If I molest my baby/toddler, what are you going to do about it, if anything? If you are going to do something about it, why do you think you have any right to do anything about it?
(I am starting this one over. I will copy over any of the other posts from the other thread that I believe were relevant.)
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
xahrx: Spideynw:If I molest my baby/toddler, what are you going to do about it? If you are going to do something about it, why do you think you have any right to do anything about it? The general tone of the question leads me to want to ask another one in return: are children not being molested now with all the supposed government protection they get? Isn't one of the few somewhat useful things coming from Bill O'Reilly these days his constant calling out of judges who seem to routinely give rapists and child molesters a pass and/or ridiculously short sentences? Also, how much abuse/molestation takes place with children who are forcibly pushed into foster care? General question: does anyone else get slightly annoyed at these questions which are framed to try and make it sound ridiculous that you want to trust issue X or Y to the free market, while the government is busy royally screwing that issue up, a fact which conveniently gets left out of the questioning as if the issue is being handled perfectly right now?
Spideynw:If I molest my baby/toddler, what are you going to do about it? If you are going to do something about it, why do you think you have any right to do anything about it?
The general tone of the question leads me to want to ask another one in return: are children not being molested now with all the supposed government protection they get? Isn't one of the few somewhat useful things coming from Bill O'Reilly these days his constant calling out of judges who seem to routinely give rapists and child molesters a pass and/or ridiculously short sentences?
Also, how much abuse/molestation takes place with children who are forcibly pushed into foster care?
General question: does anyone else get slightly annoyed at these questions which are framed to try and make it sound ridiculous that you want to trust issue X or Y to the free market, while the government is busy royally screwing that issue up, a fact which conveniently gets left out of the questioning as if the issue is being handled perfectly right now?
xahrx:The general tone of the question leads me to want to ask another one in return: are children not being molested now with all the supposed government protection they get?
As far as I know, children are still being molested.
xahrx:General question: does anyone else get slightly annoyed at these questions which are framed to try and make it sound ridiculous that you want to trust issue X or Y to the free market,
Don't get me wrong. I am all for the free market. But I argue that it is up to parents how they treat their children, until the point at which the child can claim his or her rights. But it does not matter what I think. What matters, is what would anyone do about it if I did? And what would society think about that person for doing something about it? And so, once the government is gone, I want to know what you anarchists would do about it, if anything, if you found out your neighbor was "molesting" his or her child? Because there are quite a few on here that think that killing or molesting a baby is immoral beyond belief.
Juan:Spidey, You need to prove that it is morally right to kill people - whether they are 'your children' or grown up strangers is wholly irrelevant - good luck with proving that murder is morally good. As to the issue of so called child molestation, it's obviously a problem related to consent. If 'children' don't consent to being 'molested' then it's rape - if they do consent then the issue is irrelevant from a libertarian point of view.
xahrx: Spideynw:And so, once the government is gone, I want to know what you anarchists would do about it, if anything, if you found out your neighbor was "molesting" his or her child? Because there are quite a few on here that think that killing or molesting a baby is immoral beyond belief. Ya think? Personally if I knew it was happening I'd do everything I could to publicize it. Kill the person's reputation, destroy their ability to do business in the community. Also, who says those kids can't retroactively assert a rights violation? In which case one could fund an organization dedicated to giving post emancipation support to such kids so they could legally rip their parents a new one when the time came.
Spideynw:And so, once the government is gone, I want to know what you anarchists would do about it, if anything, if you found out your neighbor was "molesting" his or her child? Because there are quite a few on here that think that killing or molesting a baby is immoral beyond belief.
Ya think?
Personally if I knew it was happening I'd do everything I could to publicize it. Kill the person's reputation, destroy their ability to do business in the community. Also, who says those kids can't retroactively assert a rights violation? In which case one could fund an organization dedicated to giving post emancipation support to such kids so they could legally rip their parents a new one when the time came.
Brainpolice: *boinks the children on the free market*
*boinks the children on the free market*
Juan:You need to prove that it is morally right to kill people
Not really. Just that it is morally right to kill babies/toddlers.
Juan:As to the issue of so called child molestation, it's obviously a problem related to consent.
So is killing animals then.
Juan:If 'children' don't consent to being 'molested' then it's rape
And if an animal does not consent to being killed, then it is murder.
Juan: if they do consent then the issue is irrelevant from a libertarian point of view.
And you are obviously wholly unwilling to recognize that in reality, babies/toddlers, just like animals, have no way to give consent, and therefore, no one has any right to complain if someone molests his or her own child or kills his or her own animal.
xahrx:Personally if I knew it was happening I'd do everything I could to publicize it. Kill the person's reputation, destroy their ability to do business in the community.
This seems to be the most rational response I have seen so far.
xahrx:Also, who says those kids can't retroactively assert a rights violation?
It may be possible. I am not really sure what the market would decide.
Juan:Just that it is morally right to kill babies/toddlers. Which are human beings. So go ahead, prove that it is morally right to kill toddlers. As to the issue of so called child molestation, it's obviously a problem related to consent. So is killing animals then. Yes, if you are so detached from reality that you can't tell the difference between, say, humans and dogs. If 'children' don't consent to being 'molested' then it's rape And if an animal does not consent to being killed, then it is murder. Yes, and if pigs had wings... And you are obviously wholly unwilling to recognize that in reality, babies/toddlers, just like animals, have no way to give consent But the thread is about 'children' and depending on age, can consent or not to lots of things. no one has any right to complain if someone molests his or her own child or kills his or her own animal. In your mind, yes. But you've not proven why it's morally OK to kill children. And, no your legalistic mistakes are not relevant.
Just that it is morally right to kill babies/toddlers.
As to the issue of so called child molestation, it's obviously a problem related to consent. So is killing animals then.
As to the issue of so called child molestation, it's obviously a problem related to consent.
If 'children' don't consent to being 'molested' then it's rape And if an animal does not consent to being killed, then it is murder.
If 'children' don't consent to being 'molested' then it's rape
And you are obviously wholly unwilling to recognize that in reality, babies/toddlers, just like animals, have no way to give consent
no one has any right to complain if someone molests his or her own child or kills his or her own animal.
Look Juan, regardless of the morality of it, what would you do about it? If you found out your neighbor was molesting his or her child, what would you do?
filc: Publicly scrutinize my neighbor and develop peer pressure to have him stop. Maybe even have it so bad that the person gives the child up again. Stores could actively decide not to sell to that person untill the behavior changed or the child was removed. I'm sure there are plenty of free market solutions that could bring the situation to a screaching hault without violating property rights. The issue though is knowing about it. I'm assuming we had prior knowledge of the behavior going on.
Publicly scrutinize my neighbor and develop peer pressure to have him stop. Maybe even have it so bad that the person gives the child up again. Stores could actively decide not to sell to that person untill the behavior changed or the child was removed. I'm sure there are plenty of free market solutions that could bring the situation to a screaching hault without violating property rights.
The issue though is knowing about it. I'm assuming we had prior knowledge of the behavior going on.
filc:The issue though is knowing about it. I'm assuming we had prior knowledge of the behavior going on.
Yes.
filc:Publicly scrutinize my neighbor and develop peer pressure to have him stop.
That would be 2 votes for this strategy. It seems reasonable to me.
Solarist: If this occurred and it was in my personal power to do something (i.e I saw it, you are my neighbor, etc) I would probably violate all your property rights... and deal with whatever consequences after. Would be hard to resist the emotion something like this would provoke with or without a government.
If this occurred and it was in my personal power to do something (i.e I saw it, you are my neighbor, etc) I would probably violate all your property rights... and deal with whatever consequences after. Would be hard to resist the emotion something like this would provoke with or without a government.
filc: The thing to remember is that libertarianism will not rid the world of evil men. Sometimes these posts are a play on emotion but keeping an eye on the big picture we can never get rid of evil. If we didn't have evil we wouldn't know what evil was. So all we can do is learn how to address evil as responsibly and respectfully as possible. In a libertarian society where your not counting on big brother this responsibility lies in your community. Neighbors would actually be neighbors. Shoot, you might actually even know everyone on your block!
The thing to remember is that libertarianism will not rid the world of evil men. Sometimes these posts are a play on emotion but keeping an eye on the big picture we can never get rid of evil. If we didn't have evil we wouldn't know what evil was. So all we can do is learn how to address evil as responsibly and respectfully as possible. In a libertarian society where your not counting on big brother this responsibility lies in your community. Neighbors would actually be neighbors. Shoot, you might actually even know everyone on your block!
Spideynw: If I molest my baby/toddler, what are you going to do about it, if anything? If you are going to do something about it, why do you think you have any right to do anything about it? (I am starting this one over. I will copy over any of the other posts from the other thread that I believe were relevant.)
How many times are you going to ignore the reason you are wrong in thinking that infants are the same as other animals or material objects?
Children are potential moral agents. I've pointed out the serious flaws in your way of thinking before, and as I recall it anyhow, you've ignored them. Just to name one, you would have to never allow punishment for anyone making threats, regardless of how imminent and serious they are.
We can't determine your maximum punishment with incomplete information. Assuming you once sodomized a toddler and show no signs of enjoying being violently sodomized yourself, the first aspect of proportionality would allow for you to be sodomized twice over. A more interesting question might be who if anyone could make a claim under the "premium for scaring" factor.
There are differences in the manner of action required for ownership of different things, based on these things' natures. The special case of children can be safely divided into 'guardianship' as a subset of ownership. Children's basic negative rights are not very different than your own.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto:Children are potential moral agents
So, if there is no government, what are you going to do about me sexually molesting my child? What more do you need to know? I am not really concerned about the morality of it. People will do it regardless of whether or not you think it is immoral. I just want to know what you would do about it, if anything.
The point I am trying to make is that none of us really know what would happen without a government. Or more rightly, that anything would happen. As someone else pointed out, nothing really happens in today's society. Generally speaking, it is almost impossible to find out someone is molesting his or her child.
Regardless, a couple have said they would just try to make a big stink about it. I don't know how effective this would really be. It would just be hearsay.
Another has said if he witnessed it, he would intervene directly. I don't know if he really would or not. We can only take his word on it.
I have a family. I don't know that I would want to risk my families safety to intervene. I don't even know that the child's life would be better without her father, even an abusive one.
In reality, what do most people do that know about someone sexually abusing his or her child? As far as I know, nothing.
Spideynw: In reality, what do most people do that know about someone sexually abusing his or her child? As far as I know, nothing.
There can be some communication problems when we use the words "moral" and "ethical". Child molestation would be considered criminal in a stateless society under libertarian law, so it would be handled similarly to murder, theft, etc.
I would thus prefer to employ a security agency who punishes this crime, and works with similar agencies. Beyond that, other institutions like churches and schools can develop ways to screen for convicted molesters. Yes, I would personally be happy to pay a bit extra for such a ratings system being used wherever my children would be out of my sight.
It probably is true that this is a crime that often goes unpunished. I don't see what we can do about that other than assigning an appropriate punishment and hoping that whatever extra-juridicial measures which prove most most effective are adopted. Sure, the mere lack of government doesn't guarantee that people will do anything in particular. I won't go into all of my ideas on punishment theory now but I think that libertarians need to come to a consensus on issues such as this and abortion.
I don't think that calling an anonymous tip line would necessarily put you at risk. I don't think that most people just throw up their hands and do nothing when they spot abuse. Claiming it is "nearly impossible" to discover the crime has taken place doesn't mean it should be ignored. There are hundreds of thousands of registered sex offenders in the US.
This type of "theft" can't be undone, so we would prefer the victim's guardian and the criminal to be able to reach an agreement for restitution. It is likely that 3rd parties would regularly be involved in this process for all crimes. I could use some more reference material for ostracism, and I am not 100% on the ethics of forcing the criminal to get the equivalent of a nazi symbol tattooed on their forehead. 3rd parties might be most likely to "sweeten the pot" to accomplish these ends in situations like this.
E. R. Olovetto:Child molestation would be considered criminal in a stateless society under libertarian law,
There would be no "law". There would be dispute resolution.
E. R. Olovetto:so it would be handled similarly to murder, theft, etc.
I have another thread on murder. It would not be handled the same way as theft. In theft, the victim can bring suit against the perpetrator. In child molestation, the child has no ability to bring suit against a perpetrator.
E. R. Olovetto:I would thus prefer to employ a security agency who punishes this crime,
This stuff is complete nonsense. What do you think will happen in a stateless society? You think all the "right to lifers" will get their security forces to fight the security forces of the "right to choicers"? Sounds like a world of chaos to me. Maybe the anti-anarchist crowd is right?
E. R. Olovetto:Beyond that, other institutions like churches and schools can develop ways to screen for convicted molesters.
The religion I used to belong to looks the other way all the time when it comes to child molestation.
E. R. Olovetto:I don't see what we can do about that other than assigning an appropriate punishment
Who gets to "assign a punishment" in a stateless society? There would be no rulers to enforce such a thing.
E. R. Olovetto:and hoping that whatever extra-juridicial measures which prove most most effective are adopted.
And that is all you can do, is hope. But really, we have no idea what would happen in a stateless society. All we know is that you can act, which is why I ask what you would do?
E. R. Olovetto:but I think that libertarians need to come to a consensus on issues such as this and abortion.
That is an impossibility. We have no way of knowing what would happen in a stateless society. But given what happens today (mostly nothing), it is a good guess that nothing would happen in a stateless society.
In regards to "security agencies" or "PDAs", what security agency or PDA would punish parents, who would be their own customers? Parents would be the ones paying them. It would be a horrible business practice.
No, I am sorry, but in a stateless society, there will be no "law" enforcing your dictates. And this is why children, in a stateless society, will not have any rights. Except those, that neighbors like you, are willing to enforce. So, again, what are you going to do about it?
Spideynw: In regards to "security agencies" or "PDAs", what security agency or PDA would punish parents, who would be their own customers? Parents would be the ones paying them. It would be a horrible business practice. No, I am sorry, but in a stateless society, there will be no "law" enforcing your dictates. And this is why children, in a stateless society, will not have any rights. Except those, that neighbors like you, are willing to enforce. So, again, what are you going to do about it?
Sorry but this is simply you not understanding private law and you are terribly wrong. I will answer you in detail in a bit and edit in a separate thread with some reading material here when I make it later.
There is the overwhelmingly most common objection of the "Bill Gates" with his own private court getting off the hook for everything. The short answer to this is that he is then just a sort of state or rogue PDA to be dealt with similarly to the ones we have now. The average person though will not have the funds to wage war, and a large reason why our world is so violent is the popular acceptance of states who expropriate the costs of war on their citizens. Average customers are not violent, will want to distribute risk, and lessen their own costs. PDAs who we can safely assume would thrive would have preexisting contracts with their customers. One facet of these would be that their own customers are not safe from punishment for their own crimes. PDAs would develop agreements on arbiters, reciprocally binding their customers.
The vast majority of people object to crimes like child molestation, so we can again safely assume that PDAs and private courts would make their general guidelines (and laws) known beforehand and that they would be similar. This is 'common law'. There would be no legislation or 'civil law', and the uncertainty it brings, in a stateless society.
I will, again, prefer that my security agency punishes child molesters. Security can be viewed as a mere service. Anonymous tip lines work and some amount of offenders are caught.
E. R. Olovetto:There is the overwhelmingly most common objection of the "Bill Gates" with his own private court getting off the hook for everything.
Bill Gates wealth is a result of a state granted monopoly (patent). There is no reason to believe anyone could accumulate the wealth of Bill Gates, comparative to the rest of the population, in a stateless society.
E. R. Olovetto:PDAs who we can safely assume would thrive would have preexisting contracts with their customers.
I see no reason to believe there would be PDAs. Governments need massive protection. Not individuals.
E. R. Olovetto:The vast majority of people object to crimes like child molestation, so we can again safely assume that PDAs and private courts would make their general guidelines (and laws) known beforehand and that they would be similar.
As I have already explained, PDAs, if they even existed, would not enforce children's rights against their own customers.
E. R. Olovetto:This is 'common law'.
Yes, common law would exist. But it would not really be "law", but a guideline. It would give a pretty good indication to people how disputes would be resolved by an arbitrator. Since children do not have the ability to pay or make a claim, there would be no dispute, and therefore no law.
E. R. Olovetto:I will, again, prefer that my security agency punishes child molesters
Again, good luck getting them to punish their own customers.
E. R. Olovetto:I will, again, prefer that my security agency punishes child molesters. Security can be viewed as a mere service. Anonymous tip lines work and some amount of offenders are caught.
The loophole here is, while it's great that you signed up with PDA_A in which you agree to not have any domestic violence within your premise. This neighber could decide not to hire that PDA or hire a different PDA that turns a blind eye to such activity. Now this may not be the case in all situations. What we may actually see instead is HOA's making the PDA provisions and purchases so that all community members are a member of said PDA regardless. They would pay for it in their HOA fee's and home owners would have to comply. They would have to agree to the contract at the purchase of their home. If they later on wanted to change PDA's they would have to do it through their local HOA.
However such a situation where neighbor's had different PDA's is definitely going to be the case in rural area's and it's unclear as to whether or not the HOA model would exist in an anarchist society, though I have no idea why not. In a situation where your neighbor may have not signed a PDA contract (A criminal isn't going to sign up for anti-criminal services) I think the best thing you can do is create public awareness of the behavior and force the culprit to publicly defend himself.
One could speculate that a community that subscribes to a certain private court may take the following scenario as action. The court would judge that the individual is guilty based on obvious standards, beyond a shadow of a doubt blah blah blah ect(Lets say someone took pictures and submitted it).... Then the court would mandate that he would be in effect be excommunicated from the community. From here there are several options. He would be marked as a known community criminal.
Having a jail would may be completely un-necessary. The community who subscribes to X PDA services and Y Court Justice services who is also partnered with X PDA will have a set of standards required of subscribers. A store owner for example wanting to remain in compliance with their PDA and court contractors may be required to no longer sell goods or participate in any exchanges with the known criminal. The community as a whole will do this effectively removing that man from any community involvement, primarily trade. The man will face the following options.
Notice that this criminal is effectively dealt with without ever violating his property in the first place. The only real bad side to this is if he chooses to starve the child. I think this would be highly unlikely though. Remember that all the utility companies will likely shut off their services to him in order to be in compliance with the PDA and court system. If they do not community members may opt out of their service for collaborating with a known criminal. It would be bad for business.
On the flip side, if the PDA's and whatever Court Contractors get carried away and start feeling power happy, people can abolish them and adopt competitors.
Either way I think the whole violent situation could be handled without violating the culprits property rights amazingly enough.
I think we can assume children's charities would exist in a free society.
If I knew (or even suspected) that you were molesting your child, I would inform such a charity about it. They would no doubt then investigate the situation, and if they can prove you have been molesting your child, they would use coercion against you to seize the child. If you dispute this, you can go to an arbitrator to see who has the best claim to the child - you or the charity.
Assuming it's true, the arbitrator would no doubt rule that by acting this way, you have neglected in your duty* to homestead the child (or properly abandon it), so you have given up your rights to bring up the child. Rights to the child would be awarded to the charity, who will re-home the child with parents who will take proper care of it.
* By this, I do not mean you have "positive obligations" - see Walter Block's Libertarianism, positive obligations and property abandonment: children's rights and Stephan Kinsella's How We Come to Own Ourselves.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Truth and Liberty:Assuming it's true, the arbitrator would no doubt rule that by acting this way, you have neglected in your duty* to homestead the child (or properly abandon it), so you have given up your rights to bring up the child. Rights to the child would be awarded to the charity, who will re-home the child with parents who will take proper care of it.
My concern about this method is who dictates what the correct way to homestead property is? Obviously in this case child molestation is clearly wrong, but it seems like a slippery slope for dictating to others what they should and should not do with their property. Also it uses the notion that children can be owned by people. A view not universally accepted even for libertarians. I know my points may be contradictory but it is something to consider.
filc: Truth and Liberty:Assuming it's true, the arbitrator would no doubt rule that by acting this way, you have neglected in your duty* to homestead the child (or properly abandon it), so you have given up your rights to bring up the child. Rights to the child would be awarded to the charity, who will re-home the child with parents who will take proper care of it. My concern about this method is who dictates what the correct way to homestead property is? Obviously in this case child molestation is clearly wrong, but it seems like a slippery slope for dictating to others what they should and should not do with their property. Also it uses the notion that children can be owned by people. A view not universally accepted even for libertarians. I know my points may be contradictory but it is something to consider.
Who decides what the correct way to homestead any property is? The arbitrator resolving the dispute. The arbitrators compete with each other over who makes the fairest, wisest, most honest decisions. It's only a slippery slope when one agency has a monopoly on arbitration, i.e. a government.
On the notion of children being owned, please read the Kinsella article.
E. R. Olovetto:How many times are you going to ignore the reason you are wrong in thinking that infants are the same as other animals or material objects?Children are potential moral agents. I've pointed out the serious flaws in your way of thinking before, and as I recall it anyhow, you've ignored them. Just to name one, you would have to never allow punishment for anyone making threats, regardless of how imminent and serious they are.
I don't see this as relevant except in terms of retroactive claims. He's not asking a question about the kids, but what anyone else besides the parents can do to stop a molestation. Whether or not the kid is a potential moral agent has no practical impact except if that kid, once emancipated, takes action to defend themselves or get payback some how.
That's nice. What would they do? How would they enforce such a law?
For one, why is it a crime? I know why I think it's a crime, but why is it a crime in an anarchist society? The parent(s) are the goto people for consent until the kid is emancipated, and the kid is default property of the parent(s). The fact that the kid is a potential moral agent may put moral and ethical limits on what parents can properly consent to in their stead, however what he's talking about is the potential legal action that can be taken if the parents violate those moral and ethical norms. And while an existing contract which says "If you want a good rating from us..." or "If you want to live in this neighborhood..." then, "you can't molest any children," is all fine and dandy. But what if no such contract is in place? It's ludicrous to think existing contracts will cover every possible eventuality, and I'll be damned but in all the pontificating about contracts in a purely free society it never occurred to me or anyone else I know to say, 'Oh, and by the way, don't bugger any kids or we're through!" Plus, how does someone show up in a court of law in a stateless society and say, "I want out of my dealings with so and so because of the damages he did to someone else."?
What action could be taken, other than things I've already listed? I see no basis for taking the kid away legally, though a judge/community may go easy on me if I did. Like it or not, under a state you can legally go in and do something about the situation. I'm not saying the state is good at or it's desirable or there aren't other trade offs. But if some prick is buggering his kid under the state I don't have to give a damn about consent or property rights. I call the cops and, all goes well, the molester is finished.
filc:The court would judge that the individual is guilty based on obvious standards,
Really? The standards would be "obvious"? So it is obviously wrong to feed your children fast food right? Will this supposed court throw the parents in jail for 90 days for feeding their children fast food? My point being, nothing is "obvious". And lastly, I come back to, who would pay a court that would judge how the customer would treat his or her children? I know I would not hire a court that would think it has any say as to how I can raise my children.
As to HMOs, given how limited they are today, and given that many of them are propped up by government, I see no convincing reason to believe they would be very popular in a stateless society.
Truth and Liberty:Who decides what the correct way to homestead any property is? The arbitrator resolving the dispute. The arbitrators compete with each other over who makes the fairest, wisest, most honest decisions. It's only a slippery slope when one agency has a monopoly on arbitration, i.e. a government.
In your example an arbitrator could be nothing more then an angry mob who believes in witches and therefore found a fallacious way to justify the burning down of the witches home. What gives the arbitrator the ethical justification for practicing coercion against someone's property, especially someone who chose not to support that specific arbitrator? Your method involves violating property rights. Mine involves voluntaryism.
I think this is kind of what Spidey is getting at. What right do you have to initiate force against someone who did not directly initiate force against you. The only thing that person really has done at this point is offended you. You cannot justify initiation of force on behalf of another without their explicit consent, as that fallacy is the fundamental defense for american imperialism.
Furthermore, if an arbitrator makes a bad decision and ultimately runs out of business, the damage they cause may be permanent. Also, since your method involves violence and we know that the individual involved is a known criminal he is more likely to use drastic measures of defense to protect his property. You may be signing up your local PDA for a suicide attempt to seize this mans property.
I have read Stephen's article a while ago and while I agree with much of what he generally says. He still faces the problem that the theory he advocates is still opinion based and that many Christian leaning libertarian's would rather take the viewpoint that the child is the rightful owner of his/her body. The parent is only a caretaker. The parent can choose to voluntarily stop being the caretaker. Adoption services are available specifically for that reason.
The other problem in the idea of children as property is that the man molesting his child has then done nothing morally wrong. All he is arguably guilty of is being a poor property owner. But that' the same as someone who skips an oil change in their car. Poor car owner maybe but not morally wrong. What you have proposed is that now society dictates whats morally right and wrong based on cultural beliefs which are subject to change and which may not be shared with all participants.
Another clear example of this problem is old adults. What happens to adults who have clearly taken ownership of themselves but later on become mentally incapacitated? What happens when they get old and get dementia? Your argument brings up the ability to homestead that person as they are not fit for owning their own persons. My argument would be to act as a caretaker of that property, but not take the property for my own.
The point is you will have differences of opinion even in a libertarian society. My biggest argument however is that two wrongs don't make a right and violating the criminals property rights makes you only different then him to a degree.
filc:The other problem in the idea of children as property is that the man molesting his child has then done nothing morally wrong. All he is arguably guilty of is being a poor property owner. But that' the same as someone who skips an oil change in their car. Poor car owner maybe but not morally wrong. What you have proposed is that now society dictates whats morally right and wrong based on cultural beliefs which are subject to change and which may not be shared with all participants.
This is why I mentioned the semantics problem with "ethics" and "morals". Libertarianism is, at its heart, purely a system of punishment. Its only task is to determine criminality, not whether things like drug use or prostitution are ethical/moral goods or bads. You are now falling into Spideynw's fallacious line of thinking which is patently incompatible with libertarianism. Please just have some patience with me and I will give a comprehensive response to all of these complaints.
Libertarianism is, at its heart, purely a system of punishment. Its only task is to determine criminality, not whether things like drug use or prostitution are ethical/moral goods or bads.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
many Christian leaning libertarian's would rather take the viewpoint that the child is the rightful owner of his/her body.
E. R. Olovetto:You are now falling into Spideynw's fallacious line of thinking which is patently incompatible with libertarianism. Please just have some patience with me and I will give a comprehensive response to all of these complaints.
What line of thinking are you referring to? If you have nothing specific, I would appreciate it if you would not post straw men.
Juan:many Christian leaning libertarian's would rather take the viewpoint that the child is the rightful owner of his/her body. Funny. I would have thought that any libertarian leaning & sensible person would realize that children are no different from adults when it comes to non-aggression. I don't see how christianity enters the picture.
You must either not be a parent or you are never around children. I use aggression on my daughter all the time. I had to carry her screaming and kicking from the zoo just the other day. I would never do that to an adult. Sometimes, I have to force her into the bathtub to give her a bath and make her stay in it, even though she is screaming at me. Sometimes I take things from her, that I think are too dangerous for her to carry around, and she throws a fit. As I see it, she is my daughter, not yours, and I would like to see you try to do anything about how I raise her.
And in a stateless society, there would be no one, except for yourself, to enforce your dictates on me. Which is why I ask you, what are you going to do about it?
E. R. Olovetto:Please just have some patience with me and I will give a comprehensive response to all of these complaints.
NP. No rush my friend.
filc: In your example an arbitrator could be nothing more then an angry mob who believes in witches and therefore found a fallacious way to justify the burning down of the witches home. What gives the arbitrator the ethical justification for practicing coercion against someone's property, especially someone who chose not to support that specific arbitrator? Your method involves violating property rights. Mine involves voluntaryism. I think this is kind of what Spidey is getting at. What right do you have to initiate force against someone who did not directly initiate force against you. The only thing that person really has done at this point is offended you. You cannot justify initiation of force on behalf of another without their explicit consent, as that fallacy is the fundamental defense for american imperialism.
My method is not an initiation of force. If a child is young enough to not be a self-owner, someone else must own his body. If a parent is molesting it, that means the parent is not the owner of it (according to Kinsella's definition of what it means to homestead a child). The child is unowned, so the act of taking the child from his parent is not stealing the parent's property. It is claiming an unowned resource.
filc:Furthermore, if an arbitrator makes a bad decision and ultimately runs out of business, the damage they cause may be permanent.
Maybe. But then this could happen in any system. The only question is - should it be a monopoly (monocentric law) or competitive (polycentric law)? Government arbitrators make bad decisions all the time - and continue operating!!!
filc:Also, since your method involves violence and we know that the individual involved is a known criminal he is more likely to use drastic measures of defense to protect his property. You may be signing up your local PDA for a suicide attempt to seize this mans property.
This is why I would call a professional organization to take the child, and not take it myself. The local PDA (or charity) will be trained for this sort of thing, and will only act if they are positive that they can prove the child is being mistreated.
filc:I have read Stephen's article a while ago and while I agree with much of what he generally says. He still faces the problem that the theory he advocates is still opinion based and that many Christian leaning libertarian's would rather take the viewpoint that the child is the rightful owner of his/her body. The parent is only a caretaker. The parent can choose to voluntarily stop being the caretaker. Adoption services are available specifically for that reason.
It's an understandable viewpoint, but the fact is a baby does not truly own it's body. To homestead means to "bring into productive use". Since a baby cannot look after itself in any sense, it cannot be said that the baby has homesteaded it's body yet. Childhood can be seen as a gradual transfer of ownership of the body from the parent to the child, as the child's will asserts itself.
Adoption services would probably play a much bigger role in a free society, because adoption agencies would no longer have to suffer price controls and government regulations.
If by society you mean the individuals in society, yes that's true. But then its true of any society. Again, the question is - should we have a monopoly on law (where one individual or group dictates what's morally right and wrong), or competitive law (where all individuals have a say in deciding what's right and wrong)?
filc:Another clear example of this problem is old adults. What happens to adults who have clearly taken ownership of themselves but later on become mentally incapacitated? What happens when they get old and get dementia? Your argument brings up the ability to homestead that person as they are not fit for owning their own persons. My argument would be to act as a caretaker of that property, but not take the property for my own.
A mentally incapacitated person's body could be homesteaded. If that person recovers, they can reclaim their body the same way a child claims its body.
filc:The point is you will have differences of opinion even in a libertarian society. My biggest argument however is that two wrongs don't make a right and violating the criminals property rights makes you only different then him to a degree.
Then you are a pacifist?
Juan:Your problem Spidey.
What does that mean? What is my problem?
Truth and Liberty:The child is unowned, so the act of taking the child from his parent is not stealing the parent's property. It is claiming an unowned resource.
Really? Let's see you try to take someone's child away from them. And then let's see what society says about the parent shooting you in the head and taking him or her back.
Truth and Liberty:This is why I would call a professional organization to take the child, and not take it myself.
And this is why I would call another professional organization to protect me from your professional organization. Oh wait, what organization would be stupid enough to try to enforce the dictates of someone on someone else? None.
Truth and Liberty:Adoption services would probably play a much bigger role in a free society, because adoption agencies would no longer have to suffer price controls and government regulations.
Probably. But abortion and child molestation would still occur as well.
@ Truth and Liberty
I'm going to ignore the points where you use opinion as fact and focus on the actual topic of the post.
Your arguing against a monopoly but forget the very key factor whch allows that monopoly to exist in the first place. The use of coersion. Without the allowed use of coercion the so-called monopoly would break and competitors would move in. Your system however introduces coercion back into the system. You either did not read my post earlier about the angry mob or diliberately chose to ignore it. As such I will repeat myself.
In effect you have fabricated a system which advocates mob rule. A group of individuals could arbitrarily decide that it dislikes the way their neighbor uses their land and feels that they could make more productive use of it. They believe that it's justified to violate their neighbors private property rights simply based on an opinion that it was not homesteaded to their standards. Of coarse to the landowners opinion he has things exactly as he wants it. They could then hire a PDA to seize that land and basically steal it from the original owner. In other words simply because it was of their opinion that he did not adequately homestead his land he looses it to the masses.
You have effectively described an aged old witch hunt. Where a mob of individuals believes one of the village citizen's are a witch and they proceed to that persons house to kill them and burn their house down. This line of thinking also falls back to the majority rules fallacy. A system of beliefs that practices coercion simply based on opinion is exactly the system we have today. It is not enough to simply be of the opinion that a neighbor is ill-treating his property. He must be brought to justice without violating his own property rights. Any other method is simple hypocrisy and lays the foundational framework for a new phsuedo-government where citizen's wish to enforce their beliefs via coercion on others.
On a side note, What happens when you break into that mans house and find out that the child is in fact not a child at all, but that she is a midget who is married to that man who also particularly likes kinky loud sex? The man ofcoarse liked midgets? The whole thing ends up being one big miscommunication. Lets say the man is scared and ends up shooting 3 of your PDA's officers as they break in to seize the supposed child before being shot himself by remainding officers. In the wife's grief what course of action could she take to seek justice against such an intrusion? It's obvious that their rights have clearly been violated.
When I said two wrongs don't make a right, I was correct. You cannot protect private property rights by violating private property rights.
Truth and Liberty: filc:The point is you will have differences of opinion even in a libertarian society. My biggest argument however is that two wrongs don't make a right and violating the criminals property rights makes you only different then him to a degree. Then you are a pacifist?
I have posted twice now two separate examples of a system which doesn't actively break the private property rights of the known criminal. Neither of them are pacifistic. I'll quote myself incase you missed it.
filc:Publicly scrutinize my neighbor and develop peer pressure to have him stop. Maybe even have it so bad that the person gives the child up again. Stores could actively decide not to sell to that person untill the behavior changed or the child was removed. I'm sure there are plenty of free market solutions that could bring the situation to a screaching hault without violating property rights.
filc: One could speculate that a community that subscribes to a certain private court may take the following scenario as action. The court would judge that the individual is guilty based on obvious standards, beyond a shadow of a doubt blah blah blah ect(Lets say someone took pictures and submitted it).... Then the court would mandate that he would be in effect be excommunicated from the community. From here there are several options. He would be marked as a known community criminal. Having a jail would may be completely un-necessary. The community who subscribes to X PDA services and Y Court Justice services who is also partnered with X PDA will have a set of standards required of subscribers. A store owner for example wanting to remain in compliance with their PDA and court contractors may be required to no longer sell goods or participate in any exchanges with the known criminal. The community as a whole will do this effectively removing that man from any community involvement, primarily trade. The man will face the following options. Commit further criminal crimes, which will ultimately get him killed or arrested. (Like stealing for food) move out of his home to another location at which case the community no longer has to deal with him Or make it up to the community in some fashion. The judge may state that for starters the man must give up his child to foster care or whatever institution. Perhaps he will be required to sell his home, maybe he's not fit to be a responsible homeowner. We could only guess as to what methods could be used but there are many I am sure. Notice that this criminal is effectively dealt with without ever violating his property in the first place. The only real bad side to this is if he chooses to starve the child. I think this would be highly unlikely though. Remember that all the utility companies will likely shut off their services to him in order to be in compliance with the PDA and court system. If they do not community members may opt out of their service for collaborating with a known criminal. It would be bad for business. Either way I think the whole violent situation could be handled without violating the culprits property rights amazingly enough.
Juan:Libertarianism is, at its heart, purely a system of punishment. Its only task is to determine criminality, not whether things like drug use or prostitution are ethical/moral goods or bads. And how is libertarian philosophy going to determine what actions *should* be 'punished' ? You know, a legal system deals with something called justice. Once you remove ethics/morality from the equation, how do you know what is just ? Not to mention that a libertarian legal system doesn't even deal with punishment, but with restitution.
I am not removing justice from the equation. I am defining the language for the purpose of discussion. It is possible that I don't fully understand the proper use of the words "morals" and "ethics" at times, but it is clear that their use causes errors around here quite often.
I don't believe that drug use or prostitution are criminal acts. That is a clear statement, and so is that I believe drug use or prostitution to be immoral or ethically wrong. Libertarianism leads to the clear conclusion that drug use or prostitution themselves are not punishable offenses, yet has nothing to say about their morality or ethical rightness or wrongness. Capiche?
Your last statement is incorrect, but I am sorry that I will not elaborate much because it is off topic. Plauche and Rothbard (I believe this is their positions) agree with you. Kinsella explained the primacy of punishment over restitution in a thread on here about 6 months back, and it would be nice if someone dug it out. Of course the preference for restitution over punishment is well founded. It is one reason why there is an impetus for both the victim and the criminal to agree on a venue for arbitration.
BTW, I agree that christianity, atheism, whatever religion are entirely irrelevant.
Spideynw:What line of thinking are you referring to? If you have nothing specific, I would appreciate it if you would not post straw men.
I am referring to your return to the contention that "children have no rights." In another thread you backed away from this partially, but we will eventually lay it to rest here. I understand where you are confused and the theory can get a bit complicated. Let's keep the focus on pre-rational infants and toddlers for now. I agree with Truth and Liberty's last post almost fully, but still need more time to catch up with previous ones.
Again, 'guardianship' is, in my opinion, an acceptable term for the subset of 'ownership' referring to a parent-child relationship. Hospital-invalid relationships would fall under 'guardianship' as well, but have different guidelines. Infants are not golf balls or blow-up dolls. These inanimate objects are not potential moral agents. Inanimate objects are traditionally referred to as 'real property', or res. The differences in the nature of individual types of res guide us in determining what we will call generally 'ownership'.
Simply ask yourself, "Does this action of a parent aid a child in becoming a moral agent?" Quite clearly, feeding a child would and raping one would not. Libertarianism has no opinion on whether you feed the child peas or carrots, teach them English or Spanish, or raise them as Jews or Jesuits.