I think most parenting is anti-libertarian. Hitting children is evil.
Most parents aren't libertarians. Ever noticed that?
In Gold We Trust
Rhotair:Most parents aren't libertarians. Ever noticed that?
Most _people_ aren't libertarians. Ever noticed that?
Someone who says they would never spank a child is either a saint or childless. I have two, and I can say that while they are rare there are times when doing something like slapping a hand or giving a spanking is exactly the right thing to do.
Spanking "should" never be the first resort, however, and people who reflexively hit are neandertal throw-backs.
Rhotair:I think most parenting is anti-libertarian. Hitting children is evil. Most parents aren't libertarians. Ever noticed that?
By "most parenting" I meant the accepted norms of parential behavior.
CurtHowland:Someone who says they would never spank a child is either a saint or childless.
I said that hitting children is bad for them, that has nothing to do with my, anyone else's, personal behavior. If you are resort to hitting because you are too lazy to engage them as a person you are doing them no favors.
From Wiki:
Anti-spanking advocates argue chiefly that spanking is abusive, that it is ineffective, and that it teaches children that physical violence is an acceptable way to deal with other people. They point to the fact that scientific research has failed to back up any of the claims in favor of spanking while research has consistently shown that the number one predictor of violent behavior is whether someone comes from a home where violence is practiced, including a home where children are subjected to physical punishment. Some believe that spanking contributes to physical abuse in cases of domestic violence, bullying at school and physical abuse on siblings. Most violent criminals were spanked as children and many cases of bullying at school have been linked to physical abuse cases. Spanking is also criticized for being a violation[14] of human rights. Many are concerned by the fact that spanking is a sexual activity enjoyed by large sections of the adult population and are afraid that spanking might constitute sexual abuse or cause sexual dysfunction.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) official policy statement [5] states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior." The AAP states that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". Furthermore, they state that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults [15] Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.[16]"
Peace
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:I'm not sure I understand.
Me neither.
Juan:Is spanking an act of self-defense ?
No.
Juan:Do children get spanked because they physically attack their parents ?
Juan:Am I missing something ?
What you might miss is the fact that most people who use force (any way) against children aren't able to raise them. They mostly did not positively want to have children in the first place. They breed just because either they don't care or they don't think why they should want children. Maybe they see a religious duty in crowding the world with unwanted children, maybe they want to produce fresh meat for the social insecurity scam.
What those folks definitely don't think about is that it is a human being, what they're beating up. Maybe 'cause they don't care. Maybe 'cause they are sadists. Maybe both.
JonBostwick: By "most parenting" I meant the accepted norms of parential behavior..
By "most parenting" I meant the accepted norms of parential behavior..
Accepted by whom?
Ain't no such thing as "society". Just six billion individuals who happen to live on the same planet. Each and everyone with full responsibility for his acts.
Rhotair: JonBostwick: By "most parenting" I meant the accepted norms of parential behavior.. Accepted by whom?Ain't no such thing as "society". Just six billion individuals who happen to live on the same planet. Each and everyone with full responsibility for his acts.
Acknowledging the existence of society doesn't necessarily negate or contradict the existence of the individual.
A society is essentially defined by how people interact in a given region. If you go to Zimbabwe, they're not likely to speak English or wear blue jeans. Similarly, in America, you shouldn't expect to find very many people who speak Zimbabwean or wear African robes.
Clearly, then, there are some general trends in human behavior, from area to area. This is no way contradicts the existence of the individual, because there is nothing about being an individual that prevents many individuals from acting in tandem.
For instance, you choose to post on this forum. Many others do as well. The fact that we all share this same regular behavior and this forum bears the same symbolic meaning to all of us, means that we can therefore call this forum a "community." But recognizing this place as a community doesn't stop me from recognizing you as an individual person, or vice-versa.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Nathyn: If you go to Zimbabwe, they're not likely to speak English or wear blue jeans.
If you go to Zimbabwe, they're not likely to speak English or wear blue jeans.
You can bet your next ten years' income tax that they still speak English there, maybe sort of different English, but still clearly recognizable.
Nathyn:Acknowledging the existence of society doesn't necessarily negate or contradict the existence of the individual.
That's why "society" is a meaningless word.
Rhotair: What those folks definitely don't think about is that it is a human being, what they're beating up. Maybe 'cause they don't care. Maybe 'cause they are sadists. Maybe both.
Or maybe, just maybe, the fifth time the child is reaching into the knife drawer after being stopped and told "No" four times already, a slapped hand finally gets the child's attention enough to realize that this is not reasonable behavior. Or playing with the knobs on the stove. Or jogging out into the street without looking. Or pulling glassware off the store shelves.
I repeat: The people who decry the occasional and purposful spank are either saints or they are childless. And I am very glad to say from experience that spanks very quickly become un-necessary, because the child gains a concept that "This Is Important".
Edit: I am not talking about hitting an infant. Punishing someone who cannot learn is just torture. A spanking only works after a child has demonstrated willful action and is not learning the lesson any other way.
Rhotair: Nathyn: If you go to Zimbabwe, they're not likely to speak English or wear blue jeans. You can bet your next ten years' income tax that they still speak English there, maybe sort of different English, but still clearly recognizable.
We can pick another African country, then. Like Somalia.
Rhotair: Nathyn:Acknowledging the existence of society doesn't necessarily negate or contradict the existence of the individual. That's why "society" is a meaningless word.
Not exactly. Because society is defined as the interactions between individuals.
The term "economy" is very similar. What distinguishes economy from society is that economy is defined strictly by economic interactions.
To object to the term society would seem to imply an objection to the term "economy."
It seems silly.
Rhotair:Accepted by whom?
A great deal of people.
Rhotair:Ain't no such thing as "society". Just six billion individuals who happen to live on the same planet. Each and everyone with full responsibility for his acts.
There clearly are such a thing as "societies." (I never used that word. Not sure why you brought it up)
Trying to say societies don't exist because they are composed of individuals is like claiming that church congregations don't exist for the same reason.
Perhaps a better way to put it is that societies, nations, races, states, etc., do not exist as individual or sovereign entities in themselves. It's not that they "dont exist" so much as they do not exist as anything more then aggregations of variant individual components. It is therefore fallicious to speak of them as if they are actors themselves. Unless there is absolute unanimity in their thoughts and actions, they cannot reasonably be collectively held responsible for anything.
Rhotair:What you might miss is the fact that most people who use force (any way) against children aren't able to raise them. They mostly did not positively want to have children in the first place. They breed just because either they don't care or they don't think why they should want children. Maybe they see a religious duty in crowding the world with unwanted children, maybe they want to produce fresh meat for the social insecurity scam.What those folks definitely don't think about is that it is a human being, what they're beating up. Maybe 'cause they don't care. Maybe 'cause they are sadists. Maybe both.
Wow, that's a serious mouthful of nonsense and dishonesty.
The fact that you feel the need to conflate 'spanking' and 'beating up' as though these were the same thing indicates you can't make your argument on the basis of logic and reason (little of which is evidenced in your post), and therefore must resort to dishonest semantical tactics.
Your speculations as to the underlying desires and motivations of people in having children are ludicrous and patently non-factual.
Your final two sallies - that those who spank (aka beat up) their kids don't care or are sadists are even more absurd. Get a grip, dude.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
CurtHowland:Or maybe, just maybe, the fifth time the child is reaching into the knife drawer after being stopped and told "No" four times already, a slapped hand finally gets the child's attention enough to realize that this is not reasonable behavior.
Or maybe, just maybe, the fifth time the child is reaching into the knife drawer after being stopped and told "No" four times already, a slapped hand finally gets the child's attention enough to realize that this is not reasonable behavior.
Nope. You just teach that disobedience causes pain. If you try to teach reasonable behavior, try to LIVE it. By the way, children aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. Teach them to use knives, to feel if the oven might be hot - but use your mind instead of just yelling "no".
Rhotair:Nope.
Nope.
Yup. See, two can play at that game.
You just teach that disobedience causes pain. If you try to teach reasonable behavior, try to LIVE it. By the way, children aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. Teach them to use knives, to feel if the oven might be hot - but use your mind instead of just yelling "no".
Like I've said twice before: Anyone who never spanks a child is either a saint, or childless.
The accusation that I do not use my mind, teach repercussions, and think kids are stupid, is a reflection of the fact that you know me about as well as you know parenting.
Rhotair:Ain't no such thing as "society".
To quote economist Destutt de Tracy, "Society is purely and solely a continual series of exchanges" (Doherty, Brian, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, 2007, p. 32).
What we should say is that although society exists, it is not itself a conscious entity and therefore does not possess a Rousseauian "general will."
allixpeeke: Rhotair:Ain't no such thing as "society".We libertarians need to get away from claiming that there is no such thing as society. To quote economist Destutt de Tracy, "Society is purely and solely a continual series of exchanges" (Doherty, Brian, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, 2007, p. 32). What we should say is that although society exists, it is not itself a conscious entity and therefore does not possess a Rousseauian "general will."
Why, then, is Libertarianism more predominant in some areas but not others?
Rousseau's "general will," isn't exactly a collective necessarily, but an aggregate of individual wills, working together democratically through a harmony of interests.
Nathyn: allixpeeke: Rhotair:Ain't no such thing as "society".We libertarians need to get away from claiming that there is no such thing as society. To quote economist Destutt de Tracy, "Society is purely and solely a continual series of exchanges" (Doherty, Brian, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, 2007, p. 32). What we should say is that although society exists, it is not itself a conscious entity and therefore does not possess a Rousseauian "general will." Why, then, is Libertarianism more predominant in some areas but not others?Rousseau's "general will," isn't exactly a collective necessarily, but an aggregate of individual wills, working together democratically through a harmony of interests.
So what?
Society doesn't exist as an entity of its own, despite the opinions of those who insist on reifying the sum of all interactions between individuals. However, the word "society" has its use when describing aggregated social interactions between individuals.
Nathyn:Rousseau's "general will," isn't exactly a collective necessarily, but an aggregate of individual wills, working together democratically through a harmony of interests.
That sounds like Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the market" to me.
Trianglechoke7: Anarchists are heartless albeit non-violent. They are heartless because it seems they must stand by while parents feed their children blow and meth. If they do not, then they violate their own principles of non-violence.