In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
Therefore, government?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Q.E.D., Muffinburg
I'm not sure if that is what Brutus is getting at though.
This is scenario where property rights are ill-defined.
I imagine that one of a multitude of private courts or private police agencies would deal with the blatant child abuse. I'm not quite sure what point you're driving at here.
Do what I can to stop it, property rights be damned.
Michael J Green:Do what I can to stop it, property rights be damned.
And that ^^ is why we will never have a libertarian society. When push comes to shove, people want to abandon property rights as a method to preserve property rights, and it's all just a bunch of contradiction and ad hoc justification.
Perhaps it would be better to say, "interests of the particular property owner be damned." What constitutes "property rights" is not set in stone and, hopefully, does not condone any and all actions done by the property owner. I'm sure we all agree that there are exceptions as to what one may do on one's property using one's property, and I think beating children is one such exception (even if the child nominally consents to it). I was about to talk of these as if they were exceptions to property rights, but it would be more accurate to say they are embedded in the property rights of that society.
If I save a five year old from a bludgeoning, I don't expect any court to sanction me for trespassing. And if they do, I'm not sure I want to live in that society.
liberty student: Michael J Green:Do what I can to stop it, property rights be damned. And that ^^ is why we will never have a libertarian society. When push comes to shove, people want to abandon property rights as a method to preserve property rights, and it's all just a bunch of contradiction and ad hoc justification.
Personally, I would come to the aid of the five year-old in defending his or her property (self). Mr. Green seems to think property rights would need to be damned in order to act, which simply isn't the case. Defense against aggression is certainly no violation of rights.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler:Defense against aggression is certainly no violation of rights.
This. I have no idea why anyone would condemn someone who would take action to stop a man from beating a child "into a bloody pulp".
Pretty simple issue here. The child is being aggressed against. The person would be justified in defending the child.
This is the problem with objective property theories versus property as defined under customary law. The rigidity of even the strictest system of property rights is an illusion, as probably best illustrated in The Myth of the Rule of Law. While it is certainly true that systems of social order characterized by strong respect for property rights have been the most peaceful and prosperous, "absolute property rights" is a phantom.
Why anarchy fails
I think I agree, AJ. This is only an issue though if you consider a child "property" of the parents. It becomes sticky when you support a parent's right to raise a child as they please while they act as custodians. Although I think most libertarians agree that even if children (like of the age of 1 or 2) are not competent enough to make decisions, they are assumed to be entitled to some form of non-aggression.
John James:I have no idea why anyone would condemn someone who would take action to stop a man from beating a child "into a bloody pulp".
Because it's his son on (presumably) his property. Stopping him would require violating the man's property rights. Those who adhere to a strict conception of property rights must either respect the man's rights or, in LS's words, abandon property rights in order to save (the child's) property rights. I believe at least one person on the forum has argued the former.
Michael J Green:Because it's his son on (presumably) his property. Stopping him would require violating the man's property rights. Those who adhere to a strict conception of property rights must either respect the man's rights or, in LS's words, abandon property rights in order to save (the child's) property rights. I believe at least one person on the forum has argued the former.
Are you flipping serious? That's what Liberty Student was getting at? A child is property? And can therefore be beaten by his parent (who apparently "owns" him like he owns a book)? That has to be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my life. And coming from a NAP advocate? wtf
Whoa! Whoa, no. That is not what I meant at all, John. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I believe it is those who insist that all rights are property rights, the owner is the unequestioned authority on his property, etc, that run into problems (I suspect LS assumed I was such a person, making it inconsistent of me to damn property rights; from what he's been saying recently, I imagine LS agrees with AJ, as I do too). I assume most everyone agrees that it should be legal to stop the father from beating his child, but I'm not sure Rothbardians can do so consistently without a lot of gobbledegook.
Whew. I am glad I decided to check this thread one more time before getting some sleep.
Aristippus: I'm certainly not reading tracts by libertarians who condone such things, so I can't help you there. My point is mainly that the strict, Rothbardian conception of property rights has trouble with these problems. Libertarians who adhere to it must wiggle around these implications to get the outcome they prefer (no abused children). I do recall someone saying Rothbard ran into trouble with childrens' rights, coming to conclusions he or others found problematic, but I do not know when or what was written, so grain of salt and all that.
Try the following cases, where the age changes, on for size: What would you do if you walked by and saw a 40 year old male beating a 20 year old male, who is on the 40 year old male's real estate, to a bloody pulp? What would you do if you were a third party who walked by and saw a generic landlord beating a generic tenant, who is on the landlord's real estate, to a bloody pulp? What would you do if you walked by and saw a pregnant female sticking a clothes hanger into her vagina, turning the body inside her body into a bloody pulp? Why am I suddenly hungry for an orange?
Hit that mofo right there, and let the arbiters and insurers judge afterwards.
Daniel Muffinburg: This is scenario where property rights are ill-defined.
Does somebody have to define property rights in order for you to determine what you would do? Does a group have to approve what qualifies as property rights? Please explain.
ImpenitentCapitalist: Try the following cases, where the age changes, on for size: What would you do if you walked by and saw a 40 year old male beating a 20 year old male, who is on the 40 year old male's real estate, to a bloody pulp? What would you do if you were a third party who walked by and saw a generic landlord beating a generic tenant, who is on the landlord's real estate, to a bloody pulp? What would you do if you walked by and saw a pregnant female sticking a clothes hanger into her vagina, turning the body inside her body into a bloody pulp? Why am I suddenly hungry for an orange?
Good philosophical dilemmas; pretty gruesome imagery.
Rcder: I imagine that one of a multitude of private courts or private police agencies would deal with the blatant child abuse. I'm not quite sure what point you're driving at here.
Private courts and private police agencies would need to deal with the blatant child abuse? So you're effectively allowing a group to think and respond for you, similar to relying on the police or government today, yet because in your scenario there would be no monopolized authority it's justifiable to allow a separate body to determine what is right or wrong?
liberty student, I don't see an answer to the original question. What would you do?
Brutus: and private police agencies would need to deal with the blatant child abuse? So you're effectively allowing a group to think and respond for you, similar to relying on the police or government today, yet because in your scenario there would be no monopolized authority it's justifiable to allow a separate body to determine what is right or wrong?
and private police agencies would need to deal with the blatant child abuse? So you're effectively allowing a group to think and respond for you, similar to relying on the police or government today, yet because in your scenario there would be no monopolized authority it's justifiable to allow a separate body to determine what is right or wrong?
The case against the state has nothing at all to do with the myopic ‘case’ against the division of labor, which you’re making here.
John James: JackCuyler:Defense against aggression is certainly no violation of rights. This. I have no idea why anyone would condemn someone who would take action to stop a man from beating a child "into a bloody pulp".
It beckons how one defines private property and who defines it. I'm surprised that a number of people on here have suggested they would resort to looking to some authoritative body, albeit one not monopolized, to stop the child from being beaten. What is this dependency on authoritative bodies? If they are law enforcers, who determined the law they are enforcing? Without borders, where does one society's law end and the other begin? Is there any jurisdiction?
John James, how would you define private property? What would you do in the scenario posed in the original question?
Eric080: Pretty simple issue here. The child is being aggressed against. The person would be justified in defending the child.
So you maintain that the child is not the father's private property, correct?
Michael J Green:My point is mainly that the strict, Rothbardian conception of property rights has trouble with these problems. Libertarians who adhere to it must wiggle around these implications to get the outcome they prefer (no abused children). I do recall someone saying Rothbard ran into trouble with childrens' rights, coming to conclusions he or others found problematic, but I do not know when or what was written, so grain of salt and all that.
I realize he was kind of asking you for the same thing, and here you're kind of saying you don't know that it exists...but could you please provide some reference for this? I seriously doubt even Rothbard would have any objection to stepping on a man's property to defend a child against aggression...let alone that he would consider a child anyone's "property" in the sense that they can be treated however the "owner" wishes.
I still want to know where the hell this is coming from. You're claiming that strick Rothbardians have to wiggle around property rights philosophy that they hold to get to their preferred outcome. Do you have any evidence of this?
Most of all are concentrated on property rights, while forgeting the principle that pressupose these rights - right to self-ownership. The right question that should be asked is the following: Is the 5 year old child a self-owner? If he is, and I claim that he is, then the man mustn't beat the child. What would I do? Well, like many of the society we live today - I will make citizens' arrest.:)
Or, I will just call some security agency to kick his ass.
Merlin: Brutus: and private police agencies would need to deal with the blatant child abuse? So you're effectively allowing a group to think and respond for you, similar to relying on the police or government today, yet because in your scenario there would be no monopolized authority it's justifiable to allow a separate body to determine what is right or wrong? The case against the state has nothing at all to do with the myopic ‘case’ against the division of labor, which you’re making here.
Yet it stands that you see the child being beaten, and you look to another person or other persons for help. I was just curious to see what you would do. Thanks for the answer, many on here refrain from committing to even the slightest action they might take.
Brutus:So you maintain that the child is not the father's private property, correct?
Find me anyone who would argue that a human being could ever be someone else's "property" in the same sense as a book or a chair.
Bojan B.: Most of all are concentrated on property rights, while forgeting the principle that pressupose these rights - right to self-ownership. The right question that should be asked is the following: Is the 5 year old child a self-owner? If he is, and I claim that he is, then the man mustn't beat the child. What would I do? Well, like many of the society we live today - I will make citizens' arrest.:) Or, I will just call some security agency to kick his ass.
I understand. Thanks for the clear answer, Bojan B.
John James: Brutus:So you maintain that the child is not the father's private property, correct? Find me anyone who would argue that a human being could ever be someone else's "property" in the same sense as a book or a chair.
I'll take that as a yes.
Brutus: Merlin: Brutus: and private police agencies would need to deal with the blatant child abuse? So you're effectively allowing a group to think and respond for you, similar to relying on the police or government today, yet because in your scenario there would be no monopolized authority it's justifiable to allow a separate body to determine what is right or wrong? The case against the state has nothing at all to do with the myopic ‘case’ against the division of labor, which you’re making here. Yet it stands that you see the child being beaten, and you look to another person or other persons for help. I was just curious to see what you would do. Thanks for the answer, many on here refrain from committing to even the slightest action they might take.
The point I was trying to make there is that you do not “think on your own” when it comes to medical advice, or in general any other technical advice. Thus reliance on natural authority, in this case in the legal profession, is itself natural and the basis of a decent economic system and society in general. The state is to be shunned for other reasons.
Michael J Green: I assume most everyone agrees that it should be legal to stop the father from beating his child, but I'm not sure Rothbardians can do so consistently without a lot of gobbledegook.
I assume most everyone agrees that it should be legal to stop the father from beating his child, but I'm not sure Rothbardians can do so consistently without a lot of gobbledegook.
You're accurate in pointing out the difficulty in the situation. I believe the issue comes down to how law is defined and enforced while at the same time concerning the definition of private property. If the child is his own being, then it is simply a fight between two people, one obviously winning. Ought someone team up with him?
If the child is private property, anarcho-capitalists would be nothing but stoics, ignoring the very element of compassion and emotion that makes them human. I suppose it would be impossible (other than for a killer with no mirror neurons) to walk by such a scene and not want have a desire to have the action changed.
Thanks for the clear answer, Michael J Green.
Merlin: Brutus: Merlin: Brutus: and private police agencies would need to deal with the blatant child abuse? So you're effectively allowing a group to think and respond for you, similar to relying on the police or government today, yet because in your scenario there would be no monopolized authority it's justifiable to allow a separate body to determine what is right or wrong? The case against the state has nothing at all to do with the myopic ‘case’ against the division of labor, which you’re making here. Yet it stands that you see the child being beaten, and you look to another person or other persons for help. I was just curious to see what you would do. Thanks for the answer, many on here refrain from committing to even the slightest action they might take. The point I was trying to make there is that you do not “think on your own” when it comes to medical advice, or in general any other technical advice. Thus reliance on natural authority, in this case in the legal profession, is itself natural and the basis of a decent economic system and society in general. The state is to be shunned for other reasons.
Natural authority? I don't believe there is any such thing. All authority is artificial due to its reciprocal nature. In many ways, I've never seen how authority exists; it's mainly a reciprocal view of submission. How is any committee naturally authoritative? Please explain.
Brutus:John James, how would you define private property? What would you do in the scenario posed in the original question?
Well the dictionary defines property as "goods, land, etc., considered as possessions" and "something to which a person or business has legal title." Obviously "private property" would be property that is privately owned (meaning by an individual or exclusive group of individuals). I would simply say private property is an owned resource. And obviously since it comes into question in this scenario, living creatures are not resources that can be owned.
To be perfectly honest if I saw a man physically beating his child to a pulp I would take the minimal action necessary to put a stop to it. If that means using physical force on the man, so be it. As Jack said, defense against aggression is no violation of rights.
I consider myself Rothbardian more or less. In my opinion, every idea, even the idea of private property or self-ownership will depend a lot from many cirmustances how it will be implemented in the real life. Thus, of course it depends of how the law is defined and enforced. On the other side, this doesn't mean that there is not a difference between good law that is in accordance with human nature and (As most often it is in these days) bad, perverted law.
About your quesiton..."if the child is his own being, then is is simply a fight between two people, one obviosly winning. Ought someone to team up with him?". The problem is in your question that isn't making difference between self-defense, aggression, etc. Obviously, the situation is not fight between two self-owners, but rather an aggression of one self-owner against another. The libertarian, Rothbardian ethics are clear in this situation - you should just decide who is the aggressor and the rest is simple. In this situation it is very clear who is the "guilty" one.
Brutus:In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
I would tackle him to the ground or otherwise try to stop him from continuing the beating. If a court later found against me, I would pay restitution. Yes, I consider the 5-year-old to be a self-owner.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Michael J Green:(I suspect LS assumed I was such a person, making it inconsistent of me to damn property rights; from what he's been saying recently, I imagine LS agrees with AJ, as I do too).
We're in agreement. I was using your post to stir up the hornets nest.