Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 12. (Read 24721 times)

More magic numbers. And that poor girl is 15, a bit shy of even that goal. Child labor laws limit the hours she can work in a day, and the total hours per week. There are some jobs she simply can not get, no matter how qualified she is. She is essentially limited to minimum wage work at a fast food joint for less than part time. Not a chance in hell she can support herself on that.

If my girls want to leave at 16, I won't stop 'em. If they want to leave at 15, I'll have to.

Wait, what?  Did you just agree that your use of a statistical metric or it's results didn't actually support your own argument?


Genetics are important in this equation for any particular individual. (I don't agree that they are profoundly important, outside of the context of identifiable genetic disorders that are known to affect cognative development)  However, genetics play almost no role whatever upon the averages, because there is no society or race that exists with any meaningful genetic advantage in this context.  Many studies have been done on this topic, and at most the greatest advantage that any race might have here are ethnic Jews at about 3 IQ above the overall mean, on average.  Again, a measurable yet meaningless difference as applied to an individual.  If your IQ testing rang in at 103, you would have nominally zero cognative advantages over your 100 IQ point peers.  I know from personal experience that even a very high score isn't, alone, an indication of future success.  I rang in the lower 140's during high school, and earn just about $100K per year; while my little brother range the bell on every IQ test he ever took, meaning that he was at least 160 IQ but the standardized tests that were provided were incapable of any accurate measurement.  Yet, despite two different BS degrees from two different universities, my brother has never earned more than $30K in a single year.  You see, my brother also has Asberger's Syndrome, and can't quite fake a "social IQ" well enough to keep any job, which tends to be important for success in adulthood.

Simply stated, no.  However, the state is the only 'justice' system available, so I can understand that the shop owners didn't see as they had much choice.  To simply let every shoplifter with a sob story go without any consequences, no matter how many times they have been caught, makes you a mark and that will get around to those who might seek out your store just to steal from it with reduced risk.


I think that it depends upon the case, and this is where the lack of case law makes private security/justice systems hard to argue for.  The official state system has history of actually working in living memory, while non-governmental justice systems really haven't existed for hundreds of years outside the realm of international trade litigations.

I don't contest that, in practice, that what Myrkul said was true.  Yet, even he should admit, that if own of his own daughters didn't want to live with him or his wife anymore at 16; she should have the right to leave regardless of what the state wanted.  In most states in the US, she could file for "emancipation" (a not un-ironic name for early legal self-ownership) that should be approved without issue if her parents were in agreement.  It actually happens quite often for ambitious homeschoolers who 'graduate' early and leave home for college.  It's not often done for teens who simply wish to move out of their home and get job, because it's not practially necessary.  If a teenager wishes to move out and start adulthood early, they just need their parents to not interfere. The state isnt going to return a runaway unless 1) that runaway's parents filed for their disappearance or 2) that runaway is homeless.

100% of what Myrkul said here is true.

Okay, what about handing her over to State Thugs. Is that kosher?

If not, what if she steals again? Can we up it a notch and try to negotiate a private settlement via kidnapping and ransom?

But she is, and they are. If she were to escape, the State would bring her back, unless she could prove abuse, which in this case, the State would not side with her on. If she were to be thrown out, the State would levy fines or penalties against her parents. And, like a felon, her employment options are severely limited, again, by the State. She cannot find work sufficient to support herself, nor is she allowed to leave, even if she could support herself. Prisoner, slave, call it what you will, she's stuck where she is. And why is this? Because she has not attained some magical arbitrary age where suddenly she's responsible for herself.

And what happens when she finally reaches this magical age? After 18 years of being told she can't be responsible, now she's suddenly told she must be! And people wonder why teens act so irresponsibly!

Yes, we live in a world where States force this issue. And that's the problem. "My house, My rules," is fine when the other party is free to go. In fact, it's to be expected. But when the other party is not free to go, it becomes a prison sentence, with the date of parole circled on the calendar. Yes, the State will most likely force me to be a warden at some point in my daughters' lives. It is my most fervent hope, however, that my rules will be acceptable enough that they will want to stay, and I will not be forced to force them.

First, I find this event to be morally abhorent on so many levels.

Second, while she was wrong to steal the powder, that does not justify the use of force enough to even detain her, much less harm her.  There is also the question of appropriate use of force; for even initiation of force does not justify returning of force in (significantly) greater degree than was even threatened.  I had to take courses in the legal use of force to get my CCL, and the classic example is the shooting of an armed mugger.  If a mugger were to corner you, and threaten yourself (or another person with or near you) with a weapon, and you shot him once, that's legally justifiable self-defense whether he dies from that single wound or not.  However, if you shoot him after you gave up your wallet and he had turned around to leave, it's not justifiable or self-defense because he was no longer an immediate threat, because he was leaving.  Or, if you shot him twice standing, and then three more times after he had fallen down; it may self-defense but not justifiable, because you greatly exceeded the appropriate level of force that is justifiable.  An appropriate use of force with this woman amounts to whatever is required to remove the stolen products from her possession, and no more.

Of course, all this automaticly assumes that this is the first time this woman was caught stealing from this particular vendor, which is something I find unlikely.