Exactly! We have to think outside of the box. 
“I want to thank my parents for giving me my life and for giving me the opportunity to work from such an early age, and for showing me every day how to be a good human being by example” - Natalie Portman (Harvard graduate)
They may be a minority of people but surely just one child prevented from having an education is one child too many and forced to spend their days labouring on the field is ? Also, I never actually took the ‘statist’ stance here but the ‘anarcho-communist’ stance (though I have since left my old socialist days long behind, dead, buried and forgotten, nonetheless, it is fun to be a devil’s advocate). It would have been my previous beliefs that the community should enforce such action. Despite having re-evaluated my position, I still have some major issues with the idea of a purely stateless, contract-propertarian based society. Also, certain (not all) statist structures are not about what the state thinks is best but what the majority thinks best (democracy). Yes, you have quarms with democracy, as do I (now) but I would prefer that the state were to intervene in cases of, lets say, paedophilia. It is undeniable that some parents are unfit for parenting. I agree that citizens in general should have a method of protecting themselves from the state (for instance, the legalisation of gun laws) however, citizens should also be able to utilise state functions (such as the police) as a method of protecting the individual rights of others (in the case of child abuse, for example).
That is quite amusing, you do not have to call me ‘comrade’ merely because I am a socialist (I always thought the use of such a term rather silly to say the least).
I don’t think people (the child specifically) would have no incentive to self-educate without compulsion. In fact, I support a far more libertarian stance on education than you think (I support the ‘Sudfield’ system of education that was cited). I also think that I personally, during my own school days, would have benefited far more from private study and the freedom to pursue my own desires and so forth than the state schooling system I had to endure. However, I also think the child has a right, not just a privilege to access to a free, non-obligatory system of education and I think that leaving it solely in the hands of the parents would risk sacrificing this childs right, if they perhaps would prefer to force their son to work on the fields so they can reap a profit. In fact, I don’t necessarily think it would be unjustifiable for the parents to consider such an option, if say, they were living in absolute poverty.
I would argue for the same system of education that you are asking for where the child is free to study in school whatever he desires, freely. I would only request that he is obligated by a coercive body (government, private protection agency, I don’t care) to attend school (where he can do whatever he pleases) for a minimum, of, say 3 hours, or so per day. If all he does is to waste his time playing xbox and running around and is unable to get the necessary job qualifications then that is entirely his own fault. Is such a request unreasonable? Believe me, I am not entirely unsympathetic to your concerns, here.
Yes, this is the sort of answer I am looking for (bolded for others to see). However the issue of security agencies/private law courts and objectivity (or rather lack of) concerns me. However, I cannot comment as I know extremely little about libertarian legal theory. I will merely say that I am suspicious about the idea of ‘free market justice’ and leave it at that.
This depends on the extent to which a child can think rationally (and therefore perform action). At what point he is able to is open to subjective evaluation and will differ from child to child. Why do you think there is an objective standard in countries like the UK where the age of suffrage is 18? It is because of the issues of the vulnerability and the parents ability to take control over his life (this consequently undermining the libertarian theory of self-ownership). If the 3 year old child is manipulated by his parents, not necessarily coerced even, into working awful conditions in the mines, then to what extent can we say that this is morally justifiable?
I must add to all my above points that I really do think that access to education is a right and not a privilege if the child is to stand a chance as a competitive force in the future market; otherwise they will enter the market unskilled and illiterate should their parents have persuaded him otherwise.
Remember, unlike with the adult, we cannot hold the child accountable for his actions because of his relative incapability to make rational decisions. This means that even if he does make the foolish mistake of not participating in education (and not simply because of the coercion/manipulation of his parents), can we really say it is his fault that he later does not make it as a market force with bargaining power? I think that for the free market to work efficiently, there must be equal opportunities in the form of education if nothing else.
“I want to thank my parents for giving me my life and for giving me the opportunity to work from such an early age, and for showing me every day how to be a good human being by example” - Natalie Portman (Harvard graduate)
I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing for a child to work. But where do you draw the line? 10 year olds doing a post round in the morning? (I have no problem with this). 3 year olds working in the mines? (Now we are getting ridiculous). Is child prostitution acceptable provided the child consents to it?
The only other alternative is unjustly provided justice. The result are people who, in their lifetime, never recieve restitution for the wrong done to them(Current system).
Correct, and this is where external factors come into play that influence parents behavior.(Aside from just wanting to be a good parent which is fairly prevelent). Still if your going to lure me into a conversation that bad parenting is a societal ailment which must be corrected then I will have to withdraw. As stated above, I am not so naive into assuming that the world can be “fixed” or that we can somehow remove wrong-doing from human nature.
I don’t know why it surprises you. It’s illegal currently. The states very definition is based on holding the monopoly in coercion. It should come as no surprise that there is a lack of xyz. etc…
That wasn’t t hat uncommon 50 years ago. Those 10 year olds didn’t want to starve, and neither did their parents. It’s a fallacy to pretend that your going to find the answer here. These factors change based on cultural norms, econonic conditions, and largely situation.
I as a pacifist would not endorse that. If you think society would agree with me then we have nothing to really worry about.
So you would compel all children to save one? This is utopianism. You want to solve problems which can only be [sic] solved with violence.
I meant it in a nice way. Like buddy or amigo. I have stronger language for socialists I don’t get along with.
Great, so we agree then.
I am a bit confused by this post, I must say. I have problems with the present legal system myself, believe me. But at least the state which controls it is in some way democratically accountable for (and you will recall that given my ideological shift, I absolutely oppose democracy in most places but the law is not one of them).
I notice that you missed out my question about whether or not a 3 year old working in the mines would be moral. I understand what you’re saying though. My only problem still lies upon the necessity for objectivity (in certain circumstances, democracy rather than one dollar one vote).
Now you are also making the mistake of talking about society on the whole agreeing with you; only individuals have ethical codes…
I wonder whether it might not be profitable for a group of coal industries to fund enough Private Protection Agencies (PPAs) to legalise child labour.
Also, you will note that I had no ethical objections to a ten year old working a paper round. But that is probably around about the point I would start thinking about drawing the line. The line is hazy, sure. But there is going to be a need for objectivity somewhere or other depending on the circumstances of society and so forth.
I am going to play the extreme devil’s advocate role here:
Who are you to claim that child prostitution in bad? I think religion is bad, but I don’t go around trying to demolish churches and prosecute people that practice religious beliefs. “Children” having sex as soon as they were sexually mature was common right up until the most recent part of human history, yet it’s illegal now. Does that mean that humans were doing it wrong for millions of years, or just doing it different?
You have a specific set of beliefs, a set that is actually very commonly shared amongst humanity, that sex with children (especially sexually immature ones) has a net negative effect on society. I have a lot of opinions on things people do that have a negative effect on society. None the less, I don’t try to force my beliefs on other people, whether the majority shares my belief system or not.
If you don’t like child prostitution advocate it, advertise, make sure every child in the world is aware that they can leave their family and come live with you if they want. Sure, some may stay with their family for a variety of reasons and sure, you may disagree with their choices but it is still their choice to make not yours, or anyone elses.
I believe you mean utilitarianism? Well, actually this issue can be approached with methodological individualism. According to the non-aggression axiom, initiation of force is unjustifiable and must be outlawed in any truly Libertarian society. However, force or coercion used in retalliation is perfectly acceptable. If a child’s parents in some way detain that child from receiving a decent education, this can be considered an initiation of force. Since the child is vulnerable and unable to retalliate in any manner, it is perfectly acceptable for an adult to go through the correct legal processes and act on his behalf by reporting the incident to the police who should then be obliged to obligate on the child’s behalf. Hence, in this manner, conflicts are dealt with by the individuals involved with a legal arbitrator (in this scenario, the state) involved for the purpose of efficiency and justice.
Nonetheless, I consider it quite frankly absurd to abandon all forms of utilitarianism. Sometimes the greatest good for the greatest number of people works.
In any case, I think it would be more than one child who would suffer if the state decided to make education non-mandatory.
Only in so far as I think that education itself requires radical reformation. It should maintain obligatory however.
I have to say, Devil’s Advocate or not, I think it is rather twisted to adopt a position which defends child prostitution. Nonetheless, I would counter the argument with the simple fact that children, of a certain age, are unable to make rational decision making, hence it is perfectly acceptable for an adult to intervene and act in their best interests. Besides, what if the child does not have the ability to leave his house? How do you know that he does not have the ability to leave the house unless a third body (e.g. the state) has the limited power to intervene in and regulate reported cases?
I am new to ethics but I think it is quite absurd to argue that violence should not be used to prevent child prostitution. Defend that with whatever degree of sophistication and knowledge you possess and it is more than possible I won’t possess the knowledge to counter your claims sufficiently but at the end of the day, ‘A cigar remains a cigar’.
I guess my disagreement here is that it’s not adequate accounting. In fact democratic accounting isn’t accounting at all. Errors are consistently perpetuated and difficult to find. When it comes to the delivery of service what people actually get is far from justice. I’m not even sure how it could be called that. We don’t offer restitution to victem’s and our punative system is more like welfare at the expense of taxpayers.
People have become content with not recieving restitution for crimes brought against them. They assume that this is the only way law can be provided, and cannot fathom alternatives which may be better.
I did indeed answer the question. The solution to these problems comes down to cultural, economic, and situational factors. You may advocate that these problems get resolved in democracy, but your solution to solve violence is done by way of violence. Fighting fire with fire. Furthermore the solution you offer moves at the speed of molasses. Opportunity for changes is always pending certain intervals. The decisions voted on are always interventionist. On the market such activities are dealt with immediately and without delay.
In the market I can choose not to support such activity without fear of social oppression that I must go along with a child abusive scheme adopted by society. My concious remains clean. On the other hand in democracy I am at the mercy of whatever random majority wins. Keeping rational ignorance in mind it’s not clear that we would ever get the correct solution. Or even get the opportunity to vote on the correct solution for that matter. Especially since the best solution is for the democratic majority to do nothing. Worse off, withuot the ability to employ monetary accounting, we can never measure the performance of such policies as measured by society. Instead the policies are voted on, and forgotten about. This is one of the reasons why, in society’s like ours, states perpetually grow and laws perpetually get lenghtier. There is no built in accounting mechanism.
Currently democracy has presented us a legal justice system that sits at a far distance away from any kind of justice. Especially from family’s whos loved ones are taken from them mistakingly or by intent. Restitution for homocide in this country is near non-existent and the states performance in bringing down murderers and killers is poor at best. it’s so bad they even make TV shows about it.
But honestly EvilSocialist. You and I are just talking past each other. Our disagreement here is far more fundamental. Its a waste of time for you andI to be arguing whether or not legal services could be privately delivered. Your disagreement with me is more principled then simply a disagreement in private arbitration, law, and defense. Your disagreement is a fundamental rejection of markets and a differences of opinion on economics. We’d be more productive in focusing on that IMHO.
Having said that I know you posted a lengthy post to me regarding economic calculation and I have not replied. To that I apologize. I’ll have to be honest with you however. I would rather invest what little time I have here into people who are more inclined to agree with markets and non-aggression. I’m not going to invest too much time with someone who rejects markets outright. If I wanted to do that I’d be on the rev-left forum.
Furthermore consider this point. Do you see logic in attempting to argue with someone who has a gun pointed at your head? Do you think it’s possible to reason with the unreasonable? If you advocate violence, why would I even attempt to try and reason with someone who I would consider mad? If you accept violence as a solution to a problem, I cannot see us escelating any kind of fruitful discussion. If on the other hand your open to a non-violent solution then we can talk.
I hope that you forgive me in my previous neglect of your posts, of whicih you spent some good time on, but at least I hope you’ll understand where I come from.
Hi, you will note that I have since changed my ideology from socialism. I don’t have a fundamental disagreement with markets anymore. However, I still find the idea of a pure stateless contract society. Also, I do not mind you not replying to my posts; I am simply on here to discuss my views with whoever wishes to do so. I will reply to the rest of your post in a sec.
As far as democracy goes, I was only really advocating a certain degree of democracy within the law.
I find this scenario a bit black and white to say the least; I support a state with minimal powers, thereby I also support violence and am mentally derranged. My only argument would be that I fear even more excessive violence could possibly occur due to the failure of private protection agencies; thereby, I am only supporting what I deem to be a system which I think will promote less violence. By all means, though, feel free to prove a ‘statist’ like me wrong (if you so wish to reply any more).
My only argument would be that I fear even more excessive violence could possibly occur due to the failure of private protection agencies; thereby, I am only supporting what I deem to be a system which I think will promote less violence.
Why do you think the state can do a better job of limiting violence than a free market can? That is, what about the state makes it superior to whatever the free market comes up with?
I appreciate you, and your understanding patience with me.
Most people react in this way. I don’t think your mentally derranged, I think your an excellent person TBH. You certianly have a mountain of patience which I a greatly respect. I just wanted you to consider the point. How do you reason, and employ logic, with individuals who wish to push their beliefs onto yours by way of force? If they already believe so strongly in their ways that they think violence is justified, in what way can I verbally defend my case?
Quite simply the issue of relative subjectivity (market) vs. relative objectivity (state). How on earth does a system of free market protection agencies reflect the various conflicting ethical codes of the individuals involved in any given conflict? Again, I haven’t researched free market justice very significantly at all so I cannot provide a very sophisticated critique of the system in any way but you must excuse my ‘statist inclinations’ if I remain sceptical, to say the least.
You talk about me enforcing my beliefs on you by force and coercion, but the state can be justified in terms of the non-agression axiom if it is limited to retalliating with force to the initiation of force. Or do you take your pacifism to the extreme of opposition even to violence in self-defence? In this case, I suppose it can be considered that I am trying to push my beliefs on you.
But if you take this stance, even with someone like me who is now quite market inclined, it is going to be difficult to persuade the majority of people who are far more statist than myself.
‘How do you reason, and employ logic, with individuals who wish to push their beliefs onto yours by way of force?’
Is this really me though?
‘If they already believe so strongly in their ways that they think violence is justified, in what way can I verbally defend my case?’
Again, I think a minarchist society would be less violent, so I do not ‘believe’ what you are saying I do.
How on earth does a system of free market protection agencies reflect the various conflicting ethical codes of the individuals involved in any given conflict?
I am probably not the best person to provide information on free market law/order and perhaps someone else can pipe up before I hang myself trying to describe it. However, I am curious how you think the state is capable of doing exactly what you have stated. A democratic state can only protect the ethical code of the majority, it has no way to protect conflicting ethical codes. In a democratic system it only takes a 1 person advantage to tip the scales in favor of one side or the other. There are things the current US administration (and past ones) are doing that I find “unethical” but because a slim majority favor it then that is what is enforced.
Perhaps we can figure out this whole free market justice system by breaking things apart into smaller, but still very large parts and work from there to see if it scales. Right now in the US a lot of laws are federal meaning they apply equally to all states. Let’s now suggest that there are no federal laws, each state can impose whatever set of laws they wish. CA may impose laws criminalizing the use of drugs while Nevada does not. Assuming free travel is still allowed between states (no immigration restrictions and no residency restrictions) if I don’t like how CA is running things then I can just move to NV.
Before proceeding, are we in agreement with this simple breakdown that this is a superior system of governance to the national one? Do you see an advantage to shared national drug policy over a state-based drug policy?
If I can voluntarily choose which state I subscribe to then by definition it is no longer a state. This is more along the lines of general governance. I am not agaisnt this, and I don’t think it’s inconsistent markets. But if I am taxed and/or in general forced to go along with a form of democratic governance that I never agreed to in the first place, then I would disagree with this.
To clarify my position. I am against aggression or the initiaiton of violence. I am not against coercion, especially not in the way of self defense.
Depends, did you vote for me to raise my taxes? Or did you vote for me to increase my obligation to others in any way? Democracy is just institutionalized violence. It’s still violence. Is mob rule some how less graphic simply because the village stopped using torches and pick-axes to punish those who don’t go along with them?
You may have missed my point. It wasn’t an empirical assertion as to how much violence there would be. I was asking, given that I disagree with this micharcist state, how do I reason with the powers that be if they are already prepapred to use violence against me to force me to go along with their will?
Here is an analogy.
How does an alleged witch verbally defend herself against the lynch mob?
A 51%? In certain cases there needs to be a clear majority for a law to be passed. In any case, the state can remain neutral at times, even in the face of market supply and demand. It is possible, for example, to illegalise the bribery of politicians. But PPAs, by their very nature would obtain their funding from corporations. It is also possible to make it extremely difficult to change the law; the government would possess no power to initiate agression against individual rights. Individualism would be the core functioning system of such a society.
No, I would prefer a national drug policy that allows for the legal consumption of such substances without regulation or taxation. All borders should be open. Edit - on second thoughts, I do not oppose the state-based drug policy provided it is laissez-faire.
For drugs I prefer to use the same national policy that has been adopted for vegetables. In other words, the absence there of.