I used to be an ardent, non-violent voluntarist, but gave it up largely because of the difficulty I had in reconciling the principles of anarchism and the duty to educate children.
As a teacher, I am constantly manipulating, threatening, and cajoling students to do what I want. Moreover, my authority often rests on the other forms of motivation coming from their families.
I hate it when teachers talk and behave as if students should listen to them simply because they happen to be "teachers", although I have certainly told a wise-ass or two in class that that was all the justification I needed to do whatever it was I was going to do. Not only does it just irritate the hell out of me, but it is positively counter-productive. I have always believed that a teacher has a responsibility to inspire the students as much as possible, but the space for that inspiration could never occur without some sort of coercion.
From my perspective, the vast majority of my students like and respect me and, more importantly, feel stronger and more confident in themselves after having taken my classes, in addition to having laid down the groundwork to be able to learn by, and think for, themselves. Since I live and work in an Asian country (which relies to a great degree on authority and a kind of scholasticism or, when feeling "progressive", on letting students run amok), most students, especially the relatively younger ones, appreciate this and respond to it enthusiastically. But, I do not kid myself into believing that the majority would not rather be at home playing whatever computer games they have. And even apart from that, I know, even if they don't, that I am deliberately pushing buttons like "shame", "pride", "humor", "fear", etc to get them where I think they need to be in terms of their attitude and focus.
I even use collective punishment and rewards on occasion, and used at the right time, even in the slightest degree, it can work wonders. Sometimes, it is the only idea I have left to get through to a student, and that's usually when it works best for some reason.
When my interest in voluntarism was most intense (about ten years ago), I used to write to Lew Rockwell and others to inquire about this kind of thing (among others), but never could get a decent answer, but now with the existence of forums, I wonder if somebody else hasn't solved this riddle.
It seems to me that in the world that we live in, one has a duty (moral, biological, whatever) to educate one's children and to use any number of means to coerce them towards that end--and I believe whether it is carrots or sticks, it is coercion. But, if children require coercion, why can't that be extended to adults, and if that is the case, doesn't it simply become a political or pragmatic question as to the combination, degree, and timing of inducements and punishments?
The only way I can see around my objections to anarchism on this point is to reject any kind of obligation to educate one's progeny, either because there is no such obligation on the part of the adult or because it is unnecessary for the child. Although I hate to argue from "realism", neither of those possibilities seems plausible to me. Some have argued that one gets one's "rights" upon becoming an adult, but that seems a rather arbitrary standard. What is it about adulthood that permits one these "rights"? How does one know what an "adult" is?
Parents! Parents have to make sure their kids get an education. There is no substitute for personal responsibility. As much as we wish that the state could simply provide a quick fix solution for whatever social problem we care about, it never works. I invite you to produce one example where the state has successfully provided a substitute for personal responsibility. The more the state takes over the responsibilities of adulthood, the more people stop being responsible. Go figure. A century ago people damn well made sure their kids get an education. Now we have huge segments of society that are barely involved in their childrens educational achievement.
It's not like there's too much education going on in state schools anyways. It mostly just locks kids up in their most curious years and keeps them from developing a natural interest in education. State schooling turns education into something that happens to you. The state can't force kids to learn, it simply forces them to show up and sit there because they have to. As soon as they are out of there they don't want anything to do with education for the rest of their lives. I think without forced education society would be vastly more educated.
The only way I can see around my objections to anarchism on this point is to reject any kind of obligation to educate one's progeny, either because there is no such obligation on the part of the adult...
This is what you need to focus on in my opinion. The only way one can believe in an obligation to educate children is if you are religious to some degree (this includes a metaphysical belief in right/wrong). Since I am sure we can all agree that religion can not logically be argued (just as Russell's teapot cannot be logically argued), then we can extend that to understand that you cannot logically argue any point that is founded on religious beliefs. There is no agnostic viewpoint that supports an obligation to educating children (or obligation to anything for that matter) and therefor it can't logically be argued.
It's evolutional obligation. Yes, parents are obligate to educate their children.. But then, what is "education"? oh crap.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
I think if one is coming out of the religious thicket, everything might appear at first to be freedom from obligation, but there are obligations, I think, of another order. I would think the question is not one so much of religious belief but of human nature. Certainly, you would concede that there is such a thing as that? The alternative would be that we would be entirely unable to communicate with each other. And, if humankind possess common elements that are, in some sense, prior to the individual--which is implied by the term, "human nature", I think--wouldn't that at least open the door to some sort of obligation to oneself?
Take the sex drive, for instance. Now, we are not in the habit of thinking of it as an obligation. In fact, because of the taboos surrounding sex imposed by thousands of years of civilization, we are more likely to think of obligation as constricting sexual activity in at least some respects. But, the desires for sex, society, food, power, comfort, and beer--I would throw in Beauty, too--are obligations of a kind.
To me, it seems highly likely that there is a drive to reproduction deep within humanity, as well, although I confess that I have trouble finding it in myself. If we lived in almost any other period of history, though, the need and desire for progeny would probably be very intense. It is only in our hyper-individualistic and affluent society that family appears to be a side dish rather than the main course.
Just because Moses didn't bring down the two tablets, doesn't mean that the universe is a tabula rasa. The difference is that we do not have a holy book spelling out our obligations for us, nor a description of what we win if we should fulfill them. But, Life certainly has obligations. And, beyond the immediate basic needs for survival, spreading and cultivating one's seed would seem like an equally fundamental drive.
I agree, humans have certain evolutionary desires (self preservation, reproduction, etc.). However, I do not think this means we are somehow "required" or "obliged" to follow them. Also, just because most of humanity has reproductive desires doesn't mean I have reproductive desires. The same goes for self preservation and any other desire. I do not believe that it is the right of anyone, or society as a whole, to tell me that my lack of reproductive desire is somehow "wrong". If they want to reproduce, let them. If I don't, let me. As long as my lack of reproduction doesn't directly infringe on someone else why is it a problem?
The same goes for educating your children. Some people have a desire for their children to be successful, these people educate their children. Other people do not have such a desire, I don't have a problem if they choose not to educate their children. To each their own and the superior route will win in the end. Perhaps not educating children has some evolutionary or economic advantage that you and I can't identify. Who am I to say that my way is better than their way absolutely.
Your letting people define voluntyrism for you, then pulling yourself out of agreement with that ideology. Not because you disagree with the ideology, but because you disagree with some influential person's explenation of representation of that ideology. Simply because those people's beliefs will not allow you to be a good teacher. Just stop doing that, There are plenty of discipline cranks who think children should run around with 0 direction. Just ignore them, they aren't teachers. You are.
What we mean by voluntaryism in the way of education is re-establishing the consumer / producer relationship in the education industry. Rather then the current state provided educational system. If people don't like the way you teach, and your too forceful, they will seek out other business's. It may be that the institution you work in necessarily creates environments harmful environments. There is no reason for you to be in disagreement with that.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AniIr_sIrRE
Herodotus - welcome to the forums!
You touch on two issues that I think it can be useful to seperate.
Firstly, how do children learn best? What can we do as adults to help children become educated? Are manipulating, threatening and cajoling effective means to educate children? This is purely an empirical question, which involves first of all defining education, and asking how can we discover effective means of educating children? What are we measuring here?
My own opinion on this subject is based on the work of John Holt, and its basically that the parental role is to guide and facilitate learning, but not use threats or manipulation, and also that it should be up to the child whether they go to school or not. Trust children to discover for themselves what they want to learn and what is the most effective means for learning it. Children learn best when they direct their own education.
Secondly, you ask about rights, childrens' rights, parents' rights and obligations, etc. I won't pretend this isn't still controversial in libertarian circles, but there have been recent developments, such as Walter Block's theory of abandonment, and Stephan Kinsella's work on how children gain self-ownership.
Finally, it seems odd to me that you abandoned voluntarism based on this theoretical difficulty that children represent. These problems of defining what an adult is, when a child becomes an adult, what level of coercion is necessary or justifiable, etc, are hardly unique to libertarianism. Children are a problem in statist philosophies, too. What makes you think the state can handle these controversial issues better than individuals and institutions in a voluntary society?
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Micah,
In theory, it might not matter what other people do with their children, but if you want to live in a state of anarchy, I don't see how you can ignore what they are doing. Libertarians generally tend towards a kind of natural law argument when defending their positions, but it is a highly evolved position. Otherwise, why don't we live in an anarchic paradise today? In fact, since there is no power, heavenly or otherwise, either generating the current social order or making moral demands on us, don't we already live in an anarchy? Statists don't take all the talk about consent and equality literally; one wonders why anarchists do!
filc,
I think you may have misunderstood my point above. I did not abandon voluntarism because of the answers other people gave me. I abandoned it because I could not reconcile it with myself. The question is not whether one is a statist or anti-statist, but rather what one's approach to coercion is. The state is just coercion with bells and whistles.
I have worked almost exclusively in private schools. There are more than a few students whose parents have told me that it is okay for me to hit their kids. Moreover, most parents, insofar as they have any clear conception of what they want, wish for me to educate their children by drilling them until they somehow magically learn what they need to learn. In other words, most parents and schools want me to use a degree of coercion that I simply cannot accept doing. I have quit or been fired from some schools precisely because I refuse to educate by fiat.
Trulib,
It is hard for me to accept the position that children can be educated without coercion of some kind. Or, if coercion is too strong a word, perhaps manipulation is better. But, you seem to think that children can be left to their own devices. I have simply never seen such an approach to child-rearing in reality, only in the abstract.
If you are running late for work and little Johnny declares that he does not wish to go to school today, you must either cave in or bribe him or threaten him in some fashion. Or, if I were a teacher of students whose parents operated by the same principles that you suggest, what if Johnny should decide to walk out of the classroom? If we were all goat-herders, it might not matter, but in the modern world, how can this be practicable?
In my opinion, voluntarists and anarchists are, like most teachers, oblivious to the degree to which they manipulate and coerce children. In fact, people in general are oblivious to this, because of the degree to which children are dependent on us and the degree to which they have been convinced, out of their own affection and out of some sense of obligation to others, of our authority and benevolence.
Finally, I certainly agree that there is no easy answer to the question of how one should raise and educate children, but insofar as it makes coercion inevitable, it seems to make voluntarism an impossible ideal. The family is merely the First State. Church, school, and city then flow from it. Moreover, I am not quite so sure that the choice is between statism and anti-statism. When I think of Nietzsche, I have a hard time making either a statist or anti-statist out of him. In different contexts, he appears to be one and then the other, if one insists on thinking of him in those terms. In the end, Nietzsche simply seems to be an individualist who, unlike anarchists, does not care to turn his individualism into a kind of universal, missionary creed. I find that anarchists, for all of their highly developed individualism, almost always think in terms of what others ought to be doing so that the anarchist can be finally "free", because anarchists generally do not have the will to make themselves free. The statist is oblivious to the hypocrisy of himself and his society when he talks about freedom and rights, etc, but the anarchist is oblivious only to his own inconsistency. That is progress, I suppose, but what then?
don't we already live in an anarchy?
Yes. We live in a state of anarchy and there is no way to avoid that. What I hope for though is a different state of anarchy defined as anarcho-capitalism.
What I (and I think other anarchists, libertarians, etc.) want is just to be allowed to lead our lives the way we best see fit without someone else coming in to tell us what to do, how to live, or what to do with our resources.
I also agree with your view of family as the first state but just as with a government, I think any individual in the family should have the right to not participate in that particular state if they so choose. If a 5 year old kid wants to leave his family, more power to him. Chances are he won't last long and will come back but it is my opinion that he should be allowed to do that. At the same time, I don't believe it is my place to try and force other families to live this way, just as I don't think it's my place to try and force people to live in an anarcho-capitalist society. Just as a person murdering someone else isn't my business, neither is a family forcing an unwanted education on their children.
Basically, I want to be able to interact with the rest of the world through trade, dialog, entertainment, education, employment, etc. but I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone and I don't want anyone to force their beliefs on me.
Sorry, this got a little off topic.
Somebody is confusing coercion with aggression.
OP, you have adopted a position on education which makes voluntaryism incompatible. Since voluntaryism is nothing more than non-aggressive social activity, perhaps it is your position on education which needs re-examination.
Liberty student,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that non-aggressive coercion could be acceptible in certain conditions from a voluntaristic viewpoint, and particularly with respect to children?
If my understanding of education is flawed, which I am certainly open to, I wish you'd give me a hint as to how. The argument that others are making, that children should simply be let free, is hard to swallow, and I would dare suggest that none of them would actually act on it, and for good reason, although it certainly allows them to claim the ground of doctrinal purity. Supposing that we have an evolutionary obligation to spread and cultivate our DNA, which we feel most basically in our sex drive but also in other evolved emotional mechanisms, etc, I find it hard to believe that anybody, on voluntarist grounds, would let their five year old run amok. And, if one is going to be absolutely pure, why not let toddlers get into whatever mischief they can find?
I have to say, I am a little surprised by your definition of voluntarism as "non-aggressive social activity", because I was always under the impression that it was "non-coercive activity". If the test is "aggression", that would seem to make the intention of the actor the critical factor rather than the action itself. And, that would seem to open the door to all sorts of activities, so long as it came from the goodness of somebody's heart. I would have thought voluntarists to be the last to subscribe to such a doctrine!
Moreover, if voluntarism is as you define it, then it doesn't seem that my position on education would be incompatible with voluntarism, so long as I educate in a non-aggressive manner.
Herodotus: When my interest in voluntarism was most intense (about ten years ago), I used to write to Lew Rockwell and others to inquire about this kind of thing (among others), but never could get a decent answer, but now with the existence of forums, I wonder if somebody else hasn't solved this riddle.
This is the answer:
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/blog/536/the-sudbury-files
Nielsio,
I watched a few of the Sudbury videos. From what I can gather, the school has reduced coercion and manipulation dramatically relative to other schools, but as one of the students noted, there are 150 rules that they are supposed to be familiar with. Also, they are required to be there at least five hours a day, and as another student noted, he would rather not have to go at all.
Beyond that, and this is more of a merely personal reaction than anything else, I suppose, I see a bunch of spoiled (mostly white) American kids, oblivious to the realities of the world. I see kids being prepared to live in a pre-packaged, safe, affluent social democracy. I am sure that the one kid who likes to wear his Superman pyjamas to school is much happier going to a school that does not judge him, but is that it? So, he goes about cultivating his eccentricities--which as an avid eccentric myself, I am sympathetic with--but is this someone who will become a man, assuming that that is a value worth pursuing? He said that he was more confident in himself, but it seemed that he was only less self-conscious, which I am not sure is quite the same thing. What has he, or the other students, acquired in terms of courage, determination, and judgement?
Herodotus:It is hard for me to accept the position that children can be educated without coercion of some kind. Or, if coercion is too strong a word, perhaps manipulation is better. But, you seem to think that children can be left to their own devices. I have simply never seen such an approach to child-rearing in reality, only in the abstract.
I understand your skepticism about the approach. Part of the problem is that the goal of 'educated children' is so hard to pin down. It is not like we can come up with a measure which will, once-and-for-all, confirm that one approach is better than another. All we really have to go on is our instincts, personal experiences, and anecdotes from other people.
In the unschooling literature, John Holt's books in particular, there are usually pages and pages of testimonies from unschooling parents and unschooled children, where they describe their experiences. The thing that I remember being most striking is reading about how, when children are directing their own education, they tend to delay learning to read longer than schooled children. I remember one anecdote where an unschooled child was unable to read until the age of 10. The parents were worried that maybe their methods were failing, that they were neglecting their parental responsibilities, and that they should force their child to go to school instead. But they stuck with it.
At age 10, all-of-a-sudden the child felt the need to know how to read, and so they taught themselves - within a very short space of time. Motivation is crucial, and motivation comes from within. If cheap tricks, rewards and punishments, are used, the child is not truly motivated to learn, and not truly learning, at least not learning as effectively as their potential allows them. It took less than a year for this child to catch up with their schooled peers, and by the time they were 12, their reading skills far surpassed the average 12-year-old. And most significantly of all, they LOVED books, and couldn't get enough of them. Because they had not been forced to read or learn, they enjoyed the processes, and carried on reading and learning well into adulthood. Schooled people tend to hate reading and see learning as a chore rather than a pleasure, because they have so many memories of struggling to read things they didn't want to read, and being forced to learn things they saw no point in learning.
This is not an isolated example. It is a common theme in the unschooling literature. Its certainly a point worth remembering. Maybe forcing children as young as 5 to start reading is not the best way to educate them, and does more harm than good in the long run.
Here is one vocal advocate of unschooling, describing her approach: Dayna Martin: What is Unschooling?
Herodotus: Nielsio, I watched a few of the Sudbury videos. From what I can gather, the school has reduced coercion and manipulation dramatically relative to other schools, but as one of the students noted, there are 150 rules that they are supposed to be familiar with. Also, they are required to be there at least five hours a day, and as another student noted, he would rather not have to go at all.
Those rules have to do with keeping the building and property in a good state and with respecting the other students. The rules do not impose any behavior in how they should spend their learning/play/produce time.
A rule in and of itself is not something authoritarian.
People can unschool/be free at another place besides an unschooling school, however it's the state enforcing the kids go to a school. Without the state there may not be a time restriction on hours, but people may still send (with agreement) their kids to a place like that, because it is great to be around other free, respectful and developing children and have space and materials available.
I suggest you watch the two 'The Lives of Alumni' videos in the link I gave.
Herodotus:If I understand you correctly, you are saying that non-aggressive coercion could be acceptible in certain conditions from a voluntaristic viewpoint, and particularly with respect to children?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Herodotus:If my understanding of education is flawed, which I am certainly open to, I wish you'd give me a hint as to how.
I alluded to it in my post. Pretty simple.
Herodotus:Supposing that we have an evolutionary obligation to spread and cultivate our DNA
Please tell me you don't believe in biological determinism.
Herodotus:I have to say, I am a little surprised by your definition of voluntarism as "non-aggressive social activity", because I was always under the impression that it was "non-coercive activity".
It's called the non-aggression principle, not the non-coercion principle.
Herodotus:I would have thought voluntarists to be the last to subscribe to such a doctrine!
It's not doctrine. Doctrines are products of the statist mind.
Herodotus:Moreover, if voluntarism is as you define it, then it doesn't seem that my position on education would be incompatible with voluntarism, so long as I educate in a non-aggressive manner.
Ta da!
liberty student: Herodotus:Moreover, if voluntarism is as you define it, then it doesn't seem that my position on education would be incompatible with voluntarism, so long as I educate in a non-aggressive manner. Ta da!
This is essentially what I was trying to explain earlier. Well done LS.
liberty student:I have no idea what you are talking about.
liberty student:I alluded to it in my post. Pretty simple.
liberty student:It's called the non-aggression principle, not the non-coercion principle.
liberty student: Herodotus:Moreover, if voluntarism is as you define it, then it doesn't seem that my position on education would be incompatible with voluntarism, so long as I educate in a non-aggressive manner.Ta da!
Do you believe threatening kids with detention, for example, is "aggressive coercion?" Also, do you hold that actually giving them detention for not behaving is "aggressive?" If the answer is "Yes, these are examples of aggression," can you tell me whether or not your position would change if we were talking about a "private school?"
'Do you believe threatening kids with detention, for example, is "aggressive coercion?" Also, do you hold that actually giving them detention for not behaving is "aggressive?" If the answer is "Yes, these are examples of aggression," can you tell me whether or not your position would change if we were talking about a "private school?"'
Actually I remember at my school, in order to be given detention, you actually had to sign something saying that you voluntarily consent. Of course I refused, so during one of my classes (fantastic, got to skip that one) they got me into a sort of interrogation session to try to convince me to sign the form. Of course I refused. They gave up.
ladyphoenix:Do you believe threatening kids with detention, for example, is "aggressive coercion?" Also, do you hold that actually giving them detention for not behaving is "aggressive?" If the answer is "Yes, these are examples of aggression," can you tell me whether or not your position would change if we were talking about a "private school?"
There is a broad range in discipline, that really should more acurately be called guidance. For example, you might coerce your child from placing their hand on a hot burning stove. The problem here is everytime someone mentions "coercion" they always just jump to the conclusion that we're referring to the worst possible situations. Coercion is a fairly broad term, and it's been poorly adopted in the community here at LvMI. There are plenty of incoherent anti-coersion coalitions here on the forums. People strawmanning themselves really as the issue has never been one of coercion, but of the initiation of violence, and aggression.
LS is correct in maintaining that the issue here is aggression, not necessarily an issue of guidance and degrees of coercion. I wouldn't pretend to know that "detention" is the best solution to those types of problems. In fact more often then not I am inclined to believe that detention is just a waste of time, but that doesn't mean anything. But that is really besides the point.
LS is going to respond to you that your getting off track. I shouldn't speak on his behalf either so I look forward to his response.
ladyphoenix: liberty student:I have no idea what you are talking about.Really? Perhaps I can be more direct. Is it or is it not acceptable, in the eyes of a "voluntarist" [Liberty Student, for example] to employ non-aggressive "coercion?" If "yes, but only under certain conditions," is one of those conditions "education [of children]?"
I understood all that, but I had no idea why any of it was relevant. Voluntaryists are for non-aggression. Nothing more, nothing less. Necessarily all exceptions are irrelevant.
ladyphoenix:Perhaps he doesn't quite get your "allusions."
He did in the end. People have to want to reason. When they are emotional, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, it is not possible to reach positions of reason except by accident.
ladyphoenix:So, your position is that "coercion" is acceptable, morally, so long as it's not employed aggressively?
My personal position is irrelevant. There is no position on coercion. The OP conflated it with aggression. It was a simple error, when clarified, made his issue less of a problem.
ladyphoenix:Do you believe threatening kids with detention, for example, is "aggressive coercion?"
Let's stop using the word coercion. Now everything makes sense with what I have already posted.
The answer is already in the questions people ask if they stop to think about what they are asking. You and the OP know the answers to these questions, the seed of knowledge is planted in the inquiry.
For example, you might coerce your child from placing their hand on a hot burning stove. The problem here is everytime someone mentions "coercion" they always just jump to the conclusion that we're referring to the worst possible situations. Coercion is a fairly broad term, and it's been poorly adopted in the community here at LvMI. There are plenty of incoherent anti-coersion coalitions here on the forums. People strawmanning themselves really as the issue has never been one of coercion, but of the initiation of violence, and aggression.
There are *many* who argue that government regulations are "for your own good". If you allow coercion in any form you are then required to draw a fuzzy line that can easily move with time. Let's say you physically prevent a child from touching a hot stove, this is coercive but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from crossing the street without you, this is coercive but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from leaving the house alone, this is coercive but your intentions are good. You physically restrain your child in the house so he doesn't accidentely hurt himself, this is coercive but your intentions are good.
As you can see with this simple example (it would be easy to add more steps inbetween if you feel the line isn't fuzzy) our intentions for all of these things are "good" in our example parent's mind. Regardless of whether they are good or not, the child ends up imprisoned which could easily be argued by someone else as "bad". There may even be people who believe that letting a child touch a hot stove is "good" for them since it teaches them a lesson.
The point is that you can't allow some types of coercion and not others without a fuzzy line separating them and fuzzy lines end up getting moved by governing bodies. In an ancap society this isn't as much of an issue as long as there is no over-arching governing body that you can't escape from and eventually the optimal solutions to these problems will come about (coercive or not).
@liberty student: If I am understanding you correctly, you believe in non-aggression, but not non-coercion. Assuming this is correct, how do you define "aggressive"? Is it entirely based on intent or is there something else more provable that you are using to define aggressive? Perhaps you feel there is a way to prove intent?
filc:There is a broad range in discipline, that really should more acurately be called guidance. For example, you might coerce your child from placing their hand on a hot burning stove. The problem here is everytime someone mentions "coercion" they always just jump to the conclusion that we're referring to the worst possible situations.
I want to know if LS and I are on the same track, so to speak.
Micah71381: If you allow coercion in any form you are then required to draw a fuzzy line that can easily move with time.
Your still conflating coercion, with initiation of force. Lets say someone walks into my home to rob me, am I not permited to use coercion to expell him from my property? This anti-coersion coalition needs to stop. The problem is aggression, and initiation of force(This is what breaks economic calculation, not coercion alone).
A very similar position to yours is arguing that all guns should be banned, because of a few unfortunate occassions. But all you do is create an avenue of opportunity for the criminally inclined. In the same way, of we build a coalition of anti-coercion, your just creating an avenue of opportunity for people to be taken advantage of.
Micah:The point is that you can't allow some types of coercion and not others without a fuzzy line separating them and fuzzy lines end up getting moved by governing bodies.
There is no fuzzy line, I've pointed out the discrepency you make a few times now. Coercion and initiaiton of force/aggression are two different things, having different effects on the state of affairs. If parents find that a school is being too forceful with it's discipline then they are ofcoarse free to explore other opportunities of the market. This ofcoarse assumes a free market. This isn't a complex problem so long as the market is allowed to operate.
ladyphoenix:I don't jump to this conclusion. I asked a very specific question because detention, in my opinion, is aggressive as it plays out in public schools. It is the keeping of a person in a place against his will ("confinement").
Did you agree to this type of discipline when you signed up to the school? If not then change education providers. Is the school forcing you against your will to continue with their services? Assuming a free market, where is the violation here?
Micah71381: Perhaps you feel there is a way to prove intent?
We cannot prove intent.
Micah71381:@liberty student: If I am understanding you correctly, you believe in non-aggression, but not non-coercion.
This is incorrect.
Aggression is the initiation of force.
filc:Did you agree to this type of discipline when you signed up to the school? If not then change education providers. Is the school forcing you against your will to continue with their services?
In a place devoid of compulsory attendence laws that are punishable by kidnapping and theft, or where everything about my life was controlled, absolutely, by the will of my parents... You're aboslutely right. :) That's not generally the situation people (school-aged children/teens) live in today, at least not in the US.
I may have missed it. Is the OP a teacher in a private school? I'll have to re-read and figure that out, I think.
ladyphoenix:I may have missed it. Is the OP a teacher in a private school? I'll have to re-read and figure that out, I think.
The OP States that he is unable to properly educate in a voluntaryistic environment. I assume that in that environment education is provided on the market.
LadyPheonix:The short answer is no, I agreed to nothing. My parents agreed to everything then (have long since graduated). My choices then would have been go to jail, subject my parents to jail, or continue going to an absusive school.
Why are those your only choices? TBH it sounds like your trying to construct a very isolated situation to justify a premise which involves all situations.
If you can represent yourself in court, you have options. You should be free to leave whatever arrangement you have with your parents, but don't expect a roof to sleep under and food to eat.
There are *many* who argue that government regulations are "for your own good". If you allow initiation of force in any form you are then required to draw a fuzzy line that can easily move with time. Let's say you physically prevent a child from touching a hot stove, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from crossing the street without you, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from leaving the house alone, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. You physically restrain your child in the house so he doesn't accidentely hurt himself, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. As you can see with this simple example (it would be easy to add more steps inbetween if you feel the line isn't fuzzy) our intentions for all of these things are "good" in our example parent's mind. Regardless of whether they are good or not, the child ends up imprisoned which could easily be argued by someone else as "bad". There may even be people who believe that letting a child touch a hot stove is "good" for them since it teaches them a lesson. The point is that you can't allow some types of initiation of force and not others without a fuzzy line separating them and fuzzy lines end up getting moved by governing bodies. In an ancap society this isn't as much of an issue as long as there is no over-arching governing body that you can't escape from and eventually the optimal solutions to these problems will come about (initiation of force or not).
There are *many* who argue that government regulations are "for your own good". If you allow initiation of force in any form you are then required to draw a fuzzy line that can easily move with time. Let's say you physically prevent a child from touching a hot stove, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from crossing the street without you, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. You also physically prevent your child from leaving the house alone, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good. You physically restrain your child in the house so he doesn't accidentely hurt himself, this is initiation of force but your intentions are good.
The point is that you can't allow some types of initiation of force and not others without a fuzzy line separating them and fuzzy lines end up getting moved by governing bodies. In an ancap society this isn't as much of an issue as long as there is no over-arching governing body that you can't escape from and eventually the optimal solutions to these problems will come about (initiation of force or not).
I have replaced all references to coercion in the above quote with initiation of force and I still think my claim holds true all the same. You can't allow some forms of initiation of force while disallowing others without drawing a fuzzy line.
Micah71381:I have replaced all references to coercion in the above quote with initiation of force and I still think my claim holds true all the same. You can't allow some forms of initiation of force while disallowing others without drawing a fuzzy line.
The market draws the line. I don't think it's productive to pretend that it's possible to purge the world of wrong-doing. Being a pacifist myself I believe that at best all I can do is discourage such behavior via market mechanisms.
Given that, I will say this. It seems like to me, that on a free market, there would generally be far more options available to children then there is today. As it currently stands we have state run programs like "Child Protection Agencies" and social services which do nothing more then abudct and kidnap children, usually against their will.
We are in agreement then. In a free market where children have the option of running away to another sub-market (should they choose) each sub-market then can do what they like and enforce whatever they like. Just as one sub-market may encourage initiation of force against adults "for their own good" this is fine as long as those adults can flee to another sub-market without such laws.
filc:Why are those your only choices? TBH it sounds like your trying to construct a very isolated situation to justify a premise which involves all situations.
filc:If you can represent yourself in court, you have options. You should be free to leave whatever arrangement you have with your parents, but don't expect a roof to sleep under and food to eat.
ladyphoenix:Again, you're speaking to ought as opposed to is. Tell me what "legal" child has the ability to represent himself in court? I haven't ever heard of such a thing happening. I certainly think that children (i.e. people under the age of 18) should be able to, but I don't know that it is the case that they are allowed to, currently.
It sounds like your asking me to use the present and past circumstances of state provided arbitration and education as an example to defend my case of private arbitration and private education?
I should be carful with my language as well because I don't think anything ought to be, or anyone ought to do. I just think that on a free-market certain conditions would transpire to better facilitate the situations you describe. This being consistent with the OP as a discussion in a voluntaryistic environment.
I can only speculate and theorize as to what types of business's would exist under the conditions of a voluntaryistic environment. It's up to the entrepreneurs to make it happen.
Beyond that I am somewhat confused as to what your trying to get out of me.
filc:Given that, I will say this. It seems like to me, that on a free market, there would generally be far more options available to children then there is today. As it currently stands we have state run programs like "Child Protection Agencies" and social services which do nothing more then abudct and kidnap children, usually against their will.
I think the problem is that people assume we have to have the same institutions, that there is only a handful of ways to raise or educate children, etc.
I suspect a peaceful paradigm will have all new institutions and cultural norms. Who is ready for this brave new world?
What about the circumstances in which parents would prefer to force their children to work for the family for income purposes than to pursue an education of any sorts? People here are often talking about 'the child making their own choice in education' but how often is this realistically the case? What would be the result of a society where the vast majority of people were uneducated and illiterate? Make no mistake: I am as opposed to authoritarian schooling as anyone else but I question the notion of education being entirely non-compulsory.
Cheers - ESF
EvilSocialistFellow:What about the circumstances in which parents would prefer to force their children to work for the family for income purposes than to pursue an education of any sorts? People here are often talking about 'the child making their own choice in education' but how often is this realistically the case? What would be the result of a society where the vast majority of people were uneducated and illiterate? Make no mistake: I am as opposed to authoritarian schooling as anyone else but I question the notion of education being entirely non-compulsory.
How many parents are really that crazy? It's a tiny minority. Most people want their kids to be educated. Sure, crazy zealots in their polygamist compounds exist, and their children suffer from it. But do you really think the overall influence of the state has been more positive than that of parents? You really think the state - the leading cause of unnatural death in the last century - can make a better decision about what information young people are to take in than their own parents? If most people are that messed up that they want their kids to be illiterate then there is no hope for humanity anyways. It is odd; the conventional wisdom is that the state has to protect children from their parents, I see parents as a way to protect children from the state.
EvilSocialistFellow:What would be the result of a society where the vast majority of people were uneducated and illiterate? Make no mistake: I am as opposed to authoritarian schooling as anyone else but I question the notion of education being entirely non-compulsory.
Comrade, why do you think people have no incentives to self-educate except for fear of force?
Compulsion doesn't make people smart. In fact, the opposite is proving to be true. The more compulsory school becomes, the less intelligent people seem to be.
EvilSocialistFellow:What about the circumstances in which parents would prefer to force their children to work for the family for income purposes than to pursue an education of any sorts
This is where the power of ostracization can play a strong roll in deterring household abuse and violence. It also seems likely to me that child advocacy organizations would form which offer asylum from abusive households.
Ofcoarse this becomes problamatic if the child is say 5, but what if another adult could speak on behalf of the child? If the adult can present a case that the child's life is at risk and this judgement is agreed with by whatever local magistrate or private court, then the offending family will have to deal with the consequences. Ostracization. Perhaps your insurance agency or security agency raises your rates or drops your protection all together. Perhaps the water company, sympathetic to children, has a no child abuse policy and decides to turn off your pipes. The possibilities extend as far as human compassion does.
What if the court gets too carried away in it's judgements and grows sloppy with it's rulings. Then parents, in fear of losing their children, will in-turn boycott the court. In other words the market creates strong incentives for all parties to cooperate peacefully.
Having said all of this, it's not clear that your opening premise is anything to be concerned with. The child might be quite pleased with earning a wage in the comfort of his/her own home. The solution to aggression however isn't more aggression(Public education).