Why do these discussions always miss the obvious point that grandparents, uncles, aunts and other relatives of the children have a vested interest in the well-being of the children, i.e. these individuals are the presumptive source of funds to purchase protection and prosecute a legal case against abusive parents? There’s no need to invoke the “interests of the public/society” or any other metaphysical fictions. Doubtless, some children would have no family and, thus, no natural protection against predation. However, religious organizations and other voluntary organizations which take an active interest in protecting and legally representing children could easily fill this gap.
The worst thing that can happen to a society’s children is a tax-funded child services division.
This basically never happens. It’s a myth that it is common for natural fathers to sexually exploit their children. Kanazawa and Miller devote some discussion to this point in their amazing book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters. They essentially point out that government statistics on child molestation track legal fathers and do not distinguish between legal and natural fathers. They lay out some of the reasons for predation (including sexual) of step-children by step-parents. Reliable statistics are not available, but they expect that a rigorous study of the subject will show that it is step-fathers (and step-mothers) who are culpable in the vast majority of child sexual abuse. I don’t have time to dig up the quote right now but, if someone demands it, I’ll post it later.
Great posts, Clayton. My assumption about “public” safety or some kind of socialistic pooling of donations together to protect children without a real foundation of a family or those who are abused was only really brought up for extreme outliers. Definitely most child protection begins with the family and child predators get away with this stuff with or without the State; it’s not like the State is the only thing keeping child porn peddlers in line.
That’s great. Yet it is child abuse & as such, the less severe and all too often - more common forms of abuse also apply and follow the same scenario from there on out.
The problem is, very very few people think like you do so just saying what you say doesn’t really address the “problem” or how it might be handled in our theoretical society even if there was some way for us to objectively determine that you are correct. Which is, of course, impossible. It’s hardly likely that even though 99.5% (just a made up number for illustration purposes obviously) don’t think children are strictly “property” that some PDA judge or whatever will just be able to quote your post from 100 years ago and, bam, end of debate we can all go home.
Edit: I read your linked blog post and found it very well written and interesting. However, I cannot quite buy into the concept of owning other people be they children, the aged, or whoever. So a child cannot “afford” to purchase any rights therefore it has none. An elderly person can no longer “afford” to purchase their rights therefore they have none. A poor person cannot “afford” to purchase any rights therefore they have none. Luckily, since I can “afford” to purchase rights these groups can all be my slaves to do with as I please? Doesn’t sound very appealing to me even though the logic is consistent and I do agree that “natural rights” is a somewhat flawed concept. Good posting though thanks for linking it.
It is a goal pursed by statists to stamp out something that already occurs on the margin. (Btw, the Criminal Code in Canada already exempts disciplinary assault from indictment) What I quoted shows you judging libertarianism by that standard.
I think StrangeLoop’s point is, if it’s justifiable (in libertarian terms) to invade someone’s property to prevent him from abusing his child, when isn’t it justifiable (in libertarian terms) to invade someone’s property?
He seems to think that libertarian moral theory (at least, the Rothbardian variety) is more propertarian than it actually is.
For the child to be a victim, it would have to be a sovereign, which means the parent has no obligation to it.
Also, if rights aren’t delegated explicitly, you’re inviting vigilantism. I can’t act as your agent unless you have assigned me specifically to be your agent.
You haven’t been able to demarcate anything, and yet you still apply all sorts of labels to yourself and defend/oppose their use in other circumstances. It’s really quite irrational IMO.
I have a definition of what ancap is, and thus what it is not. Do you?
Insofar as ancap promotes a society without aggression, and voluntary relations, environmental issues are only relevant in so much as actors choose to value them, which will vary from individual to individual, moment to moment. Ancap allows this state of affairs, unlike more statist ideologies, which impose one set of values for everyone upon a particular issue.
Remember, global warming isn’t a property rights issue. It may not even be a result of human action, if it is even occurring.
It’s not hard to knock down strawmen in Polyanna’s field.
Why argue against opposing world views? The system people want to live under is subjective. You can’t prove ancap is superior objectively without first defining criteria of what superiority is, and to do so, would fly in the face of praxeology.
Ancap is only weak when people want something that voluntarism cannot deliver. But the question then becomes, how can ancap be any good, if its principled voluntarism is insufficient in itself?
No, because you imply that ancap has weaknesses. I am saying, ancap is not perfect and that is inherent to ancap itself. It’s like saying an apple makes a poor orange. Ok, technically, you’re right. And obvious. But what was the point of a statement like that? We all know that apples are not in fact oranges.
I could just as easily argue that coercion doesn’t solve global warming either. That coercion is not sufficient to stop child abuse, and even if it could, it would come at the expense of abusing adults. We understand this at the start. There are issues that we can only attempt to solve in the market (which only ancap supports completely and unconditionally) and for which no a priori solution can be arrived at EXCEPT the market.
You implied it is a problem beyond your preferences. If it was just your preference, then there would be no need to appeal to ancap, except as it fails your preferences. And I would say, if a voluntary order fails your morality, then you may not be an ancap.
You completely missed the point. It’s not whether we need or want time travel or immortality (preferences) but that there are no a priori answers for how to achieve them, or whether they are desirable enough to be developed.
It has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism unless you believe the children are not sovereign. If they are coerced to participate in the black market, then that is not anarcho-capitalism.
What if scientists replaced the statue of david with living tissue, cell by cell. At what point would he have rights? Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh libertarianism is false
I’m sure you understand that my point wasn’t to claim that libertarianism is false. On the other hand, I don’t see how true or false can apply to libertarianism – do you?
I’m just expressing boredom with all the “what if” and zaney situations people bring up to try and disprove libertarianism. If they can’t articulate their objections on actual philosophical grounds, its fail.
