Topic: In an AnCap society, would it be possible to eat your children? (Read 4571 times)

That's Beelzebub messing with your ability to think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

My slightly less naive understanding is that they usually do nothing and when they do do something it often involves placing the children with abusers and rapists and the people hiding behind the organizations that do it are never considered accomplices.

Seemingly more pressing question "Is it possible to eat your children in our current society?"

Yes, it is possible.

Exactly. Advocates of AnCap can't predict how a problem will be solved, but if there's people who care about solving it enough to put their own money up to solve it, then someone will find a way to solve it. Then someone else will find a cheaper and better way to solve it.

Can't tell if joking, strawman, or serious.

Which is exactly my point. From a religious perspective, knowing that God is all powerful, and He decided to make us mammals and He decided that aborted mammal fetuses have no survivability shows that it is His will that our fetuses die from the abortion procedure. Anyone who argues otherwise is a disciple of Satan as they call into question God's infinite judgement in the same way that Lucifer himself once did.

Yes, of course it does. The same solution for any problem: People contracting freely for services that would likely look very similar to the ones we have today, aside from the fact that they would not be monopolies, and would not take their money by force.

The point isn't whether fear of punishment reduces the number of abused children. Punishment is one thing. The more important goal is to save the child. Does AnCap have a solution in place to save the child?

No you misunderstood, if he didn't put it that way noone would want to discuss how child abuse could be handled without everyone assuming the local government knows what to do about it.

Really that is an interesting question though. What do they do? My niave understanding is that usually they remove the kids from the bad situation and put in the care of family, if possible, and if not, in the hands of some kind of local community run association.

Do you believe that laws and the fear of prison are what stops people from eating their children? Really? I mean I'd think most people don't eat their children because they love then and, well, it's pretty universally accepted (with exceptions) that eating people is bad. Government doesn't have anything to do with that.

You could eat your children now. Are you saying that the main thing that stops you from doing so is that you're afraid of prison?

Humans are mammals, with all the benefits and problems that come with that.

I never could understand the religious argument. If God wanted it so that fetuses could live without their host, He would have designed the human reproduction cycle differently. For example, birds have fully contained eggs that do not require a specific host. Fish don't even have to attend to their eggs. But since God designed fetuses so they they could not live outside their host, He is obviously indifferent to their fate once evicted.

Ideally, yes, disputes are resolved peacefully. It's not a utopia, though, So there are going to be violent assholes. You going to stop a mugging by yelling at them that they'll lose reputation? Are you going to exile the invading army? Security will still be a required service. A service provided on the market.

Myrkul I think you are subscribed to a pseudo-form of anarchocapitalism that is causing much of the confusion in this thread. There is no such thing as private defense agencies in proper anarchocapitalism (or at least none of the ones I've heard articulated consistently) which equate, essentially, to mercenary justice. This system still involves force, and is thus just as bad as the state.

Reputation economics and justice visa vi "social" insurance is the only kind of free market anarchism that does away with force altogether, and with systems like otc ratings, we see it emerging in the bitcoin community already. Stefan Molyneax (who I disavow any further association with) terms these "social" insurance agencies, "DRO's", or Dispute Resolution Organization. Disputes are resolved by widespread reputation systems that subject financial penalties on any and all contracts of those who initiate force, up until outright exile, for the most heinous crimes. Of course, even exile is a choice: criminals can choose to engage in voluntary hard labor or some other form of voluntary punishment in place of the exile, to regain the society's trust and be allowed to contract with others. Society is a choice and a privilege. Revocation of "society' is the only humane kind of punishment.

For more reading: http://lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

Thank you. But in today's society, they don't have to. That's the problem. That's the cause of abuse going unreported "someone else will do it," and the false reports.

Of course they can, and should. But can doesn't necessarily mean 'does'. We've been through all this. I think you're tired and can't think effectively. I suggest you take a break.

Really? Let's bring that quote in, shall we?


Yeah, that's not what I said. I said people can, and should, defend third parties, including children.