My request still stands. Are you going to support that claim or not?
Nah. It's not worth it. Then we'd be getting into what a child can fathom and can't...it'll take forever. Just think about what certain things a child might not be able to understand.
Did you read the link? There is evidence to support a claim that 17 year-olds cannot understand taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt in order to pay for college. Is it aggression to advertise school loans to people 17 years of age?
Logically, if a particular 17-year-old cannot understand student debt, then it would be coersive to give him or her a loan, and thus an act of aggression. In that case, advertising student loans to this person would be aggressive.
I think I answered my own question as it pertains to advertising along this thread. Thanks again to h.k. for the link.
Well then you aren't interested in the logic of it. You are interested in making unsupported assertions.
Again with the unsupported assertions.
Okay...you convinced yourself with unsupported assertions...then why are you here?
If the guardian can be sued for damages if they allow the kid to watch the advertising -- let's say the kid watches nothing but cartoon ads for meth -- why wouldn't the firm responsibile for the ad be sued as well? This isn't like the kid turned on the TV and saw an adult program; the firm directing their advertising at kids has the intention of targeting those not capable of understanding the risks of consuming the firm's product.
In which case I ask you, what exactly is the act of aggression being performed? How do you delineate it from any other persuasion used on the child? Moreover, when does a child cross over to an adult and what are the practical implications of this? I would argue that a 17 year old not understanding debt, for instance, should not enter the contract to begin with if they don't understand it because at this age the individual is mature enough to comprehend the notion of an obligation.
These -are- things a court needs to determine because they are too circumstantial for any abstract theory of ethics to treat of. The sort of questions I brought up are the circumstantial details a court would need to look at to establish tort, if and only if advertising could be considered aggression in this instance. I grant that it may be in some cases, but you need to demonstrate how.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Didn't you get the memo, Jon? Apparently QuisCustodiet doesn't think these sort of questions are "worth it".
@gotlucky
Logically, if a particular 17-year-old cannot understand student debt, then it would be coersive to give him or her a loan, and thus an act of aggression. In that case, advertising student loans to this person would be aggressive. Again with the unsupported assertions.
You were the one to suggest some 17-year-olds can't understand getting into debt. I just used that as a premise.
@Jon
I grant that it may be [aggression] in some cases, but you need to demonstrate how.
Agreed. Yeah, it definitely can't be worked out here the criteria for understanding of every possible exchange, but it's good we could agree that in some cases, it would be considered aggression.
Nope. You are evading the issue. Yet. Again. You said:
QuisCustodiet: Logically, if a particular 17-year-old cannot understand student debt, then it would be coersive to give him or her a loan, and thus an act of aggression. In that case, advertising student loans to this person would be aggressive.
I never made that claim. You. Did.
You are the one saying that advertising in that case would be aggressive. I am asking you to support that claim. I. Never. Made. That. Claim.
It's the same with advertising to children. Jon asked you to support your claims as well, and I see that you brush him off. Yet. Again.
Interesting.
He'd need to show it is in effect brainwashing.
Hahah.
I made a conclusion that you didn't make using a claim of yours as a premise.
No ******* kidding. I am asking you to support. Your. Conclusion.
You are just jumping from the premise to the conclusion without any logical connection whatsoever.
He'd need to show it is ineffect brainwashing.
Good point. I remember Block opining in Defending the Undefendable that subliminal messaging (if it can be proven to exist) would also be aggression. Brainwashing is equally important to keep in mind.
Yeah, the other premise is that in order for there to be consent, there must be understanding. Without understanding, there is no consent, and thus aggression in a given exchange.
Dude, we are talking about advertising. You need to demonstrate that advertising, which is the mere act of speaking or showing pictures is somehow aggression, even if only in one circumstance. You just keep saying things like "understanding" and "consent", but you need to actually explain, in order, the logical connections.
This is ridiculous that I have to fight you on this. Just support your conclusions with logical connections.
Let's be clear here:
If NBC owns their channel, which they do according to LIBERTARIAN property rights theory, then unless they are aggressing against anyone, they can do what they want with their property. You are voluntarily accessing their property with their consent, yet you have the audacity to claim that somehow they are aggressing against you or your children if they don't do what you want with their property.
If you don't want your kids to watch the XXX channel, don't subscribe. Block it. I don't care. But if they voluntarily access it, don't blame someone else for your failure to limit your children's access to other people's property using your property.
There is no aggression here.
EDIT: The only way these commercials could be considered aggression is by fraud. That is, if you paid for the channel directly to the company and they advertised that they wouldn't play certain commercials but they go ahead and do it anyway. Otherwise, there is literally no rights violations because these companies have taken nothing from you. They have not done anything to your property, which is absolutely necessary for aggression to even take place.
Got it, gotlucky.
(Edit: for sake of clarity, I got your point.)
Yes but in that event it would have to be demonstrated that it is in fact brainwashing, along with why that is so. Hence why it is highly circumstantial.
I also agree with GotLucky's analysis above. If the advertising is on a TV channel, in a magazine etc., i.e. any medium you can choose not to access, unless the firm in question is attempting brainwashing (I am granting that brainwashing is in fact possible via such media, irrespective of whether it is), it's pretty much your own choice to let the child access the material and therefore the firm in question bears no responsibility. So we're basically talking about brainwashing, at an extreme, but then we're not really talking about something specific to children, are we?
QuisCustodiet: Has anyone developed as a part of their child theory what kind of child-directed advertising would be legal in a libertarian society? If not, maybe be we could blaze the trail in this thread. Should it be legal for firms to use, say, cartoons to advertise to children the following: 1. Vegetables 2. Happy Meals 3. Cigarettes 4. Hard narcotics Suppose the cartoon characters in the ad encourage kids to do hard drugs and cigarettes either now (if mom and dad say it’s okay) or when they’re of age because hard drugs and cigarettes are "super cool" favorites of the cartoon characters. Let’s say it’s a "plant the seed while they’re young" approach, assuming that it is illegal for the children being targeted to buy the products without a parent. Would advertising these things to children then be legal? If it should be illegal to advertise one or more of the four products mentioned above to children but not another/others, what is the reasoning? Where is the line drawn?
Has anyone developed as a part of their child theory what kind of child-directed advertising would be legal in a libertarian society? If not, maybe be we could blaze the trail in this thread.
Should it be legal for firms to use, say, cartoons to advertise to children the following:
1. Vegetables
2. Happy Meals
3. Cigarettes
4. Hard narcotics
Suppose the cartoon characters in the ad encourage kids to do hard drugs and cigarettes either now (if mom and dad say it’s okay) or when they’re of age because hard drugs and cigarettes are "super cool" favorites of the cartoon characters. Let’s say it’s a "plant the seed while they’re young" approach, assuming that it is illegal for the children being targeted to buy the products without a parent. Would advertising these things to children then be legal?
If it should be illegal to advertise one or more of the four products mentioned above to children but not another/others, what is the reasoning? Where is the line drawn?
QuisCustodiet, hi. I've read only a third of the posts on this topic so forgive me if I repeat anything. I'll address the main themes in brief.
I think it is clear that advertising has to arrive at the child through some means. For instance sound wave, radio waves, etc. So any laws regarding contract or trespass with respect to those could be used to limit advertising. For example, because you own the tv you can sign a contract with the tv company to remove certain types of advertising. You may have homestead a level of sound waves you may have a case if someone is forcing the advertising on you.
It is up to the parents or the child to ensure that the child is brought up properly. However third parties can always take up the child's case if they think child abuse is present, similar to how a murdered man could have a third party take up his case after death. This should suffice for dealing with bad parents because it will necessarily reflect the marginal caring of society for child abuse victims. So in that regard I don't see any gaping whole in libertarian theory.
regarding the "line" you would like to draw, I think you are considering the wrong domain for this line. The line will be drawn by many cases (if you believe in common law) by the limits that private property and contract impose on people. So to say "would you allow" does not make sense to me since we don't think that way and the purpose is to have individual judge with their property what they will "allow".
It will be perfectly legal for firms to advertise as long as they don't violate property rights and contracts. I think you understand what I mean. Some kids will be allowed and/or be able to watch and some won't. Bottom line is there are plenty mechanisms for you to "protect" kids as you see fit and respect everyone's property rights.
I can't imagine that in a libertarian society anyone would watch TV, or how it would even exist. It just constantly attacks the viewer's sense of self-ownership and authority, as far as I can tell.