Why do these discussions always miss the obvious point that grandparents, uncles, aunts and other relatives of the children have a vested interest in the well-being of the children, i.e. these individuals are the presumptive source of funds to purchase protection and prosecute a legal case against abusive parents? There's no need to invoke the "interests of the public/society" or any other metaphysical fictions. Doubtless, some children would have no family and, thus, no natural protection against predation. However, religious organizations and other voluntary organizations which take an active interest in protecting and legally representing children could easily fill this gap.
The worst thing that can happen to a society's children is a tax-funded child services division.
Clayton -
Bob rapes his 3 year old daughter.
This basically never happens. It's a myth that it is common for natural fathers to sexually exploit their children. Kanazawa and Miller devote some discussion to this point in their amazing book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters. They essentially point out that government statistics on child molestation track legal fathers and do not distinguish between legal and natural fathers. They lay out some of the reasons for predation (including sexual) of step-children by step-parents. Reliable statistics are not available, but they expect that a rigorous study of the subject will show that it is step-fathers (and step-mothers) who are culpable in the vast majority of child sexual abuse. I don't have time to dig up the quote right now but, if someone demands it, I'll post it later.
Great posts, Clayton. My assumption about "public" safety or some kind of socialistic pooling of donations together to protect children without a real foundation of a family or those who are abused was only really brought up for extreme outliers. Definitely most child protection begins with the family and child predators get away with this stuff with or without the State; it's not like the State is the only thing keeping child porn peddlers in line.
"Bob rapes his 3 year old daughter.
This basically never happens."
That's great. Yet it is child abuse & as such, the less severe and all too often - more common forms of abuse also apply and follow the same scenario from there on out.
Children's rights are immaterial. Children are owned by their parents, plain and simple, and as their property parents are inclined to protecting and improving their own children, as any other property they own. Of course, there will always be people who want the property of others, and this is why they invented children's rights, to expropriate children from their parents and take them as their own.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The problem is, very very few people think like you do so just saying what you say doesn't really address the "problem" or how it might be handled in our theoretical society even if there was some way for us to objectively determine that you are correct. Which is, of course, impossible. It's hardly likely that even though 99.5% (just a made up number for illustration purposes obviously) don't think children are strictly "property" that some PDA judge or whatever will just be able to quote your post from 100 years ago and, bam, end of debate we can all go home.
Edit: I read your linked blog post and found it very well written and interesting. However, I cannot quite buy into the concept of owning other people be they children, the aged, or whoever. So a child cannot "afford" to purchase any rights therefore it has none. An elderly person can no longer "afford" to purchase their rights therefore they have none. A poor person cannot "afford" to purchase any rights therefore they have none. Luckily, since I can "afford" to purchase rights these groups can all be my slaves to do with as I please? Doesn't sound very appealing to me even though the logic is consistent and I do agree that "natural rights" is a somewhat flawed concept. Good posting though thanks for linking it.
What is incredibly confusing, for me, is that you asserted I was pursuing a "statist goal" by voicing a preference against child abuse--a position, likewise, being discussed by Walter Block.
It is a goal pursed by statists to stamp out something that already occurs on the margin. (Btw, the Criminal Code in Canada already exempts disciplinary assault from indictment) What I quoted shows you judging libertarianism by that standard.
StrangeLoop: DD5:How does Block in this particular instance not base his "resolution" on a discovery market process? He does; that's why I think libertarian "rights" break down. If a man wants to voluntarily secede his home from all external forces, then how can an external agency forcibly interfere?
DD5:How does Block in this particular instance not base his "resolution" on a discovery market process?
He does; that's why I think libertarian "rights" break down. If a man wants to voluntarily secede his home from all external forces, then how can an external agency forcibly interfere?
In defense of the victim, it can be justified so I don't see why libertarian rights break down here.
Do you recognize the victim's right to defend itself on the aggressor's property? Libertarianism sure does.
Likewise, it is perfectly in the right of the victim to delegate this right to a 3rd party.
DD5:In defense of the victim, it can be justified so I don't see why libertarian rights break down here. Do you recognize the victim's right to defend itself on the aggressor's property? Libertarianism sure does. Likewise, it is perfectly in the right of the victim to delegate this right to a 3rd party.
I think StrangeLoop's point is, if it's justifiable (in libertarian terms) to invade someone's property to prevent him from abusing his child, when isn't it justifiable (in libertarian terms) to invade someone's property?
He seems to think that libertarian moral theory (at least, the Rothbardian variety) is more propertarian than it actually is.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
For the child to be a victim, it would have to be a sovereign, which means the parent has no obligation to it.
Also, if rights aren't delegated explicitly, you're inviting vigilantism. I can't act as your agent unless you have assigned me specifically to be your agent.
StrangeLoop:I'm not sure how one demarcates what "ancap" does "deal with" and what it does not "deal with";
You haven't been able to demarcate anything, and yet you still apply all sorts of labels to yourself and defend/oppose their use in other circumstances. It's really quite irrational IMO.
StrangeLoop:how have you done that?
I have a definition of what ancap is, and thus what it is not. Do you?
StrangeLoop:On what grounds do you assert that anarcho-capitalistic theory "doesnt [sic] deal" with, for instance, "environmental issues"? I would assert that it most certainly does and it especially should given current popular concerns (e.g., global warming).
Insofar as ancap promotes a society without aggression, and voluntary relations, environmental issues are only relevant in so much as actors choose to value them, which will vary from individual to individual, moment to moment. Ancap allows this state of affairs, unlike more statist ideologies, which impose one set of values for everyone upon a particular issue.
Remember, global warming isn't a property rights issue. It may not even be a result of human action, if it is even occurring.
It's not hard to knock down strawmen in Polyanna's field.
StrangeLoop:Since we both agree that anarcho-capitalism will not "always result in great outcomes," then aren't those--as I had originally phrased it--"weak points," especially when arguing against opposing worldviews?
Why argue against opposing world views? The system people want to live under is subjective. You can't prove ancap is superior objectively without first defining criteria of what superiority is, and to do so, would fly in the face of praxeology.
Ancap is only weak when people want something that voluntarism cannot deliver. But the question then becomes, how can ancap be any good, if its principled voluntarism is insufficient in itself?
StrangeLoop:Frankly, claiming that I believe some areas are "weak points" and your claiming that some outcomes won't be "great" seem roughly the same position to me.
No, because you imply that ancap has weaknesses. I am saying, ancap is not perfect and that is inherent to ancap itself. It's like saying an apple makes a poor orange. Ok, technically, you're right. And obvious. But what was the point of a statement like that? We all know that apples are not in fact oranges.
I could just as easily argue that coercion doesn't solve global warming either. That coercion is not sufficient to stop child abuse, and even if it could, it would come at the expense of abusing adults. We understand this at the start. There are issues that we can only attempt to solve in the market (which only ancap supports completely and unconditionally) and for which no a priori solution can be arrived at EXCEPT the market.
All very obvious stuff IMO.
StrangeLoop: Caley McKibbin:Do you think there is no difference between wanting to do something being able to? I don't see what is confusing here. What is incredibly confusing, for me, is that you asserted I was pursuing a "statist goal" by voicing a preference against child abuse--a position, likewise, being discussed by Walter Block.
Caley McKibbin:Do you think there is no difference between wanting to do something being able to? I don't see what is confusing here.
You implied it is a problem beyond your preferences. If it was just your preference, then there would be no need to appeal to ancap, except as it fails your preferences. And I would say, if a voluntary order fails your morality, then you may not be an ancap.
StrangeLoop: liberty student:Ancap also doesn't handle immortality or time travel well. So what? Actually, I would argue that scientific advances such as those are more likely to be attained in a wealth-maximizing process of development (i.e., anarcho-capitalism).
liberty student:Ancap also doesn't handle immortality or time travel well. So what?
Actually, I would argue that scientific advances such as those are more likely to be attained in a wealth-maximizing process of development (i.e., anarcho-capitalism).
You completely missed the point. It's not whether we need or want time travel or immortality (preferences) but that there are no a priori answers for how to achieve them, or whether they are desirable enough to be developed.
StrangeLoop:I believe that's what I am doing. Child-sex tourism, for instance, is a black market--given all the common criticisms against the War on Drugs, consider the same criticisms as applied to the former industry: once the market is freed from Statist prohibition, anarcho-capitalism seems capable of generating profitable industries in child prostitution. That is, in my opinion, a point worthy of more consideration--and, contrary to your assertion, it's a point that's specific to anarcho-capitalism.
It has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism unless you believe the children are not sovereign. If they are coerced to participate in the black market, then that is not anarcho-capitalism.
liberty student:For the child to be a victim, it would have to be a sovereign, which means the parent has no obligation to it.
So not all human beings are self-owners? When/how does one become a self-owner?
liberty student:Also, if rights aren't delegated explicitly, you're inviting vigilantism. I can't act as your agent unless you have assigned me specifically to be your agent.
What if you see someone being stabbed in an alleyway?
What if scientists replaced the statue of david with living tissue, cell by cell. At what point would he have rights? Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh libertarianism is false
Autolykos: liberty student:For the child to be a victim, it would have to be a sovereign, which means the parent has no obligation to it. So not all human beings are self-owners? When/how does one become a self-owner?
That is the question which Block avoided answering directly.
Autolykos: liberty student:Also, if rights aren't delegated explicitly, you're inviting vigilantism. I can't act as your agent unless you have assigned me specifically to be your agent. What if you see someone being stabbed in an alleyway?
That's like a lifeboat.
Sieben:What if scientists replaced the statue of david with living tissue, cell by cell. At what point would he have rights? Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh libertarianism is false
Fallacy of the beard, amirite? ;)
I'm sure you understand that my point wasn't to claim that libertarianism is false. On the other hand, I don't see how true or false can apply to libertarianism -- do you?
liberty student:That is the question which Block avoided answering directly.
So what's your answer?
liberty student:That's like a lifeboat.
Can you explain in more detail, please?
I'm just expressing boredom with all the "what if" and zaney situations people bring up to try and disprove libertarianism. If they can't articulate their objections on actual philosophical grounds, its fail.
Autolykos: liberty student:That is the question which Block avoided answering directly. So what's your answer?
I don't have one. I've heard many theories and none were decent IMO.
Autolykos: liberty student:That's like a lifeboat. Can you explain in more detail, please?
False moral dilemma, an appeal to emotion.
http://mises.org/daily/1628
Sieben:I'm just expressing boredom with all the "what if" and zaney situations people bring up to try and disprove libertarianism. If they can't articulate their objections on actual philosophical grounds, its fail.
Yeah, I know. Usually those people either misunderstand philosophy or they're trolling. I'm not sure which of those is more likely. :P
I agree. I think the child is indeed sovereign, which is why parents have no such obligation. They commit themselves to the child by choice, by their sense of moral obligation, and nothing more.
It's sort of like the good Samaritan law, which I think could be compatible with libertarianism.
Here is how I see Block's argument avoiding the fear of vigilantism argument. People basically don't tolerate such behavior so they agree to tolerate a certain degree of cops storming into a private home to save the child locked in the basement. They sign up with defense agencies that have such laws and market forces make it difficult to avoid agreeing to such laws.
In the case where a person still refuses to agree to such terms, Block maintains that private police could still storm the house if that is what the market demanded. This is why he says that this "solution" is compatible with the Friedman type anarchism, as well as the Rothbardian anarchism.
Regarding the fear of vigilantism, I think Block would simply say that libertarianism doesn't seek perfection but only better and more ethical results. Competition would put a healthy check on all such behavior and minimize it.
It has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism unless you believe the children are not sovereign. If they are coerced to participate in the black market, then that is not anarcho-capitalism
You should watch taken. Or do some cursory research. As far as sex trafficing goes, it is rarely a voluntary phenomena. Sure, some girls may sell themselves to other kids in their school for a new purse or something, and I have my own personal problems with that, but it's really harmless. The same goes for brothels, usually just another place someone works.
But human trafficking is another matter altogether;
Children are often forced by social structures and individual agents into situations in which adults take advantage of their vulnerability and sexually exploit and abuse them. Structure and agency commonly combine to force a child into commercial sex: for example, the prostitution of a child frequently follows from prior sexual abuse, often in the child's home Such children are commonly poorly paid or unpaid,kept in unsanitary conditions, denied access to proper medical care, and constantly watched and kept subservient through threat of force.These threats may be physical or psychological in nature As is the case for other worst forms of child labour, severe poverty, the possibility of relatively high earnings, low value attached to education, family dysfunction, a cultural obligation to help support the family or the need to earn money to simply survive are all factors that make children vulnerable to CSEC. In order to make a living children are sold into the sex trade to provide food and shelter and in some cases money to satisfy the addiction of a family member or themselves There are other non-economic factors that also push children into commercial sexual exploitation. Children who are at greatest risk of becoming victims of CSEC are those that have previously experienced physical or sexual abuse. A family environment of little protection, where caregivers are absent or where there is a high level of violence or alcohol or drug consumption, induces boys and girls to run away from home, making them highly susceptible to abuse. Gender discrimination and low educational levels of caregivers are also risk factors. Children with extreme poverty and marginalized families in coastal areas also becoming victims of CSEC.
Children are often forced by social structures and individual agents into situations in which adults take advantage of their vulnerability and sexually exploit and abuse them. Structure and agency commonly combine to force a child into commercial sex: for example, the prostitution of a child frequently follows from prior sexual abuse, often in the child's home
Such children are commonly poorly paid or unpaid,kept in unsanitary conditions, denied access to proper medical care, and constantly watched and kept subservient through threat of force.These threats may be physical or psychological in nature
As is the case for other worst forms of child labour, severe poverty, the possibility of relatively high earnings, low value attached to education, family dysfunction, a cultural obligation to help support the family or the need to earn money to simply survive are all factors that make children vulnerable to CSEC. In order to make a living children are sold into the sex trade to provide food and shelter and in some cases money to satisfy the addiction of a family member or themselves
There are other non-economic factors that also push children into commercial sexual exploitation. Children who are at greatest risk of becoming victims of CSEC are those that have previously experienced physical or sexual abuse. A family environment of little protection, where caregivers are absent or where there is a high level of violence or alcohol or drug consumption, induces boys and girls to run away from home, making them highly susceptible to abuse. Gender discrimination and low educational levels of caregivers are also risk factors. Children with extreme poverty and marginalized families in coastal areas also becoming victims of CSEC.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
liberty student: Autolykos:So what's your answer? I don't have one. I've heard many theories and none were decent IMO.
Autolykos:So what's your answer?
You haven't thought about it on your own?
liberty student:False moral dilemma, an appeal to emotion. http://mises.org/daily/1628
You said earlier:
liberty student:I can't act as your agent unless you have assigned me specifically to be your agent.
By "can't", I presume you meant morally. I didn't bring up the example of seeing someone being stabbed in an alleyway as a false moral dilemma and/or an appeal to emotion. I brought it up to show an example where no one would probably care whether he's been assigned specifically to be the victim's agent -- he'd (try to) save the victim regardless. I, for one, don't find such behavior to be morally wrong. Why do you seem to?
DD5: liberty student:For the child to be a victim, it would have to be a sovereign, which means the parent has no obligation to it. I agree. Which is why parents have no such obligation. They commit themselves to the child by choice, by their sense of moral obligation, and nothing more.
I agree. Which is why parents have no such obligation. They commit themselves to the child by choice, by their sense of moral obligation, and nothing more.
I think you're not fully considering the consequences of declaring the child a sovereign.
Wrt to Block, I think his position is indefensible. "What the market demanded" is code for mob rule.
Autolykos: liberty student: Autolykos:So what's your answer? I don't have one. I've heard many theories and none were decent IMO. You haven't thought about it on your own?
Sure I have. I haven't reached a conclusion.
Autolykos: liberty student:False moral dilemma, an appeal to emotion. http://mises.org/daily/1628 You said earlier: liberty student:I can't act as your agent unless you have assigned me specifically to be your agent. By "can't", I presume you meant morally.
By "can't", I presume you meant morally.
By can't, I mean compatibly with the non-aggression principle.
Autolykos:I didn't bring up the example of seeing someone being stabbed in an alleyway as a false moral dilemma and/or an appeal to emotion.
I didn't think you did. But that is what it is.
Autolykos:I brought it up to show an example where no one would probably care whether he's been assigned specifically to be the victim's agent -- he'd (try to) save the victim regardless. I, for one, don't find such behavior to be morally wrong. Why do you seem to?
First of all, you're assuming there is a victim. We don't know that. We're observing an isolated act.
Second, if he intervenes and the "victim" didn't want help, he's acting aggressively. If he is acting and there is no victim (misunderstanding the event) then he is acting aggressively.
The only way a moral society works is if people accept the tradeoff of liberty over security. If we want to stop every potential violent act, we're heading back to statism by making excuses for the violation of property rights.
liberty student:I think you're not fully considering the consequences of declaring the child a sovereign.
I think I have to go with Rothbard on this one. The consequence is that the child can leave when ever he so chooses to leave if he doesn't like the rules of the house. Is this what you mean?
liberty student:Wrt to Block, I think his position is indefensible. "What the market demanded" is code for mob rule.
Not exactly. There is simply no private court that will acquit the defendant in this case due to the fact that such courts cannot stay in business. I think that's the point he's making and that's what I meant by "demand".
If you agree that law is basically a market produced good, then why claim that the result of what is produced constitutes some mob rule?
liberty student: Autolykos:You haven't thought about it on your own? Sure I have. I haven't reached a conclusion.
Autolykos:You haven't thought about it on your own?
Okay, fair enough. Sorry for jumping the gun there.
liberty student:By can't, I mean compatibly with the non-aggression principle.
To me, "morality" and "the non-aggression principle" are (basically) synonymous.
liberty student: Autolykos:I didn't bring up the example of seeing someone being stabbed in an alleyway as a false moral dilemma and/or an appeal to emotion. I didn't think you did. But that is what it is.
What I meant is, I didn't present any moral dilemma, false or not. Nor did I (attempt to) appeal to emotion. So, in terms of my intention, what I wrote was neither of those things.
liberty student:First of all, you're assuming there is a victim. We don't know that. We're observing an isolated act. Second, if he intervenes and the "victim" didn't want help, he's acting aggressively. If he is acting and there is no victim (misunderstanding the event) then he is acting aggressively. The only way a moral society works is if people accept the tradeoff of liberty over security. If we want to stop every potential violent act, we're heading back to statism by making excuses for the violation of property rights.
Yes, I'm assuming there's a victim. I guess it was implicit in my earlier posts. Now I'm making it explicit. :P
If I interfere and it turns out that the victim didn't want help, or there is no victim, then I'll agree that I have acted aggressively (however unwittingly) and will honorably pay or otherwise make restitution. So what's the problem?
I have to admit to being confused by your statement "the only way a moral society works". Can you explain this in more detail, please?
DD5: liberty student:I think you're not fully considering the consequences of declaring the child a sovereign. I think I have to go with Rothbard on this one. The consequence is that the child can leave when ever he so chooses to leave if he doesn't like the rules of the house. Is this what you mean?
When does the child become sovereign? At the moment of conception? At the moment of birth? And when they are sovereign, by what right does the parent bring them into the home as a newborn or infant, because it is obvious the child is incapable of rendering explicit consent.
It's a very muddy area. Rothbard and Block fail to satisfy me on this. They fudge it instead of owning up to the fact that it is a mess for libertarian theory.
DD5: liberty student:Wrt to Block, I think his position is indefensible. "What the market demanded" is code for mob rule. Not exactly. There is simply no private court that will acquit the defendant in this case due to the fact that such courts cannot stay in business. I think that's the point he's making and that's what I meant by "demand".
Why can't it stay in business?
DD5:If you agree that law is basically a market produced good, then why claim that the result of what is produced constitutes some mob rule?
Because you and Block are claiming there is no market for a particular legal outcome.
I have edited the OP title because it was too long and rephrased it. I hope you are ok with that SL.
Autolykos:Okay, fair enough. Sorry for jumping the gun there.
Not a problem. A lot of people struggle with the fact that I dissent with some ideas (usually on the basis of logic) without necessarily offering a solution of my own. I think the tendency is to assume if someone opposes one thing, that means they are for another. In nearly all cases, I am for reason. I just don't always know what the result of reason will be.
Autolykos:To me, "morality" and "the non-aggression principle" are (basically) synonymous.
I forgot what we were talking about here, but I believe I said it was incompatible with the non-aggression principle (indirectly). Feel free to question that.
Autolykos:What I meant is, I didn't present any moral dilemma, false or not. Nor did I (attempt to) appeal to emotion. So, in terms of my intention, what I wrote was neither of those things.
You did, but you didn't intend it. I really don't want to belabor this point, but intent and action are not the same thing. It was an appeal to emotion. It's known as a lifeboat argument.
Autolykos:Yes, I'm assuming there's a victim. I guess it was implicit in my earlier posts. Now I'm making it explicit. :P
Your example was poor then, because you made it sound like I walk by an alley and see someone getting stabbed, not that I am sure that one party is being victimized by the other.
Autolykos:If I interfere and it turns out that the victim didn't want help, or there is no victim, then I'll agree that I have acted aggressively (however unwittingly) and will honorably pay or otherwise make restitution. So what's the problem?
It wasn't unwittingly. If you don't know you're representing a party in the right, and you don't have their consent, then what exactly are you doing getting involved? Oh sure, you can pay your way out. Can you imagine a society where people stole and then made restitution later? Where people threw punches and then paid off the people they punched later?
Autolykos:I have to admit to being confused by your statement "the only way a moral society works". Can you explain this in more detail, please?
I'm doing most of the heavy lifting with regards to this discussion. How about you offer me something to answer, instead of asking me to write longer form answers for what I consider to be pretty obvious stuff. My time is precious. Meet me half way.
liberty student:Not a problem. A lot of people struggle with the fact that I dissent with some ideas (usually on the basis of logic) without necessarily offering a solution of my own. I think the tendency is to assume if someone opposes one thing, that means they are for another. In nearly all cases, I am for reason. I just don't always know what the result of reason will be.
I do the same thing quite a bit, so I can relate.
liberty student:I forgot what we were talking about here, but I believe I said it was incompatible with the non-aggression principle (indirectly). Feel free to question that.
It was the meaning of "can't" that was at issue (as in "I can't act as someone else's agent..."). Obviously you didn't mean "physically unable", so I presumed you meant "morally inadmissible". You responded that you meant "incompatible with the non-aggression principle". I tried to make clear that I essentially equate "morality" with "non-aggression principle", so therefore we're actually talking about the same thing. At this point, I don't think there's anything else at issue, as I now understand what you meant.
liberty student:You did, but you didn't intend it. I really don't want to belabor this point, but intent and action are not the same thing. It was an appeal to emotion. It's known as a lifeboat argument.
My understanding of the word "appeal" is that it implies a conscious effort on the part of the one making it. Since I didn't have a goal of pulling on your heartstrings (as it were), I don't see how I made any appeal to emotion. It seems that you're trying to argue that your reaction to, or interpretation of, what I wrote takes precedence over my intention behind it. On the other hand, I'm glad that you (apparently) understand that it was also not a false dilemma.
liberty student:Your example was poor then, because you made it sound like I walk by an alley and see someone getting stabbed, not that I am sure that one party is being victimized by the other.
Can anyone ever be sure of anything external to himself? So no, you had my example right the first time. I'd assume that the person being stabbed didn't want to be stabbed, as I know that I wouldn't want to be stabbed. It seems as though you refuse to make any "default" assumptions regarding other people. Maybe it's just me, but this seems contrary to human nature.
liberty student:It wasn't unwittingly. If you don't know you're representing a party in the right, and you don't have their consent, then what exactly are you doing getting involved? Oh sure, you can pay your way out. Can you imagine a society where people stole and then made restitution later? Where people threw punches and then paid off the people they punched later?
Yes, actually I can.
What exactly am I doing getting involved? I'm betting that the person being stabbed is a victim. If it turns out that I'm wrong, so be it -- I'll gladly pay for any damages.
liberty student:I'm doing most of the heavy lifting with regards to this discussion. How about you offer me something to answer, instead of asking me to write longer form answers for what I consider to be pretty obvious stuff. My time is precious. Meet me half way.
I seriously question your assertion that you're "doing most of the heavy lifting with regards to this discussion". Can you articulate what you mean by the statement "the only way a moral society works" or not? The reason I ask is because it seems like a rather emotionally loaded phrase with multiple (if not many) possible meanings. I'm not sure which meaning(s) you mean by it, so I thought I'd ask for clarification. What I don't understand is why you are so resistant to my request.
And I hope you weren't implying that my time is somehow not precious to me.
Autolykos: liberty student:You did, but you didn't intend it. I really don't want to belabor this point, but intent and action are not the same thing. It was an appeal to emotion. It's known as a lifeboat argument. My understanding of the word "appeal" is that it implies a conscious effort on the part of the one making it. Since I didn't have a goal of pulling on your heartstrings (as it were), I don't see how I made any appeal to emotion. It seems that you're trying to argue that your reaction to, or interpretation of, what I wrote takes precedence over my intention behind it. On the other hand, I'm glad that you (apparently) understand that it was also not a false dilemma.
An appeal to emotion is a type of logical fallacy. Your intent (which I can never prove one way or another) is irrelevant. What you did was appeal to emotion, intentionally or not.
Autolykos:I'd assume that the person being stabbed didn't want to be stabbed, as I know that I wouldn't want to be stabbed.
We don't need the NAP then. We can just do whatever you would like to have happen.
Autolykos:It seems as though you refuse to make any "default" assumptions regarding other people. Maybe it's just me, but this seems contrary to human nature.
How so? Are humans supposed to assume things as part of their nature?
Autolykos: liberty student:It wasn't unwittingly. If you don't know you're representing a party in the right, and you don't have their consent, then what exactly are you doing getting involved? Oh sure, you can pay your way out. Can you imagine a society where people stole and then made restitution later? Where people threw punches and then paid off the people they punched later? Yes, actually I can.
So you think that's what ancap will look like? People violating each other's rights up to their capacity to pay to do so?
Autolykos:What exactly am I doing getting involved? I'm betting that the person being stabbed is a victim. If it turns out that I'm wrong, so be it -- I'll gladly pay for any damages.
Moral behavior is something you gamble on. Perfect. NAP by chance.
Autolykos:And I hope you weren't implying that my time is somehow not precious to me.
#2
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/20211/371893.aspx#371893
Autolykos:What I don't understand is why you are so resistant to my request.
I'm not resistant, I'm just not interested in feeding you long form explanations when a simple sentence is sufficient.
Autolykos:Can you articulate what you mean by the statement "the only way a moral society works" or not? The reason I ask is because it seems like a rather emotionally loaded phrase with multiple (if not many) possible meanings.
It's not emotionally loaded. Substitute NAP. Read it again. Then question what you believe is wrong. I'm not going to explain a very simple statement, that should be obvious to understand, if not easy for a libertarian to agree with.
I have reached a conclusion, but I certainly agree with liberty student on the difficulties involved; that is, the difficulties involved if one endorses concepts like self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. For libertarians attached to that morality, children are especially problematic: considering them sovereign introduces many practical problems (e.g., why would parents ever be legally obligated to feed them?). If children are self-owners, then no one can be ethically responsible for them but themselves; I find this problematic: if a 3-year old steals a candy bar, for instance, I believe it is acceptable to charge the parents--I can't imagine compelling the toddler to do labor as compensation for the theft.
My own conclusion is that social customs would develop that properly address these concerns, but never perfectly.
In fact, as I mentioned earlier, I would even endorse war against private islands that pimp out children. The children, for example, could be acclimated to their tasks from a young age, and hence "consent" becomes insignificant (this is the rationale behind age-of-consent laws: our commitment to contractual freedom cannot reach to biological brains that aren't fully capable of high-level rational functioning). Once again, this is all a problem because libertarian rights are hitting against the actual world: the theory is obviously weak when agents are cognitively inequal due to biological contingencies.
To steal a line of thinking from Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory, I would bet that most people, to function in an anarcho-society, would need to have defense insurance (and a "score" for one's lawfulness like a credit rating) to enter onto others' private stores, homes, etc. (e.g, you swipe an ID card into the front door of Walmart to be recognized as a law-abiding consumer), and I would bet that one's enforcement agency would charge higher if it suspected a parent of child abuse (e.g., due to the riskiness of that person's violent temperament). And, of course, I would hope that other moral customs (.e.,g shaming parents that abuse their children) would lead to shunning from others, etc.
I would never claim that a child is sovereign, though. In fact, I endorse baby-selling, and that seems to imply that a parent is sovereign over his children.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
The changed title completely removes the meaning of my original comments; nowhere was I asking the question, "Is this principled libertarianism?"
I asserted it; if you want to argue against the use of that phrase, then do so. But I didn't ask that question.
Quite frankly, I would like my original title back, it was (from what I remember, since you've changed it at least twice): "Why Principled Libertarianism Sucks, Or, Walter Block on Child Abuse."
I was specifically arguing that libertarianism cannot fully conform to any deontic morality, not even the rights-based one advocated by most Austrians. I was using Walter Block's poor defense to prove that point. My original title seems appropriate, merely playful. To be sure, "sucks" is not even directed at a person, only an ideology. Fundamentally, my point was that a "principled" libertarianism cannot apply its principles all-inclusively, and hence those principles fall short--i.e., they suck.
liberty student: For the child to be a victim, it would have to be a sovereign, which means the parent has no obligation to it. Also, if rights aren't delegated explicitly, you're inviting vigilantism. I can't act as your agent unless you have assigned me specifically to be your agent.
No. You can become agent after the fact. There is no need to sign a contract with a child to rightfully defend him from abusive parents. It is NOT vigilantism. Well, it could be if it turned out that child didn't need defence and there was no crime actually. Then those defendors would pay the "price" so to speak. But anyway, Autolykos proposed good argument about a man being stabbed in the alley and it is not life boat situation, but a very real one.
P.S. oh I see Autalykos already got to the point. So now liberty student you are denying one's right to defend someone else without signing a contract with the assumed victim?
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Stranger: Children's rights are immaterial. Children are owned by their parents, plain and simple, and as their property parents are inclined to protecting and improving their own children, as any other property they own. Of course, there will always be people who want the property of others, and this is why they invented children's rights, to expropriate children from their parents and take them as their own.
1. This sort of thing puts people off libertarianism/libertarian anarchism as right wing crankism.
2. It is a sick distortion of libertarian theory.
3. It sounds like it comes from a place of conspiratorial paranoia.Sounds a bit like Jonah Goldberg in his Liberal Fascism when he talks of Hillary Clinton except he attacks her statism to some extent (I think?) but here your attacking pure negative rights.
4. Culturally/morally this is disturbing and part of the criticism's Brainpolice has laid upon people here.On Stranger he's right and whatever Stranger thinks libertarianism is, it's not my kind and I hope not most people heres kind either.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
liberty student: "Remember, global warming isn't a property rights issue. " Well if it is happening and if it is human caused it probably would be. StrangeLoop:Since we both agree that anarcho-capitalism will not "always result in great outcomes," then aren't those--as I had originally phrased it--"weak points," especially when arguing against opposing worldviews? " and to do so, would fly in the face of praxeology." Why?
"Remember, global warming isn't a property rights issue. "
Well if it is happening and if it is human caused it probably would be.
" and to do so, would fly in the face of praxeology."
Why?
liberty student: [ And I would say, if a voluntary order fails your morality, then you may not be an ancap.
[ And I would say, if a voluntary order fails your morality, then you may not be an ancap.
Are you implying that if there is immorality in a voluntary order and you object to it then your not ancap?
He is not soverign over another human being. An adult can't keep a child locked up. Abuse can be stopped. However, you must be willing to risk going to jail yourself id the courts side with the prosecuted, for child abduction, breaking and entering, etc.
StrangeLoop:The changed title completely removes the meaning of my original comments; nowhere was I asking the question, "Is this principled libertarianism?" I asserted it; if you want to argue against the use of that phrase, then do so. But I didn't ask that question. Quite frankly, I would like my original title back, it was (from what I remember, since you've changed it at least twice): "Why Principled Libertarianism Sucks, Or, Walter Block on Child Abuse." I was specifically arguing that libertarianism cannot fully conform to any deontic morality, not even the rights-based one advocated by most Austrians. I was using Walter Block's poor defense to prove that point. My original title seems appropriate, merely playful. To be sure, "sucks" is not even directed at a person, only an ideology. Fundamentally, my point was that a "principled" libertarianism cannot apply its principles all-inclusively, and hence those principles fall short--i.e., they suck.
I'm not trying to distort your title, I just didn't like Danny's insertion into it. It made it unreadable.
You don't get to use sucks, so gimme a title that won't bunch up your undies and I would be happy to change it to that.