Advocate? You’re such a fool.
I can’t wait until Juan’s Libertarian Police, in the name of non-violence, goes around beating people for putting kids in time-out.
It depends. What color is the dress ?
libertarian colour.
And you are oh so clever. So, did you manage to explain how aggression is OK when used by parents ?
Well, given that according to you “The NAP does not ban corporeal punishment” I don’t see why you would object to yourself being beaten up.
light or dark ?
as many shades as you can handle
i think the point is that it would not be aggression unless the kid said, that is aggression, unless you desist i will be sovereign and you may no longer discipline me and furthermore any kindness you show me will be from genorosity and not from any stewardship obligation
Are you saying that children submit voluntary to spanking ? If they don’t, then it is aggression.
its that continuum problem again isnt it? for a child that is rational, that has self-knowledge, will etc, they can trade discipline for care, or reject it and go seek care (or independance) elsewhere. but that doesnt apply equally to 1dayold babes.
I’m not sure. At least, I wasn’t focusing on age-of-consent, if that’s what you’ve in mind ?
My position is, the children living in your home signed no contract. You can’t beat them if they do things you don’t like. Again, as far as I can tell, if you’re to follow the NAP then you can use violence only to stop physical threats against your person. Hitting a child for ‘educational purposes’ is clearly not a case of self-defense.
Well, if a child can do that then there really is no problem. Still, the idea that by living in his/her parent’s house, a child consents to anything that happens to him/her is…flawed.
On a more general note, the belief that causing pain to a rational being is the proper way to educate him is…stupid. Only the inquisition and similar institutions use pain for ‘moral’/educational purposes.
just so its on the record i think that causing pain to educate a rational being is wrongheaded
A good, complicated set of questions. Hmm. . .
Yes, it does violate the NAP to coerce children, or anyone. However, there have been families, and not just recently, that have found alternatives to physical attacks or restraint to control their children, and they haven’t necessarily turned out to be useless. However, it should be kept in mind that, if you allow for third parties to defend others’ persons and/or property, you may rightly see parents taking stolen toys forcefully from their children, or forcefully restraining them, even possibly striking them, if they are fighting. However, a parent has no right to restrain children from anything which they have the means to do. Of course, children in general have no money, nor goods, of their own. They can see no TV, use no computers, that others do not allow them to. You can effectively deny children the means, and even the knowledge, of dangerous activities without aggression.
The real heart of the matter, I’d say this is. The real answer is that there is no one answer. As I am a proponent of restorative justice, I would say someone must be culpable, but anyone can pay. Parents have an obligation to protect them from risks they cannot comprehend, including risks of being held liable for a crime. The parent(s), or whatever adult currently voluntarily took charge of the children, should therefore suffer the penalty if the child could not comprehend the nature of its actions.
The closest one can come to a real dividing line between child and adult is puberty. Once they can breed, they’re biologically adult. However, I tend to think that whenever they can assert independence, they must be allowed to do so.
Methinks Suzie might have second thoughts when she realizes what’s actually going to happen, and this should be monitored. That said, one Chinese Emperor and Empress had their first child when one was 8 and the other was 9. My own emotions rail against what I’m saying here, but I have no real logical basis to say otherwise. Sexuality is only given such weight and importance because of a Christian-, even puritain-based culture that despises sexuality at a deep level. Our obsession, our fascination and loathing, can be seen in the intensity of our debates about the matter, the focus on it here, the foulness and degradation of much of pornography. All this together, however, makes for a piss-poor argument.
If Suzie goes through with sexual activity with the old guy, I would be horrified. Would I feel justified in punishing the old guy? No. And you who would, consider what her alternatives might be in this situation. Is the old man going to save her from starvation? You can’t feed ALL the poor in the world, can you? What is worse, having sex when you are really too young for it, or starving? I can’t make that decision for anyone else, and neither should you.
Consent must always be informed consent for a contract to be valid. There are certain realities which a child may not understand, and these should be clarified before the contract is considered enforceable. You or I would understand that being thrown off a building would lead to grave injury or even death. A child might not.
Watch that leftist nonsense! Next thing you know, you’ll be living in a commune singing Kumbaya! [:P]
Sure there is no written contract, but there is no written contract that I will buy my apples at the listed price. Should me and the storeowner have to make one in this situation or are house/shop rules as a condition of the use of these properties and the “fruits” thereof enough?
I don’t mind your left libertarian cultural Marxism in this instance. When your children run into the road it means less of your kind, eventually the “cultural conservatives” you hate will crowd you out due to higher birth rates and longer lives.
Here’s the thing if a child agrees to live on property owned by the parent, he agrees to the rules set by the parent. It is no different to a boxing ring, once I am inside the boxing ring I have contracted my right to liberty away, to the other person in the boxing ring. Once the child is on the parents property he contracts his right to liberty away. Meaning, for example, if he is caught injecting heroin into his eye the father has every right to take a belt to him.
If he doesn’t like it, he can leave, it won’t be a problem however due to the extended family that would develop without the state.
I made a blog post at this very site covering this issue here: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2009/01/16/children-and-the-family.aspx
As is to be predicted, the resistant authoritarians in libertarian clothing at this board (GilesStratton, Byzantine and JonBostwick), are defending a highly authoritarian view that grants parents the completely unqualified and hence arbitrary right to use any force against their children. This is simply a justification for child abuse. As a reductio, their position (which places the property of the parent above the NAP) must justify the “right” of the parents to totally assault and even murder their children. Their disingenous talking points that you’re a “cultural marxist” for opposing what is obviously child abuse is ridiculous. Furthermore, their use of the “love it or leave it” argument to justify this is a blatant contradiction on their part, since they are not consistantly applying their own claimed principles and are placing the authority of property titles above the NAP itself (when it should be vice versa).
Unqualified? Funny, I thought libertarians generally defended the rights of individuals to define the rules concerning the use of their property. This includes setting rules in which the punishment may involve physical force. If you disagree with contracts that allow for the initiation of coercion then I guess you must have a problem with boxing, no?
Hitting children is a clear case of aggression. People who claim this is not so, please produce the contract that children sign and by means of which they[children] ‘voluntary’ submit to mild (or perhaps not so mild) torture.
edit :
Your understanding of libertarianism is flawed as clearly illustrated by your signature.
Analogies sometimes are useful and sometimes not. The latter case seems to be true here…
So it’s your view that one requires the consent of every party to be written explicitly for every single contract, be it at a restaurant or a home? If not why does this principle apply to the home but not the restaurant?