Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 11. (Read 24721 times)

It's interesting that many of these passages are the very ones I considered pointing out to you...

Indeed, it's natural because until the child can wipe it's own ass, you have the authority and responsibility to do that. And it's temporary because once the child can wipe it's own ass, you no longer have that authority. This goes for all other aspects of the child's life, as well. As soon as the child can take care of a particular task on it's own, it's your duty to get the fuck out of the way.

How did I know you'd use this part? You're just as predictable as I, MoonShadow. Force is sometime necessary to maintain a child's safety, such as the previously discussed example of snatching the child out of the street, or slapping their hand away from the stove. That is defensive force. Punishing the child because they did not do as told, however, is treating the child as an object, and is, at best, retaliatory force.

You didn't extend the bold on that far enough, I've remedied that. Be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking your authority absolute. You only have authority over what the child can not do for themselves.

Yes, as I said, over those things which the child cannot do for themselves, either legally, such as in the case of contracts, or physically, such as in the case of ass-wiping.

I suppose you're going to use this to try and weasel out of responsibility for striking your child in frustration?

I'm not arguing efficiency, effectiveness, or any of that. I'm arguing morality. I am stating that you are treating the child not a a person, but as an animal or object, when you use corporal punishment. You are violating the NAP by using coercion to get your way.

I never argued that you don't mean well. I know you do. But you know that saying about the road to hell...

Indeed, though how my treating a child as a person and not an object could bring them harm, I'm not certain. I'm well aware of the boundaries that I must set for the children, and when those boundaries should be removed.

I'll close with one more quote from the article that I think really sums up our conversation:

If you're going to comment, at least read enough of the thread to not stuff your foot in your mouth. I have two children. I am raising them in the manner I advocate. It is anything but armchair parenting. Jackass.

You're an inexperienced fool.  I can't believe this thread is still happening.
There are myriad ways to "encourage independence" and many of them are found through hands-on experience / trial-and-error, which you obviously have none of.
Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy.
Have lots of kids and have "fun", jackass.

A child must see that temporary parental authority is natural and useful and very different from all other forms of non-parental “authority.” A child never sits down and signs papers acknowledging that she grants authority to her parents—it just happens. And if the parents delegate their authority to other adults, that also just happens and is beyond the power of the child to control. So it seems quite natural for the child to view authority as something that exists outside of her immediate control, and when someone tells her they have it, and are backed by the parents, then they have it. That's just how it is.

When a parent has authority over a child, what does this mean from the child’s point of view? Well, it can mean that the authority is there to help and to guide and to teach and also at times to restrict, even if force may be required to maintain the child's safety. Ideally, the authority figures that are parents also have love and respect attached to them. So to the child, the parental authority is a package of love, strength, wisdom, protection, and boundaries. This becomes their first authority archetype.



“My house, my rules.” Parents have power and power corrupts, so be mindful of that fact. Parents are not magically exempt from this old chestnut. Of course there are rules, but ideally they should be consistent and well understood so as to clearly contrast with all the other false “authority” archetypes and their arbitrary mandates.

I’m not saying that every facet of domination can be eliminated. The bottom line is the parent does indeed have authority, and many times imperfect children try the patience of imperfect adults and anger can overtake calm reasoning. But these instances can also provide good teaching moments for both parent and child, as an examination as to how we humans are built and the unfortunate consequences that can arise when a person tests the patience of another. But exceptions are by no means rules, and that’s the crucial distinction that needs to be drawn in the child’s mind.


Human vs. Object: Does the parent view and treat the child as another human being, one who needs help and guidance but in every other way is an individual worthy of respect and dignity? Or is the child an object, a piece of property that needs to perform certain tasks in a certain manner and her feelings and opinions are not a factor? A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being. (I've already acknowledged that corporeal punishment isn't ideal, and may not even be most effective; I only argue that I, not you, are the final arbitor of such)



Parents naturally have the responsibility to care for a child and should assume authority out of love for the child. No other external “authority” has this motivation, although they will all claim to possess it. The primary goal of taking on this mantle of parental authority is to assist the child to develop into an independent adult. The child must be armed with knowledge and confidence before she ventures out on her own so she won't be an easy target for predators.



I don’t pretend to be an expert in this field, and I am not here to criticize how anyone’s parents raised them or how anyone is raising their kids. I am encouraging everyone to do a little introspecting and see how perhaps some of the behaviors that fall outside the scope of government have been influenced by the pervasive and coercive external “authority” mindset. One does not necessarily need to violate the NAP in order to cause harm, especially to kids. (This one applies equally well to you, Myrkul, as it does I)

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could.  In many ways, you are too predictable Myrkel.

Not at all loosely related. These parts especially are relevant:



Take note of these, MoonShadow. Internalize the lessons found within.

I find it extremely amusing that cunicula thinks philosophy is so bad or useless, that it warrants being prefixed with the word "fucking".

He obviously has no idea what philosophy is -- but he sure as hell hates it.  Normal, as people who hate the truth can't do anything but hate philosophy.

Loosely related to the topic....

http://www.strike-the-root.com/teach-your-children-well-part-ii

I think that this author is close enough to the middle of the road that both sides here can see his point.

Exactly.  In fact, it can be argued that imprisonment would be forcing children to go to a government indoctrination center.

All this abstract talk of restitution and non state-based is a pointless distraction from the subject of the tread.

What is important and relevant to parenting is that, historical propaganda notwithstanding, children owe no obligations to their parents. The act of being born does not incur a debt, no contract can be implied by which a child must repay parental support since the child did not choose to be born.

Adult relationships are voluntary, and if adult children are not satisfied with the care and attention they received while subject to their parents they are fully free to leave the relationship.

Everybody knows this, which is why corrupt parents have to spend so much time propagandizing their children with the myths of filial obligation. Deep down they know they don't deserve one second of their children's time on their own merits so they must invent obligations to bind their adult children to them in spite of not deserving it.

Moved.

Well, we've cut back on the extra-domicile activities this year.  They only have co-op on Thursdays, Swim lessons a the YMCA on Tuesdays & Thursdays, Church on Wednesdays & Sundays, and middle schoolers' events one Friday night each month.  Before it was much worse, dance lessons twice a week, singing & art lessons, Spanish, book club, etc.  Yeah, they don't get out much.  Otherwise, they might *talk*; they might even talk to an *adult*, and then I might have a social worker come *visit*.  Oh, wait; I already do.  I have two visits a month, because I'm a foster parent.  Huh, I wonder what those kids might be saying about me during their interviews!  It's a wonder I havn't been locked up!

Well, of course anything that casts the State in anything less than the rosy glow of the Divine Right to rule is going to grate on you. That doesn't mean that those of us who have not been so thoroughly brainwashed as to immediately reject crimethink can't learn something from Ludwig von Mises.

Nope, I haven't touched that wiki.

It's called "restitution." If you're unfamiliar with the term, the definition should be found in any standard English dictionary.

this is a little more tough, but typically, having to pay restitution will do that... debt is a powerful motivator.

Can you not tell who swung first? It's just that simple.

In a practical system, most people would be insured against loss. The insurance company covers that loss, and then seeks damages. This is, of course, only one option.

If he refuses, he is casting himself outside of the protection of the system - outlaw in the original and truest sense. Ask yourself: Would you trust Trendon Shavers with your money, now?

I believe that is the purpose of the Arbitrator, to decide upon a fair restitution.

How did McDonalds come to be the market giant it is today?

Prolonging proceedings wouldn't help, since I don't know of any arbitrators who bill hourly. As for creating more crime, how would you suggest they do that? They don't have the option that the US lawyers do, to get more laws passed. If there is not enough crime, or the crimes are too "simple", there will be fewer arbitrators, or they will have other jobs, as well.

Because the one that breaks the cartel gets an immediate reward of more business. It's the same reason cartels have always fallen apart.

Even the poorest family in the US has a color TV. If there is a market need for low-cost services, it will be provided.

I believe the term you're looking for is "indentured servitude," and that would not likely get used. More often than not, work will be available to those willing to work. And the victim may not need to finance the proceedings. For instance, judge.me Arbitrators have the option to assign all or part of the arbitration fee to either party.

I'm fine with private indoctrination centers too. It just needs to be audited and regulated so that we can be sure that no child abuse is going on. I'm not sure that auditing home-schools is practical.

Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard! 

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

Not just a river in Egypt, apparently.

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

This is not happening.  There is no evidence to the contrary.  Even if there were, it still wouldn't invalidate my core argument, that it's not your place to decide for my children, it's mine.