banned:Replace parents with government and children with people.
I explicitly addressed this and I don't see the justification in doing so.
banned:Government is only illigitimate because it is not voluntary. If a parent child relationship is not voluntary, yet the child is prohibited in terminating it based on some preconcieved notion of morality, that is just as illigitimate.
Actually, I've argued elsewhere that the state is illegimate for more reasons than just that it is not voluntary.
The rest of the above-quoted argument assumes that children ought to have the same legal status as adults. It hasn't been established that they should.
banned:Once a child can challenge the authority of their parents the parent can no longer impose decisions upon the child coercively (that is, non voluntarily).
When do you consider children who acquire this ability? Two year olds can challenge their parents' authority. You've heard of the terrible two's, I take it? Many children go through a 'no' stage. Does this constitute challenging their authority? If not, how is it that our views differ? And what do you mean by 'coercively imposing decisions upon the child' exactly? Adding non-voluntarily in parentheses doesn't really help to clarify the matter because we're not talking about competent adults here. Could you give a few examples of what you would consider coercive and what you wouldn't? It's not clear to me we wouldn't object to the same things.
banned:It is not within a parents right to force an exceptionally developed two year old who has the self determination to become a prostitute not to do so.
Whoa...okay. I should have finished reading before writing my previous comments. I can't get on board with this and I don't see how it is unlibertarian to object to it. How can a two year old possibly be developed enough to make a legally competent decision to enter into prostitution? Not to mention how can any two year old be physically developed enough?
banned:However the parent does have the right to sanction the childs use of the parents property, that is the only just way of dicipline, otherwise the parent has essentially violated the non-agression principle.
But if their two year old throws a temper tantrum and runs off down the street, the parents don't have a right to go get him and return him to their house? This would constitute aggression in your view?
But if children don't have the same legal status as adults, if they are self-owners, i.e., have rights, but don't legally have full exercise of their rights, because the parents have a temporary and limited right to exercise their rights on their behalf for the purpose of educating them to be competent adults, then it wouldn't necessarily be aggression.
Paternalism, btw, is by definition treating adults as if they were children.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
banned: gplauche: The purpose is to educate them to be competent adults. Parents are like custodians or trustees. That's how the american school system justifies itself. "Dont worry, we're teaching our youth to be healthy yound individuals". Hah.
gplauche: The purpose is to educate them to be competent adults. Parents are like custodians or trustees.
The purpose is to educate them to be competent adults. Parents are like custodians or trustees.
That's how the american school system justifies itself. "Dont worry, we're teaching our youth to be healthy yound individuals". Hah.
What? You're seriously equating parenthood with state-run schools? Give me a break. The state public education system violates the rights of the parents (and the children by proxy) by not allowing free competition in education, by taxing them to pay for publice edcuation, etc.
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."
Geoffery, are you as appalled as I am right now?
Juan:The way parents 'educate' their children is not that different from the way public schools do. I would suggest the majority of parents are rather happy with public schooling. I would also suggest that the family is a conservative institution, not a libertarian one.
There is something to be said about what Stefan Molyneux calls "the cult of the family" and the general idea that familial tyranny or abuse plants the seeds for more large-scale manifestations of authoritarianism such as the state or that people's ideological support for the state stems from their emotional attachment to their parents and unchosen positive obligations to their parents or family members, driven by feelings of fear and guilt. There most certainly can be some very authoritarian aspects to families. And I agree with the proposition that it is irrational to think that one has unchosen positive obligations to other people merely because they are related to you. But I would not go so far as to consider all families inherently abusive or overtly tyrannical. They vary. The criticism of the family goes too far when it becomes a sort of Fruedian obcession that attributes literally all human problems to the familial or the sexual, one's childhood experiences and emotional attachment to their parents. That's rather fatalistic.
Donny with an A: Geoffery, are you as appalled as I am right now?
Yes. The idea that children should have the same legal status as adults is not a standard one in libertarianism, left or right, to my knowledge. Nor is the family a conservative and unlibertarian institution. It can be, but it need not be. I'm certainly not advocating abusing children and it would be irresponsible to interpret me as doing so without unequivocal evidence.
gplauche: banned:Government is only illigitimate because it is not voluntary. If a parent child relationship is not voluntary, yet the child is prohibited in terminating it based on some preconcieved notion of morality, that is just as illigitimate. Actually, I've argued elsewhere that the state is illegimate for more reasons than just that it is not voluntary.
Government is not the state. I dont see how it could possibly be illigitimate to allow someone else to decide things for you, and only you. Perhapse you explain why in that essay, I don't have time to read it tonight though.
I reject the theory of children, then. There is no reason age should be a peramiter for the establishment of class.
When do you consider children who acquire this ability? Two year olds can challenge their parents' authority. You've heard of the terrible two's, I take it? Many children go through a 'no' stage. Does this constitute challenging their authority? If not, how is it that our views differ?
If my future child has enough volition to abandon my authority and persue their own ambitions, reguardless of age, It would be unjust of me to stop them. I think a two year old would get a better lesson by spending a night on the street than having me spank them anyways.
And what do you mean by 'coercively imposing decisions upon the child' exactly? Adding non-voluntarily in parentheses doesn't really help to clarify the matter because we're not talking about competent adults here. Could you give a few examples of what you would consider coercive and what you wouldn't? It's not clear to me we wouldn't object to the same things.
I would say that "coercively" would be to impose a force (such as spanking) as a consequence but not allow the child the decision to avoid that retaliatory measure by leaving your home.
I dont see how one's bodily (be it physical or mental) developement entails rights or justifies the ability to practice ones rights.
Yes. If it were me I would simply attempt to protect them as best I could. When I was little there were several occasions that I was determined to run away. I lasted about a block. I think most of the time children dont mean much by their determination for independance.
If the child was forced into the situation, then, yes. I could say I'm teaching my child to be tough by beating them each night, If I restrict their ability to leave, I am practicing an illigitimate parentage.
Where would you draw a distinction between the two?
gplauche: What? You're seriously equating parenthood with state-run schools? Give me a break. The state public education system violates the rights of the parents (and the children by proxy) by not allowing free competition in education, by taxing them to pay for publice edcuation, etc.
Should, then, a child have the ability to shop for parents? Suppose I run an organization that offers room and board to children who will come work for me, and the environment my business provides is less restrictive than a particular childs home. Through libertarian ethics it follows that you do not impose the monopoly of a family upon the child, and allow the child to persue a better condition than the parent has provided. Else, their rights are violated just as a parents options in schooling are in the advent of a state run system.
qplauche: The idea that children should have the same legal status as adults is not a standard one in libertarianism
For humor purposes: but what about the children?
*declares public ownership of the means of reproduction*
So what do you do? To be honest, I don't know what the right answer is. I don't think it's obvious that we should be allowed to restrain the drunk indefinitely, but I also don't think it's obvious that we should be morally obligated to let them go kill themselves.
Wouldn't the correct response be to compensate them ex post if they think that the action harmed them?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
majevska: This topic is so difficult... I remain undecided on a lot of issues regarding childrens' natural rights. I agree with things like children being able to run away and choose alternative guardians but I'm not so sure about the 2 year old prostitute scenario. A question for Juan and Banned: do you agree with Benjamin Tucker that until a child is able to assert his rights he is the property of his mother; and thus a mother who throws her child into a fire is not an aggressor, but is merely exercising just control over her property?
This topic is so difficult... I remain undecided on a lot of issues regarding childrens' natural rights. I agree with things like children being able to run away and choose alternative guardians but I'm not so sure about the 2 year old prostitute scenario. A question for Juan and Banned: do you agree with Benjamin Tucker that until a child is able to assert his rights he is the property of his mother; and thus a mother who throws her child into a fire is not an aggressor, but is merely exercising just control over her property?
I'd go so far as to say that an individual owns themselves at conception, although that's my personal faith and morality speaking in defining the being created at conception as an individual. As far as a new born is conserned, until it is capable of will against the actions its parent takes in preserving its life, it has no say in how it is provided for, and as long as its physicality isn't damaged, there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm inclined to agree with Geoffrey and Danny on this. A child has barely developed its rational faculty - how on Earth is it supposed to make important decisions such as these before it reaches adulthood? And if one attempts the reductio ad absurdum, that some adults are like children (mentally debilitated ones, perhaps), then I'd say the logic applies to them too if in fact their rational faculty is sufficiently impaired such that it is analogous to that of a child.
Jon Irenicus: I'm inclined to agree with Geoffrey and Danny on this. A child has barely developed its rational faculty - how on Earth is it supposed to make important decisions such as these before it reaches adulthood? And if one attempts the reductio ad absurdum, that some adults are like children (mentally debilitated ones, perhaps), then I'd say the logic applies to them too if in fact their rational faculty is sufficiently impaired such that it is analogous to that of a child. -Jon
With regards to adults, I'd agree provided by "rational faulty being sufficiently impaired" you mean a biological/genetic defect like severe mental retardation rather than just being uneducated or making poor decisions.
Juan: qplauche: The idea that children should have the same legal status as adults is not a standard one in libertarianism The idea that children are self-owners and have individual rights, like adults, shouldn't be controversial.
It's not and I believe I explicitly stated that children are self-owners, i.e., possess individual rights (although I tend to favor around 6 months in the womb as the point in which they acquire this status because that is around the time at which, if I am not mistaken, the biological basis for their rational capacity fully develops: the cerebral cortex). So pointing out that children have rights doesn't address the point that it is not a standard view in libertarianism that children should have the same legal status as adults. The parent-adult relationship is quite clearly different than that of adult-adult relationships. For many years the rational capacity of children is diminished (in relation to its potential); it takes time to develop. And I'm here distinguishing the capacity from how well one uses what capacity one has. It is the former that is relevant here. If you base rights on the latter, then you would indeed be opening a door to state paternalism, but I'm not suggesting that we should.
banned:Government is not the state. I dont see how it could possibly be illigitimate to allow someone else to decide things for you, and only you. Perhapse you explain why in that essay, I don't have time to read it tonight though.
So you're making the Nockian distinction between voluntary government and the state? Okay.
The argument hinges upon the right to liberty being inalienable, so such things as slavery contracts and state "contracts" that involve granting or delegating to another a right of arbitrary dominion over yourself are illegitimate because such a right is not in your power to give. See pages 30-33 in particular for the full argument. Also, see Roderick Long's "Slavery Contracts and Inalienable Rights," which is where I got the idea; my argument generalizes his about slavery to the state.
banned:If my future child has enough volition to abandon my authority and persue their own ambitions, reguardless of age, It would be unjust of me to stop them. I think a two year old would get a better lesson by spending a night on the street than having me spank them anyways.
I would call that irresponsible parenting, because it is very likely that your two-year-old will wind up dead, kidnapped, permanently maimed, or worse before winding up dead. But you'll note that I have not advocated spanking as a primary means of "educating" one's children.
banned:Yes. If it were me I would simply attempt to protect them as best I could. When I was little there were several occasions that I was determined to run away. I lasted about a block. I think most of the time children dont mean much by their determination for independance.
This doesn't mean that children will always last only about a block before coming home. I wouldn't rely upon this to mitigate the dangers of treating children as adults.
banned:If the child was forced into the situation, then, yes. I could say I'm teaching my child to be tough by beating them each night, If I restrict their ability to leave, I am practicing an illigitimate parentage.
And when did I suggest beating children each night to "toughen them up"?
banned: Where would you draw a distinction between the two?
Did you read Roderick Long's blogpost? There is no hard and fast, universal, a priori line that one can draw, but he offers some quite reasonable thoughts on the matter.
banned: Donny with an A:I didn't say is flawed. I only meant that I don't think children make the best decisions, and it often might be morally permissible for their parents to stop them from doing as they please. I'd be uncomfortable with a philosophy which claimed that it would always be morally impermissible for parents to stop their children from having sex, no matter the circumstances, if their children wanted to. Your argument logically leads to government paternalism. Parents have no right in restricting a childs use of their physicality beyond the parents denying them the use of their own property, that is, unless a contract is drawn up outlining conditions of conduct for the child and the reprecussions of failing to meet said conditions are clearly stipulated.
Donny with an A:I didn't say is flawed. I only meant that I don't think children make the best decisions, and it often might be morally permissible for their parents to stop them from doing as they please. I'd be uncomfortable with a philosophy which claimed that it would always be morally impermissible for parents to stop their children from having sex, no matter the circumstances, if their children wanted to.
Your argument logically leads to government paternalism. Parents have no right in restricting a childs use of their physicality beyond the parents denying them the use of their own property, that is, unless a contract is drawn up outlining conditions of conduct for the child and the reprecussions of failing to meet said conditions are clearly stipulated.
Out of curiosity, can we get a show of hands from anyone who actually has kids? It profoundly affects one's perspective.
As parents go, I'd say my wife and I are much more willing to negotiate, explain, etc., than the average American parent. But the simple fact is that we also impose our will on our son when we deem it necessary. As gplauche puts it, we see ourselves as "custodians" of his welfare--but there's no human authority above us rightly entitled to dictate the boundaries of that custodianship. At the same time we provide room and board, and the relationship has contractual aspects: you'll do such and such while you live under our roof and eat our food. But it isn't truly contractual, because he didn't consent to be born into this family.
In some sense kids can tell the difference between reasonable and unreasonable parents, but they have no power to do anything about the latter, so instead they typically respond by developing mental problems that afflict them the rest of their lives. Acting within "reasonable" limits in a sense that's understood by both parent and child is almost nonaggression--but not really, because of course the sense of reasonableness itself is under considerable parental influence.
It's all "almost." The relationship is almost voluntary, almost contractual, almost non-coercive. And if some adult tried to tell me that my son is a free agent, and that's why he's prodding the boy's privates, I can assure you I will blow his head off--and it'll almost be defensive force, to the same extent that the molestation was perceived by the child as non-consensual. If I catch him playing doctor with the neighbor kids, I'll blister his ass. But afterward, I'll be happy to discourse theoretically about it at length on a forum such as this one.
--Len.
Len, I think you (as a real parent) have summed up what I (as a hypothetical future one) could not have said nearly as well.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Len: And if some adult tried to tell me that my son is a free agent, and that's why he's prodding the boy's privates, I can assure you I will blow his head off
To Geoffrey: yes, that. It might be something like Alzheimer's or senility or something to that effect.
Len,
Well said. My wife and I don't have kids yet, but we plan to fairly soon (just as soon as I graduate and get a job) so I've been thinking about these issues more of late.
I am the oldest of my parent's six kids though, and the oldest of my maternal grandmother's 15 grandchildren, and my brother-in-law has two kids age two and under.
Juan: Len: And if some adult tried to tell me that my son is a free agent, and that's why he's prodding the boy's privates, I can assure you I will blow his head off As I said, people can't really face what libertarianism means. I imagine that if you were living in a free society and would murder somebody in the way you described, you wouldn't do very well afterwards.
That depends on what libertarianism means, and clearly there is disagreement here over what libertarianism means with regards to this issue.
You've made several responses like this that completely lack any substantive argument. I think your view is at best a minority one, probably not held by any actual parents, just like the children-as-property view is at best a minority one. Both are extremes on either side of the proper mean.
Are you suggesting that in a free society, pedophiles will be welcomed? If so, I'm willing to state my case that I killed a rapist caught in the act, against your heirs' case that you were an innocent man canoodling with your eight-year-old boyfriend, and let the chips fall as they may.
gplauche: You've made several responses like this that completely lack any substantive argument.
I think your view is at best a minority one...
...just like the children-as-property view is at best a minority one. Both are extremes on either side of the proper mean."
Juan:So, there's a double standard and circular reasoning here. First, it's OK to dictate what children should do because they are supposedly not as clever as adults. However, the fact that such an idea is the basis for government is conveniently overlooked (although some people like to talk about 'natural elites'...) If children can be controlled because they are not clever enough, that must be necesarily true about adults ? Or else can we use logic when we feel like ? The circular part is : Why do adults have 'full rights' ? Because they are reasonable. How do you know they are reasonable ? Well, because they are adults. And so another conveniently overlooked fact is that adults do stupid things all the time, things wich have way worse consequences than the consequences that could follow if children's rights were respected.
This is all confused and overlooks important distinctions I've laid out a couple times already. Moreover, no one is suggesting that children's rights not be respected.
Juan: Like murdering people just like Len has just suggested and Geoffrey apparently approved.
Why is it that people feel the need to engage in such dirty argumentative tactics? First, murder is unjustified killing. I'll grant that killing a child molester may be going overboard. (It might not be depending on the context.) It is probably better to stop the rights-violation he is engaged in, restrain him, arrest him, and take him to court over it, where he will probably be forced to pay restitution and may be ostracized from society (or even castrated or executed if he poses a serious enough ongoing threat).
gplauche: Juan: Like murdering people just like Len has just suggested and Geoffrey apparently approved. Why is it that people feel the need to engage in such dirty argumentative tactics?
Juan: gplauche: You've made several responses like this that completely lack any substantive argument. Your opinion.
It's not just an opinion. It's fact. Simply stating repeatedly that people don't like where libertarianism leads is not a substantive argument. The question remains what libertarianism is. You just assume your idea of libertarianism is correct.
Juan:Your opinion. I think your view is at best a minority one... So ? I loose the 'democratic' contest ? Truth is to be reached by 'consensus' perhaps ?
Sigh. No. But given that the bulk of libertarians, including the brilliant theorists, disagree with you, I'd say that puts the onus on you to provide a substantive argument for why your position is the correct one.
Juan: ...just like the children-as-property view is at best a minority one. Both are extremes on either side of the proper mean." Ah yes, that brilliant aristotelian argument. If you can't decide whether something is right or wrong, then it is both ?
This is just silly and I think a deliberate mischaracterization. Quite obivously we have decided that both extremes are wrong. We are not undecided. And the mean is not an amalgam of both but the proper position from which the extremes are deviations.
Juan: gplauche: Juan: Like murdering people just like Len has just suggested and Geoffrey apparently approved. Why is it that people feel the need to engage in such dirty argumentative tactics? Are you talking about yourself ? As a side note, it's interesting to note that puritans are willing to kill people who don't conform with their cultural preferences.
Oh...how cheeky. And you continue to do it.
How is that side note relevant?
gplauche: Sigh. No. But given that the bulk of libertarians, including the brilliant theorists
Juan: gplauche: Sigh. No. But given that the bulk of libertarians, including the brilliant theorists So, again, it must be true because the bulk of libertarians say so, and now a new fallacy - recourse to authority - it must be true because 'brilliant theorists' say so.
He's not making an appeal to authority; he's pointing out why your unsupported assertion carries little weight. All we know is that such-and-such is your opinion. But why does something merit consideration because you think it? Others, with a track record of offering views with merit, have their opinions, which differ from yours. Why should we pick yours over theirs? Since it would be folly to accept theirs on any basis but merit, one concludes that it's doubly so to accept your unsupported opinions.
Len Budney: Out of curiosity, can we get a show of hands from anyone who actually has kids? It profoundly affects one's perspective.
I have a six-year old son.
Len Budney:As parents go, I'd say my wife and I are much more willing to negotiate, explain, etc., than the average American parent. But the simple fact is that we also impose our will on our son when we deem it necessary.
Going further, it's also necessary to impose your will on your wife, at times. Not in a tyrannical sense, but in a pragmatic sense because there can be only one captain of a ship, and when the CO and XO disagree, the CO's will prevails. The family is a socialist structure where the father is the sovereign (though usually, for the sake of harmony, the father provides the veneer of democracy, and takes good account of the desires of the family when rendering decisions). Ideally he's a loving, sacrificing sovereign, but you can't legislate good parenting. To me, the father retains this position until the child shows a willingness and ability to live independently, as demonstrated by the act of leaving the father's home and establishing an independent life, even though this "independent life" might be the simple choice of a new sovereign ("sugar daddy"?). This would be something that happens rarely in the homes of loving parents, and more frequently in the homes of abusive parents, probably.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Juan:So children engaging in voluntary sexual activities is re-defined as 'molestation' - the rights of children who want to do so are not taken into account because allegedly children don't know what they are doing, and finally if the activities include 'adults', these adults are to be shoot at first sight as Len proposed. Whoa.
You're begging the question when you suggest that I'm "redefining" anything: sexual relationships between adults and children has been regarded as molestation for milennia. The general abhorrance of customs in ancient Greece or modern Kandahar underscore this point. Why would you falsely suggest that my view is something new and scary? Are you aiming for a defence of adult-child sexual relationships?
Meanwhile, there's no "at first sight" about it. My hypothetical example involved catching the perpetrator in flagrante delicto. If you'd come upon such a situation and beam, offer the man coffee, and ask how "you two love-birds first met," then I can only say I hope you aren't a parent.
Juan, why do you feel the need to misrepresent Geoffrey and Len? Their arguments strike me as perfectly reasonable.