Topic: In an AnCap society, would it be possible to eat your children? - page 2. (Read 4571 times)
September 11, 2012, 12:21:41 AM
September 10, 2012, 11:54:40 PM
Fetuses violate the NAP as trespass on the woman's body. It's ethical to remove them.
Well, that's an interesting interpretation.
For example, we don't compel parents to donate a kidney even if it is needed to save their child's life. We allow parents to choose to value their bodily integrity higher than their children's lives if that is their wish. We recognize that no living thing has any "right" to violate the bodily integrity of another living thing against its wishes. It doesn't matter what rights the fetus has to life or to be left alone -- no such right takes priority over another's right to physical, bodily integrity.
September 10, 2012, 11:49:24 PM
Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.
Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
Actually, the world currently does work that way. You're the one who wants to put the cost of saving the child onto the person who discovers the abuse, rather than removing the responsibility from the discoverer and transferring it to the public as a whole.
I'd hardly call the current state to be resulting in favorable outcomes. Abuse happens with stunning regularity, and goes unreported. False reports break up families, or minimally, clog an already overburdened monopoly system. The reason for this? People don't take responsibility.
Ah, so you're bringing the argument around full circle (as is your trademark). I already provided that response. It's here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1179821
Instead of going in a circle, try to move forward. Please demonstrate a solution that is more, not less.
September 10, 2012, 11:46:23 PM
Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.
Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
Actually, the world currently does work that way. You're the one who wants to put the cost of saving the child onto the person who discovers the abuse, rather than removing the responsibility from the discoverer and transferring it to the public as a whole.
I'd hardly call the current state to be resulting in favorable outcomes. Abuse happens with stunning regularity, and goes unreported. False reports break up families, or minimally, clog an already overburdened monopoly system. The reason for this? People don't take responsibility.
September 10, 2012, 11:39:31 PM
Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.
Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
Actually, the world currently does work that way. You're the one who wants to put the cost of saving the child onto the person who discovers the abuse, rather than removing the responsibility from the discoverer and transferring it to the public as a whole.
September 10, 2012, 11:34:57 PM
Fetuses violate the NAP as trespass on the woman's body. It's ethical to remove them.
Well, that's an interesting interpretation.
Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.
Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
September 10, 2012, 11:27:26 PM
He could always intervene himself.
Explain. Provide an example. Demonstrate how 'could', and the opposite choice, 'could not' both result in getting the job done.
Your question is unclear. I'd be glad to provide an example, but I'm not sure what you're looking for.
Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.
September 10, 2012, 11:25:24 PM
"Justice Company"
September 10, 2012, 11:24:23 PM
The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance 
Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?
Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?
Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?
Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?
Fetuses violate the NAP as trespass on the woman's body. It's ethical to remove them.
September 10, 2012, 11:21:41 PM
He could always intervene himself.
Explain. Provide an example. Demonstrate how 'could', and the opposite choice, 'could not' both result in getting the job done.
Your question is unclear. I'd be glad to provide an example, but I'm not sure what you're looking for.
September 10, 2012, 11:18:50 PM
He could always intervene himself.
Explain. Provide an example. Demonstrate how 'could', and the opposite choice, 'could not' both result in getting the job done.
September 10, 2012, 11:14:18 PM
So you're saying that the party that discovers the abuse just happens to have to be the party willing to undertake the necessary fees required to hire the defense agency? That sucks.
You're just one big collectivist minefield, aren't ya?
He could always intervene himself.
September 10, 2012, 11:09:38 PM
Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.
Please quote where any of us said that looking the other way is the solution.
It is in fact implicit in AnCap, unless I am mistaken. Otherwise, explain the solution.
You are mistaken.
Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly?
In a word, yes. It may end up in a rather hairy arbitration, but in general, you can defend a third party, and by extension, can delegate that ability.
So you're saying that the party that discovers the abuse just happens to have to be the party willing to undertake the necessary fees required to hire the defense agency? That sucks.
September 10, 2012, 11:04:20 PM
Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.
Please quote where any of us said that looking the other way is the solution.
It is in fact implicit in AnCap, unless I am mistaken. Otherwise, explain the solution.
You are mistaken.
Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly?
In a word, yes. It may end up in a rather hairy arbitration, but in general, you can defend a third party, and by extension, can delegate that ability.
September 10, 2012, 11:00:03 PM
Don't government's Keynesian fiscal policies effectively "eat your children" by placing ever increasing debt upon them?
September 10, 2012, 10:56:09 PM
Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.
Please quote where any of us said that looking the other way is the solution.
It is in fact implicit in AnCap, unless I am mistaken. Otherwise, explain the solution.
September 10, 2012, 10:47:09 PM
Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.
Please quote where any of us said that looking the other way is the solution.
September 10, 2012, 10:42:44 PM
Refusing to address the question of whether or not laws are effective at stopping child abuse and instead insinuating that anyone who asks the question supports child abuse is despicable behavior and I will not dignify what you're doing by pretending it's a debate.
I'm not aware of any society statistically significant and so morally corrupt and uncaring that there are not laws with regard to preventing child abuse, and so therefore, would never make the claim that they are not effective. I do know for a fact that in societies with laws dealing with horrific child abuse, judicial action does make an attempt to remove the child from the harmful relationship.
Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.
September 10, 2012, 10:31:57 PM
Refusing to address the question of whether or not laws are effective at stopping child abuse and instead insinuating that anyone who asks the question supports child abuse is despicable behavior and I will not dignify what you're doing by pretending it's a debate.
September 10, 2012, 10:30:58 PM
I would answer that if it was a bona fide question instead of a smear attempt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
It's like all the libertarians who think environmentalism is about control and power grabs. So wrong, and so mislead they are. Environmentalism has its roots in scientists identifying and compiling facts about the environment - nothing more sinister than that.
Addressing the issues of child abuse has nothing to do with smear attempts. It's about making sure children aren't abused. Nothing more sinister than that.
Neither of these things - taken alone - are sinister.
It's the fact that your conclusion is "Therefor: Government" that's the problem.
Jump to: