EvilSocialistFellow:I have a question for you; what if a small family (e.g. nuclear family unit) lives in an isolated geographical area or if they simply do not live near aunts, uncles, grand parents, etc. How do you prevent child abuse then without some form of intervention?
Let me ask you this, if I may: were such a situation to happen in the real world today, how would child abuse be prevented there without some form of intervention?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
There's no way to prevent child abuse. No amount of government intervention can change that fact.
Usually people who have been abused tend to not abuse others and move on. The best thing you can do is educate people.
I have a question for you; what if a small family (e.g. nuclear family unit) lives in an isolated geographical area or if they simply do not live near aunts, uncles, grand parents, etc. How do you prevent child abuse then without some form of intervention?
Note that child abuse is already the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of parents are good parents. Geographical location is not important to the legal problem since the extended family should have legal power to intervene no matter where they are located. My point is that the nosy neighbor or the State should not have power to interfere with the natural parents except in the most extreme circumstances since it is almost certainly the case that the natural parents care more for the welfare of their children than either the nosy neighbor or the State, even if they've hit the child in a fit of rage. The issue is procedural... the extended family should have right of first refusal in legal action against the parents. The State should not be able to directly act against parents without first giving the natural extended family an opportunity to intervene either through non-legal means or legally.
Clayton -
Autolykos:Let me ask you this, if I may: were such a situation to happen in the real world today, how would child abuse be prevented there without some form of intervention?
My answer is that the state would and should damn well intervene! And the answer I want to hear is that under AnCap someone would intervene.
Ok, as an example, when I was educated at home (and I was never at any risk, might I add) the government occasionally sent inspectors around to check my work and make sure I was learning from the correct syllabus and so forth. Now, I am just as much against a national curriculum as anyone else on the thread, but I think it would have been totally correct, morally and ethically speaking, for a coercive (not aggressive) body to "save my soul" if I was being taught how to be an extremist Christian and receiving floggings each day for my sins.
Also is a world where education is not obligatory going to be one where (a) all the kids go off to read books off their own back, (b) one where they would prefer to play video games or (c) one where their parents would prefer to have them work on the farm? If they don't get the proper education, the economy will suffer.
There was a case a few years back of a British island which the Britsh government didn't really intervene in and their turned out to have been a whole history of child abuse.
Clayton:Note that child abuse is already the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of parents are good parents. Geographical location is not important to the legal problem since the extended family should have legal power to intervene no matter where they are located. My point is that the nosy neighbor or the State should not have power to interfere with the natural parents except in the most extreme circumstances since it is almost certainly the case that the natural parents care more for the welfare of their children than either the nosy neighbor or the State, even if they've hit the child in a fit of rage. The issue is procedural... the extended family should have right of first refusal in legal action against the parents. The State should not be able to directly act against parents without first giving the natural extended family an opportunity to intervene either through non-legal means or legally.
Ok that is a good answer and the kind of answer I wanted to hear, thanks.
"Pity we poor people who wander into a Newbie forum here without having conformed to your church's prefabricated definitions. I think it ironic that a clique of you on a website think you have the authority to dictate the meaning of words for voluntarism."
Come on, Herodotus, that's nonsense. You are certainly free to define your terms however you want. But what you should not do is point out that coercion-as-you-define-it is sometimes justified and then claim to have shown that coercion-in-the-voluntarist-sense is sometimes justified. At least you have to admit that your argument against voluntarism applies only to a certain version of voluntarism.
In colloquial English, words are often somewhat vague. Therefore, in philosophy, it is sometimes convenient to use words in a technical meaning (preferably one that is not too far removed from the colloquial one). There's nothing cultish or "positively Orwellian" about this.
Micah71381:I disagree. I find that having someone who tries their hardest to poke holes in theories to be the moste effective way of improving the theory. Whether or not they agree with their stance is of no consequence since the end result is the same, either a stronger original theory or proof that the original theory is invalid.
I've figured out why some of the earlier responses in this thread did not appeal to me (and felt a bit utopian); it was because most were purely market based whereas I was looking (subconsciously) for sociological features, like the extended family, which would help to minimise certain social issues in a free market society, cheers.
filc:I really dislike double standards.
It's not a double standard if you are engaging in cognitive dissonance.
I think most people would agree that certain degree of coercion is legitimate when dealing with those persons who clearly have too little information to act in their own interest (if they can even comprehend their interests). This includes children and mentally handicapped. What that degree is, who qualifies as a child or mentally handicapped, and similar questions can vary by time and place. I don't think any of this betrays a general respect for liberty and the primacy of voluntary interaction.
As others have said, intervention in this instance may very well be warranted. But you have to make sure that the medicine is not worse than the disease. The more discretion afforded to the interveners, the greater the risk of enforcement error. The more independent the interveners (e.g. less reliant on consumer satisfaction), the greater the risk of broader intervention and self-interested policies (e.g. the standards for determining "abuse" become less rigorous, calling for more money and power for the interveners).
I'm very glad to hear that you've moved away from socialism and recognize the efficacy of markets, and I applaud you for admitting that you still have a lot to learn about anarcho-capitalism, but you've also been making sweeping generalizations and condemnations of ancap theory. I assume you're more familiar with some strains of libertarian ethics than the economic and legal theories regarding anarchism. It is not "another silly ideology that thinks society would run just smoothly purely on greed and axiomatic self-interest." It is about a decentralized power structure. Gustave de Molinari's The Production of Security, considered the first argument for anarcho-capitalism, did not talk about rights or ethics, but checks and balances. Simply put, if a monopolized industry is prone to poor service and high/exploitative prices, shouldn't we expect the state to provide poor service at a high cost in administering justice, security and public goods? It has always been grounded in reality, acknowledging the problems of power and the limitations and fallibility of human beings. It is about extending James Madison's sentiment that men are not angels and will act in their own interest, and as such no one group/faction/institution must be capable of wielding too much power.
In AnCapistan, there may exist privately funded institutions which go around scooping up abused children and punishing abusive parents. This may (or may not) mean that AnCapistan is not a (Rothbardian) libertarian society, but it is still stateless. And many of us would prefer that to the strictly Rothbardian society.
Michael J Green:It is not "another silly ideology that thinks society would run just smoothly purely on greed and axiomatic self-interest." It is about a decentralized power structure.
Ok, perhaps not. My point was the risk in attempting to implement such a radically different society that could (potentially) be overestimating the ability of society to function purely on individualist market structures, communitarian projects and so forth.
Also, I'm not quite as economically illiterate as people (who don't know me) are trying to make me out to be; if you check out some of my earlier posts you will see this. I am just making some simple points at the moment because there are some fairly simple errors that I don't think people have quite considered fully; either that or they just think market systems can cover for some of the 'finer details' of human society that are actually more complicated than that.
Also, you support coercion in certain instances which is good but others seem to be going along more of an 'ostracisation' route.
Gustave de Molinari's The Production of Security, considered the first argument for anarcho-capitalism, did not talk about rights or ethics, but checks and balances. Simply put, if a monopolized industry is prone to poor service and high/exploitative prices, shouldn't we expect the state to provide poor service at a high cost in administering justice, security and public goods? It has always been grounded in reality, acknowledging the problems of power and the limitations and fallibility of human beings. It is about extending James Madison's sentiment that men are not angels and will act in their own interest, and as such no one group/faction/institution must be capable of wielding too much power. In AnCapistan, there may exist privately funded institutions which go around scooping up abused children and punishing abusive parents. This may (or may not) mean that AnCapistan is not a (Rothbardian) libertarian society, but it is still stateless. And many of us would prefer that to the strictly Rothbardian society
In AnCapistan, there may exist privately funded institutions which go around scooping up abused children and punishing abusive parents. This may (or may not) mean that AnCapistan is not a (Rothbardian) libertarian society, but it is still stateless. And many of us would prefer that to the strictly Rothbardian society
Actually, I sort of already understood the basics of private protection (at least as much as you have explained); I just have a hard time, mentally, swallowing it up, especially given the lack of empirical evidence for such a system ;)
Also what do you mean by 'anarcho-capistan' as opposed to 'anarcho-capitalism'?
EvilSocialistFellow:Actually, I sort of already understood the basics of private protection (at least as much as you have explained); I just have a hard time, mentally, swallowing it up, especially given the lack of empirical evidence for such a system ;)
We cannot empirically prove the social sciences.
EvilSocialistFellow:Ok, perhaps not. My point was the risk in attempting to implement such a radically different society that could (potentially) be overestimating the ability of society to function purely on individualist market structures, communitarian projects and so forth.
You must give up Utopianism unless you want to stay in tail chasing mode.
"Society functioning" is an incredibly vague term. What is a functioning society? Can you define it? Does society function now?
Ok, if you promise not to bite my head off for making mistakes, I will have another chance at discussion with you.
liberty student:We cannot empirically prove the social sciences.
What I mean is that you cannot prove or disprove a theory using empirical evidence if it has not been tested (this goes without saying) however I believe you can if it has been tested.
'Anarchy' (if you want to call it that) has been succesful to a large degree in Somalia, at least compared to the brutal tyrannical regime before hand. However this does not prove that anarchy is universally preferable to tyranny as Peter Leeson notes in 'Better Off Stateless' rather that government is not universally preferably to anarchy. So, by this logic, I would prefer anarchy in Britain over a fascistic military dictatorship but there is no evidence of an anarchy that has had better living standards or greater economic growth than Britain, hence by attempting to implement anarchy in Britain there is the risk factor that living standards would decrease.
Also, by my logic, there has been no large scale free market protection agency scheme that was also preferable to the evil British government run policing system, hence there is the risk factor of trying to implement radical schemes that have not been tried yet. I do not mind experimenting with schemes as long as they are not too radical (I have no definition of what is 'too radical' so you will have to bear with me).
I gave up Utopianism when I gave up political extremes like communism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. :)
In all seriousness, though, how are we defining 'Utopianism'? The perfect society? If so, ironically this is why I am tending to stray away from AnCap at the moment, precisely because it seems utopian (at least at the moment). Come on, do you never seriously think to yourself Hmm I wonder if this would actually work... I know I used to have these doubts all the time in pursuing my wacko far-left ideology :P
I meant in terms of economic and social progress; would life be 'better' or 'worse' following on from anarchy. If better, how do you know? What if there is major economic and social collapse? Anarchy may be perfect in theory but would you go for the risk, not knowing for sure whether it would work in practice?
Cheers.
It seems that this thread is really suffering heavily from vocabulary problems. Even people on the same side of the fence aren't agreeing on the vocabulary. Because there is so much disagreement it seems the best course of action is to define voluntaryism and the non-aggression principle without using any of the loaded words (coercion and aggression).
Since voluntaryism is based on the non-aggression principle let's start by defining the non-aggression principle without the use of the above words:
Non-aggression principle (based on Wikipedia's definition): Not initiating physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.
Voluntaryism: A philosophy according to which all forms of human association should be voluntary. An association is considered involuntary if one party initiates physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.
Now the question becomes, can one effectively raise a child while adhering to the non-aggression principle? Personally, I believe that the answer is yes, it is possible to raise a child while adhering to the non-aggression principle. While you can't physically force the child to do anything you can still persuade them through non-aggressive means. An example of this would be to leverage your own assets that are provided to them against them. It's your food they eat, you can deny them of this. It's your toys they play with, you can deny them of this. It's your bed they sleep on, you can deny them of this. If they try to force themselves on your food, toys or bed they have initiated force and you are able to respond in kind with force.
Another issue that seems to be coming up are things like disruptive students, students who fight, etc. In a voluntyrist society you can still use force to repsond to someone who has broken a contract. For example, a requirement of being allowed into a classroom may be a certain adherence to a predefined set of rules and a mutually agreed upon set of punishments. If a child disobeys one of these rules the teacher has the right to use force to remove the child from the classroom/school because they are the ones who initiated aggression (the fraud clause in this case). Similarly, the teacher is allowed to utilize the agreed upon form of punishment against the child, so long as the child initiated the aggression (fraud).
The same goes for a parent's rules for a child living in their home. As long as the child has the right to leave the home at any time the parents can utilize force against the child to get them to do what they want (usually this is through an informal agreement between the child and the parent regarding what the child is allowing the parent to do in exchange for the parents financial support).
Looking at it from an adult's perspective, if I enter someone's property under the prior agreement that they are allowed to hit me if they so please then it would not be aggressive on their part to hit me since I am voluntarily entering such an arrangement and I can voluntarily leave such an arrangement at any time.
On a personal note, I am a big fan of hard-lined rules. I find that arbitrary rules tend to get moved with time and lead to disputes. Hard lined rules do tend to have some casualties along the way but I find this preferable to fuzzy rules that are easily bent. In the case of children I think that since there is no objective way to define the difference between a child and an adult they should therefore all be treated the same as far as rules and rights go, regardless of age.
Micah71381:The same goes for a parent's rules for a child living in their home. As long as the child has the right to leave the home at any time the parents can utilize force against the child to get them to do what they want (usually this is through an informal agreement between the child and the parent regarding what the child is allowing the parent to do in exchange for the parents financial support). Looking at it from an adult's perspective, if I enter someone's property under the prior agreement that they are allowed to hit me if they so please then it would not be aggressive on their part to hit me since I am voluntarily entering such an arrangement and I can voluntarily leave such an arrangement at any time.
Except that precisely this kind of perspective becomes 'hazy' when we consider the fact that the situations involved are really and truly not always as black and white as that:
(a) it might not be voluntary at all if the parents are physically detaining their child
and
(b) the child might be too young to think rationally and therefore perform purposeful action. We cannot say that on this level the child is at fault, thereby if he 'decides' not to leave an abusive household.
Mises discusses this (yes! I am considering the points raised by AE):
'Man is the being that lives under these conditions. He is not only homo sapiens, but no less homo agens. Beings of human descent who either from birth or from acquired defects are unchangeably unfit for any action (in the strict sense of the term and not merely in the legal sense) are practically not human. Although the statutes and biology consider them to be men, they lack the essential feature of humanity. The newborn child too is not an acting being. It has not yet gone the whole way from conception to the full development of its human qualities. But at the end of this evolution it becomes an acting being.'
Where do you draw the line? I don't know. But you must surely recognise why people see the need for an objective standard?
EvilSocialistFellow:Where do you draw the line? I don't know. But you must surely recognise why people see the need for an objective standard?
The difference is that this standard need not be created top down in a tyrannic fashion(prone to error), but instead bottom up in an organic fashion. Such examples do not justify the existence of the state.
You cannot fight fire with fire, in this case.
EvilSocialistFellow:My answer is that the state would and should damn well intervene! And the answer I want to hear is that under AnCap someone would intervene.
While I generally agree with what Clayton said, I'd like to present some other ways of looking at it.
First off, just because you think that the state would and should intervene doesn't mean it will intervene (in the time period you desire). Remember the Fritzl case? That man abused his daughter for decades before anyone intervened. And this happened despite the existence of a state where it happened (Austria). The reason I bring this up is because, based on your posts in this thread, you seem to be arguing from a presumption of certainty on the part of the state. However, the existence of the state in no way brings about certainty. Crimes are obviously still commited. What the state does is (try to) provide an illusion of certainty - the better to maintain its legitimacy.
Second, in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no laws for compulsory public schooling, and no laws against child labor, so it would be far easier for a child being abused by his parents to simply run away from home. Of course, that in no way guarantees that any/all such children necessarily will do that. Then again, a quote from the Wikipedia article on the Fritzl case is rather revealing:
Wikipedia:After completing compulsory education at age 15, Elisabeth [Fritzl] started a training course to become a waitress. In January 1983, she ran away from home and, together with a friend from work, went into hiding in Vienna. She was found by police within three weeks and returned to her parents. [Emphasis added. Also note that, in the previous paragraph, it states that Josef Fritzl reportedly began abusing his daughter in 1977.]
Third, it seems highly (if not extremely) unlikely for both parents to want to conduct (the exact same kind of) systematic child abuse. As repugnant as it may sound, the logistics of raising one child, let alone more than one, simply to be an object of abuse seems daunting at best and next to impossible at worst. With more and more time passing, the likelihood of someone becoming suspicious is only going to increase, perhaps at an accelerating rate.
Fourth, in the likely (IMO) event that someone does intervene, it may well be an aggressive manner - breaking into the house to rescue the child, for example. This raises the question of what happens when the suspicions turn out to be wrong. In a free-market society, I think the intervener/aggressor would most likely be held liable for the damages he caused, should the parents choose to press charges.
EvilSocialistFellow:Ok, as an example, when I was educated at home (and I was never at any risk, might I add) the government occasionally sent inspectors around to check my work and make sure I was learning from the correct syllabus and so forth. Now, I am just as much against a national curriculum as anyone else on the thread, but I think it would have been totally correct, morally and ethically speaking, for a coercive (not aggressive) body to "save my soul" if I was being taught how to be an extremist Christian and receiving floggings each day for my sins.
Let's say you were getting flogged each day for your sins in a free-market society. If there was an anti-religious-extremism or anti-child-abuse organization that was committed to its cause deeply enough, it could offer to buy custody of you from your parents. Or it could perhaps even sue for that custody. Of course, there's no guarantee that it will get it.
EvilSocialistFellow:Also is a world where education is not obligatory going to be one where (a) all the kids go off to read books off their own back, (b) one where they would prefer to play video games or (c) one where their parents would prefer to have them work on the farm? If they don't get the proper education, the economy will suffer.
What do you mean by "the economy will suffer"?
EvilSocialistFellow:[...] there is no evidence of an anarchy that has had better living standards or greater economic growth than Britain, hence by attempting to implement anarchy in Britain there is the risk factor that living standards would decrease.
There's also the risk factor that living standards would decrease without attempting to implement anarchy in Britain. How do you know which risk factor is bigger?
EvilSocialistFellow:Also, by my logic, there has been no large scale free market protection agency scheme that was also preferable to the evil British government run policing system, hence there is the risk factor of trying to implement radical schemes that have not been tried yet.
Keep in mind that at least part of the reason that there's been no "large scale free market protection agency scheme..." is because the British government has actively prevented them from arising. However, one could consider various instances of "common law" to be rather close to such a scheme in pre-modern times.
EvilSocialistFellow:I meant in terms of economic and social progress; would life be 'better' or 'worse' following on from anarchy. If better, how do you know? What if there is major economic and social collapse? Anarchy may be perfect in theory but would you go for the risk, not knowing for sure whether it would work in practice?
"Economic and social progress" under whose idea of "progress"? :P
Otherwise, what if there is major economic and social collapse despite the existence of the state - as has happened throughout history?
it could offer to buy custody of you from your parents
This is not an argument against your conclusion but rather against one of your premises. This presumes that parents "own" their children as porperty. I personally disagree with this assertion equate it with slavery (ownership of another human).
By "objective standard" do you really mean "universal standard"? That is, are you talking about a standard that applies to everyone? I ask because I don't think you can arrive at any standard empirically here.
@Micah: Are you a parent? No way can you raise a child - consider a pre-verbal child, for example - without the use of actions that would land you in jail if used against a peer adult. For example, if my pre-verbal child started running toward a busy street, I would physically manhandle him and throw him back away from the street, if necessary. If I did that to you, it would be felonious assault but its use towards my child is almost certainly legitimate. Or, let's take the case of performing a forcible enema on your dehydrated child (perhaps as a result of diarrhea). The child will scream and cry and object but so what? The child cannot possibly know what is best and the parent certainly has a legitimate interest in doing what is in his child's best interests no matter what his child thinks about it.
There's no way you can consistently apply NAP to the parent-child relationship.
Micah71381:This is not an argument against your conclusion but rather against one of your premises. This presumes that parents "own" their children as porperty. I personally disagree with this assertion equate it with slavery (ownership of another human).
Actually, I don't make that presumption. For me, "custody" does not equal "ownership". Sorry for the confusion.
In this case the parents have initiated force and the child can respond with force, or employ a PDA to respond with force on the child's behalf.
I make no claims that anarchy will remove all injustice and there will be no casualties of the process. I only claim that on a macro scale the overall quality of life will improve. It is reasonable to assume that there will be parents who abuse there children and manage to get away with it. There will also be cases of rape, murder, pedophilia, etc. However, these are all symptoms of the current system as well so arguing that these exist in anarchy results in a net-zero argument (no advantage to either side). What we can argue is in which society they will be more prevalent. I am of the opinion that in an anarcho-capitalist society they will be less prevalent because the market can respond faster and more effectively than government can respond.
Just as another poster mentioned, there are examples in the current world where children are abused and this abuse in supported by the state. There are far more examples where children are abused and the state is ineffective at stopping it. There are even more examples where children are abused and the state responds but in an untimely fashion (after much psychological damage has been done).
Again I would like to reiterate that I am not championing a utopia free of child abuse. I am championing a political system in which there is an overall reduction in child abuse, not a complete elimination of it.
@Clayton:
Very valid points. NAP, in my opinion, is an ideological construct to help arbitrate interpersonal interactoins. However, in a real world scenario it only matters if someone is pressing charges against you. If you physically pull me away from a bus there is a high likelyhood that I would not press charges against you so even though the NAP may be what is used to determine reparations, it is of no consequence if charges aren't pressed. The same goes for me and my brother wrestling, if neither of us press charges it doesn't much matter who started it.
This would also extend to children and, since they can't speak at the age you mentioned, they can't very well press charges. When they get older they may press charges against you but the hope would be that they would understand you were trying to help them (just as you were trying to save me from a bus in the above example) and therefor they wouldn't press charges. On the other hand, an abused child may press charges relatively soon if they can be persuaded to by some third party (anti-child-abuse activists). This colud be as early as they can speak.
Logically following this through does lead to the conclusion that a parent can "get away" with child abuse up to the age at which the child can speak. The parent may still have to pay reparations after that, but none the less the abuse can potentially continue up until that age and there are no checks against such things. For this I will fall back to my previous argument that it's not possible to fully eliminate child abuse (socialism or anarchy) but rather to simply reduce it.
@Autolykos:
Would you mind defining "custody" then, if not ownership?
Micah71381:(based on Wikipedia's definition)
Wikipedia is one of the weakest sources for authority, if you're going to appeal to authority.
EvilSocialistFellow: Ok, if you promise not to bite my head off for making mistakes, I will have another chance at discussion with you.
There is a big gap in understanding here though. You're drawing conclusions without understanding the Austrian methodology or libertarian philosophy. You're relying on empiricism and vage notions of "better" or "preferable" both individually and collectively.
EvilSocialistFellow:"Society functioning" is an incredibly vague term. What is a functioning society? Can you define it? Does society function now? I meant in terms of economic and social progress; would life be 'better' or 'worse' following on from anarchy. If better, how do you know? What if there is major economic and social collapse? Anarchy may be perfect in theory but would you go for the risk, not knowing for sure whether it would work in practice?
What is economic and social progress? How do you define it? What is a better life? How do you define better?
The risk of collapse is always there. Nothing is forever. Governments collapse too. We just forget that happens. See Egypt. See the USSR. See East Germany. See Serbia. Utopia is not possible.
If you understand Ancap and it doesnt work, you go back to having a state. It is a no risk proposition. If you like how things are now, fine. But being risk averse is not an argument.
EvilSocialistFellow:You must give up Utopianism unless you want to stay in tail chasing mode. I gave up Utopianism when I gave up political extremes like communism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. :)
Anarcho capitalism is not utopian, and anyone who would say that doesn't understand it at all. Sorta like the OP who is not the first or last "libertarian" who figures out they aren't libertarian at all. People adopt labels and use terms without understanding them. The burden for that falls on the person using the label, not the person who understands it.
EvilSocialistFellow:In all seriousness, though, how are we defining 'Utopianism'? The perfect society? If so, ironically this is why I am tending to stray away from AnCap at the moment, precisely because it seems utopian (at least at the moment). Come on, do you never seriously think to yourself Hmm I wonder if this would actually work... I know I used to have these doubts all the time in pursuing my wacko far-left ideology :P
What is work? Again, you don't understand Ancap. It's a very simple premise. It should be very easy for you to understand what the basic consequences of that premise are. This is not rocket science.
If you want guarantees, then you're in the wrong business. There is no perfect system which always "works" the "ideal way" for "everyone" "all the time". So give up that expectation because it is impossible to achieve.
liberty student:Wikipedia is one of the weakest sources for authority, if you're going to appeal to authority.
I am not appealing to authority. I am simply sourcing where I got my definition from. I am making no claims that my definition is correct because it comes from an authoritative source. If you have a a better source then please provide it. Otherwise, your comment on me appealing to authority is simply a red herring (not to mention wrong).
I think EvilSocialistFellow is stating that he sees more potential for "bad" (defined however he wants) coming out of an ancap society than he sees potential for "good" (defined however he wants) coming out of an ancap society. Therefor his own personal risk analysis tells him that it is too risky to switch to ancap and therefor he chooses not to do so. This is a perfectly reasonable market decision and whether his analysis of risk vs reward may be based on incorrect assumptions about ancap, his conclusion that it is too risky for him is still valid.
Our goal here should be to persuade him that the potential for "bad" is lower than the potential for "good" in an ancap society so then he will decide for himself that that the reasonable market decision is to switch to ancap. Perhaps during this dialog with him he will invoke some thought(s) in some of us that lead us to alter our personal views of the "good" vs the "bad" of ancap thereby causing us to consider it too risky as well.
Micah71381:@Autolykos: Would you mind defining "custody" then, if [it's (?)] not ownership?
Would you mind defining "custody" then, if [it's (?)] not ownership?
I don't mind at all. I'd say I equate "custody" with "guardianship".
Micah71381:If you have a a better source then please provide it.
Mises.org
If you're going to debate economics and political philosophy here, this is one of the most authoritative sites on the web for those topics.
Micah71381:I think EvilSocialistFellow is stating that he sees more potential for "bad" (defined however he wants) coming out of an ancap society than he sees potential for "good" (defined however he wants) coming out of an ancap society.
That's his call. I simply would point out that a statist society is fundamentally immoral, violent and self-defeating economically. If he thinks ancap can be worse than that, so be it. But statism, in my opinion at least, has very little going for it.
Micah71381:This is a perfectly reasonable market decision and whether his analysis of risk vs reward may be based on incorrect assumptions about ancap, his conclusion that it is too risky for him is still valid.
It is not a market decision. It is a value judgment.
Micah71381:Our goal here should be to persuade him that the potential for "bad" is lower than the potential for "good" in an ancap society
I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I am simply pointing out what the choices really mean, not what people think they mean, or what they hope they mean. If someone really believes that we have to hurt children for their own good, that person has deeper problems than I can help with. Likewise, if someone thinks they will be freer if they are enslaved, then so be it. I can't make people's minds up. They have to make their own choices, and live with them. I can certainly help them understand their choices better, but the decision at the end of the day is theirs.
Micah71381:Perhaps during this dialog with him he will invoke some thought(s) in some of us that lead us to alter our personal views of the "good" vs the "bad" of ancap thereby causing us to consider it too risky as well.
I agree, the longer this discussion goes on, the more we can see who is full of crap.
@Auto, your new style of quoting breaks the page. I have been fixing the page errors all day. This is a new thing, as your posts never did this before. I suspect you are copy pasting, instead of using the quote function. Since you post a lot, please use the post function, as it is a hassle to fix a lot of posts by hand.
Sorry, LS, I didn't realize you were fixing them by hand. I've been copy-pasting my quotes ever since I joined the forum, though. I'll try using the "Quote" feature, but I remember it didn't work for me before (none of the quoted text would show up in the edit box).
Edit: Just confirmed that clicking the "Quote" link won't do anything. I'm using IE8, if that makes any difference.
Autolykos:Sorry, LS, I didn't realize you were fixing them by hand.
Not a huge deal. Maybe try the techniques in this thread?
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/18184.aspx
TIA.
This would also extend to children and, since they can't speak at the age you mentioned, they can't very well press charges. When they get older they may press charges against you but the hope would be that they would understand you were trying to help them (just as you were trying to save me from a bus in the above example) and therefor they wouldn't press charges. On the other hand, an abused child may press charges relatively soon if they can be persuaded to by some third party (anti-child-abuse activists). This colud be as early as they can speak. Logically following this through does lead to the conclusion that a parent can "get away" with child abuse up to the age at which the child can speak. The parent may still have to pay reparations after that, but none the less the abuse can potentially continue up until that age and there are no checks against such things. For this I will fall back to my previous argument that it's not possible to fully eliminate child abuse (socialism or anarchy) but rather to simply reduce it.
But what you're describing is precisely the sort of Inquisitorial system which we have today where State-paid psychologists induce children to "remember" all sorts of things that their parents never did to them. I disagree that this is a sane way to prevent child abuse and, in fact, I think it actually creates systemic child abuse when the children are dislocated from the custody of the two human beings who have the highest interest in that child's welfare (the two people who happen to share 50% of their DNA with that child) and place them into the custody of strangers. Children are a very valuable commodity in the meat market.
Micah71381:If you have a a better source then please provide it. Mises.org If you're going to debate economics and political philosophy here, this is one of the most authoritative sites on the web for those topics.
Micah71381:If you have a a better source then please provide it.
I did a search on mises.org and there was one PDF that came up, some blogs and a bunch of forum posts. The PDF did not provide a succinct definition of the word, it appeared more to be talking about it rather than defining it. Could you point me to a source that succinctly defines voluntaryism? So far the best definition I can find is Wikipedia, but only because I haven't been able to find a more credible one.
I still believe this is really a red herring since all that matters is that everyone agrees on a definition of a word and where that definition came from is of little consequence. Since no one else is offering a better definition it seems reasonable to use the one provided by an easily accessible source.
Do you believe that in a free market the amount of implanted memories will increase or decrease? As I have stated before, I am not claiming that an ancap society is perfect or will right all wrongs, only that it would be better than the current system. Something to consider is that the insurance agencies will require sufficient proof to provide reparations and they are unlikely to consider child testimony as proof. However, if an advocacy group were to utilize modern surveillance techniques, once they child was of age to object the footage could be used to provide proof. In the current system things like child testimony (and in general, witness testimony) is overvalued. In a free market it is more likely to be valued more appropriately.
Micah71381:I did a search on mises.org and there was one PDF that came up, some blogs and a bunch of forum posts. The PDF did not provide a succinct definition of the word, it appeared more to be talking about it rather than defining it. Could you point me to a source that succinctly defines voluntaryism? So far the best definition I can find is Wikipedia, but only because I haven't been able to find a more credible one. I still believe this is really a red herring since all that matters is that everyone agrees on a definition of a word and where that definition came from is of little consequence. Since no one else is offering a better definition it seems reasonable to use the one provided by an easily accessible source.
Butler Schaeffer. V for Voluntary. Lysander Spooner. Strike the Root. Voluntarism isn't primarily an Austrian thing, but I think it is becoming one.
It's not a red herring. Wikipedia is rife with errors, and is notorious for their silly editor policies. It is far from being credible.
I don't disagree about Wikipedia being an unreliable source, but I would guess that over 98% of the time the information in it is accurate and the purpose was a simple one, to acquire a definition for a word so we can talk without confusion. My guess (unprovable) is if I didn't include my source you would not have said anything, because it's inconsequential where the definition came from.
The reason I think it's a red herring is because you seem to be going out of your way to avoid directly providing me with a better definition (you could have defined it 3 times over now) and are making me hunt for something that you seem to already know. On top of that, this search for a better definition doesn't matter because as long as we agree on a definition we can communicate more effectively no matter what that definition is.
Edit:
After doing a search on mises.org for each of those terms I have concluded, given the information available to me, that as I suspected you are trying to send me on a wild goose chase for some reason. I can only guess the reason for this, perhaps pleasure, perhaps as a distraction while you try to come up with an argument against something I have stated, perhaps to boost your post count. None the less, if you want to supply a better definition go ahead. Until then I will use the definition I provided above and I encourage others in this thread to use the definition above so we can all communicate clearly.
liberty student:...
I will respond in a bit to your post in full but I would like to quickly say this; I do understand *certain* aspects of methodological individualism and have read some of Human Action, etc. I am just having a hard time phrasing my vocabulary to meet your (extremely specific) expectations. Its not necessarily the case that I don't know, I just can't express myself the way you want me to. I think some people get a bit anal about what words you can and can't use (especially considering this is a newbie posting zone, not a die hard expert economist zone - economists use very specific language in a very specific way that ordinary people don't know how to). Ok, so maybe I don't imagine that AnCap would be perfect for everybody, all the time. I am just saying that there are certain social issues that are incredibly complex and are ones that the entrepeneurs would have more difficulty fixing than the state bureacrats who own a monopoly on coercion (and subsequently have more power to implement their plans and may also legitimately use coercion). Obviously, the statist system is by no means perfect (and as I have stated many times, I would like to see a transition towards a freer economy) but it is possible that they can handle *certain* structures better (better being a subjective value) than entrepeneuners in a pure free market economy. Since we don't have a vast quantity of data showing what an AnCap society would like, 'we' can't really know. 'We' do know, however what a mixed economy looks like because we have had a mixed economy in the west since the 20th Century.
I'm trying to use my language in a specific way here, its just hard to meet your expectations, I'm so sorry.
Edit - Micah was spot on when he was talking about my own personal risk assessment, by the way; why should I risk a free market economy and lower living standards (by my own subjective analysis) because you guys all want to overthrow the state? I might be pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to pay taxes but at least there is empirical evidence which shows what a mixed economy looks like; plunging me into AnCap is like throwing me in at the deep end in a hazy confusion of blurriness.