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.

It's correct. Most people recognize the concepts here, but they have a blind spot when it comes to abortion for some reason. (Religious or cultural, I suspect.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, that's an interesting interpretation.


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.

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.

"Justice Company"

Fetuses violate the NAP as trespass on the woman's body. It's ethical to remove them.

Your question is unclear. I'd be glad to provide an example, but I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Explain. Provide an example. Demonstrate how 'could', and the opposite choice, 'could not' both result in getting the job done. 

You're just one big collectivist minefield, aren't ya?

He could always intervene himself.

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 are mistaken.

Don't government's Keynesian fiscal policies effectively "eat your children" by placing ever increasing debt upon them?  

It is in fact implicit in AnCap, unless I am mistaken. Otherwise, explain the solution.

Please quote where any of us said that looking the other way is the solution.

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.

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.

Neither of these things - taken alone - are sinister.

It's the fact that your conclusion is "Therefor: Government" that's the problem.

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.

I would answer that if it was a bona fide question instead of a smear attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

So nothing should be done? No laws? Nothing? Just let parents chain their kids to the bed?

You would have a great point if you'd acknowledge that laws also do not eliminate inappropriate behavior.

Stop it with the incomplete thoughts. It only necessitates correction in what would otherwise be obvious. Your remark is again incomplete. It's tiresome to have to point out that instincts don't eliminate inappropriate behavior. There really should be a law or something to address the many who do seem to abuse their children, sometimes horrifically.

No, for two reasons.
1) The US government cannot be "hired." They force their services on people, and then extract payment at gunpoint.
2) The addicted people made the choice to use the drug. You can't defend people from their own choices. Even an intervention is just a group of friends trying to help the addict make the right decision.

Can I hire a US government to prevent drug sellers from tricking poor addicted people into buying drugs? Surely, the addiction affects the mind in such a way that the drug users are unable to give informed consent?

Can I hire a moralistic government to prevent sadists from abusing self destructive consenting masochists?

Could I hire an oppressive government to prevent people from hearing lies and disinformation (like for instance "ron paul is bad") on the internet?

History disagrees: http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/01_killermotherland.html

Some things, including caring for our children, are built-in. There does not need to be a law saying "thou must eat", and equivalently there does not need to be a law saying "thou must take care of your children well".

in general, i consider how you threat the ones that are not able to exercise their rights themselves a benchmark of a civilized society. besides children that can be prisoners or anyone who has, for whatever reason, temporarily or permanently, diminished responsibility.

What a weak rebuttal. Just because we're here does not mean that there weren't children abused in the past.

You are mistaken. The thread title shows that if the scenario is not addressed, it might indicate that none of the following are addressed:

- General child abuse by parents
- Cruelty to children by parents
- Torture of children by parents
- Incarceration of children by parents (locking in closets, chaining to bed)
- Abandonment of children
- Killing of children
- Maiming of children
- And by extension, cruelty to animals
- Failing to provide any education to children

I guess you skipped the part where I said "and it risks lives"? Money isn't the only thing stopping a shooting fight over the issue.

And I take it you've never heard of "precedent". The first dispute - if that - would go to arbitration. All others after that would point to that decision and say "It's been done before. Now shoo."


In other words, because it's murder. Unless you're suggesting that murder would be acceptable in an AnCap society (something even FirstIdiot hasn't had the audacity to try) then the conversation is over.

Now, because I promised:

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.

How did cavemen deal with children's rights? Obviously, the children grew up to be intelligent folks that invented sliced bread. Believe it or not, humans have a built-in procedure for handling children. Any additional regulation is counterproductive.

but it does raise the question how you handle childrens rights when the parents can change the set of laws whenever they please.

No it doesn't. The thread title is an attempt to associate AnCap with the very, very uncommon, yet emotion-evoking, practice of eating children. Because there is no evidence it has been phrased in the form of a question. There are issues with AnCap but bringing up some fringe scenario isn't productive.

Another answer is that such people would be shunned by their peers, finding it impossible to do business or live anything more than a subsistence lifestyle. If they could somehow keep it secret, well then they would be keeping it secret from the state as well, once again making it a moot point.

If conditions arise making it advantageous for humans to eat their own children, it is very unlikely there will be any sort of functioning legal system anyway. So that argument is a moot point.

As to the people who only refrain from eating their children due to the threat of a prison sentence... Is there any evidence that exists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_cannibalism

Benefits of filial cannibalism

• Satisfies current energy or nutrition requirements[2]
• In a bad reproductive environment, cannibalism is a way to make a recouping reproductive investment[2]
• Puts evolutionary pressure on offspring in order to make the offspring develop quicker[4]
• May increase the reproductive rate of a parent by making that parent more attractive to potential mates[4]
• Gets rid of offspring that take too long to mature[4]
• Removes weaker offspring in an overproduced brood, which makes the other offspring more likely to be successful[4]

Only if you can prove they're yours and everyone else agrees that you hold title to them.

I would hope an /s tag is unnecessary, but one never knows.

This is a moot point because nobody will eat their children in the first place; it's clearly evolutionarily unfavourable. If they do, then they are not human, or subhuman, and don't deserve to have children.

The thread title poses an important and legitimate question. It shows one of the many shortcomings of AnCap.

Myrkul: it's wrong to eat your children, because you take away their chance of a long fulfilling happy life.

If money is the dividing line between people getting shot and people not getting shot.... people will be shot. 

And sobody who wants to have an abortion needs to go to arbitration first? 

Simple, really. it's the one that causes the least trouble.

If you want a response to the rest of your post:

Why do you think that would be the result?

Only if you eat all of them..


EDIT: Since I didn't get an answer to this question, and I think it's a very interesting one: 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?

Fighting is still expensive, and risks lives. Arbitration, by comparison, is cheap, and usually, nobody gets shot.

I am assuming the person wanting the abortion has no justice company or has hired a weaker justice company.

Eating your children ensures that your genes will never be passed on, and nobody else will eat their children.

If a justice company is wrong, then sever all ties with it and get a new one.

Ehh... not too likely. No defense company is going to attack another defense company unless they really have to, so arbitration would be the order of the day, which would probably result in the decision: "keep to your own damn body."

The whole problem with people hiring different justice companies is that an anti-abortionist is going to hire their own justice company to protect the fetus in someones body who wants an abortion.  That would get messy. 

I'll deal with the rest later. First.... Why?

It would be horribly wrong.
But for the more twisted people: The threat of a long prison sentence. Would this also happen in AnCap, even though the child has no defence company? Could a company do it "pro bono"? Would regulating affairs between non-customers open up for morality laws?


Abortion free for all (just choose the one that allows it). Ok

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

To the abortion question, you select a different justice company.

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?