Delaware becomes 1st state to officially outlaw spanking

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's precisely what I'm saying. You aren't judge, jury, and executioner. You don't always know what is right. Rarely are things so black & white. You can say "don't spank your kids" but once you go beyond that point, and say "don't spank your kids or I'm going to use violence against you" it means that you believe your understanding of moral philosophy and natural rights and the non-aggression principle is absolute, perfect, and infallible. Which is a statist mindset.

Only if it directly affects you does your philosophic opinion come into play, and you can then use violence to protect your own interests.

You have an opinion that using violence against kids is wrong. And its a noble opinion that I happen to agree with. But to force that opinion on everyone through violence is equally wrong.

Furthermore, it simply wouldn't work.

The initiation of violence is wrong, not violence per se. I'm not a pacifist, which is a perfectly valid opinion, but I do not share it, nor does the NAP or libertarianism.

I am absolutely the judge of whether rights have been violated and what rights are. If not me, whom and what institution? All individuals have this right to judge - it's pretty fundamental in western culture and I see juries as completely compatible with liberty even though the courts, monopoly law, etc. isn't.

Sorry, but I disagree vehemently with your assertion that my opinion is only valid if it affects me personally. What kind of bullshit statement is that? If I take the Paine view, then all violations of rights affect me because all violations of rights will eventually reach unto me. Just because I passed the child development stage of my life doesn't mean that I can't speak out against the daily violence and enslavement of children almost everywhere. Or any other injustice for that matter.

 

[jmdrake]

Lets do something different.

I wont spank anyone elses child other than my own. I wont call the cops on anyone if I see them spanking their child. I wont call the cops if the child is very misbehaved and they dont spank their child. I would hope than everyone show me the same respect.

+rep

 

[jmdrake]

Thank you!

Drats, outta rep..

Gotcha covered

 

[jmdrake]

Your "solution" is the equivalent of someone saying "I'm against slavery, so my solution is to kill all slaves".

Sorry, but that's not good enough. Imagine if someone two centuries ago said "although I support the right for people to own slaves, I also support your right to not own slaves. I do not ever want to force my opinion on someone else. I would appreciate it if you would afford me the same respect, and not involve yourself with the goings-on of my slave plantation." Obviously we see this as a ridiculous, bad argument. How is the argument you're putting forth for corporal punishment any different? And just to be clear, I'm not saying that corporal punishment is comparable morally, at all, to slavery. It's just an analogy I thought was useful to get a point across.

There are things which you should be prevented from doing. I listed some previously. Third parties should intervene if they become privy to such things. I know you believe in this basic premise, as does nearly everyone on Earth; you believe there are situations in which a third, non-involved party should intervene. Murder, assault, theft, etc. Does it make any difference to you or I if a murderer says he respects our right to not murder people, so we should afford him the same respect if and when he chooses to murder someone? Would you afford him that respect, promising not to intervene in any way? Of course not. Are you starting to get why the line of reasoning you put forth is ridiculous?

 

[asurfaholic]

Well I'll tell you what the parent is. A steward, basically a manager. The parent manages the financial affairs of the child, keeps him out of trouble and fed...etc.

No. Wrong.

You need to understand that the primary role of the parents are to raise the child to be able to make sound decisions when he/she becomes old enough. Sound enough of decisions so that he/she can properly fend for themselves when they reach that point in their lives. A steward, a manager? Are you on crack? Jesus, no. Maybe that is part of the job, and the rest of the stuff too, yes you are listing some of the many jobs a parent has.

But the PRIMARY job of the parent is to raise the child to be able to survive and fend for themselves in the crazy world they were brought into. That includes a long list of things that they must do. Yes feed them, yes manage the finances. Yes keep them out of trouble.

How about loving the child? Thats important. Show them that they are special and important. Build the self esteem and confidence.

How about being a good role model. This means living a moral life, not being a leech off someone else.

How about being involved in the child's life? Spending time at home getting to know the child and communicating and connecting.

How about being responsible parents? Being consistant and slow to anger are valuable tools, and go a long way in the household.

These are way more involved than your assertion that parents are simply the stewards, or managers of a child. That is why there is so much bullshit in this world. People like you have neglected the primary role of parenting, and just assumed a "it is what it is" position towards their kid's behavior and never looked back.

The most important thing a parent can do to ensure their child is going to grow up with a GOOD head on their shoulder is DISIPLINE the child. No, I won't spank my child for not eating all her wheaties. But if she curses her mother, or whatever, there will be consequences. I am responsible and cool enough to know she deserves a fair warning. She was told not to bite, but she thought it was a game, an went in for a harder bite. Then she learned that NO means NO!

By being consistant in disispline, while maintaining a good role model status, and showing her love and respect, and showing her mother love and respect, I believe that my child will grow up wanting to do the right things for the right reasons. Integrity is hard to find these days, but it starts at home. And YOU sir, have no business telling me how to do it.

 

[TheTexan]

I am absolutely the judge of whether rights have been violated and what rights are. If not me, whom and what institution?

The courts that person has subscribed to.

If the parent in question hasn't subscribed to any courts, and is under no jurisdiction but his own, and is simply in his own home, spanking his kid, you have zero right or authority, from a moral position or otherwise, to go in there and intervene. If the child is being held there against his will, you can help him, but if the child is voluntarily associating himself with that family, then it's not your place to do anything about it.

All individuals have this right to judge - it's pretty fundamental in western culture and I see juries as completely compatible with liberty even though the courts, monopoly law, etc. isn't.

All individuals have a right to judge. But they do not have a right to act on that judgement.

Sorry, but I disagree vehemently with your assertion that my opinion is only valid if it affects me personally. What kind of bullshit statement is that? If I take the Paine view, then all violations of rights affect me because all violations of rights will eventually reach unto me. Just because I passed the child development stage of my life doesn't mean that I can't speak out against the daily violence and enslavement of children almost everywhere. Or any other injustice for that matter.

"Don't police the world" applies to far more than just the interactions of nation-states. It applies to the individual, and your community.

If everyone everywhere did what they thought was right even though it was none of their business, we'd end up... well, where we are today. The simple unfortunate fact is that for anarchy to work, people are going to have to be allowed to make mistakes. You are going to have to turn a blind eye to things you disapprove of.

That doesn't mean you have to accept violence in your own jurisdiction. If people voluntarily decide to belong to that jurisdiction/court-system, and you see violence happening in front of you that the person on the receiving end clearly objects to, then go ahead, go save the day, beat the shit out of that guy.

If, on the other hand, you're sitting near a communist police-state jurisdiction that is adjacent to your community, and on their side of the border you see a cop beating the shit out of a poor woman, it's unfortunately none of your business. That woman decided to live in that community, and getting the shit beat out of you sometimes is part of that arrangement. As much as it might pain you, the moral decision would be not to intervene, unless her life was in danger.

 

[tod evans]

I'll tell ya' what, bring your happy ass out to the sticks and find the smallest, meekest woman spanking her misbehaving child and spout this load of hooey.

I'm sure you'll pick your NAP self up off the floor if she's in a good mood. If not you'll wake up much later lesson learned.

Keep on living in your bubble..........

The initiation of violence is wrong, not violence per se. I'm not a pacifist, which is a perfectly valid opinion, but I do not share it, nor does the NAP or libertarianism.

I am absolutely the judge of whether rights have been violated and what rights are. If not me, whom and what institution? All individuals have this right to judge - it's pretty fundamental in western culture and I see juries as completely compatible with liberty even though the courts, monopoly law, etc. isn't.

Sorry, but I disagree vehemently with your assertion that my opinion is only valid if it affects me personally. What kind of bullshit statement is that? If I take the Paine view, then all violations of rights affect me because all violations of rights will eventually reach unto me. Just because I passed the child development stage of my life doesn't mean that I can't speak out against the daily violence and enslavement of children almost everywhere. Or any other injustice for that matter.

 

[king_nothing_]

Only if it directly affects you does your philosophic opinion come into play, and you can then use violence to protect your own interests.

This is not right, at all. If I witness a stranger beating another stranger senseless for no reason (he's guilty of nothing), is it immoral for me to intervene with force to subdue the attacker to prevent him from further harming the man, since it has nothing to do with my own interests and involves me acting on my own subjective moral beliefs?

 

[AGRP]

CPS loves this.

 

[TheTexan]

This is not right, at all. If I witness a stranger beating another stranger senseless for no reason (he's guilty of nothing), is it immoral for me to intervene with force to subdue the attacker to prevent him from further harming the man, since it has nothing to do with my own interests and involves me acting on my own subjective moral beliefs?

If it's in your jurisdiction, and either stranger voluntarily belongs to your jurisdiction, it is your business, and you can choose or not choose to get involved.

Otherwise, if its not your jurisdiction, you should be expected to follow the rules and customs of the jurisdiction you're in. If for whatever reason beating someone for no reason was socially accepted in that community, then you shouldn't intervene. (Or, well, you could, if you want, because random beatings are socially accepted, so go beat him if you like, I guess)

 

[cjm]

This is not right, at all. If I witness a stranger beating another stranger senseless for no reason (he's guilty of nothing), is it immoral for me to intervene with force to subdue the attacker to prevent him from further harming the man, since it has nothing to do with my own interests and involves me acting on my own subjective moral beliefs?

If you intervene when you see a stranger beating another stranger for no reason, you will probably get Tasered.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'll tell ya' what, bring your happy ass out to the sticks and find the smallest, meekest woman spanking her misbehaving child and spout this load of hooey.

I'm sure you'll pick your NAP self up off the floor if she's in a good mood. If not you'll wake up much later lesson learned.

Keep on living in your bubble..........

Keep on advocating tyranny. I am sure you are feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[TheTexan]

Keep on advocating tyranny. I am sure you are feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

Your constant desire to use force to fix what many others don't consider broken is a contributing cause of tyranny.

Look out for you and yours, and anyone voluntarily under your protection (this can include your community). Otherwise, it's none of your damn business

 

[AGRP]

I don't advocate abuse, but Michael Jackson would have been another nobody in Indiana without his father. He would have been abducted if he would have lived in Delaware.

 

[AlexAmore]

No. Wrong.

You need to understand that the primary role of the parents are to raise the child to be able to make sound decisions when he/she becomes old enough.

That post was a quick 5 second job responding to a quick question. Yes, raising the child properly is part of it. My main argument was that you're not an owner, you're a steward of the child. A steward can still love, raise, role model..etc.

The lack of ownership of the child means liberties have to be respected.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Your constant desire to use force to fix what many others don't consider broken is a contributing cause of tyranny.

Look out for you and yours, and anyone voluntarily under your protection (this can include your community). Otherwise, it's none of your damn business

Reductio ad absurdum - you wouldn't agitate to end slavery just because it was on the plantation owners property and you falsely believe that 'it's none of your business'?

Again, you can't make the distinction that the use of force per se isn't wrong, or tyrannical, only the initiation thereof is. As long as you keep getting this wrong you'll keep putting forth horribly wrong argumentation.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

Look Bud, the "tad off" seems to fit you to a "t".

If I ever catch you near my child I can assure you you'll wear many lumps, and not on your backside.

hahahaha this thread is such a gem!

I think that you as the dispassionate spanker in the thread about extending legal protection to children who are hit by parents should answer my very legitimate curiosity about this subject.

see again you are assigning this concept to the behavior- I am not talking about the concept of discipline, I am talking about the act of dispassionately telling someone to bend over, and then, without any anger(?!) spanking them. Just the act itself...is weird. Say it out loud and see how it affects your heart rate. I bet it makes you uncomfortable to even speak, even alone. That's because it's creepy.

 

[Origanalist]

This is not right, at all. If I witness a stranger beating another stranger senseless for no reason (he's guilty of nothing), is it immoral for me to intervene with force to subdue the attacker to prevent him from further harming the man, since it has nothing to do with my own interests and involves me acting on my own subjective moral beliefs?

What the hell does beating somebody senseless have to do with giving your toddler a swat on their pampers padded rear? Or did I miss something?

 

[TheTexan]

Reductio ad absurdum - you wouldn't agitate to end slavery just because it was on the plantation owners property and you falsely believe that 'it's none of your business'?

Again, you can't make the distinction that the use of force per se isn't wrong, or tyrannical, only the initiation thereof is. As long as you keep getting this wrong you'll keep putting forth horribly wrong argumentation.

If the slaves weren't being held against their will, and they could realistically and safely get to a jurisdiction where they would not be slaves, I would absolutely say it's none of my business.

100%.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If the slaves weren't being held against their will, and they could realistically and safely get to a jurisdiction where they would not be slaves, I would absolutely say it's none of my business.

100%.

Dude...the very definition of slavery begets being against their will. I would likewise say that someone who decides to consent to 'slave-like conditions' and who could leave at any point wouldn't be any of my business either - precisely because no violations of liberty occurred. Stop putting forth convoluted and contrived statements.

From this 'debate' it seems to me like you understand nothing of property rights, justice, or liberty.