The parent doesn’t own the child they assert a right over - unless we concede to slavery so long as it’s children who have net yet become independant, in which case the arbitrary control of the parent is upheld in the absolute and all forms of child abuse are justified.
This is immensely incorrect. If I take this seriously, ANY opinion contrary to “tradition” and ANY desire for change within society itself allegedly is “cultural marxism”. That is quite disingenous. Dynamism /= marxism. Leveling past traditions is a process of time itself, traditions are leveled at some point by default, as nature is not static. It is precisely a process of competition that “levels” traditions. Implications of a “new man” is nothing but a gigantic straw man that you need to stop regurgitating. It’s just bad rhetoric. And libertarians are “leveling” past traditions by definition, particularly in the realm of politics and economics. This becomes obvious with the realization that liberty and individualism is NOT traditional.
“Tribe” and “faith” are irrational traditions.
I’m not talking about the parent asserting a right over their child, I’m saying they are allowed to set up rules for their property and penalties if those rules are violated, and as long as the child chooses to remain on the property, they must abide by those rules. It’s kind of like they are paying rent by doing certain things.
I also think child abuse is acceptable if the child chooses to remain on the parent’s property over leaving. But if the parent abusing the child prevents the child from leaving It is in violation of the child’s rights.
What if the “rules” in and of themselves violate fundamental rights? Oh wait, allegedly they don’t have any. If this is true, one must accept the logical implications, which extends to the right to life, and thus children can be killed by their parents. If the alleged property right of the parent must supercede the child’s right to life, do you not see something a bit strange and unethical about this? It also extends beyond the parents: if children don’t have negative rights, then others can essentially do as they please with them as well.
So you say. I hold libertarianism to be about the relations between people. It doesn’t require me, or in any way encourage me, to reject my religion. In fact, I see the two as mutually reinforcing - my religion tells me things like don’t steal, don’t murder - which I take to mean also don’t form a state to do those things.
I decided at age 26 that I considered Judaism to be correct, against my parent’s beliefs, and began to practice it. Was I coerced?
Would you deny the right of cultural conservatives (I’m not one, by the way) to buy large plots of land and subdivide them? Would you deny that on that land, they can have rules? What I mean by lifestyle is simple - opposing coercion against drug users doesn’t imply, for instance, that I have to use drugs, nor is someone less libertarian because they don’t use drugs - or because they don’t eat pork.
I accept that children have rights.
But the parent could tell the child that if they chose to remain on the property they would be killed, and then it is the child’s decision to end their life.
One must wonder how culture is to be avoided exactly? It will inevitably be “foisted” upon a child in one way or other (raising a child to respect the NAP will involve “coercively” inculcating it, from this viewpoint.) It seems that anyone who denies that there is more to life than just the NAP is really going to fall prone to the accusation of being an atomist, that conservatives so often accuse libertarians of being, even when we’re not. Of course, there are limits of what can be done to a child - aggressing against it, for instance. The child has every right to leave the property in question. But I do not see why some libertarians think this excuses a lapse into extreme atomism.
-Jon
Can the children therefore do as they please on the parent’s property?
If you say yes you clearly advocate violating the parent’s property rights, if you say no you contradict yourself.
State’s don’t have legitimate control over “their” territory, slave owners forbid their slaves from leaving, if the slaves had the freedom to leave they wouldn’t be slaves.
No, why would it be?
Are children, in reality, consistantly granted the liberty to leave? Why assume that parents, in an absolutist sense, have legitimate control over “their” children?
To an extent, I don’t think that authoritarianism can ever be rooted out of politics if people continue to accept it in the realm of familial relations.
You’re right that it’s not necessarily “coercion” in the overt and political sense, but it most certainly is psychologically manipulative.
because it matches the definition of coercion, which I’ll quote again " coercion : use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance."
You’re right, the parent’s don’t have the right to stop a child who has stated their desire to leave. They may try to persuade the child but once they use coercion they’re violating the child’s rights.
Why do they have control? They don’t, they can the rules for their own property and that’s it.
So when a doctor says to their patient “stop doing X or you’ll die” they’re coercion their patient?
Wrong analogy. Not only wrong, but quite ridiculous. Do you think that people who don’t read the bible will burn in hell ?
How is his analogy invalid? In both cases there is a consequence spelled out, and in neither case is the speaker threatening use of force to insure compliance.
-Jon
So you’re saying that if the parent believes that the child will burn in hell because he doesn’t read the bible it isn’t coercion, but if they parent doesn’t believe it, it is?
I do think that there is a danger of interpreting “coercion” too broadly, since it can be used to signify threats that are not of force, a mere “I’ll tell on you if you don’t do X”. On the other hand, coercion can also be interpreted too narrowly - or in the case of a particular poster above, endorsed.
In the case of telling children to do what they are told or they will burn in hell, in a sense the use of force is being threatened, but not by the person but on the behalf of a god that will allegedly use force in essence. It’s not “coercive” in a violent or political sense, however it is psychologically manipulative and irrational, and it does hinge on the right of a deity to use force, and the parent’s authority is illegitimately derived from that alleged right and existance of the deity.
Oh well. If I tell you “if you drink poison you’ll die” I’m informing you about an objective fact - I’m clearly not coercing you.
If I tell you you’ll burn in hell if you don’t follow my orders I’m lying to you and manipulating you. Or are you telling me that the existence of hell is an objective and scientific fact ?