Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 25. (Read 24725 times)

Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want?

therefore, if you die ( as you are the owner ), will they become free? ( while  they are under 18 )

Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option.  It's the fact that they are mine that does so.  And yes, they are mine.  They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.  I created them, thus they are mine.  I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine.  They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others.

Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own, but there exists not one self-consistant philisophical definition of "human", "person" etc within any version of libertarian thought that deals with children younger than the age of reason.  For that matter, none even have a cosnsitant way to determine whin a child has arrived at the "age-of-reason".  A child that I can reason with is not a child anymore, but i remain responsible for their public failures until they are 18, so if I'm respnsible for them, in some fashion I still own them under the law.

Let the bitching commence.

Ah, now we are getting into some rarified philosophical air.  I'm going to have to split this thread.

While its sad that you for some reason decided to have more kids than you can handle, it does not give you license to stagnate on the level of violence. You owe yourself and your children better. There is no justification for violence from a parent to a child. Period. Rationalize it all you want, but inside the deepest place in yourself, you know its true. I hope you do take offense and that (for yours and your childs sake) you are open enough to not stubbornly continue forward down your current path.

I think it is futile to try and persuade that guy, simply because he has already told us that it is okay to use brutality to "teach" children "lessons", that children are "irrational", and that our facts are "bullshit" because we "clearly don't have kids". This is obviously a guy who has doubled down on violence, so reason ain't going to do the trick. Do you think that a person who beats defenseless creatures up to get his way will understand reason?

Don't waste your time on that guy.

I do realize this, actually, and I act accordingly.  I use corporal punishment rather sparingly, far less than most I imagine; but I take offense to the implication that I'm not morally correct in doing so as a parent.  You don't get to choose what is in the best interests of my children, I do. 

Well, I watched about half of it, and that is about all that I'm willing to take.  While I respect Stefan for his philisophical positions, on this one he is just full of shit.  He's presenting it as a failure (of the parent) to prepare.  While this might be true enough in certain (strawman) situations; such as the particualr one that started the video (i.e. How do I get my kid to leave teh playground without resorting to violence), it's quite impossible to predict all of the situations that your toddler might find hismeslf in.  It's also an unfair statement to state taht behavior conditioning in advance of life threatening conditions isn't a mannor of preperation, particularly when your the parent, in public, with five children.  Getting a toddler to leave a public playground due to a time constraint certainly doesn't qualify as conditoning for a life threatining situtation, and ultimately alswasy involves some degree of the use of force by the parent.  Even Stefan will eventually pick up his toddler (agaisnt his own will) and force him to abide, even if there is no physical pain involved.  From Stefan's own philosphical viewpoint, this is violence if it's one adult doing it to another, so it thus must be violence when done to a toddler as well.  Stefan, himself, is a bit of a contradiction in this point.  In the end, the differences between stefan (as a "non-violent" parent) and myself is simply a matter of degree, as he prefers not to use pain as a method of behavior conditioning.  That's his preference, and he is welcome to it.  But give him 5 kids, three in diapers, put him in a public place and make him responsible for their well being, and he might jsut reconsider his options due to the practical non-availability of other options (mostly due to time and attention).  Keep in mind that even though there are two children over the age of reason there to help, he can't really compell them to aid in his parental duties either.  That was, (and largely remains) my world (only two still in diapers, and that only because I've got a 3 year old boy who doesn't care to learn to use the toilet).

That said, we don't spank the two tots.  But this is because 1) they were adopted from an abusinve home (as in real abuse, arbitrary & severe violence) and 2) we have a contract witht he state to not employ corporal punishments; and we (obviously) don't spank the infant either, she can't get into anything anyway. (yet)  But make no mistake, chosing to remove corporal punishments from the toolbox is to deliberately remove an effective parenting tool for which parents do have the right to employ.  There is such a thing as justifiable use of force; and i will certainly use it, as a last resort, to condition my children to associate the memory of pain with dangerous endeavors.  Certainly, it would be preferable to be able to reason with them or otherwise keep them out of harms way without resorting to such conditioning, but that is not always possible

Will you listen to this parent of a three year old disprove everything you just said?

Nonsense.  Should I permit a toddler to stick his hand into the blue light on the top of the stove, so that he remembers not to do it again, or would the much less permanent harm that a spanking causes him help his young (and not very rational) mind to remember to leave the blue light alone?  Sure, I can reason with an eight year old, and teach them a safe way to cross the street, but if a three year old is inclined to run away at any opprotunity, not using the non-permanent pain of a spanking in order to instill a healthy fear of vehicular traffic is the parental failure.

I shouldn't even have to use the "don't pee on the electrical outlet" example.  A toddler can not be reasoned with, as they have no more capacity to understand the risks than a puppy does.  How do I train the puppy to stay in the yard (and thus away from traffic and other harm)?  By using a collection of positive and negative results to it's actions via treats for desirable behaviors and judicious use of pain for undesireable behaviors.  The goal with children is to instil a rudimentary concept of consquences so that the child might just live to the age of reason unmaimed by his own actions, but the methods are similar.  This is not abuse.  To fail to do so, or at least attempt to do so, is neglect.

I really get tired of this kind of bs coming from people who obviously never had children.

Amen brother.  You said it better than I ever could.

The idea that parents are justified in using violence against children is the faulty premise upon which all false justifications for violence are derived.

I identify as anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist, and I can assure you none of this is true for me, especially the vigilantism part.  Ugh.

You know, it's hard to have a conversation about anything when the other person has already imputed me a number of false beliefs.  I can only imagine this is how it feels to be an atheist trying to talk with a religious person who is already convinced that the atheist has babies for breakfast.

---------------------------------------------

As for your observations on parenting and violence.  Allowing a child to run across the street is egregiously bad enough parenting as it is -- you are the parent, you are the one informed that cars can kill people, you are the responsible one, not the child.  On top of that parenting fail, brutalizing the child afterwards for your mistake is even worse parenting.  It only "works" insofar as terror "works".

Let's be fair: if you are doing any of this, you're not beating your child up to "teach" him anything.  You're beating him because you're angry at your failure and you have a sadistic streak in you: beating up your child feels good and it's easy to get away with it (your kid is too weak to bash your face in self-defense).  That's it, no high falutin' nonsense excuses about "discipline" needed.

As long as we have people thinking that beating children up qualifies as "education" or "discipline", we will have adults thinking that beating other adults up qualifies as "justice" or "law enforcement".

I don't believe one way or the other. I see empirical evidence that violence is a primitive form of communication and may be appropriate in some circumstances. For example, a parent might physically punish her ~2-year-old child for dangerous behaviour such as running across a road. Since the child is too young to understand complex things like "getting run over" or "psychological time-out for being naughty", yet they are able to associate simple actions with simple consequences, then perhaps that's the best option.

Expanding on this, it would seem that sometimes even adults are unable to see the error of their ways, and more polite means of communication can fail to get through to them.

The other side of the coin is that when violence is viewed as an occasionally necessary evil, then it becomes much clearer that society already has non-aggression principles. What's more, violence is usually a pretty important issue for everyone (it's not like AnCaps or Libertarians have superior morals and are the only ones who care...). The social contract and means of dealing with transgressions have evolved for generations.


This is what I don't get: AnCap supporters are clearly not opposed to a "social contract" governing the acceptable behaviour of people in society, they just don't like governments being there to manage it. They would rather be vigilantes and do it themselves. That kind of attitude comes off as cavalier when these sorts of criticisms of AnCap remain unanswered:

From Wikipedia: