How’s it going, folks? I sent these questions to Tom Woods and Lew on Facebook, but I’m quite sure they’re too busy to get to it, and I have always found the good folks at these forums very studious and capable of boiling down the tough stuff.
I have some questions about libertarian theory. Specifically, how to handle certain corner cases that are currently seeming tricky.
How should ‘adult’ be defined, or at least how do you lay out the boundaries where someone could be defined as sovereign, even from parents? Is there some way to handle the argument that in a free society, a child or teen may declare themselves self-responsible and leave their family only to act irresponsibly, unable to provide for themselves, and possibly violating the non-aggression axiom? At what point does a parent stop being responsible for their child in terms of restricting certain activities available in that free society?
Also, what’s the best way to handle domestic violence? If someone in a household is being abusive to small children incapable of self-defense, what is the free market way to rectify that situation? How can the safety of people in homes be ensured in these cases? You have to equally respect the property of anyone, and you can’t butt into someone’s land or house just because you suspect a person of wrongfully aggressing on others.
In a similar vein, somewhat, what if a neighbor who owned their land began openly engaging in activites, perhaps of a sexual nature, that you not only didn’t want to see, but wanted to prevent your children from seeing? Do nudists or exhibitionists really throw so big a wrench in an anarcho-capitalist society as to prevent it from working realistically and superior to any other type of society?
Finally, with respect to self-defense being the only moral use of violence (or defense of a family member, friend or loved one), what of situations where an individual perceives something as an attack or legitimate threat only to be wrong?
If someone (say, Steve) honestly feels they are acting in self-defense and grievously injures or kills someone (Bill, for example) they thought to be an aggressor but that person in question did not actually aggress or make a serious threat, did Steve become the aggressor, someone to be shunned? If Bill had no ill intent but was killed or harmed, is there some compensation that should occur for him or his family?
I’m an anarcho-capitalist, but I’ve been debating someone over the past few days, and I’m just anticipating possible lines of questioning I might have trouble with. Thanks for any help you guys can offer.