If that is true, is it not also true that my views about how I raise my children are a matter between myself, my wife and my children?
As long as you're not violating their rights, yes. And might I remind you...
...we recognise that he will have rights in the future, and thus he has them now.
You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf. That is the part for which we disagree.
I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.
Just as you are soverign over your own affairs, and can raise your children as you see fit, as I have no say in your affairs; correct?
Correct, again, assuming I do not, myself, violate my kids' rights.
I understand where you're coming from... Daddy Government has to violate a little of our rights to protect us, so it's naturally OK for Daddy to violate a little of his kids' rights to protect them. Of course, it's demonstrably true that you don't need this type of hypocrisy, that those who protect our rights need not violate them themselves. The same is true for parenting. Your "a little abuse is OK, if it's the last resort" mentality comes directly from, or at least shares the same root, as your "a little government is OK, as long as it only protects those rights it doesn't violate itself" mentality.
You can look at it however you wish to look at it. But no matter how you look at it, you have no say in it. Until you accept this basic truth, you will continue to spin.
Again, if you truly believed this, you would be absolutely fine with parents raping their children. After all, you have no say in it, right?
That, I think, explains your vehement defense of pain-punishment as an acceptable practice. If you truly believed that parents had the ultimate say in how they raised their kids, you'd be OK with them using their children for sex. But if you admit that you don't need to violate their rights to protect them, you might have to admit that the government is in the same position.
No, you're missing the point. Let me offer a slightly different analogy for you to ponder. As a Christian, I'm also not okay with a much worse violation of the rights of children, namely abortion. I find it morally abhorrent, and quite literally murder of a human life. To take your perspective, I'd be within my right to shoot abortion doctors as serial murderers. After all, if I'm morally obligated to defend the victims, what other option do I have? There can be no peaceful disagreement, in your worldview. Every perceived violation of human rights
must be met with force if reason is not sufficient, after all. But I can't do that, now can I? Certainly some have done exactly this, and they have gone to prison as murderers. The problem is that some aspects of Juris Naturalis have a consensus. I.E., Thous Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Bear False Witness, etc. What does not have a consensus is "what, exactly, is 'murder'?
Really, you should read or listen to
UPB. It will change the way you see the world. (Yes, it answers what "murder" is.) And no, it is not a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a parent from beating their child, no more than it is a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a rape.
Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.
The requirement that a population surrender a
subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion. It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.
Sadly, it was a flawed premise. A monopoly is not a good provider of security, no more than it is a good provider of any service.
On more point to be made. While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal. I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem. If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.
I appreciate the offer, but I do believe I'll pass. As you point out, I have my daughters to raise. However, since you consider pedophilia to be a violation of the rights of children, perhaps you should apply the same logic you use to come to that conclusion to the striking of a child, see what comes of it.
