Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 7. (Read 24721 times)

True, their own affairs.

As long as you're not violating their rights, yes. And might I remind you...

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.

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.

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

That's the second time you've done that. Instead of trying to differentiate treatment of people and children from treatment of animals, for the most part, you should consider that animals are capable of feeling pain and suffering, and various types of thoughts. I think it demonstrates a deficiency in your thinking, and to some extent, disqualifies you from discussion. Better to think that animals also deserve to be treated well.

Anyway, your arguments are rather weak. First, be very clear on the exact offense you claim MoonShadow is engaging in (slicing out a child's eyeballs, whipping a child with a belt, patting a child on the bottom, etc.). Second, since you're such a man of action, please share the times you've intervened to disrupt violent actions.

If your version of statism exists only to protect the rights of the individual, and society from external threats, then yes.

However I strongly doubt that is what you mean.

I see that we need to return to first principles, Myrkul.

Correct me it I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will, but isn't one of the core principles of an AnCap society that every adult is soverign over their own affairs?

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?

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?

Do you not see the contradiction in your own philosophy?  One the one hand, you profess that men should be able to govern themselves (for which I agree) and see no problem with taking that to it's absolute (for which I don't agree); but on the other hand, you also profess that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to raise children.  Sure, you have the right to believe that, even to profess that; but you don't have the right to impose your beliefs upon others.  Should you choose to do so, and cannot get compliance with words alone, you have professed a moral obligation to use force.  Granted, violence is the last argument of the sovereign, but it is also about as likely to be his last argument ever. 

I do see the contradiction of anarchism, for it fundementally assumes that every adult has, not just the right, but also the willingness and ability to self-govern.  (This ability also presumes self-censorship, as in the skinhead in the barfight example; while none of us has the right to not be offended, offending others still has natural consequences) The root problem with this theory is that there will always be a subset of people for which this assumption does not apply.  Some will grow into it, others never will, but never can all the people be able to self-govern at the same time.  So what is the pensive ancap to do?  If you really believe that corporeal punishment is child abuse, are you not obligated to intervene?  But how, if every adult is presumed capable of self-government, and is sovereign over his own affairs?  If you step in personally, and things go sour, do you imagine that my children will be thankful that you have relieved them of a tyranical parent?  Or is it more likely that you would have started a blood feud between my surviving family members and your own?  This is not a trivial question, since we can't assume that everyone who lives in an ancap society would agree with your own belief system.

Granted, our real world has many contradictions.  Yet one sign of maturity is the ability to incorporate such contradictions into one's worldview.

And to the "point" about my not being a good Christain because I don't see the "Golden Rule" in the same context that you do, the best understanding in English for the Golden Rule is not "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (otherwise you have this very event.. http://www.dilbert.com/strips/2012-12-09/ ) it's more correct to say "Do not do unto others for which you would not have done to you".  The distinction is not trivial.

You can safely assume the answer to this question is pretty much always "No."

The State assigns parental rights to MoonShadow. This allows him to raise his children as he likes within fairly broad boundaries. That is called freedom. Without the restrictions, questions like "should we take away his children?" would be ambiguous. This ambiguity would force MoonShadow to conform to everyone else's beliefs. That is how I expect an AnCap society would be. All laws and rights are ambiguous, so you would need conform with everyone else's views to avoid risk of violent confrontation. I prefer freedom and individuality thus I choose Statism.

Have I got this right?

Well said.

I'm mostly shielded from MoonAbuser's garbage, but the few things he has said that have snuck through comment quotes reveal the absolute putrefaction and perversity rotten in his mind.  Some "Christian" he is.

This isn't a matter of opinion. it's fact. You're treating a person with rights as though they had none, and were in fact, an animal, incapable of thought. No matter how you shy from this realization, that's exactly what you're doing, abusing them.

The off-duty policemen thought they had every right to beat up the skinhead. They initiated violence upon him, and the defender got the shaft. If you're blaming the skinhead for being beaten by a gang of thugs with tin shields because he mouthed off to them and tossed peanuts, you might as well blame the rape victim for her rape, because she was wearing a tight skirt. But, then, you consider beating your kids a suitable way to treat a defenseless person with rights, so I suppose your values are pretty skewed to begin with.

I would strongly suggest you take a good long look at the things you have defended in this thread, and see how many you defended because they are just, and right, and how many you defended because they parallel you beating your kids, and you can't defend that without defending them, as well. Start with that story about the off-duty pigs.

If that is how you wish to look at it, go ahead, but it does not change the reality that your perspectives have zero bearing on my children.  Once again, I must point out that, (under this reality one such as an ancap) it's not your opinion that matters with regard to my children; it's mine.  Your opinion is inmaterial.

Ahh, but there's the rub. He correctly interpreted the situation, but had the misfortune to come to the defense of the victim of the Praetorian Guards. Interestingly, the parallels to our discussion are very strong.