I should bloody hope not!
This very logic is the foundation for all forms of paternalistic authoritarianism. Merely replace the parent/child dynamic with the ruler/subject or master/slave dynamic. “You must be coerced, for your own good” or “for the good of society”. I’d probably go so far as to say that coercing people for their own good is a contradiction in terms.
I’m also fairly skeptical of the traditional authoritarian model of the family to begin with.
Do the children not accept it when they continue to reside on the parents property?
“America love it or leave it”
Nobody cares about the opinions of single, childless men on family.
For the record, conservatism and libertarianism are two different things. Cultural conservatism and libertarianism are not really ‘compatible’.
Perhaps not, which may explain why most self-styled anarchists are single men who can’t reproduce themselves. But actually I don’t see how your statement is tenable. Libertarianism simply means when you don’t like the rules of the game, you can pick up your ball and go start your own game somewhere else. Cultural Marxism is as irrelevant to libertarianism as the NAP is to anarcho-capitalism.
The difference is the parents legitimately own their property (or so we’re assuming).
The whole idea behind liberty is that people are not children.
Children are incapable of making such a choice. Should they leave the property, they will be coerced into returning to it by the parents and any helpful bystander. It is their ability to choose that disqualifies them as children.
I was about to let that one pass, but better not. Please tell me the name of the fallacy you’ve just articulated ? It’s an A.. Ad… Ad - H…?
Really ? Well, that’s news form me. So, libertarianism has nothing to do with self-owenership and that kind of thing ? Maye I can break into your house, set up new ‘rules’, and tell you to get lost if you don’t like them ?
Fact is, marxism is just another form of paternalism - an outgrowth of conservatism. Having no respect for ‘tradition’ is not cultural marxism - rather it’s a libertarian trait. Oh, and the NAP is irrelevant to an-cap ? That’s news as well…
That’s why coercion (use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.) is good ? Or are you saying that children are property ?
Anarcho-capitalism results when no single individual or entity has a monopoly on force, not when a group of philosophically inclined people announce an end to coercion.
It’s not coercion, they agree to it by living on the parent’s property.
It’s not an ad hominem argument; it’s a statement of fact. Nobody (okay, maybe somebody) cares about the opinions on family of men who haven’t started one of their own, any more than they’d care about the opinion of a fashion designer on a matter of structural engineering.
This is wrong as well. Levelling past traditions is the process of cultural Marxism, in order to create the new man whose only loyalty is to the central planners, and not to competitors such as tribe and faith.
“America love it or leave it” (again)
Once again the parent’s legitimately own their properly, therefore they have the right to decide the rules for anybody entering.
The state doesn’t own the land it taxes people for living on, that’s why it doesn’t have the right to tax them. Do you object to people making any rules on their property?
What is this ownership of which you speak? Seems if you can collect rent on something, and no one can challenge you, you do own it. Similarly, if you control what can be done on property, you own it, legally speaking.
But actually, I wanted to criticize Juan. It is true that it is not part of libertarianism to believe in tradition, but nor is it part of libertarianism to reject tradition. Nothing stops me from being very traditional in my private life, and yet being a libertarian if I simply don’t wish to force this on others. Libertarianism is a theory about politics and ethics, not a lifestyle.
Most children were brought involuntarily to make their homes on the parent’s property, when they lacked even the ability to move themselves from place to place, and until a certain age they don’t even really have the ability to comprehend that areas they cannot immediately perceive exist. The children, having been established, by these property owners, in the household without their consent, should now have a right to it.
But these individuals can all cut each other’s throats, as long as there’s no monopoly of throat-cutting ?
I’m not announcing an end to coercion, I’m just saying that libertarianism, by definition, excludes coercion.
Are you implying that men who have started a family necessarily know what they are talking about ? Well, fact is, most of them don’t - especially when they are ‘cultural’ conservatives. And to judge ‘opinions’ according to the source, not to the content is a fallacy.
Silly red-baiting. On the other hand, a good deal of ‘traditions’ are nonsense which wouldn’t survive cultural evolution if it wasn’t for the fact that coercion is used to ‘enforce’ them.