A question for anarchists

http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm

 :)
 

Stranger:

That children who run away are returned to their parents means that the parents do legitimately own the child.

 

I had assumed we were under agreement that there would not be legal distinction between "minor" and "adult" in a libertarian society. So who is going to kidnap this child and return him to his former parents?

So much for a voluntary society.

Juan:

Roger Daugherty, out of curiosity, do you consider your 'theory' about slavery to be, uh, libertarian ? Or are you rather arguing for 'natural' slavery ?

The core belief of libertarianism, I believe, is that everyone is at liberty to do as he or she pleases, as long as he or she does not infringe upon the liberty of another. This belief brings with it some constraint, to limit oneself so that the one does not knowingly by his actions trample upon another or his property.

The right to life carries with it the responsibility to work to maintain that life. Your right to your life does not place the responsibility to work to maintain your life on another. In olden days this meant your had to directly forage for, plant, and reap your own food. Today with the division of labor that are many tasks at which one may labor for wage, and use that wage to purchase food from another who has foraged, planted, and reaped more than he can consume himself.

When one cannot supply himself with enough food to live either by foraging, planting, and reaping, or labor in another activity, and still wishes to live he or she will by some method become slaves to some degree, or die. If one steals to support oneself, and is caught, that one will find himself a prisoner, which is most definitely slavery. Otherwise one can contract his labor to another who can from that labor make enough to pay the one a liveable wage and a profit for himself. The one is then a slave to that person for a certain period of time.

While we are at liberty to choose the actions we wish to take, we may not always be at liberty to choose the consequences we reap. A man may choose to steal, and not wish to choose prison as his consequence. Then there are those who choose to steal for the very purpose of reaping prison as a consequence, because of the surety of food and shelter. In any of these cases the one is at liberty to choose how he will survive. I guess you could call this a libertarian view of slavery.

On the other hand a child has no choice in being born, and no choice as to how he will be cared for. In the early years of a child, he does not undestand his life separately from those of his parent(s), or guardian. He only knows that food, clothing, and shelter come from those adults with whom he lives, and that he is responsibile for doing what those adults tell him to do. I guess you could call this natural slavery. Part of the reason farm families of yesteryear, before the advent of farm machinry, had big families was free slave labor. Children used to be assets. Today they are liabilities, which is why abortion is desirable.

Inquisitor posted a URL with a very good discussion about contractual slavery. Today, the vast majority have unwittingly contracted to the government to be its slave through the Social Security system. We have agreed to allow the government to take from us whatever amount of our wages it sees fit through social security, and income tax for the promise that the government will take care of us in our later less productive years, or if we become disabled, with social security payments and medicare, medicaid, etc. This is neither libertarian nor natural slavery.

Well actually I had thought the article was meant to be facetious.

Under the leadership of the Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick and the Chicago school of free-market economists, this critical process will inexorably drive liberalism to its only logical conclusion: libertarianism that finally lays the true moral foundation for economic and political slavery.

 It does indeed seem to be satirical.

 

JonBostwick:

Stranger:

That children who run away are returned to their parents means that the parents do legitimately own the child.

 

I had assumed we were under agreement that there would not be legal distinction between "minor" and "adult" in a libertarian society. So who is going to kidnap this child and return him to his former parents?

So much for a voluntary society.

 

Whomever the parents hire to do so. 

Stranger:

JonBostwick:

Stranger:

That children who run away are returned to their parents means that the parents do legitimately own the child.

 

I had assumed we were under agreement that there would not be legal distinction between "minor" and "adult" in a libertarian society. So who is going to kidnap this child and return him to his former parents?

So much for a voluntary society.

 

Whomever the parents hire to do so. 

 

And if the adoptive parents object?

"That children who run away are returned to their parents means that the parents do legitimately own the child."

That statement is an example of circular logic. And its also false on several levels.

• First, we don't live in a libertarian society so today's norms are not relevant.
• Second, children today are not returned to their parents. Children are often taken away from their parents. 

Roger Daugherty:

How is having a right to one's labor different from owning that one?

 

Perhaps I was too subtle.

Parents are allowed to use a child's labor only as long as the child agrees to be parented by them. In the same way that an employer can only use a person's labor so long as the person agrees to be employed.

Why should an 18 year old be allowed to move out and break the parent-child relationship, but a 15 year old can't? A 12 year old? A 6 year old? 

Parents do not own children. They do not own 35 year old children and they do not own 5 year old children. Children, no matter what age, do not have a legal right to their parent's labor and the same is true in reverse.

Unfortunately, I think people here disagree because of their personal experiences and not logic.

Parents are allowed to use a child's labor only as long as the child agrees to be parented by them. In the same way that an employer can only use a person's labor so long as the person agrees to be employed.

Why should an 18 year old be allowed to move out and break the parent-child relationship, but a 15 year old can't? A 12 year old? A 6 year old? 

Parents do not own children. They do not own 35 year old children and they do not own 5 year old children. Children, no matter what age, do not have a legal right to their parent's labor and the same is true in reverse.

Unfortunately, I think people here disagree because of their personal experiences and not logic.

 

You make no mention of the primary problem of parenting, and that is the issue of consent. Consent does not just mean the ability to act as one wishes, it means understanding to a reasonable extent the repercussions of those actions. This is of course a complicated topic, but comparing an 18 year to a 6 year old is simply comparing apples and oranges. Here's a comparable argument to the one you made:

 

Why should an 18 year old be allowed to consent to sex with a 35 year old, but a 15 year old can't?  A 12 year old? A 6 year old?

 

I'm assuming that you would consider sex between a 35 year old and a 6 year old to be rather problematic. The same goes for a 6 year old who attempts to leave their parents. 

JonBostwick:

Children, no matter what age, do not have a legal right to their parent's labor...

This falls apart because in today's age, parents willfully create children. Without parents, Children are helpless, so creating a child and then claiming not to have any responsibility to care for it is akin to pushing someone off a bridge and claiming it wasn't you that killed them, but the laws of gravity. An uncared for child will suffer and die as surely as someone being pushed from a height will hit the ground.

JonBostwick:

Roger Daugherty:

How is having a right to one's labor different from owning that one?

 

Perhaps I was too subtle.

Parents are allowed to use a child's labor only as long as the child agrees to be parented by them. In the same way that an employer can only use a person's labor so long as the person agrees to be employed.

Why should an 18 year old be allowed to move out and break the parent-child relationship, but a 15 year old can't? A 12 year old? A 6 year old? 

 

Allowed by what? Why must a free man be allowed to do anything? He has the right to do it or he does not.

Having read some 88 responses, I think there are two aspects that are not being addressed: Evolution and Social Standard.

 Anyone who abuses their children is violating the basic premise of evolution, survival of the fit. The parents, not being fit, do not successfully pass on their genes. Their offspring do not survive/flourish to reproduce. This is why the question of children engenders such emotional reactions like the question in the first place. It is in our (successful, fit) genes to take care of children.

 "Think of the Children!" "It Takes A Village" &etc.

How about bringing suit in the interests of a third party? Is this allowed? Of course. Without a state there is no prohibition on any action, so if you perceive abuse of someone who cannot defend themselves you can bring suit at your cost on their behalf.

 Whether that suit succeeds depends upon the social standard of the community. If someone is abusing their children (abuse being by definition "wrong"), the community can use the standard punishments such as boycott and outlawry if those "wrongs" are not corrected.

 I fully expect that charitable organizations will exist for children just as People Helping Horses exists, or the ASPCA, or GoodWill Industries and the Salvation Army.

 Indeed, a child that runs away has in fact utilized their volition to say "No". I do not believe in the return of anyone by force into a relationship they do not wish to be in. I also think that a 4 year old cannot make that judgement 100% logically, but humans have evolved children's attachment to their parents to deal with imperfect parents in just the same way that a kicked dog returns to its abusive master.

 Actual child abuse is rare. In an environment of voluntary interaction, where a parents can in fact give up or even sell children if they do not wish to deal with them, I believe the fearful acts which inspire questions like what started this thread will be just as rare if not far more rare than it is now.

It must be admitted that all the titanic intrusion of Leviathan has not prevented child abuse.  To assume that without Leviathan child abuse would increase is unsupportable and I would say a straw-man argument. I could just as well say that since the sun comes up when we tear the heart out of a sacrafice, if we don't tear a heart out the sun will not rise. 

I don't see how evolution enters the picture (and I'm a big fan of H. Spencer).

Look at 20th century's history. How does total war agree with the survival of the fittest theory ? The western people in 1700-1900 were far more civilized than the same western people in the 20th century. How do you explain that from the genetic/evolutionist point of view ?

(The same objection applies to benevolence(or lack of it) and evolution in the parent-child relationship)

Juan:

Look at 20th century's history. How does total war agree with the survival of the fittest theory ? The western people in 1700-1900 were far more civilized than the same western people in the 20th century. How do you explain that from the genetic/evolutionist point of view ?

 

Err, they were? Sure, a lot more people died in wars and such in the 20th century, but there were also  something like 8 times as many people alive through the 20th century compared to earlier times (and by the end of the 20th century, far more still). We also only recently have any means to measure and record past atrocities committed. Besides, any wars in the 20th century pale in comparison to the slaughter of native central and northern Americans by Spanish and English settlers. By the end of the 20th century, the country which had the most liberal economy and was able to isolate itself from destructive wars emerged the most powerful (and by this I mean significant destruction of the American people or their capital, not its involvement in foreign wars or the attack on the naval base Pear Harbor).

In any case, it fits with survival of the fittest just fine. Evolution isn't necissary nice or "good" by our standards.

Stranger:

JonBostwick:

Roger Daugherty:

How is having a right to one's labor different from owning that one?

 

Perhaps I was too subtle.

Parents are allowed to use a child's labor only as long as the child agrees to be parented by them. In the same way that an employer can only use a person's labor so long as the person agrees to be employed.

Why should an 18 year old be allowed to move out and break the parent-child relationship, but a 15 year old can't? A 12 year old? A 6 year old? 

 

Allowed by what? Why must a free man be allowed to do anything? He has the right to do it or he does not.

 

Is that directed at the first or second point?

First: Allowed by the child.

Second: Thats my entire point. A child does not need permission to move out, because they own themselves.

 

Childhood covers a lot of years, and many levels of maturity. Some can support themselves at fifteen, others have trouble at 30. The question was asked, who would return a child to its parents? Any parents who would want their own children returned to them should they run away. Not all children run away because of abusive parents. Most of the time a child runs away for a misperceived reason, like he has convinced himself his parents do not love him anymore.

At which age can the child make his own decision to leave home? At infancy? Probably not, since the mind is not developed enough to be able to weigh pros and cons, to make a rational decision. How about 5? By this time the brain is finished growing, Its basic language skills are programmed in the brain, the child can talk in complete but simple sentences, and may be able to read some. Perhaps on his sixth birthday you can offer him a contract, that you will continue to take care of him, and that he will do what you tell him. Does the child at six have the understanding to be able to enter into such a contract? If not, then he certainly cannot rationally make the decision to run away, because he does not understand the consequences.

I think most people misunderstand Freedom. Janis Joplin said it very nicely in the song Me and Bobby McGee. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. Then I heard Paul Harvey say, "Freedom is what you have when you don't have anything else."

When you are on an island, with not another in sight, and you are the only one on the island, you are Free. When you are in a crowded subway station, you are not Free. On the island you can stop to urinate where ever you wish, but in the subway station that would be considered anti-social behavior, especially if you got someone's pant leg wet.

Do you think there is a world full of people ready to take in runaway children, give them everything, and require nothing from them? We possess our property only at the courtesy of those who can take it from us. We could get into a real philosophical discussion about what ownership really is.

JonBostwick:

Why should an 18 year old be allowed to move out and break the parent-child relationship, but a 15 year old can't? A 12 year old? A 6 year old? 

Let's examine this. I have a neighbor who has seven children from 5 to 19 years of age, none of whom can support themselves. Let's say they become dissatisfied with life at home, perhaps the house is too small, and there are lots of chores. They all decide to leave, to find someone with a bigger house who is not going to make them do chores, after all no body has a right to their labor no body owns them. But that someone with a bigger house is under no obligation to take them in. If they come to your house JonBostwick, will you take them in, feed, clothe, and shelter them, and not require some labor from them. Then you become a slave to them, Or might you see about returning them to their parents?

We could perhaps change our child labor laws, to allow employers to hire six year olds, so they could leave home at that age if they wish, and support themselves.

 

pazlenchantinrocks:

 Children are not self-owners.  The parents have a trustee guardianship property right in their children.  Therefore parents can tell their children what to do and what not to do until the child reaches the age when he can in fact consider himself a self-owner by demonstrating this fact in nature.

 

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp 

What of the parent who neglects their child? Should they not be punished? While the parent controls and exercises the child's rights as a guardian, the child is surely not their parent's slave. Who is to protect the child from an abusive parent? While I generally despise the power of the state, there is room for a government to protect us from the negligence and abuse of others upon our person. If a parent violates their child's rights -- beating (and not spanking, I'm talking injuries), molesting, neglecting a child -- breaches the trust of guardianship. In a stateless system, who steps in to prevent/correct this situation? Perhaps another family member? Even then, usually abusive parents were abused themselves, so it is likely that the situation would be similar if the child was protected by ANY family member. Regardless, even if a good Samaritan (be it a relative, or a neighbor, or someone off the street) decided to do something about the abuse, without some osort of official channel to go through, how would they be able to compel the abusive parent to give up their child?

pazlenchantinrocks:

  Children are not self-owners.  The parents have a trustee guardianship property right in their children. Therefore parents can tell their children what to do and what not to do until the child reaches the age when he can in fact consider himself a self-owner by demonstrating this fact in nature.

 

 

What age is that? A child stops being a child when he refuses parenting. Age is a non issue. A parent can only act as a parent so long as the child is willing to act as a child.

You seem to have not gotten Rothbard's point.

"In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult."

 

(Thanks for the link, I had forgotten where Rothbard wrote that) 

JonBostwick:

Is that directed at the first or second point?

First: Allowed by the child.

Second: Thats my entire point. A child does not need permission to move out, because they own themselves.

 

This is just nonsense. Children need permission from their parents to do anything, not the other way around, because children are not responsible, rational humans yet. If the child allows the parents to parent him, then the child can rule the household and demand infinite supplies of candy at all times of night. The child must be coerced under the responsibility of the rightful parents, which is why parents are responsible for what their children do.

Roger Daugherty:

The core belief of libertarianism, I believe, is that everyone is at liberty to do as he or she pleases, as long as he or she does not infringe upon the liberty of another. This belief brings with it some constraint, to limit oneself so that the one does not knowingly by his actions trample upon another or his property.

The right to life carries with it the responsibility to work to maintain that life. Your right to your life does not place the responsibility to work to maintain your life on another. In olden days this meant your had to directly forage for, plant, and reap your own food.

 

Do you acknowledge a difference between a responsibility to maintain your life while requiring no labor from another (negative liberty) and existence requiring you to occupy some location somewhere - that can't be separated?

No one provides you with anything via their labor to exist. To exist is to occupy a location. Whereas to continue to exist requires labor for sustenance. 

Stranger:

This is just nonsense. Children need permission from their parents to do anything, not the other way around, because children are not responsible, rational humans yet.

Who decreed that only "rational" people are self owners? At what age does one become rational? I'm 22, am I there yet?

 

Stranger:

If the child allows the parents to parent him, then the child can rule the household and demand infinite supplies of candy at all times of night. The child must be coerced under the responsibility of the rightful parents, which is why parents are responsible for what their children do.

To borrow a phrase.

Stranger:

This is just nonsense.

The parent rules the household, because the parent OWNS the household. The parent, as property owner, sets the rules for the use of all his property. If a child wishes to recieve the benefits of living with the parent, he must submit to being parented by them. Its a very simple voluntary relationship.

If I child is able to support himself, he is able to leave his parent's house, and can choose to leave the parent-child relationship. And in reverse, many parents choose to kick children out of the house at 18, I'm sure you are aware of this.

You really should read that Rothbard link. 

 

 

 

 

I belive that the view "my home my rules" has some truth in it but is not the whole picture.

If I own my house, I can do with it whatever I please, I can even destroy it if I wish to. I can set up any rules I want. Even absurd rules - but can I enforce them ?

I said I thought the family was not a voluntary institution. I should have said rather that the parent-child relationship is not totally voluntary (marriage obviously is).

I think Stranger illustrates my point - He seems to be claiming that children must be coerced....I imagine for their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of parents held exactly that same idea - an idea I don't regard as very libertarian...

I of course think it's better that children be raised by their parents, NOT by the state. But I also think that the family is not the last evolutionary step in child raising. I believe that the family is rather a leftover from ancient, conservative times. Just a thought

Juan:

I belive that the view "my home my rules" has some truth in it but is not the whole picture.

If I own my house, I can do with it whatever I please, I can even destroy it if I wish to. I can set up any rules I want. Even absurd rules - but can I enforce them ?

I said I thought the family was not a voluntary institution. I should have said rather that the parent-child relationship is not totally voluntary (marriage obviously is).

I think Stranger illustrates my point - He seems to be claiming that children must be coerced....I imagine for their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of parents held exactly that same idea - an idea I don't regard as very libertarian...

I of course think it's better that children be raised by their parents, NOT by the state. But I also think that the family is not the last evolutionary step in child raising. I believe that the family is rather a leftover from ancient, conservative times. Just a thought

I actually somewhat agree with your feelings about the nature of families. 

The family is a voluntary relationship, it just happens that children often do not have a better option to choose. Though I'm sure they would have much better options if we lived in freedom.

I think most parenting is anti-libertarian. Hitting children is evil. 

The nature of children is the problem. Children must rely on others for their survival. Parents own all the resources so they have all the power, (and happen to be a lot bigger and smarter)

I've heard it said, and its an idea I endorse, that the power disparity of childhood is what creates beliefs in things such as the State( or God). Its not surprising that many people accept that the government behaves with moral inconstancy when some of our first experiences were being hit while being told "We do not hit." How does a child rationalize that? Why shouldn't they accept a government that says "You don't kill" while it pulls the switch?

And really governments are parents, they turn us into children by removing our power and our responsibility. And people want it that way!

People accept obviously evil acts by the State as normal and good because they have been conditioned, as children, to accept obviously evil acts (like hitting children) as good parenting.

P.S.

Just because a relationship is voluntary doesn't mean its "good." A woman staying with an abusive husband is a voluntary relationship, but I wouldn't call it desirable.

Wouldnt a child be obligated, just as an adult is, to behave by the rules of the household so long as they live in that household? It is a basic right of property owners who have tenents to oblige them to behave or be punished in some way. 

 Does the question of rationality and moral agent status come into play here? Does the question of personal assertion of rights become an issue? Just as I would call a dog property until it claimed itself self owned or out loud pondered, "I wonder what I should do now?".

CurtHowland:

Having read some 88 responses, I think there are two aspects that are not being addressed: Evolution and Social Standard.

 Anyone who abuses their children is violating the basic premise of evolution, survival of the fit. The parents, not being fit, do not successfully pass on their genes. Their offspring do not survive/flourish to reproduce. This is why the question of children engenders such emotional reactions like the question in the first place. It is in our (successful, fit) genes to take care of children.

You have it kind of wrong here.

Evolution only works in this argument for genes on an individual level. Individuals are the tools of evolution, i twould be a genetic misprint for a parent to "mistreat" their child, which is why it is such a rare occurrence. No, smacking a brat in the face a couple times is not "mistreatment," its called parenting.

CurtHowland:

 

 "Think of the Children!" "It Takes A Village" &etc.

I'd assume it has more to do with appeals to emotion than antyhing else. 

CurtHowland:

nyone by force into a relationship they do not wish to be in. I also think that a 4 year old cannot make that judgement 100% logically, but humans have evolved children's attachment to their parents to deal with imperfect parents in just the same way that a kicked dog returns to its abusive master.

 Actual child abuse is rare. In an environment of voluntary interaction, where a parents can in fact give up or even sell children if they do not wish to deal with them, I believe the fearful acts which inspire questions like what started this thread will be just as rare if not far more rare than it is now.

It must be admitted that all the titanic intrusion of Leviathan has not prevented child abuse.  To assume that without Leviathan child abuse would increase is unsupportable and I would say a straw-man argument. I could just as well say that since the sun comes up when we tear the heart out of a sacrafice, if we don't tear a heart out the sun will not rise. 

 

Child abuse is rare and it is not helped by the state. Your point on the philosophy of the child running away is dead on, btw. Family, just like any organization post-state, is a voluntary one. Children abide by the rules of their parents until they become too confining. In a libertarian world, the parents would have no authority to restrict their children from leaving.  

JonBostwick:

P.S.

Just because a relationship is voluntary doesn't mean its "good." A woman staying with an abusive husband is a voluntary relationship, but I wouldn't call it desirable.

Not desirable for you perhaps. For a great deal of wome, then seem to enjoy abusive relationships. I'd develop a psychological theory on that if I had the time, but from empirical observation it would seem that the hunter-gatherer image of the brutish man still exists to some extent within women as it almost seems to be a sexual release for women to enjoy being abused.

JonBostwick:

I actually somewhat agree with your feelings about the nature of families. 

The family is a voluntary relationship, it just happens that children often do not have a better option to choose. Though I'm sure they would have much better options if we lived in freedom.

I think most parenting is anti-libertarian. Hitting children is evil. 

The nature of children is the problem. Children must rely on others for their survival. Parents own all the resources so they have all the power, (and happen to be a lot bigger and smarter)

I've heard it said, and its an idea I endorse, that the power disparity of childhood is what creates beliefs in things such as the State( or God). Its not surprising that many people accept that the government behaves with moral inconstancy when some of our first experiences were being hit while being told "We do not hit." How does a child rationalize that? Why shouldn't they accept a government that says "You don't kill" while it pulls the switch?

And really governments are parents, they turn us into children by removing our power and our responsibility. And people want it that way!

People accept obviously evil acts by the State as normal and good because they have been conditioned, as children, to accept obviously evil acts (like hitting children) as good parenting.

The ridiculous idea of parenting being anti-libertarian is exactly the kind of error that results from the absolutist thinking that people have rights from birth. A child is not the same as an adult. It cannot act rationally and responsibly. That is why children belong to (are owned by) a specific adult or couple of adults. The evil of government is precisely the fact that it imposes a relationship that infantilizes adult, rational people who do have rights. 

A large part of this intellectual confusion, in my opinion, stems from the absence of a rite of adulthood in western society. That is largely also the work of the state, having successfully extended childhood into teens and "early adulthood".

Some good points you are making here.  

Grant:

If human rights do not come from nature, god, or some part of the environment and universe in general, it seems to me that they must come from other humans. Saying that rights come from man's nature qua man is nice, but it doesn't seem like it accomplishes anything to me in itself. Rights are rules by which humans treat each other, and so must be recognized by all parties in order to be rights. In other words, they must come from a shared ethic, although the means by which this ethic is spread can naturally be through normative, philosophical argument.

Personally I don't think that general human rights do exist at all. They are a fiction by some lefty humanitarians that think that they can improve the world by making thinks up. One doesn't need rights to act, live, breath, speak etc. To me a right comes, via mutual agreement between at least two parties. Natural rights like rights to property or right to live do have some merit, but I don't think that this exists without social recognition of them. 

Grant:

Since you've got to convince other people of your system of rights for them to mean anything, I think any system of rights not being derived from god or nature will always boil down to consequentialist arguments (i.e., "why should I accept your system of rights, what will it do for me?"). Fortunately, most people who argue about this sort of thing are concerned about the consequences of far more than their immediate needs.

 ... Interestingly the ten commandments are no "system of rights" quite to the contrary they do prohibit certain behaviour (obviously within ones own kinship group). "Thou shalt not..." is the common statement within those commandments. So I don't think they define rights, but they actually do set certain norms. While they are already a kind of a regulatory statement this is similar to many premodern social systems wherein That is then also the point, why the modern state with its regulatory measures and absurd legislation can't work. People are guided by desires, fears, moral concerns, habits, instincts. The modern state tries to set up a cybernetic system of regulations wherin people are supposed to function. You've the right to XYZ and you need approval by ABC, please fill in the forms and follow the procedure etc. This system is the supposed to chip in where other institutions seem to be lacking. If the progenitor doesn't take care of his child, the state gives the mother a social grant etc. Doctoring the symptoms, not strengthening that was allows for a good live is the motto, rather weakening it. Society is not functionin because there is a legal system and people have rights - It function because there are generally recognized practices in place. This is how people live, work, do business and interact. This doesn't require a government bureaucracy, but it would require some kind of authority and social norms and generally accepted practices.

Although I do maintain that rights exist, I agree with Torsten largely. It is tacit surrender to statism to think that people are only good because some legal system coerces them to be so. It is in everyone's interest to accept a certain guidance (I like Hoppe's idea of a natural nobility), certain norms and certain cultural practices, and these are still, to some extent, woven into the fabric of most societies. The problem is the rate at which modern governments are seeking to take this place up for themselves.  

Niccolò :

"No, smacking a brat in the face a couple times is not "mistreatment," its called parenting."

That's right. Physical violence against children is not mistreatment. It's an act of love. Well, it violates the non-agression-principle, perhaps, but at the same time this does not mean it violates the non-agression-principle. Hmmm...Doublethink ?

CurtHowland:

 Whether that suit succeeds depends upon the social standard of the community. If someone is abusing their children (abuse being by definition "wrong"), the community can use the standard punishments such as boycott and outlawry if those "wrongs" are not corrected.

Without a state, where would you bring suit? Courts are a product of a state -- something must give them the authority to pass judgement, and the ability to enforce that judgement. Without the authority of a state, what is to stop the abusive party from flipping off the court? What is there to compel them to even participate in a trial?

It must be admitted that all the titanic intrusion of Leviathan has not prevented child abuse.  To assume that without Leviathan child abuse would increase is unsupportable and I would say a straw-man argument. I could just as well say that since the sun comes up when we tear the heart out of a sacrafice, if we don't tear a heart out the sun will not rise. 

I would not argue that the state can prevent much of anything, but a limited state could do good as far as correcting or mitigating wrongs that have already occurred.

If the parents own their children, then they have the right to kill their children. Many parents do not want to do that because they are afraid that they are going to get caught. In anarchism, parents have the right to kill their children.

libertarian:

If the parents own their children, then they have the right to kill their children.

Granted, but that's a big "if".

libertarian:

In anarchism, parents have the right to kill their children.

And that is a non-sequitur. 

Although I have seen some people in this thread advocating the idea that parents own their children, this is by no means a widely accepted anarchist or libertarian position.  In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard devotes an entire chapter to arguing against this idea.

 

libertarian:

If the parents own their children, then they have the right to kill their children. Many parents do not want to do that because they are afraid that they are going to get caught. In anarchism, parents have the right to kill their children.

 

There is no "right to" kill your children. It is materially impossible to prevent you from doing this, and since the only claim on your children is yours, no one may demand justice from you for doing so. 

brianewart:

Without a state, where would you bring suit? Courts are a product of a state -- something must give them the authority to pass judgement, and the ability to enforce that judgement.

As I said, "community standard". Communities have standards, that's why they're called "communities".

The fact is that I don't know. I do not know what kind of structure a completely anarchic large-scale system will organize, and neither do you. 

 

I would not argue that the state can prevent much of anything, but a limited state could do good as far as correcting or mitigating wrongs that have already occurred.

 

 I agree. In theory, a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. A, as you put it, "limited state" could be considered the next best thing, but I have to ask you, where are they?

 The problem with political theory is that things don't stay theory for long. Benevolence doesn't last, "limited" doesn't last. Leviathan always grows, always consumes, always destroys.

Does that mean that in "anarchy" some people might do harm and get away with it?

Yes.

Does a minimalist state mean that some people might do harm and get away with it?

 Yes.

Having a titanic state hasn't stopped some people from doing harm and getting away with it either. 

Your "could do good" is just another sacrafice to make the sun come up. Yes, it could, but the sun will come up anyway. 

Stranger,

 

 It certainly may be possible to prevent someone from killing their child - for example if I see them in the act of doing it. Would you say that I have the right to intervene to protect the child in that case, since you admit that the parents do not have the right to kill their children?

 

I also disagree with your contention that no one may demand justice. I will agree that no one (I would include the parents, but that is beside the point here) has any "claim" on the children.

 

Take the case of a thief in possession of stolen property. Anyone has the right to take that property from the thief and return it to the rightful owner. In the case that the rightful owner or his heir cannot be located, then the property is unowned and belongs to the first person to claim it - most likely whoever recovered it from the thief.

 

I would argue that there is a similar right with regard to murderers. If an heir to the victim cannot be located, or is actually the one guilty of the murder, I believe anyone has the right to administer justice to the murderer - what justice may consist of being a separate question. In effect, the right to compensation for the murder has become unowned property and belongs to the first person to take the initiative to claim it.

Torsten:

]Personally I don't think that general human rights do exist at all. They are a fiction by some lefty humanitarians that think that they can improve the world by making thinks up. One doesn't need rights to act, live, breath, speak etc. To me a right comes, via mutual agreement between at least two parties. Natural rights like rights to property or right to live do have some merit, but I don't think that this exists without social recognition of them.

 

I think the confusion is over what a "right" is. Do the laws of economics exist? We can't touch them. If two people don't agree on them to an extent which interferes with economic exchange, they won't be demonstrable. Does that mean they are a fiction?

I don't think so. To me, both natural rights and the laws of economics exist as emergent behaviors in humans (and in some cases, anything which acts with purpose). Through philosophy and science, we can show how different codes of ethics produce different outcomes for society. We can think of new codes which offer superior results to older ones. I believe there is an ethical system humans have a tendency to evolve towards, a natural ethic, although I don't pretend to know what it is. I think modern libertarian thought is getter closer to it all the time, although to be fair we are really the only people trying in any serious capacity.

Well put.

Trianglechoke7 writes, "Is it then the case that anarchists believe children should be allowed to do drugs? I agree that adults should be allowed to do drugs, but even 5 year olds?"

The fundamental question I would ask is this: do I own the 5-year-old?  If the answer is no, then I may never employ force so as to prevent the 5-year-old from using drugs.  And, of course I would have to answer 'no,' as no person can justly own another.

What we shouldn't ignore is the fact that in a propertarian society, the rule "My house, my rules" would be law.  As such, if I do not want my 5-year-old child to use drugs, I may not aggress against him, but I may give him the following ultimatum: continue using drugs and cease living under my roof, or cease using drugs and continue living under my roof.

Trianglechoke7: "I often hear arguements that people shouldn't be told what to do with their own children (forced mental screenings, vaccinations), so if you believe this, then doesn't it follow that parents should be allowed to give their children extra 'sugar' in their cereal?"

If a parent tells his/her child that he/she is feeding said child sugar when what is actually being fed is cocaine, then the parent is engaging in fraud, and considering that each child owns his/her own body, is violating the property rights of the child.

Trianglechoke7: "Well, what if they are 8, or 9, or 10, and they do know it's bad for you, and they ask for it? Then they would have knowledge of it properties, and the exchange would be voluntary. Would you just sit by while a parent does that?"

If by "sit by" you mean I will not initiate force against the parent, then yes, I will "sit by."  It would be unethical not to.

But if by "sit by" you mean do nothing, then I must say, Not necessarily.  For, there is nothing unethical about using my freedom of speech to encourage the parents to choose another set of actions.

Trianglechoke7: "So if I think that you shouldn't be allowed to give drugs, then shouldn't I also forbid giving poor food?"

Am I committing fraud by claiming that the food is healthy when it is not?

Trianglechoke7: "While were at it, would you allow a parent to let their child starve to death because forcing them to feed their kid would be violent?"

I would have no ethical justification for initiating force against such parents.

Ethically, I would be free to offer the parents money or barter in exchange for custody of the child.

Also ethically, the child would be free to "run away," or secede from his/her parents.  He/she could then seek others who would be willing to act as parents, or could then opt to remain independent.  What the child could not ethically do is initiate force against his/her parents for not feeding him/her.

There is an exception, of course.  If the parent(s) have the child chained up against the child's will, then the child's natural rights are being violated, and the child has every right to use force for self-defence.  Likewise, a neighbour has every right to break in and help free the captive child by whatever means necessary, so long as force is only used against those that have aggressed against the child.

So, I'm inconsistant and violent. Anarchists are heartless and non-violent.

 

For the first, I'll take your word. The latter is wrong in both counts. As an anarchist, I value my freedom as well as other people's. An accountant can embezzle money. So dobn't give your money away. You don't want your children to take drugs, masturbate in public or something else? TEACH them by giving them a positive example.

If you don't LIVE your ideals, you won't win your children for them. I love my children, so I'll give them the best education I can provide. So much for "no heart".

If anyone tries to arttack me or my beloved ones or even my friends, I'll defend myself by all means. Violence IS an option for self defense, and I know I can use it - even without a bad feeling for the idiot I hurt when he tried to initiate force against me. That dumbass asked for pain. 

Point is: I do not initiate force against others, not even for some imaginary "child protection".

Other people screw up their own lives. So what. They screw up their families. I won't let these people touch my life. I can't save every single poor wretch in the world on my expense and I won't try it. I am responsible for my life and my life only. If I decide to have children, I will be responsible for them for quite a while, sue, but my foremost duty is to teach them to live independently. That's something that can keep you busy enough for a while. I am not responsible for things people do with other people. 

 

MYOB is a healthy state of mind.