Is This Principled Libertarianism (Walter Block on Child Abuse)?

Economics Political Theory
61

I agree. I think the child is indeed sovereign, which is why parents have no such obligation. They commit themselves to the child by choice, by their sense of moral obligation, and nothing more.

It’s sort of like the good Samaritan law, which I think could be compatible with libertarianism.

Here is how I see Block’s argument avoiding the fear of vigilantism argument. People basically don’t tolerate such behavior so they agree to tolerate a certain degree of cops storming into a private home to save the child locked in the basement. They sign up with defense agencies that have such laws and market forces make it difficult to avoid agreeing to such laws.

In the case where a person still refuses to agree to such terms, Block maintains that private police could still storm the house if that is what the market demanded. This is why he says that this “solution” is compatible with the Friedman type anarchism, as well as the Rothbardian anarchism.

Regarding the fear of vigilantism, I think Block would simply say that libertarianism doesn’t seek perfection but only better and more ethical results. Competition would put a healthy check on all such behavior and minimize it.

62

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

You should watch taken. Or do some cursory research. As far as sex trafficing goes, it is rarely a voluntary phenomena. Sure, some girls may sell themselves to other kids in their school for a new purse or something, and I have my own personal problems with that, but it’s really harmless. The same goes for brothels, usually just another place someone works.

But human trafficking is another matter altogether;

Children are often forced by social structures and individual agents into situations in which adults take advantage of their vulnerability and sexually exploit and abuse them. Structure and agency commonly combine to force a child into commercial sex: for example, the prostitution of a child frequently follows from prior sexual abuse, often in the child’s home

Such children are commonly poorly paid or unpaid,kept in unsanitary conditions, denied access to proper medical care, and constantly watched and kept subservient through threat of force.These threats may be physical or psychological in nature

As is the case for other worst forms of child labour, severe poverty, the possibility of relatively high earnings, low value attached to education, family dysfunction, a cultural obligation to help support the family or the need to earn money to simply survive are all factors that make children vulnerable to CSEC. In order to make a living children are sold into the sex trade to provide food and shelter and in some cases money to satisfy the addiction of a family member or themselves

There are other non-economic factors that also push children into commercial sexual exploitation. Children who are at greatest risk of becoming victims of CSEC are those that have previously experienced physical or sexual abuse. A family environment of little protection, where caregivers are absent or where there is a high level of violence or alcohol or drug consumption, induces boys and girls to run away from home, making them highly susceptible to abuse. Gender discrimination and low educational levels of caregivers are also risk factors. Children with extreme poverty and marginalized families in coastal areas also becoming victims of CSEC.

63

You haven’t thought about it on your own?

You said earlier:

By “can’t”, I presume you meant morally. I didn’t bring up the example of seeing someone being stabbed in an alleyway as a false moral dilemma and/or an appeal to emotion. I brought it up to show an example where no one would probably care whether he’s been assigned specifically to be the victim’s agent – he’d (try to) save the victim regardless. I, for one, don’t find such behavior to be morally wrong. Why do you seem to?

64

I think you’re not fully considering the consequences of declaring the child a sovereign.

Wrt to Block, I think his position is indefensible. “What the market demanded” is code for mob rule.

65

Sure I have. I haven’t reached a conclusion.

By can’t, I mean compatibly with the non-aggression principle.

I didn’t think you did. But that is what it is.

First of all, you’re assuming there is a victim. We don’t know that. We’re observing an isolated act.

Second, if he intervenes and the “victim” didn’t want help, he’s acting aggressively. If he is acting and there is no victim (misunderstanding the event) then he is acting aggressively.

The only way a moral society works is if people accept the tradeoff of liberty over security. If we want to stop every potential violent act, we’re heading back to statism by making excuses for the violation of property rights.

66

I think I have to go with Rothbard on this one. The consequence is that the child can leave when ever he so chooses to leave if he doesn’t like the rules of the house. Is this what you mean?

Not exactly. There is simply no private court that will acquit the defendant in this case due to the fact that such courts cannot stay in business. I think that’s the point he’s making and that’s what I meant by “demand”.

If you agree that law is basically a market produced good, then why claim that the result of what is produced constitutes some mob rule?

67

Okay, fair enough. Sorry for jumping the gun there.

To me, “morality” and “the non-aggression principle” are (basically) synonymous.

What I meant is, I didn’t present any moral dilemma, false or not. Nor did I (attempt to) appeal to emotion. So, in terms of my intention, what I wrote was neither of those things.

Yes, I’m assuming there’s a victim. I guess it was implicit in my earlier posts. Now I’m making it explicit. :stuck_out_tongue:

If I interfere and it turns out that the victim didn’t want help, or there is no victim, then I’ll agree that I have acted aggressively (however unwittingly) and will honorably pay or otherwise make restitution. So what’s the problem?

I have to admit to being confused by your statement “the only way a moral society works”. Can you explain this in more detail, please?

68

When does the child become sovereign? At the moment of conception? At the moment of birth? And when they are sovereign, by what right does the parent bring them into the home as a newborn or infant, because it is obvious the child is incapable of rendering explicit consent.

It’s a very muddy area. Rothbard and Block fail to satisfy me on this. They fudge it instead of owning up to the fact that it is a mess for libertarian theory.

Why can’t it stay in business?

Because you and Block are claiming there is no market for a particular legal outcome.

69

I have edited the OP title because it was too long and rephrased it. I hope you are ok with that SL.

70

Not a problem. A lot of people struggle with the fact that I dissent with some ideas (usually on the basis of logic) without necessarily offering a solution of my own. I think the tendency is to assume if someone opposes one thing, that means they are for another. In nearly all cases, I am for reason. I just don’t always know what the result of reason will be.

I forgot what we were talking about here, but I believe I said it was incompatible with the non-aggression principle (indirectly). Feel free to question that.

You did, but you didn’t intend it. I really don’t want to belabor this point, but intent and action are not the same thing. It was an appeal to emotion. It’s known as a lifeboat argument.

Your example was poor then, because you made it sound like I walk by an alley and see someone getting stabbed, not that I am sure that one party is being victimized by the other.

It wasn’t unwittingly. If you don’t know you’re representing a party in the right, and you don’t have their consent, then what exactly are you doing getting involved? Oh sure, you can pay your way out. Can you imagine a society where people stole and then made restitution later? Where people threw punches and then paid off the people they punched later?

I’m doing most of the heavy lifting with regards to this discussion. How about you offer me something to answer, instead of asking me to write longer form answers for what I consider to be pretty obvious stuff. My time is precious. Meet me half way.

71

I do the same thing quite a bit, so I can relate.

It was the meaning of “can’t” that was at issue (as in “I can’t act as someone else’s agent…”). Obviously you didn’t mean “physically unable”, so I presumed you meant “morally inadmissible”. You responded that you meant “incompatible with the non-aggression principle”. I tried to make clear that I essentially equate “morality” with “non-aggression principle”, so therefore we’re actually talking about the same thing. At this point, I don’t think there’s anything else at issue, as I now understand what you meant.

My understanding of the word “appeal” is that it implies a conscious effort on the part of the one making it. Since I didn’t have a goal of pulling on your heartstrings (as it were), I don’t see how I made any appeal to emotion. It seems that you’re trying to argue that your reaction to, or interpretation of, what I wrote takes precedence over my intention behind it. On the other hand, I’m glad that you (apparently) understand that it was also not a false dilemma.

Can anyone ever be sure of anything external to himself? So no, you had my example right the first time. I’d assume that the person being stabbed didn’t want to be stabbed, as I know that I wouldn’t want to be stabbed. It seems as though you refuse to make any “default” assumptions regarding other people. Maybe it’s just me, but this seems contrary to human nature.

Yes, actually I can.

What exactly am I doing getting involved? I’m betting that the person being stabbed is a victim. If it turns out that I’m wrong, so be it – I’ll gladly pay for any damages.

I seriously question your assertion that you’re “doing most of the heavy lifting with regards to this discussion”. Can you articulate what you mean by the statement “the only way a moral society works” or not? The reason I ask is because it seems like a rather emotionally loaded phrase with multiple (if not many) possible meanings. I’m not sure which meaning(s) you mean by it, so I thought I’d ask for clarification. What I don’t understand is why you are so resistant to my request.

And I hope you weren’t implying that my time is somehow not precious to me.

72

An appeal to emotion is a type of logical fallacy. Your intent (which I can never prove one way or another) is irrelevant. What you did was appeal to emotion, intentionally or not.

We don’t need the NAP then. We can just do whatever you would like to have happen.

How so? Are humans supposed to assume things as part of their nature?

So you think that’s what ancap will look like? People violating each other’s rights up to their capacity to pay to do so?

Moral behavior is something you gamble on. Perfect. NAP by chance.

#2

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/some-choice-quotes-from-anarcho-capitalists-from-the-mises-forum/15616/137

I’m not resistant, I’m just not interested in feeding you long form explanations when a simple sentence is sufficient.

It’s not emotionally loaded. Substitute NAP. Read it again. Then question what you believe is wrong. I’m not going to explain a very simple statement, that should be obvious to understand, if not easy for a libertarian to agree with.

73

I have reached a conclusion, but I certainly agree with liberty student on the difficulties involved; that is, the difficulties involved if one endorses concepts like self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. For libertarians attached to that morality, children are especially problematic: considering them sovereign introduces many practical problems (e.g., why would parents ever be legally obligated to feed them?). If children are self-owners, then no one can be ethically responsible for them but themselves; I find this problematic: if a 3-year old steals a candy bar, for instance, I believe it is acceptable to charge the parents–I can’t imagine compelling the toddler to do labor as compensation for the theft.

My own conclusion is that social customs would develop that properly address these concerns, but never perfectly.

In fact, as I mentioned earlier, I would even endorse war against private islands that pimp out children. The children, for example, could be acclimated to their tasks from a young age, and hence “consent” becomes insignificant (this is the rationale behind age-of-consent laws: our commitment to contractual freedom cannot reach to biological brains that aren’t fully capable of high-level rational functioning). Once again, this is all a problem because libertarian rights are hitting against the actual world: the theory is obviously weak when agents are cognitively inequal due to biological contingencies.

To steal a line of thinking from Bob Murphy’s Chaos Theory, I would bet that most people, to function in an anarcho-society, would need to have defense insurance (and a “score” for one’s lawfulness like a credit rating) to enter onto others’ private stores, homes, etc. (e.g, you swipe an ID card into the front door of Walmart to be recognized as a law-abiding consumer), and I would bet that one’s enforcement agency would charge higher if it suspected a parent of child abuse (e.g., due to the riskiness of that person’s violent temperament). And, of course, I would hope that other moral customs (.e.,g shaming parents that abuse their children) would lead to shunning from others, etc.

I would never claim that a child is sovereign, though. In fact, I endorse baby-selling, and that seems to imply that a parent is sovereign over his children.

74

The changed title completely removes the meaning of my original comments; nowhere was I asking the question, “Is this principled libertarianism?”

I asserted it; if you want to argue against the use of that phrase, then do so. But I didn’t ask that question.

Quite frankly, I would like my original title back, it was (from what I remember, since you’ve changed it at least twice): “Why Principled Libertarianism Sucks, Or, Walter Block on Child Abuse.”

I was specifically arguing that libertarianism cannot fully conform to any deontic morality, not even the rights-based one advocated by most Austrians. I was using Walter Block’s poor defense to prove that point. My original title seems appropriate, merely playful. To be sure, “sucks” is not even directed at a person, only an ideology. Fundamentally, my point was that a “principled” libertarianism cannot apply its principles all-inclusively, and hence those principles fall short–i.e., they suck.

75

No. You can become agent after the fact. There is no need to sign a contract with a child to rightfully defend him from abusive parents. It is NOT vigilantism. Well, it could be if it turned out that child didn’t need defence and there was no crime actually. Then those defendors would pay the “price” so to speak. But anyway, Autolykos proposed good argument about a man being stabbed in the alley and it is not life boat situation, but a very real one.

P.S. oh I see Autalykos already got to the point. So now liberty student you are denying one’s right to defend someone else without signing a contract with the assumed victim?

76

  1. This sort of thing puts people off libertarianism/libertarian anarchism as right wing crankism.

  2. It is a sick distortion of libertarian theory.

  3. It sounds like it comes from a place of conspiratorial paranoia.Sounds a bit like Jonah Goldberg in his Liberal Fascism when he talks of Hillary Clinton except he attacks her statism to some extent (I think?) but here your attacking pure negative rights.

  4. Culturally/morally this is disturbing and part of the criticism’s Brainpolice has laid upon people here.On Stranger he’s right and whatever Stranger thinks libertarianism is, it’s not my kind and I hope not most people heres kind either.

77
78

Are you implying that if there is immorality in a voluntary order and you object to it then your not ancap?

79

He is not soverign over another human being. An adult can’t keep a child locked up. Abuse can be stopped. However, you must be willing to risk going to jail yourself id the courts side with the prosecuted, for child abduction, breaking and entering, etc.

80

I’m not trying to distort your title, I just didn’t like Danny’s insertion into it. It made it unreadable.

You don’t get to use sucks, so gimme a title that won’t bunch up your undies and I would be happy to change it to that.