Has anyone developed as a part of their child theory what kind of child-directed advertising would be legal in a libertarian society? If not, maybe be we could blaze the trail in this thread.
Should it be legal for firms to use, say, cartoons to advertise to children the following:
Vegetables
Happy Meals
Cigarettes
Hard narcotics
Suppose the cartoon characters in the ad encourage kids to do hard drugs and cigarettes either now (if mom and dad say it’s okay) or when they’re of age because hard drugs and cigarettes are “super cool” favorites of the cartoon characters. Let’s say it’s a “plant the seed while they’re young” approach, assuming that it is illegal for the children being targeted to buy the products without a parent. Would advertising these things to children then be legal?
If it should be illegal to advertise one or more of the four products mentioned above to children but not another/others, what is the reasoning? Where is the line drawn?
Wtf is with your obsession with children? If you don’t want your children watching tv channels that advertise suicide machines, then block the fucking channel. This isn’t rocket science. Kelvin was right. Take some responsibility and don’t patronize channels that advertise material you don’t like.
Not necessarily. An ad can convince you to want to buy a new kind of product. For example, an ad could say “Hamburger X, the one you’ve been eating for lunch every day, is bad for ABC reasons. Hamburger Y, a new Hawiian-themed sandwich, is better for DEFG reasons,” thus creating a demand for Hawiian-themed hamburgers that people did not want before.
The point is the child is not a fully-formed agent. Try to understand the issue.
How do you feel about armed forces recruitment ads? I guess most people don’t know about the secret button that contains the “Off” command. But let’s think this through for a minute:
That machine is called a “television set”, and it’s here already.
How does a “company” - I assume you mean “business” - manage to have units on-hand of kids suicide machines to market in the first place? How did they accumulate the investment capital to produce them?
Why do you think another business - the TV station - would accept the ad for broadcast? It seems like it would reduce their viewing audience, no?
A companys only reason for advertising such product is if it relates to the audience.
You wouldnt advertise skateboards and skatingparks etc etc on a channel that alot of elderly watch.
You also wouldnt advertise birth control pills, condoms, and penis enhancements on a childrens channel like nickelodeon.
If it doesnt appeal to the audience then youre just wasting your money.
If something like this DID happen, it is the job of the parent to protect the child against such things, if the child is not a fully-formed, mature, and conscious agent.
No, there isn’t. The only thing close to a gaping hole in libertarian theory is animal cruelty, and so long as libertarian theory is about law, that’s they way it will be.
So what?
So what? People’s brains aren’t fully formed until about 26 years of age. What does fully-formed agent have to do with anything? And don’t forget when people start losing their mental faculties (e.g. old age).
Whether or not this scenario is likely is irrelevant. This is a question of philosophy.
I understand this is a provocative question, but I am truly interested in the answers. I came to libertarianism through economics, so now that I’m looking into the philosophy, I’m beginning to get pretty upset about how undeveloped it seems to be in areas like child theory. Especially when you hear so often, “What about the children?” It’s like libertarian philosophers don’t want it to be accepted by the mainstream. Anyway, that’s how it seems right now.
Ah, I see. You want there to be a law prohibiting certain things from being advertised to children. Look, as far as NAP libertarianism is concerned, if there is no aggression, then it is legal.
You are right. I am answering with “So what?”. If you think “fully formed agent” (whatever that is) has anything to do with libertarian law, then you are gravely mistaken. Humans are not “fully formed” until 26. Well, that depends upon what you mean by “fully formed”. Brains are not supposed to be “fully formed” until around age 26.
Could you possibly be suggesting that businesses cannot advertise anything unsavory to people below the age of 26?
It is not a provocative question; it is an absurd question. Do you really think the State is the reason we don’t see Kiddies’ Kevorkian Kits advertised on TV?
“Child theory” . . . that’s a new term. Is that the theory that the more politicians infantilize the population the more they are able to ram through and justify Nanny state regulations like drug prohibitions and happy Meal toy bans?
The rallying cry of statists, and as such it is completely devoid of meaning. It is designed to incite emotions, not rational thinking. If you’ve accepted that the State is necessary to raise children, I suggest you reexamine your premises. In contast to private charity efforts, State welfare creates permanent slums because it incentivises dependence instead of autonomy.
Children have guardians, which may or may not be their parents. They are responsible for the child’s welfare until it grows up.
Unless one can demonstrate an agent has aggressed by advertising to a child, they are in no way engaged in a bannable activity. The responsibilty rests with the guardian to scrutinise what the child watches.
That is the answer to the question. Sorry if it isn’t sufficiently “mainstream”, but I believe “mainstream” moral behaviour already incorporates this presumption, except that it seems to conveniently forget about it when it comes to conscription, the state’s own advertising (read: propaganda) at all levels, signing up the unborn to debts they will never even have a chance to extricate themselves from etc.
So that is the answer to the question. You may not like it but too bad, this isn’t a popularity contest. Therefore the question has been answered, but it isn’t really the criterion of whether an ethical theory is one or not. Almost all ethical theories struggle a little with children, because they’re not yet adults and therefore capable of understanding (in principle) what they’re getting into. But this is the guardian’s responsibility, and if they don’t represent the child’s best interests, they may have it taken from it and be sued for damages ,or worse, depending on what they do.
While I agree that there are some very difficult questions concerning children in “libertarion theory”, your particular scenario has to be one of the least plausible that I’ve ever heard of. I mean, companies advertising suicide machines? Seriously?
Anyways, the answer is that since it doesn’t violate anyone’s property rights, advertising aimed at children is legitimate. To the extent that it is seen as immoral, consumers will choose not to patronize TV channels, shopping malls, highways etc. that feature such ridiculous advertising, thereby driving them out of business.
If the guardian can be sued for damages if they allow the kid to watch the advertising – let’s say the kid watches nothing but cartoon ads for meth – why wouldn’t the firm responsibile for the ad be sued as well? This isn’t like the kid turned on the TV and saw an adult program; the firm directing their advertising at kids has the intention of targeting those not capable of understanding the risks of consuming the firm’s product.
Thinking of unplausible scenarios is a good way to test the limits of your beliefs.
It’s not a question of advertising anything to children. Does that mean you can advertise meth to children, even if they might be well under the minimum age required in a free society? (Let’s not get into whether or not there should be such a requirement for doing meth here.)
No. It doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be twisted companies that cared more about hurting kids than making money. And my question is about philosophy; what would be legal in a free society. Law doesn’t have to come from the State.
No, it’s a legitimate concern.
No, but I’ve accepted that there are people who want to do bad things to children that a third party should prevent. The question is whether or not advertising suicide to a child would be one of those things that would be prevented by a free society.