Delaware becomes 1st state to officially outlaw spanking

[idiom]

We banned spanking in New Zealand ages ago. It was a big non-event. The police don't prosecute anyone for disciplining their children. It does however give them much better options when dealing with child abuse which is a pretty rife problem.

Then again, our cops don't shoot children for kicks either.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

We banned spanking in New Zealand ages ago. It was a big non-event.

Well yeah, the New Zealand population gave up on fighting the whole 'government controlling your life' thing a long time ago.

 

[idiom]

Well yeah, the New Zealand population gave up on fighting the whole 'government controlling your life' thing a long time ago.

We are currently firing ministers because one resident was accidentally spied on. We have a good working private healthcare system and a completely unregulated broadcast market, no tariffs, a standing army of 10,000.

If we gave up the fight its because we won.

 

[low preference guy]

Well yeah, the New Zealand population gave up on fighting the whole 'government controlling your life' thing a long time ago.

Index of Economic Freedom

4. New Zealand
10. United States

 

[Danke]

If we gave up the fight its because we won.

I'm laughing.

 

[king_nothing_]

I really didn't want to bump this crappy thread, but I can't not respond to this post.

I own myself. All of my biological material is my property. If I combine my biological property with my wife's, we own it. For example, if we take some of my blood and some of hers, and mix it in a bowl, that's still our blood. Why would the mixing of biological property cause both my wife and I to lose ownership without explicitly giving it away or selling it?

Self-ownership trumps the labor theory of property. Once your biological material becomes another individual, you no longer own it, because every living individual has self-ownership. Condensed as tersely as possible, the NAP is the stance that aggression is illegitimate. Aggression is an action against another individual. A child is an individual. Attempting to claim ownership over a child is an act of aggression against the child. I'm amazed I'm having to lay this out. You're trying way too hard to come up with contradictions in the NAP which do not exist. When you boil your argument down, it's nothing more than a criticism of the concept of self-ownership...and if you really are critical of that concept, then I have to wonder what the hell you're doing on this site.

 

[Tudo]

They are not your children. They belong to the state. Think not? You just haven't had your eyes opened wide enough to see yet. But you will.

 

[Origanalist]

I really didn't want to bump this crappy thread, but I can't not respond to this post.


Self-ownership trumps the labor theory of property. Once your biological material becomes another individual, you no longer own it, because every living individual has self-ownership. Condensed as tersely as possible, the NAP is the stance that aggression is illegitimate. Aggression is an action against another individual. A child is an individual. Attempting to claim ownership over a child is an act of aggression against the child. I'm amazed I'm having to lay this out. You're trying way too hard to come up with contradictions in the NAP which do not exist. When you boil your argument down, it's nothing more than a criticism of the concept of self-ownership...and if you really are critical of that concept, then I have to wonder what the hell you're doing on this site.

I don't remember reading in the rules that you had to be a strict follower of puritanical libertarian philosophy to post here. Some of us believe that being a parent doesn't end at becoming the sperm donor or giving birth. Some of us believe that being a parent means being responsible for your child until he or she is able to be responsible for themselves. You seem to think that means an act of aggression, most of us consider it being responsible parents. I have three grown kids, guess what? I stay out of their business and don't try to tell them how to run their lives. But when they were young I had to be responsible for them, which in some cases meant controlling them.

 

[king_nothing_]

I don't remember reading in the rules that you had to be a strict follower of puritanical libertarian philosophy to post here. Some of us believe that being a parent doesn't end at becoming the sperm donor or giving birth. Some of us believe that being a parent means being responsible for your child until he or she is able to be responsible for themselves. You seem to think that means an act of aggression, most of us consider it being responsible parents. I have three grown kids, guess what? I stay out of their business and don't try to tell them how to run their lives. But when they were young I had to be responsible for them, which in some cases meant controlling them.

I was responding specifically to his argument that the NAP somehow allows for, or has contradictions regarding, the ownership of children. If you're not talking about the ownership of children, then I'm not sure why you're responding to my post. Do you believe you owned your children? Does one have to be a "puritanical libertarian" to believe people can't own children?

 

[Origanalist]

I was responding specifically to his argument that the NAP somehow allows for, or has contradictions regarding, the ownership of children. If you're not talking about the ownership of children, then I'm not sure why you're responding to my post. Do you believe you owned your children? Does one have to be a "puritanical libertarian" to believe people can't own children?

I stand corrected, still a little bleary, sorry. Nobody owns their children, but it starts out being that for all practical purposes and slowly progressing into their independence as time goes on. The age old conflict arises about how slow that progress occurs. The state setting arbirary ages of adulthood tends to make things messy, but then how else are you going to determine when one is responsible for one actions? Can you sue a eight year old for property damage?

 

[AlexAmore]

Nobody owns their children, but it starts out being that for all practical purposes and slowly progressing into their independence as time goes on. The age old conflict arises about how slow that progress occurs.The state setting arbirary ages of adulthood tends to make things messy, but then how else are you going to determine when one is responsible for one actions? Can you sue a eight year old for property damage?

Rothbard talks about when a child is old enough to run away that they should have the right. I read another libertarian author (can't recall name) discuss this same idea in support of it.

Rothbard also talks about a "baby market". If you feel you're strapped with the responsibility of caring for him and therefore justify spanking...fear not! Rothbard's "baby market" would let you sell the rights to your child. This is not ownership, but rights. The child has the ultimate rights and can renig by running away (once they're capable).

 

[Origanalist]

Rothbard talks about when a child is old enough to run away that they should have the right. I read another libertarian author (can't recall name) discuss this same idea in support of it.

Rothbard also talks about a "baby market". If you feel you're strapped with the responsibility of caring for him and therefore justify spanking...fear not! Rothbard's "baby market" would let you sell the rights to your child. This is not ownership, but rights. The child has the ultimate rights and can renig by running away (once they're capable).

Goody for Murray. I think I'll pass on the "baby market".

 

[silverhandorder]

Goody for Murray. I think I'll pass on the "baby market".

Well feel free to raise your kids in a way that violates the NAP. Don't be surprised when they end up liberals or conservatives due to brain damage you induced in them.

 

[tod evans]

It's pretty uncommon for a child who is mature enough to even contemplate running away to need his/her ass swatted.

We currently have the CPS that takes the rights for your child from you, how is this different from selling them?

Either way the parent is absolved of their duty to teach/guide/provide and care for their child, in one instance they "profit" from this in the other they're publicly humiliated.

I think there are two (or more) mental pictures of "spanking" going through peoples heads....Those who use the beating analogy have a different mental picture than I do. (Although I'll admit I've encountered many teenagers who are still legally children that deserve a beating for their actions!)

Every kid/parent relationship is different, in some mental masturbation exercise it might be possible for spanking to never be required but for Pete's sake reality doesn't work that way.

 

[cjm]

I was responding specifically to his argument that the NAP somehow allows for, or has contradictions regarding, the ownership of children. If you're not talking about the ownership of children, then I'm not sure why you're responding to my post. Do you believe you owned your children? Does one have to be a "puritanical libertarian" to believe people can't own children?

You've missed my point entirely. I said property rights would allow for ownership of children if we applied them absolutely, not the NAP. My point is that there is an exception to property rights (and you seem to agree). Let me try stating it this way:

I own all of the cells in my body unless I explicitly abandon them, sell them, or give them away, EXCEPT when those cells become a new human life.

My point is that if there is an exception to absolute property rights, perhaps there is an exception to absolute application of the NAP. I can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[silverhandorder]

Yes it does. I was a devil child. Never got hit even when most people who knew my parents were telling them to beat me. Didn't die, turned out alright D).

 

[cjm]

Rothbard talks about when a child is old enough to run away that they should have the right.

Toddlers try to run away all the time. Are you seriously saying that a one year old should be allowed to go his own way without interference? Really?

 

[cjm]

Well feel free to raise your kids in a way that violates the NAP. Don't be surprised when they end up liberals or conservatives due to brain damage you induced in them.

If you keep your toddler from walking out into a busy street, you will have violated the NAP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force, ZAP, or NAP) is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person (which may also be considered that person's property), no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership.

 

[AlexAmore]

It's pretty uncommon for a child who is mature enough to even contemplate running away to need his/her ass swatted.

We currently have the CPS that takes the rights for your child from you, how is this different from selling them?

Either way the parent is absolved of their duty to teach/guide/provide and care for their child, in one instance they "profit" from this in the other they're publicly humiliated.

I think there are two (or more) mental pictures of "spanking" going through peoples heads....Those who use the beating analogy have a different mental picture than I do. (Although I'll admit I've encountered many teenagers who are still legally children that deserve a beating for their actions!)

Every kid/parent relationship is different, in some mental masturbation exercise it might be possible for spanking to never be required but for Pete's sake reality doesn't work that way.

You answered your first question. I would add selling is voluntary and CPS is force.

You then say "legally children". You're falling back on a state defined collective to support your argument.

Freedom is against collective thought. All your arguments force me to think in collectives in order to agree (which I don't).

 

[Origanalist]

Well feel free to raise your kids in a way that violates the NAP. Don't be surprised when they end up liberals or conservatives due to brain damage you induced in them.

Try reading your sig.