog fighting or chicken fighting is just as wrong. And individuals may take action against those that engage in it. But there is no reason to believe there would be any businesses that would take action against it.

133

Would be considered legal by whom? Yes, you will think it’s illegal and so will all the other child molesters…so what? This is an area where there is no middle ground. This is not an issue that will be viewed as some debate about your right to molest children. It is contrary to our basic human biology.

134

I am saying that there is no reason to believe that it would be legal to assault a child molester. There would be no standing. Just like you cannot bring a case against me for stepping on a rock, you cannot bring a case against me for molesting my child. There is no standing.

135

Actually I can bring a case against you for stepping on a rock

Makes me sick to my stomach. That’s just wrong Spideynw. I bet you keep tons of rocks in your basement to step on. It may not be legitimate by libertarian law but I am going to hire a PDA to punish you for your immoral rock-steppin’.

If you take libertarian ethics to its logical conclusions, you get some absurd conclusions like this, which violate our emotive/intuitive sense of ethics. Nuff said.

136

Haven’t you noticed that Spidey’s premise is not exactly libertarian?

137

If “libertarian” is mob rule, then my stance is not “libertarian”.

138

Your non-libertarian premise is that children don’t have rights. Once you make the fundamental mistake of assuming that parents can do whatever they please with ’ their’ children, the rest of your argument is mostly irrelevant.

Yes, if a majority of people don’t like X, X might end up outlawed for practical purposes. Yes, that is mob rule. No, I don’t think that’s good. But then, I ‘believe’ in individual rights…for both parents and children.

139

So Juan, how is a baby/small child supposed to bring a case to court against its parents?

So Juan, how are you going to punish someone else for treating his or her child how you do not like the child being treated?

Sounds like mob rule to me, which, if that is “libertarian” to you, is definitely not libertarian to me.

Then you do not understand what libertarianism is. Because in a stateless society, there will be no mob to enforce your dictates on others.

140

Or perhaps you don’t since you fail to grasp the basic principle of letting people alone, children included. But go ahead, keep parroting that people who can’t hire a lawyer have no rights.