I remember watching a seminar that Molyneux did (this was a few years back) where he was asked whether or not the use of force is right in this situation (protecting children from abusive homes). He said that it is the only exception we should make.
Agree? Disagree? How could this be handled?
I summon forth Clayton!
Mr. Molyneux also stated that society does not use even 1% of the power of ostracism.
LOL, how does he come up with that?
People are social animals. If a parent was abusing their child then the community could ostracise that parent up to the point of not selling them things like food. The community would be able to handle many situations of criminal behavior through this process and be able to correct peoples behavior.
I understand that, and I think there is a point to be made there. I was just wondering where he gets the “1%” from. Anyway, is the reason ostracism so disregarded simply because of people placing too much importance on the state’s ‘duty’ of child protective services?
And how does that help the child?
I’m just interested in specific solutions.
I’m sure that would help the abused children. Adbused and hungry. I’m also sure abusive parents are far less abusive when they are hungry and pissed off at their neighbors.
TronCat,
You may be interested in this thread: How To Rescue A Child (Without The State)
I’d be wary of Molyneux’ definition of “abuse.” In his eyes nearly all parents are child abusers.
Doesn’t matter, if it is a child or an adult. The point is that the “protector” would have to prove in court, that his actions were justified. Personally I wouldn’t feel safe living in a society where anyone could break my doors and take my child if they suspected he/she was “abused”, so I’d better trust private organization instead of individual vigilante. So in short, yes, it is acceptable, just like it is acceptable to defend a man being beaten by thugs in dark alley. It’s the core of basic property rights and NAP.