A question for anarchists

I belive that the view "my home my rules" has some truth in it but is not the whole picture.

If I own my house, I can do with it whatever I please, I can even destroy it if I wish to. I can set up any rules I want. Even absurd rules - but can I enforce them ?

I said I thought the family was not a voluntary institution. I should have said rather that the parent-child relationship is not totally voluntary (marriage obviously is).

I think Stranger illustrates my point - He seems to be claiming that children must be coerced....I imagine for their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of parents held exactly that same idea - an idea I don't regard as very libertarian...

I of course think it's better that children be raised by their parents, NOT by the state. But I also think that the family is not the last evolutionary step in child raising. I believe that the family is rather a leftover from ancient, conservative times. Just a thought

Juan:

I belive that the view "my home my rules" has some truth in it but is not the whole picture.

If I own my house, I can do with it whatever I please, I can even destroy it if I wish to. I can set up any rules I want. Even absurd rules - but can I enforce them ?

I said I thought the family was not a voluntary institution. I should have said rather that the parent-child relationship is not totally voluntary (marriage obviously is).

I think Stranger illustrates my point - He seems to be claiming that children must be coerced....I imagine for their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of parents held exactly that same idea - an idea I don't regard as very libertarian...

I of course think it's better that children be raised by their parents, NOT by the state. But I also think that the family is not the last evolutionary step in child raising. I believe that the family is rather a leftover from ancient, conservative times. Just a thought

I actually somewhat agree with your feelings about the nature of families. 

The family is a voluntary relationship, it just happens that children often do not have a better option to choose. Though I'm sure they would have much better options if we lived in freedom.

I think most parenting is anti-libertarian. Hitting children is evil. 

The nature of children is the problem. Children must rely on others for their survival. Parents own all the resources so they have all the power, (and happen to be a lot bigger and smarter)

I've heard it said, and its an idea I endorse, that the power disparity of childhood is what creates beliefs in things such as the State( or God). Its not surprising that many people accept that the government behaves with moral inconstancy when some of our first experiences were being hit while being told "We do not hit." How does a child rationalize that? Why shouldn't they accept a government that says "You don't kill" while it pulls the switch?

And really governments are parents, they turn us into children by removing our power and our responsibility. And people want it that way!

People accept obviously evil acts by the State as normal and good because they have been conditioned, as children, to accept obviously evil acts (like hitting children) as good parenting.

P.S.

Just because a relationship is voluntary doesn't mean its "good." A woman staying with an abusive husband is a voluntary relationship, but I wouldn't call it desirable.

Wouldnt a child be obligated, just as an adult is, to behave by the rules of the household so long as they live in that household? It is a basic right of property owners who have tenents to oblige them to behave or be punished in some way. 

 Does the question of rationality and moral agent status come into play here? Does the question of personal assertion of rights become an issue? Just as I would call a dog property until it claimed itself self owned or out loud pondered, "I wonder what I should do now?".

CurtHowland:

Having read some 88 responses, I think there are two aspects that are not being addressed: Evolution and Social Standard.

 Anyone who abuses their children is violating the basic premise of evolution, survival of the fit. The parents, not being fit, do not successfully pass on their genes. Their offspring do not survive/flourish to reproduce. This is why the question of children engenders such emotional reactions like the question in the first place. It is in our (successful, fit) genes to take care of children.

You have it kind of wrong here.

Evolution only works in this argument for genes on an individual level. Individuals are the tools of evolution, i twould be a genetic misprint for a parent to "mistreat" their child, which is why it is such a rare occurrence. No, smacking a brat in the face a couple times is not "mistreatment," its called parenting.

CurtHowland:

 

 "Think of the Children!" "It Takes A Village" &etc.

I'd assume it has more to do with appeals to emotion than antyhing else. 

CurtHowland:

nyone by force into a relationship they do not wish to be in. I also think that a 4 year old cannot make that judgement 100% logically, but humans have evolved children's attachment to their parents to deal with imperfect parents in just the same way that a kicked dog returns to its abusive master.

 Actual child abuse is rare. In an environment of voluntary interaction, where a parents can in fact give up or even sell children if they do not wish to deal with them, I believe the fearful acts which inspire questions like what started this thread will be just as rare if not far more rare than it is now.

It must be admitted that all the titanic intrusion of Leviathan has not prevented child abuse.  To assume that without Leviathan child abuse would increase is unsupportable and I would say a straw-man argument. I could just as well say that since the sun comes up when we tear the heart out of a sacrafice, if we don't tear a heart out the sun will not rise. 

 

Child abuse is rare and it is not helped by the state. Your point on the philosophy of the child running away is dead on, btw. Family, just like any organization post-state, is a voluntary one. Children abide by the rules of their parents until they become too confining. In a libertarian world, the parents would have no authority to restrict their children from leaving.  

JonBostwick:

P.S.

Just because a relationship is voluntary doesn't mean its "good." A woman staying with an abusive husband is a voluntary relationship, but I wouldn't call it desirable.

Not desirable for you perhaps. For a great deal of wome, then seem to enjoy abusive relationships. I'd develop a psychological theory on that if I had the time, but from empirical observation it would seem that the hunter-gatherer image of the brutish man still exists to some extent within women as it almost seems to be a sexual release for women to enjoy being abused.

JonBostwick:

I actually somewhat agree with your feelings about the nature of families. 

The family is a voluntary relationship, it just happens that children often do not have a better option to choose. Though I'm sure they would have much better options if we lived in freedom.

I think most parenting is anti-libertarian. Hitting children is evil. 

The nature of children is the problem. Children must rely on others for their survival. Parents own all the resources so they have all the power, (and happen to be a lot bigger and smarter)

I've heard it said, and its an idea I endorse, that the power disparity of childhood is what creates beliefs in things such as the State( or God). Its not surprising that many people accept that the government behaves with moral inconstancy when some of our first experiences were being hit while being told "We do not hit." How does a child rationalize that? Why shouldn't they accept a government that says "You don't kill" while it pulls the switch?

And really governments are parents, they turn us into children by removing our power and our responsibility. And people want it that way!

People accept obviously evil acts by the State as normal and good because they have been conditioned, as children, to accept obviously evil acts (like hitting children) as good parenting.

The ridiculous idea of parenting being anti-libertarian is exactly the kind of error that results from the absolutist thinking that people have rights from birth. A child is not the same as an adult. It cannot act rationally and responsibly. That is why children belong to (are owned by) a specific adult or couple of adults. The evil of government is precisely the fact that it imposes a relationship that infantilizes adult, rational people who do have rights. 

A large part of this intellectual confusion, in my opinion, stems from the absence of a rite of adulthood in western society. That is largely also the work of the state, having successfully extended childhood into teens and "early adulthood".

Some good points you are making here.  

Grant:

If human rights do not come from nature, god, or some part of the environment and universe in general, it seems to me that they must come from other humans. Saying that rights come from man's nature qua man is nice, but it doesn't seem like it accomplishes anything to me in itself. Rights are rules by which humans treat each other, and so must be recognized by all parties in order to be rights. In other words, they must come from a shared ethic, although the means by which this ethic is spread can naturally be through normative, philosophical argument.

Personally I don't think that general human rights do exist at all. They are a fiction by some lefty humanitarians that think that they can improve the world by making thinks up. One doesn't need rights to act, live, breath, speak etc. To me a right comes, via mutual agreement between at least two parties. Natural rights like rights to property or right to live do have some merit, but I don't think that this exists without social recognition of them. 

Grant:

Since you've got to convince other people of your system of rights for them to mean anything, I think any system of rights not being derived from god or nature will always boil down to consequentialist arguments (i.e., "why should I accept your system of rights, what will it do for me?"). Fortunately, most people who argue about this sort of thing are concerned about the consequences of far more than their immediate needs.

 ... Interestingly the ten commandments are no "system of rights" quite to the contrary they do prohibit certain behaviour (obviously within ones own kinship group). "Thou shalt not..." is the common statement within those commandments. So I don't think they define rights, but they actually do set certain norms. While they are already a kind of a regulatory statement this is similar to many premodern social systems wherein That is then also the point, why the modern state with its regulatory measures and absurd legislation can't work. People are guided by desires, fears, moral concerns, habits, instincts. The modern state tries to set up a cybernetic system of regulations wherin people are supposed to function. You've the right to XYZ and you need approval by ABC, please fill in the forms and follow the procedure etc. This system is the supposed to chip in where other institutions seem to be lacking. If the progenitor doesn't take care of his child, the state gives the mother a social grant etc. Doctoring the symptoms, not strengthening that was allows for a good live is the motto, rather weakening it. Society is not functionin because there is a legal system and people have rights - It function because there are generally recognized practices in place. This is how people live, work, do business and interact. This doesn't require a government bureaucracy, but it would require some kind of authority and social norms and generally accepted practices.

Although I do maintain that rights exist, I agree with Torsten largely. It is tacit surrender to statism to think that people are only good because some legal system coerces them to be so. It is in everyone's interest to accept a certain guidance (I like Hoppe's idea of a natural nobility), certain norms and certain cultural practices, and these are still, to some extent, woven into the fabric of most societies. The problem is the rate at which modern governments are seeking to take this place up for themselves.  

Niccolò :

"No, smacking a brat in the face a couple times is not "mistreatment," its called parenting."

That's right. Physical violence against children is not mistreatment. It's an act of love. Well, it violates the non-agression-principle, perhaps, but at the same time this does not mean it violates the non-agression-principle. Hmmm...Doublethink ?

CurtHowland:

 Whether that suit succeeds depends upon the social standard of the community. If someone is abusing their children (abuse being by definition "wrong"), the community can use the standard punishments such as boycott and outlawry if those "wrongs" are not corrected.

Without a state, where would you bring suit? Courts are a product of a state -- something must give them the authority to pass judgement, and the ability to enforce that judgement. Without the authority of a state, what is to stop the abusive party from flipping off the court? What is there to compel them to even participate in a trial?

It must be admitted that all the titanic intrusion of Leviathan has not prevented child abuse.  To assume that without Leviathan child abuse would increase is unsupportable and I would say a straw-man argument. I could just as well say that since the sun comes up when we tear the heart out of a sacrafice, if we don't tear a heart out the sun will not rise. 

I would not argue that the state can prevent much of anything, but a limited state could do good as far as correcting or mitigating wrongs that have already occurred.

If the parents own their children, then they have the right to kill their children. Many parents do not want to do that because they are afraid that they are going to get caught. In anarchism, parents have the right to kill their children.

libertarian:

If the parents own their children, then they have the right to kill their children.

Granted, but that's a big "if".

libertarian:

In anarchism, parents have the right to kill their children.

And that is a non-sequitur. 

Although I have seen some people in this thread advocating the idea that parents own their children, this is by no means a widely accepted anarchist or libertarian position.  In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard devotes an entire chapter to arguing against this idea.

 

libertarian:

If the parents own their children, then they have the right to kill their children. Many parents do not want to do that because they are afraid that they are going to get caught. In anarchism, parents have the right to kill their children.

 

There is no "right to" kill your children. It is materially impossible to prevent you from doing this, and since the only claim on your children is yours, no one may demand justice from you for doing so.