socialdtk: E. R. Olovetto:Children are potential moral agents.Gun owners are potential murderers. Drunks can be violent or drive under the influence and while doing so have a chance of causing an accident. The smoking of marijuana can lead to the use of other drugs which could eventually lead to an individual stealing to support their habit. People with certain mental illnesses are more likely to commit violent crimes. Racists have been known to inflict physical harm on minorities. Does that mean that gun owners should be treated as murderers, drunks as safety hazards, drug users as thieves, the mentally handicap as violent criminals and charge all racists with assault?
E. R. Olovetto:Children are potential moral agents.
Does that mean that gun owners should be treated as murderers, drunks as safety hazards, drug users as thieves, the mentally handicap as violent criminals and charge all racists with assault?
This is an absurd misinterpretation. Gun owners are potential heroes, drunks and drug users have the potential to sit at home harming nobody but themselves, etc. A gun or line of coke won't off someone by itself. That is the nature of these res. The nature of a child is different. If we're to afford a certain set of negative rights to adult humans of all varieties, it is again because of their nature as moral agents. If a race of super-intelligent and technologically advanced aliens encountered humans, we would hope that they respected our human rights (of course, all human rights are property rights), rather than treating us like people are suggesting we're to treat feeble infants. A lot of the ideas being expressed here are similar to antiquated ones used to justify slavery or treating wives as property. Read von Mises on this here.
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto:A lot of the ideas being expressed here are similar to antiquated ones used to justify slavery or treating wives as property. Read von Mises on this here.
Thanks for the post ER. I'm not sure who the following statement was directed at but I don't think anyone here is trying to justify or condone such acts. What I am trying to argue is the fallacies of arbitrary law enforcement.
Statism is a religion.
I think provocative posts are fine, but this one is pretty low rent. Put a little effort into framing it better.
How's this for an answer:
I would kill you on the grounds that if you do it to your own children, then I can't imagine what you would do to mine.
There; that's nice and final.
E. R. Olovetto: This is an absurd misinterpretation. Gun owners are potential heroes, drunks and drug users have the potential to sit at home harming nobody but themselves, etc. A gun or line of coke won't off someone by itself. That is the nature of these res. The nature of a child is different. If we're to afford a certain set of negative rights to adult humans of all varieties, it is again because of their nature as moral agents. If a race of super-intelligent and technologically advanced aliens encountered humans, we would hope that they respected our human rights (of course, all human rights are property rights), rather than treating us like people are suggesting we're to treat feeble infants. A lot of the ideas being expressed here are similar to antiquated ones used to justify slavery or treating wives as property. Read von Mises on this here.
My point was that children are like you said, "potential moral agents." Everyone has the potential to be something that they are not. Should a gun owner be treated as a murder or a hero? I would say that to answer this question you would have to observe their actions.
This is still one area that I'm not convinced in either way in. I don't know if and when children should be afforded the same rights as an adult. On one hand if children are to be treated as property it would allow their owners to do horrible things to them (which is what this thread is about). On the other hand if children have the very same rights as an adult it would be perfectly legal for a parent to leave their child to alone to fend for itself.
Keith Ackermann: I think provocative posts are fine, but this one is pretty low rent. Put a little effort into framing it better. How's this for an answer: I would kill you on the grounds that if you do it to your own children, then I can't imagine what you would do to mine. There; that's nice and final.
And then my family would kill you. Yup, seems pretty final to me. Now your children have no father either.
Maybe you should put more thought into your answer?
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Socialtdk, please think through things fully and don't bother me with this anymore. Children are human. Their case is different enough that we use the term 'guardianship'. Children will undoubtedly become adult humans rather than adult whales or llamas. Adult humans may very well become heroes or murderers, but this is entirely irrelevant. We still afford other humans rights even though they may do either harm or good. Adult humans are potential invalids or potential sleeping adult humans. Would you like to have zero negative rights when you are asleep or become old? Would you like to be slaughtered like a cow?
A gun owner should be treated like any other person. If we ignored potentiality as you want to, it would be wrong to shoot a man holding a gun to someone else's head. It throws the whole concept of ownership on its head. Read my last link or Kinsella on self ownership or latecomer ethics. I said that children have similar but not identical rights as adults. If children were mere res, we could also go around homesteading sleeping adults. Specifically, I mean things like that pre-rational children cannot own property. It is though legal for adults to abandon children. You must remember though that your action of abandoning the child would need to be accompanied by a reasonable effort to make it known. You could not abandon a child by locking them in a box. This is forestalling.
Also, "abortions" in a libertarian society would have to take place in a much different way. The fetus could not be run through a wood chipper or have hooks stuck through its skull as occurs today. If such technology advances like the use of a pig uterus as artificial wombs, it would be forestalling to deny Friends of Babies access to the fetus. If parents had innate positive obligations to their children, it would then be unfortunate for women who know their child would be born with some disease making them permanently unable to care for itself.
filc: Accept that two problems exist. Your decision that this child has been abandonded was made subjectively and ultimately is nothing more then your own personal opinion. Kinsella is not god and his article that your referencing does not change the fact that it is YOUR OPINION that the child is homesteadable. You must forcefully enter the owners home to eject this supposed homesteadable property which violates his property rights.
Accept that two problems exist.
I agree with the first point. I wouldn't call it a problem though. The content of private law depends on the opinions of consumers. That's a good thing.
The second point is not necessarily true. The abusive parent may willingly hand over the child, if he knows he's going to lose it anyway. But yes in some cases, the PDA may need to trespass into his house in order to rescue the child. This is acceptable. It's no different to a PDA forcing entry into someone's house to arrest them for robbery, or any other crime. As long as the defensive coercion used is proportional to the crime, it's OK. I think most people see trespassing as a minor crime relative to child abuse.
filc:Your method employ's mob rule and the majority vote fallacy, only over a smaller geographical region.
That's strange. I never mentioned voting. And mob rule is what democratic governments are, not free markets. Also, PDA's would not operate geographically: two neighbours could easily subscribe to two different PDA's. It would be like broadband services, for example, with every individual choosing the service which suits them best.
filc:Your method immediately adopts the largest fuundamenntal opposing principle of liberty. Coersion. [...] Quit frankly I'm suprised more libertarian's have not been more outspoken on this viewpoint
[...]
Quit frankly I'm suprised more libertarian's have not been more outspoken on this viewpoint
I suspect this is because most libertarians do not oppose all coercion, only aggressive coercion. See http://freenation.org/a/f12l2.html. Learn the difference between libertarianism and pacifism.
filc:The US government is my PDA and they are correctly enforcing my worldview in the middle east.
Have you read much about how polycentric law works? Scenarios such as the one you mention are often discussed, such as by Rothbard, Friedman, Tannehill, Hoppe, Benson, Stringham, etc. They all explain why two PDA's would be far less likely to go to war than two governments. I can provide links if you need me to. We should take this to another thread if you want to discuss it further though, as this is quite off-topic.
Truth and Liberty
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
Spideynw: Truth and Liberty:Have you read Kinsella's article? No.
Truth and Liberty:Have you read Kinsella's article?
No.
That's a shame. I thought you were genuinely interested in learning about and understanding how child abuse might be dealt with in an anarcho-libertarian world. What was the purpose of your original post?
Truth and Liberty: Spideynw: Truth and Liberty:Have you read Kinsella's article? No. That's a shame. I thought you were genuinely interested in learning about and understanding how child abuse might be dealt with in an anarcho-libertarian world. What was the purpose of your original post?
I already know how it will be dealt with. Nothing will happen to the parents, unless their neighbors take action. The point is to help other people understand this.
Truth and Liberty:They all explain why two PDA's would be far less likely to go to war than two governments.
PDAs will not exist. Individuals do not need massive protection, only government do.
socialdtk: On one hand if children are to be treated as property it would allow their owners to do horrible things to them (which is what this thread is about). On the other hand if children have the very same rights as an adult it would be perfectly legal for a parent to leave their child to alone to fend for itself.
This is a concise statement of the problems libertarians have faced since Rothbard. But here is Kinsella on the subject:
Stephan Kinsella - How We Come To Own Ourselves:So, who owns a child's body? Initially, the parents own it as a sort of temporary trustee. The parents, as the producers of the child, have an objective link to the child's body that defeats any claims of outsiders (unless the parents sever this link by abusing their position). That is, parents have a better claim to the child than any outsiders, because of their natural link to the child. However, when the child "homesteads" or "appropriates" his own body by establishing the requisite objective link sufficient to establish self-ownership, the child becomes an adult, so to speak, and now has a better claim to his body than his parents. [...] Hoppe also argues that rights are held by rational agents — those who are "capable of communicating, discussing, arguing, and in particular, [who are] able to engage in an argumentation of normative problems". This implies that a person reaches adulthood, or "appropriates" his body and gains full ownership rights to it, when he reaches the point where he is a rational agent in this sense. (The act of gaining full self-ownership rights may be regarded as a type of homesteading or appropriation of one's body — reaching adulthood, so to speak — so long as it is kept in mind that it is a special type of homesteading: not homesteading by a body-owner of an unowned (non-agent) resource, but the establishment of an objective link constituted by direct and immediate control of the body by a rational agent.)
Hoppe also argues that rights are held by rational agents — those who are "capable of communicating, discussing, arguing, and in particular, [who are] able to engage in an argumentation of normative problems". This implies that a person reaches adulthood, or "appropriates" his body and gains full ownership rights to it, when he reaches the point where he is a rational agent in this sense. (The act of gaining full self-ownership rights may be regarded as a type of homesteading or appropriation of one's body — reaching adulthood, so to speak — so long as it is kept in mind that it is a special type of homesteading: not homesteading by a body-owner of an unowned (non-agent) resource, but the establishment of an objective link constituted by direct and immediate control of the body by a rational agent.)
Looking at it this way, both child abuse and child neglect are against libertarian law. Here's some Block:
Walter Block - Libertarianism, positive Children's rights, obligations and property abandonment: children's rights:In effect, the mother "homesteads" the baby within her body, with a little initial help from the father. Babies, of course, cannot be owned in the same manner as applies to land, or to domesticated animals. Instead, what can be "owned" is merely the right to continue to homestead the baby, e.g. feed and care for it and raise it. [...] The only way to attain homestead rights to the child after giving birth to it is to bring it up in a reasonable manner. Were the parents to instead abuse their child, this would not at all be compatible with homesteading it. If so, they would lose all rights to continue to keep the child.
The only way to attain homestead rights to the child after giving birth to it is to bring it up in a reasonable manner. Were the parents to instead abuse their child, this would not at all be compatible with homesteading it. If so, they would lose all rights to continue to keep the child.
Spideynw: PDAs will not exist. Individuals do not need massive protection, only government do.
Are you saying there would be no interpersonal conflicts in a world without government?
Spideynw:Nothing will happen to the parents, unless their neighbors take action.
So why wouldn't a division of labor develop so that neighbours could call in a service, rather than having to take the risk themselves?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Truth and Liberty: filc:Your method employ's mob rule and the majority vote fallacy, only over a smaller geographical region. That's strange. I never mentioned voting. And mob rule is what democratic governments are, not free markets.
That's strange. I never mentioned voting. And mob rule is what democratic governments are, not free markets.
They vote not in the sense your thinking of but on the market. People will choose and purchase a PDA which co-align's with their ideological beliefs.
Truth and Liberty:Also, PDA's would not operate geographically: two neighbours could easily subscribe to two different PDA's. It would be like broadband services, for example, with every individual choosing the service which suits them best.
Thats true but broadband services cannot force anyone to do anything where as your PDA has a leg up somehow granting them special market privileges where they can break private property laws. People will purchase a PDA service which correlates with their own world view. Furthermore I have no doubt that people would actually rather choose a PDA willing to violate private property as opposed to a PDA not willing, this is ofcoarse the whole reason we have the government we have today. PDA's will naturally become political. Anytime an avenue of coersion exists people will exploit it.(For the supposed greater good).
Truth and Liberty:And mob rule is what democratic governments are, not free markets.
Take the term more literally. Mob rule means just that, mob rule. When a group of like minded individuals use coercion against someone else. Your system specifically advocates that. People will gravitate to PDA's with whom they ideologically align with and those PDA's will do whats best for business, by pleasing their customers and exploiting anyone's property they feel necessary to keep their customer base happy. If you think this isn't true look at the number of right winged radical's in this country that continuously justify war.
Truth and Liberty:I suspect this is because most libertarians do not oppose all coercion, only aggressive coercion.
What you are advocating is aggressive coercion, not defensive. You cannot defend another person indirectly or on their behalf without explicit consent via contract. Being a criminal does not mean you forfeit your rights as the criteria of being a criminal is arbitrary and subjectively decided. When you invade someone else's property that is not defense, that is offense. Your using the Ends justify the means argument here. Your system basically justifies our war in the middleast. Also your definition of defense grays into offense all too easily.
Argumentum Ad Populum. Plus, personally, I haven't heard very many libertarian's argue this point. Your whole premise sounds more like the hypocrisy which floats around in the conservative movement. The idea that offensive action becomes defensive when someone's moral views are different.
Truth and Liberty: filc:The US government is my PDA and they are correctly enforcing my worldview in the middle east. Have you read much about how polycentric law works? Scenarios such as the one you mention are often discussed, such as by Rothbard, Friedman, Tannehill, Hoppe, Benson, Stringham, etc. They all explain why two PDA's would be far less likely to go to war than two governments. I can provide links if you need me to. We should take this to another thread if you want to discuss it further though, as this is quite off-topic.
Your having a hard time discerning large situations with small. Just because the middleeast is far away doesn't mean the same scenario can't be played out on a smaller geographical scale.
And no, I have possibly not read as much as you have on the topic but for the same reason's I don't like reading the theoretical successes of marxism.
Conservativism
Argument against Free markets and so called Pacifism.
I call you out on this. I believe your stance is anti free-market and anti-individualist. Your argument is cloned from the conservative movement.
It just dawned on me that the entire premise for your argument cooreligns completely with the conservative movement. The US is essentially a rogue PDA but only from your perspective where you are unable to move to another PDA. To the conservative and republican base all of their actions in supporting war are vindicated and the US is not a rogue PDA at all, at least in their eyes. They are doing exactly what they want, invading another country because they find them offensive. The conservative base is justified in their war as they feel that their rights have been violated and therefore must support a war to bring justice.
To someone who understands the difference between offensive and defensive it's obvious that our war in the middleast is 100% offensive. Your system justify's an offensive method of law enforcement. It doesn't uphold the rights of member individuals rather it enforces it's beleifs on non-member individuals because non-members may have offended the members of said PDA.
Has it not dawned on you that your entire argument is basically a cloned argument that the republican's use to defend the justification for their war?
Pacifism on the other hand, or as I would rather you call it "true Free-market", where coersion is not allowed to exist punish's individuals completely on a voluntary basis entirely without the need of violating property rights. I guarantee you a criminal would rather spend the rest of his days in a sponsored prison rather then starve in his house. You use the word Pacifism in a negative connotation as if it is wrong, and then argue that libertarianism uses an aggressive method of resolving disputes. This is EXACTLY the same argument republican's use against anti-war demonstrators. They feel we are pacifists.
You also need to understand that we ALREADY HAVE monocentric law at an international level and it does not work any better. Coersion must be abolished for a true free society to function as a free society. Otherwise PDA's will become agenda based and be exploited to enforce beleifs on others. It will be good business for PDA's to do this and please their customer base.
The whole reason why lobbying exists today is because business's know that buddy relationships with an organization which can legally use coersion is beneficial to it's cause. When you create an avenue for coersion to exist exploitation will happen. Big business's you can bet will buddy with large PDA's. The biggest bidder is going to win in regard to a PDA and coersion against people in your system will be justified.
Let me put it in a different light. There is only one reason why the government of today exists as the single power that it is. It is completly due to permited and legally allowed coersion. If the government was not allowed to violate private property it would not exist. Period.
Free Markets and Coersion
You are attempting to compare a true free market entity like a milkman to a coersive market entity like a PDA that uses coersion. The two are not the same in your example. What would it be like if it were? Why is it that PDA's get special privilages with Coersion where milkmen can not? Why can't all business's be given this ability? Perhaps MilkmanA feels that his milk is of more value and therefore more productive then MilkmanB. Perhaps he feels morally justified in using coersion to stifle his competitors. He could fabricate a silly argument as you have stated that MilkManB has not homesteaded his business appropriately and therefore he will take over his business by force and take the existing customer base.
When coersion is used corruption occurs. You don't need coersion for a safe, free, and productive free market world to exist.
I don't need to read books which try to justify the use of offensive coersion for the same reason I don't need to read a neo-cons book on justification for war. Both are morally wrong. Quite frankly if what you say is true in the respect that most Libertarian's agree with you I would be terrified for the ultimate result of libertarianism and hope that more people defned this cancer from becoming more set in stone in the libertarian ideology.
You don't need coersion to have a healthy free society. When coersion is allowed there becomes no distinction between criminals and organizations simply performing the actions of their customer base. Criminals in this case will always be individuals meanwhile a banded co-opped PDA is somehow justified in performing the same actions.
If you agree that man himself is not allowed to have special coercive privileges over his neighbor, then you cannot logically come to the conclusion that somehow business's get this special authority. If man is not allowed coercive privileges neither can business's be allowed, regardless of their function.
Bottom line is we will never get the free society we want so long as we continuously attempt to create avenues for justified coercion. There can be only one case of justifiable violence and thats through direct defense, not indirect offensive forms of defense.
Truth and Liberty: Spideynw: PDAs will not exist. Individuals do not need massive protection, only government do. Are you saying there would be no interpersonal conflicts in a world without government?
No, I am saying there will be arbitrators, with no threat of force to enforce their decisions. For evidence, look at how international companies resolve disputes. The only threats available to the parties at the dispute are what they bring.
Just for the record my viewpiont here does different from Spidey in the follow respects. I'm not saying PDA's won't exist. They most certainly will, especially in dense populated areas. My argument is a PDA, Insurence Provider, or arbitrator does not need to violate property rights to uphold the culturally accepted law.
I'll quote myself from before.
Original Post
Spideynw: If I molest my baby/toddler, what are you going to do about it, if anything? If you are going to do something about it, why do you think you have any right to do anything about it? (I am starting this one over. I will copy over any of the other posts from the other thread that I believe were relevant.)
If I molest my baby/toddler, what are you going to do about it, if anything? If you are going to do something about it, why do you think you have any right to do anything about it?
(I am starting this one over. I will copy over any of the other posts from the other thread that I believe were relevant.)
My responses
filc: Publicly scrutinize my neighbor and develop peer pressure to have him stop. Maybe even have it so bad that the person gives the child up again. Stores could actively decide not to sell to that person untill the behavior changed or the child was removed. I'm sure there are plenty of free market solutions that could bring the situation to a screaching hault without violating property rights. The issue though is knowing about it. I'm assuming we had prior knowledge of the behavior going on.
Publicly scrutinize my neighbor and develop peer pressure to have him stop. Maybe even have it so bad that the person gives the child up again. Stores could actively decide not to sell to that person untill the behavior changed or the child was removed. I'm sure there are plenty of free market solutions that could bring the situation to a screaching hault without violating property rights.
The issue though is knowing about it. I'm assuming we had prior knowledge of the behavior going on.
filc: One could speculate that a community that subscribes to a certain private court may take the following scenario as action. The court would judge that the individual is guilty based on obvious standards, beyond a shadow of a doubt blah blah blah ect(Lets say someone took pictures and submitted it).... Then the court would mandate that he would be in effect be excommunicated from the community. From here there are several options. He would be marked as a known community criminal. Having a jail would may be completely un-necessary. The community who subscribes to X PDA services and Y Court Justice services who is also partnered with X PDA will have a set of standards required of subscribers. A store owner for example wanting to remain in compliance with their PDA and court contractors may be required to no longer sell goods or participate in any exchanges with the known criminal. The community as a whole will do this effectively removing that man from any community involvement, primarily trade. The man will face the following options. Commit further criminal crimes, which will ultimately get him killed or arrested. (Like stealing for food) move out of his home to another location at which case the community no longer has to deal with him Or make it up to the community in some fashion. The judge may state that for starters the man must give up his child to foster care or whatever institution. Perhaps he will be required to sell his home, maybe he's not fit to be a responsible homeowner. We could only guess as to what methods could be used but there are many I am sure. Notice that this criminal is effectively dealt with without ever violating his property in the first place. The only real bad side to this is if he chooses to starve the child. I think this would be highly unlikely though. Remember that all the utility companies will likely shut off their services to him in order to be in compliance with the PDA and court system. If they do not community members may opt out of their service for collaborating with a known criminal. It would be bad for business.
One could speculate that a community that subscribes to a certain private court may take the following scenario as action. The court would judge that the individual is guilty based on obvious standards, beyond a shadow of a doubt blah blah blah ect(Lets say someone took pictures and submitted it).... Then the court would mandate that he would be in effect be excommunicated from the community. From here there are several options. He would be marked as a known community criminal.
Having a jail would may be completely un-necessary. The community who subscribes to X PDA services and Y Court Justice services who is also partnered with X PDA will have a set of standards required of subscribers. A store owner for example wanting to remain in compliance with their PDA and court contractors may be required to no longer sell goods or participate in any exchanges with the known criminal. The community as a whole will do this effectively removing that man from any community involvement, primarily trade. The man will face the following options.
Notice that this criminal is effectively dealt with without ever violating his property in the first place. The only real bad side to this is if he chooses to starve the child. I think this would be highly unlikely though. Remember that all the utility companies will likely shut off their services to him in order to be in compliance with the PDA and court system. If they do not community members may opt out of their service for collaborating with a known criminal. It would be bad for business.
Juan:PDAs will not exist. Individuals do not need massive protection, only government do. Insurance companies dealing with ordinary theft won't exist either ?
I would guess they would exist. They would probably investigate the claim, find the thief, and ask him to pay up. I am not sure what threats they could use, besides refusing to do business with him if he does not pay up. Maybe this would be too risky, and people would just have savings instead, which I think would also be very likely.
Truth and Liberty: Spideynw:Nothing will happen to the parents, unless their neighbors take action. So why wouldn't a division of labor develop so that neighbours could call in a service, rather than having to take the risk themselves?
What risk? If my neighbor harms his or her child, I do not have to do anything about it.
filc:Thats true but broadband services cannot force anyone to do anything where as your PDA has a leg up somehow granting them special market privileges where they can break private property laws.
PDA's have no special privileges. Any individual could do what a PDA does. A PDA is merely a division of labor.
filc:People will gravitate to PDA's with whom they ideologically align with and those PDA's will do whats best for business, by pleasing their customers and exploiting anyone's property they feel necessary to keep their customer base happy.
A PDA which violates property rights will a) be liable to be prosecuted by another PDA, b) have to raise its prices to pay for the aggressive coercion, c) be judged extremely harshly by free-market regulators and the media, and d) lose customers because of the increased prices and loss of reputation. So PDA's will have strong incentives to use only defensive coercion. PDA's will not "naturally become political".
filc:I guarantee you a criminal would rather spend the rest of his days in a sponsored prison rather then starve in his house.
I wish I had your confidence that voluntary actions would be so effective, and that this would be sufficient for order.
filc:Coersion must be abolished for a true free society to function as a free society.
Abolished by who? And how?
filc:There can be only one case of justifiable violence and thats through direct defense, not indirect offensive forms of defense.
Wait a minute. "Direct defense" is justified? Is that not a type of coercion?
And please do read Roderick Long's article. It's really short and extremely helpful for understanding different types of coercion, and what types are consistent with libertarianism.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap