There is a broad range in discipline, that really should more acurately be called guidance. For example, you might coerce your child from placing their hand on a hot burning stove. The problem here is everytime someone mentions “coercion” they always just jump to the conclusion that we’re referring to the worst possible situations. Coercion is a fairly broad term, and it’s been poorly adopted in the community here at LvMI. There are plenty of incoherent anti-coersion coalitions here on the forums. People strawmanning themselves really as the issue has never been one of coercion, but of the initiation of violence, and aggression.
LS is correct in maintaining that the issue here is aggression, not necessarily an issue of guidance and degrees of coercion. I wouldn’t pretend to know that “detention” is the best solution to those types of problems. In fact more often then not I am inclined to believe that detention is just a waste of time, but that doesn’t mean anything. But that is really besides the point.
LS is going to respond to you that your getting off track. I shouldn’t speak on his behalf either so I look forward to his response.
I understood all that, but I had no idea why any of it was relevant. Voluntaryists are for non-aggression. Nothing more, nothing less. Necessarily all exceptions are irrelevant.
He did in the end. People have to want to reason. When they are emotional, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, it is not possible to reach positions of reason except by accident.
My personal position is irrelevant. There is no position on coercion. The OP conflated it with aggression. It was a simple error, when clarified, made his issue less of a problem.
Let’s stop using the word coercion. Now everything makes sense with what I have already posted.
The answer is already in the questions people ask if they stop to think about what they are asking. You and the OP know the answers to these questions, the seed of knowledge is planted in the inquiry.
For example, you might coerce your child from placing their hand on a hot burning stove. The problem here is everytime someone mentions “coercion” they always just jump to the conclusion that we’re referring to the worst possible situations. Coercion is a fairly broad term, and it’s been poorly adopted in the community here at LvMI. There are plenty of incoherent anti-coersion coalitions here on the forums. People strawmanning themselves really as the issue has never been one of coercion, but of the initiation of violence, and aggression.
There are many who argue that government regulations are “for your own good”. If you allow coercion in any form you are then required to draw a fuzzy line that can easily move with time. Let’s say you physically prevent a child from touching a hot stove, this is coercive but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from crossing the street without you, this is coercive but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from leaving the house alone, this is coercive but your intentions are good. You physically restrain your child in the house so he doesn’t accidentely hurt himself, this is coercive but your intentions are good.
As you can see with this simple example (it would be easy to add more steps inbetween if you feel the line isn’t fuzzy) our intentions for all of these things are “good” in our example parent’s mind. Regardless of whether they are good or not, the child ends up imprisoned which could easily be argued by someone else as “bad”. There may even be people who believe that letting a child touch a hot stove is “good” for them since it teaches them a lesson.
The point is that you can’t allow some types of coercion and not others without a fuzzy line separating them and fuzzy lines end up getting moved by governing bodies. In an ancap society this isn’t as much of an issue as long as there is no over-arching governing body that you can’t escape from and eventually the optimal solutions to these problems will come about (coercive or not).
@liberty student: If I am understanding you correctly, you believe in non-aggression, but not non-coercion. Assuming this is correct, how do you define “aggressive”? Is it entirely based on intent or is there something else more provable that you are using to define aggressive? Perhaps you feel there is a way to prove intent?
I don’t jump to this conclusion. I asked a very specific question because detention, in my opinion, is aggressive as it plays out in public schools. It is the keeping of a person in a place against his will (“confinement”).
I want to know if LS and I are on the same track, so to speak.
Your still conflating coercion, with initiation of force. Lets say someone walks into my home to rob me, am I not permited to use coercion to expell him from my property? This anti-coersion coalition needs to stop. The problem is aggression, and initiation of force(This is what breaks economic calculation, not coercion alone).
A very similar position to yours is arguing that all guns should be banned, because of a few unfortunate occassions. But all you do is create an avenue of opportunity for the criminally inclined. In the same way, of we build a coalition of anti-coercion, your just creating an avenue of opportunity for people to be taken advantage of.
There is no fuzzy line, I’ve pointed out the discrepency you make a few times now. Coercion and initiaiton of force/aggression are two different things, having different effects on the state of affairs. If parents find that a school is being too forceful with it’s discipline then they are ofcoarse free to explore other opportunities of the market. This ofcoarse assumes a free market. This isn’t a complex problem so long as the market is allowed to operate.
Did you agree to this type of discipline when you signed up to the school? If not then change education providers. Is the school forcing you against your will to continue with their services? Assuming a free market, where is the violation here?
The short answer is no, I agreed to nothing. My parents agreed to everything then (have long since graduated). My choices then would have been go to jail, subject my parents to jail, or continue going to an absusive school. I chose not to subject myself or my family to jail.
In a place devoid of compulsory attendence laws that are punishable by kidnapping and theft, or where everything about my life was controlled, absolutely, by the will of my parents… You’re aboslutely right. That’s not generally the situation people (school-aged children/teens) live in today, at least not in the US.
I may have missed it. Is the OP a teacher in a private school? I’ll have to re-read and figure that out, I think.
The OP States that he is unable to properly educate in a voluntaryistic environment. I assume that in that environment education is provided on the market.
Why are those your only choices? TBH it sounds like your trying to construct a very isolated situation to justify a premise which involves all situations.
If you can represent yourself in court, you have options. You should be free to leave whatever arrangement you have with your parents, but don’t expect a roof to sleep under and food to eat.
There are many who argue that government regulations are “for your own good”. If you allow initiation of force in any form you are then required to draw a fuzzy line that can easily move with time. Let’s say you physically prevent a child from touching a hot stove, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from crossing the street without you, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from leaving the house alone, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. You physically restrain your child in the house so he doesn’t accidentely hurt himself, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good.
As you can see with this simple example (it would be easy to add more steps inbetween if you feel the line isn’t fuzzy) our intentions for all of these things are “good” in our example parent’s mind. Regardless of whether they are good or not, the child ends up imprisoned which could easily be argued by someone else as “bad”. There may even be people who believe that letting a child touch a hot stove is “good” for them since it teaches them a lesson.
The point is that you can’t allow some types of initiation of force and not others without a fuzzy line separating them and fuzzy lines end up getting moved by governing bodies. In an ancap society this isn’t as much of an issue as long as there is no over-arching governing body that you can’t escape from and eventually the optimal solutions to these problems will come about (initiation of force or not).
I have replaced all references to coercion in the above quote with initiation of force and I still think my claim holds true all the same. You can’t allow some forms of initiation of force while disallowing others without drawing a fuzzy line.
The market draws the line. I don’t think it’s productive to pretend that it’s possible to purge the world of wrong-doing. Being a pacifist myself I believe that at best all I can do is discourage such behavior via market mechanisms.
Given that, I will say this. It seems like to me, that on a free market, there would generally be far more options available to children then there is today. As it currently stands we have state run programs like “Child Protection Agencies” and social services which do nothing more then abudct and kidnap children, usually against their will.
We are in agreement then. In a free market where children have the option of running away to another sub-market (should they choose) each sub-market then can do what they like and enforce whatever they like. Just as one sub-market may encourage initiation of force against adults “for their own good” this is fine as long as those adults can flee to another sub-market without such laws.
Those were the options I had when I was growing up. My parents/guardians wanted me in public school. If I had chosen not to go, what do you think would have happened to them/me? Ideally, no, this isn’t how it should be. I agree.
Again, you’re speaking to ought as opposed to is. Tell me what “legal” child has the ability to represent himself in court? I haven’t ever heard of such a thing happening. I certainly think that children (i.e. people under the age of 18) should be able to, but I don’t know that it is the case that they are allowed to, currently.
It sounds like your asking me to use the present and past circumstances of state provided arbitration and education as an example to defend my case of private arbitration and private education?
I should be carful with my language as well because I don’t think anything ought to be, or anyone ought to do. I just think that on a free-market certain conditions would transpire to better facilitate the situations you describe. This being consistent with the OP as a discussion in a voluntaryistic environment.
I can only speculate and theorize as to what types of business’s would exist under the conditions of a voluntaryistic environment. It’s up to the entrepreneurs to make it happen.
Beyond that I am somewhat confused as to what your trying to get out of me.
I think the problem is that people assume we have to have the same institutions, that there is only a handful of ways to raise or educate children, etc.
I suspect a peaceful paradigm will have all new institutions and cultural norms. Who is ready for this brave new world?
What about the circumstances in which parents would prefer to force their children to work for the family for income purposes than to pursue an education of any sorts? People here are often talking about ‘the child making their own choice in education’ but how often is this realistically the case? What would be the result of a society where the vast majority of people were uneducated and illiterate? Make no mistake: I am as opposed to authoritarian schooling as anyone else but I question the notion of education being entirely non-compulsory.
How many parents are really that crazy? It’s a tiny minority. Most people want their kids to be educated. Sure, crazy zealots in their polygamist compounds exist, and their children suffer from it. But do you really think the overall influence of the state has been more positive than that of parents? You really think the state - the leading cause of unnatural death in the last century - can make a better decision about what information young people are to take in than their own parents? If most people are that messed up that they want their kids to be illiterate then there is no hope for humanity anyways. It is odd; the conventional wisdom is that the state has to protect children from their parents, I see parents as a way to protect children from the state.
Comrade, why do you think people have no incentives to self-educate except for fear of force?
Compulsion doesn’t make people smart. In fact, the opposite is proving to be true. The more compulsory school becomes, the less intelligent people seem to be.
This is where the power of ostracization can play a strong roll in deterring household abuse and violence. It also seems likely to me that child advocacy organizations would form which offer asylum from abusive households.
Ofcoarse this becomes problamatic if the child is say 5, but what if another adult could speak on behalf of the child? If the adult can present a case that the child’s life is at risk and this judgement is agreed with by whatever local magistrate or private court, then the offending family will have to deal with the consequences. Ostracization. Perhaps your insurance agency or security agency raises your rates or drops your protection all together. Perhaps the water company, sympathetic to children, has a no child abuse policy and decides to turn off your pipes. The possibilities extend as far as human compassion does.
What if the court gets too carried away in it’s judgements and grows sloppy with it’s rulings. Then parents, in fear of losing their children, will in-turn boycott the court. In other words the market creates strong incentives for all parties to cooperate peacefully.
Having said all of this, it’s not clear that your opening premise is anything to be concerned with. The child might be quite pleased with earning a wage in the comfort of his/her own home. The solution to aggression however isn’t more aggression(Public education).
That’s not generally the situation people (school-aged children/teens) live in today, at least not in the US.