So you’re just restating what I said, in a more sympathetic way?
No it isn’t, and if you think it is you’re going to have to elaborate.
And please, do tell me, how does one define “abusive” family relations? Yes, parents will order their children around and physical violence may be used in order to help with this process, it doesn’t follow that this supports the state in any way though. Perhaps you should read Kid Lib by Rothbard. The point is there’s so much Molyneux’ theory fails to account for that his pseudo physchology is laughable. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, what about the atheist statists who reject the family and the theist, cultural conservative anarchists? Or how would he explain the fact that every totalitarian state in history has grown at the expense of the family?
I’d be quite interested in hearing his alternative methods of raising children though, if parents do such a bad job. I’m sure it’ll be amusing.
Anyway, I don’t feel like going into this, we’ve been through it before and by the end of the argument you simple told me to “speak to him about it”.
No, I’m trying to engage in an actual analysis rather than a knee-jerk assumption. You seem to just be making knee-jerk assumptions and oversimplifications. You’re not even attacking Molyneux’s ideas at face value. At least Danny took the time to read his book and formally critique it; you just seem biased from the start.
It quite blatantly is, as La Boetie’s entire observation rests on a psychological and ideological basis for people’s complaince.
The very basic point is that these are learned behaviors that manifest themselves on a larger scale in politics, that the ideological acceptance of the necessity of violenceand legitimacy of arbitrary authority has implications extending far beyond the family but the family is where it is initially learned. You don’t even seem to be grasping the point.
You seem to be misunderstanding what the point is. Noone is claiming that, by defacto, a libertarian must be secular or that all statists are religious. The point is with regaurd to the underlying mentality of subserviance in general, which just so happens to have a historical connection with religion.
I’m not even sure what you specifically mean by “the family”. Your use of it strikes me as platonic.
Using physical violence is an outright crime by any libertarian standard. And parents are doing exactly the same thing the state does – use violence to get people to behave the way they think is appropriate.
There’s no need to come up with fancy psychological theories to see the relationship and parallels between family authoritarianism and state authoritarianism.
Because whatever Rothbard says is true. Especially when pandering to conservatives.
Whether or not that’s true, all you did was to essentially take my argument and reword it.
If you think it is, elaborate, I already know what La Boetie’s argument is seeing as I just finished TDVS yesterday and want to know how it justifies your claim.
I fail to see how parenting is “arbitrary authority” to begin with. To say that this somehow manifests itself is silly, totalitarian regimes have always sought to undermine the family, so please, do tell me in this situation where exaclty is this arbitrary authority first learned?
Or you just can’t refute the argument so you pretend that I don’t understand. I’ve never said Stefan Molyneux made any claims about libertarians being secular or religious. My point is that if individuals who despise the family yet worship the state exist (which they do, in abundance) Molyneux’s theory and the cultural marxists that adhere to it is completely wrong.
He’s not denying reality. The claim that children qua children are incapable of rational argumentation isn’t true. This essentially ignores any degree of natural curiosity within children that some children express better than others. Also, if you are seriously going to defend the premise that the NAP doesn’t apply to children, you must accept the reductio ad absurdums that follow from this (such as it being legitimate for children to be murdered).
Yes it is. I don’t mind though, the leftists can try and use logic to stop their kids running into the middle of the road and sticking their fingers into electrical sockets without using violence, when they don’t listen all it means is fewer left libertarians.
Or not, murdering the child for any reason would intefere with their ability to reach a stage where they would be capable of rational argumentation, slapping them to teach them not to run into the middle of the road does the opposite.
I weeded out misunderstanding/misrepresentation. It’s called clarifying.
If you refuse to see that it relates to psychology, and that psychology relates to familial and cultural factors, I don’t know what to tell you.
I never claimed that parenting qua parenting is arbitrary authority. You seem to conflate your parenting model with parenting as such, or your family model with family as such. Also, the claim that totalitarian regimes are anti-family by definition strikes me as kind of silly, as there is nothing about it that is neccesarily opposed to “family” as such and the regime itself may very well be founded on a particular family.
Noone is opposed to “the family” as such. And, once again, your accusation of cultural marxism is a strawman.
It’s patently false based on basic observation of children doing just that, engaging in arguementation in an educational setting. It’s not as if one magically becomes capable of argumentation when one reaches legal adulthood, and it’s not as if kids are so naturally inept that they completely lack the ability to take ideas seriously. As for your reference to “the leftists”, you’re just perpetuating culture war nonsense and revealing your conservative bias.
The slapping scenario is a deflection from the unavoidable point that if you accept that the NAP doesn’t apply to children, then anything that we would normally consider a negative rights violation against someone, in any context, must be regaurded as legitimate when done to a child. They can be murdered, assaulted, stolen from, enslaved, etc., because they aren’t regaurded as having any rights.
Any reason in particular you seem so adamant about not elaborating?
Lol, no true scotsman.
This is like getting blood out of a stone, you have a very irritating tendency to write lots about nothing.
I’m glad it strikes you as silly, I would be insulted if it didn’t. The state is always in competition with pre state insititutions, of which the family in one. It only follows that will it will go to great lengths to abolish it. For example the Nazi and Soviet use of children as weapons against their parents, read Nineteen Eighty - Four for a nice illustration.
Right, I have a conservative bias, is if that’s bad, you might as well say I have a bias towards the truth, as if it’s bad.
And yet there somehow there isn’t the opportunity for this educational setting in the few seconds before I child runs into the road, so they must be taught in the only way they understand.
Oh, I was waiting for the next strawman, it had been a couple of lines.
Two in a row.
You post seems to imply that I wish to keep children subservient for the entirety of their lives, I don’t know where you got such an absurd idea.
Frankly, if you believe that children are incapable of rational argumentation, you live in a parallel (conservative I guess) universe. There’s not much point in ‘arguing’ with you.
I only chose to say agorism because the left libertarians (wrongly) choose to claim it to be a purely left libertarian idea, whereas secession needn’t be.
Because it hardly needs elaborating. Ideological sustainace of state = psychological phenomenon, and psychological patterns are linked to one’s familial and personal relations.
Not really, you’re just probably dull.
There is no absolute dichotomy between family and state in this way. The purpose of the state isn’t the abolition of the family, it’s the control of the society in general, which relies in part on the existance of families to produce people to control. The art of rulership isn’t predicated on anniating the citezenry altogether, the citezenry must be kept in a state where they can be perpetually milked. The state isn’t interested in getting rid of “the family” as such, it’s interested in producing a particular model of citezen and family, one that best perpetuates its power.