Delaware becomes 1st state to officially outlaw spanking

[silverhandorder]

So sayeth the person with how many children?

Having children does not give you a moral high ground. But my parents would say the same thing.

 

[cjm]

There is a world of difference between saving a life and teaching lessons with pain.

I agree, but is that your citation?

Yes.

Glad to hear. I agree with you, but this position conflicts with Rothbard's. So we agree that Rothbard was wrong on applying the NAP to abortion "rights" of the mother?

 

[AlexAmore]

With the NAP, you can save someone by deflecting the falling tree that's about to hit him, but you can't push him out of the way. If you want to claim that the NAP has exceptions, I'm happy to hear that. That's been my point in this thread. We might disagree on what those exceptions are, but if we agree that the NAP shouldn't be applied universally, I think we've found some common ground.

First of all you're not obligated to push the kid out of the way. If you push the kid out of the way and cause him/her harm, you are responsible and must face the consequences for that harm caused. You are also responsible for touching him in anyway not consensual. Part of NAP is admitting when you violated NAP and facing the consequences.

So yes you CAN push a kid out of the way of a tree. You will have violated NAP. If we didn't have NAP then you wouldn't have violated NAP by pushing the kid.

 

[cjm]

What the hell does that have to do with anything we're talking about? You made an argument which was categorically incorrect, I pointed out why it was so, you didn't even attempt to rebut it, and you instead respond by asking questions completely unrelated to the point I made. What time does it happen? This isn't a goddamn abortion discussion. Neither of those questions have a single thing to do with what I said: there is nothing which can correctly be deemed an "exception" to absolute property rights because self-ownership is the beginning, fundamental premise of it.

I'm not rebutting it because I agree with you. Self-ownership is a core principle. If you can't see that property changes ownership in creating a new life and that transfer is not explained via standard libertarian property rights doctrines, I can't help that. It is you who is not addressing my question about the transfer of the property.

 

[cjm]

You are also responsible for touching him in anyway not consensual. Part of NAP is admitting when you violated NAP and facing the consequences.

Leaving spanking aside, would you agree that standard parenting would include daily violations of the NAP? I'm thinking of trivial things like forcing the small child to hold your hand while crossing the street.

 

[Origanalist]

Having children does not give you a moral high ground. But my parents would say the same thing.

The fact that you don't have any experience raising kids is blaringly obvious. Why do you continue to insist you have insight into raising kids when you have none other than something you read in a book? It's not moral high ground, it's common sense derived from experience. Nobody is advocating beating their kids, only a swat on the butt in extreme and rare circumstances.

The fact is younger children are just not capable of complete self determination no matter how badly you want it to be so. It's a progressive and evolving process.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

This thread is yet another shining example of why Libertarians (not of the lowercase-l variety) are not ever going to be a relevant force in elected politics.

Makes me think of that one woman (Ruwart) who supporters legalization of child porn, and who the Libertarian Party actually almost nominated for their presidential ticket in 2008.

 

[king_nothing_]

I'm not rebutting it because I agree with you. Self-ownership is a core principle. If you can't see that property changes ownership in creating a new life and that transfer is not explained via standard libertarian property rights doctrines, I can't help that. It is you who is not addressing my question about the transfer of the property.

I'm not addressing it because it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. You're moving the goalposts after your argument was shown to be incorrect. First you argued there was an "exception" existing in property theory. I explained why it isn't an exception. You didn't rebut.

Yes, you lose ownership once, biologically, a new individual human being has come into being. Obviously. When that precisely occurs I don't care to delve into here, because, once again, this isn't an abortion discussion, and it's totally irrelevant to this discussion. And what do you mean by "it's not explained via standard libertarian rights doctrines"? The "when does it occur" isn't explained? Well, no, because that's a scientific question, not a libertarian question. If you mean it's not explained at all, I would disagree, or assert that it's very clearly implied; the stance that all individuals have self-ownership clearly implies that such a "transfer" takes place. There is no explicit "explanation" necessary.

 

[AFPVet]

Once again, the point of this isn't the spanking itself, but the government getting more involved in peoples' personal lives. Parents should have the ability to punish their children within reason. A little swat on the butt isn't going to harm them.

 

[tod evans]

You got problems and should not have kids.

Thanks for your opinion, it's worth what I paid for it.

 

[king_nothing_]

So sayeth the person with how many children?

The fact that you don't have any experience raising kids is blaringly obvious. Why do you continue to insist you have insight into raising kids when you have none other than something you read in a book?

Ad hominem.

 

[Origanalist]

Ad hominem.

No, not ad hominum. Reality.

 

[king_nothing_]

If you don't think that's ad hominem, then you don't understand what ad hominem is.

 

[Origanalist]

If you don't think that's ad hominem, then you don't understand what ad hominem is.

So when I say a government bureaucrat who knows nothing about making cars other than reading a book algore wrote shouldn't be telling Ford how to build one, that's ad hominum?

 

[MelissaWV]

The "you don't have any kids" argument has been used by both sides ad nauseum. It's stupid.

People who don't have any full-time children of their own...

...can be educators who actually deal with children for more of the day than their parents do.
...can have to deal with children in their work in other scenarios (retail, etc., get to know a LOT about kids).
...often have relatives whose children they have to deal with a lot.
...were always, unfailingly, children themselves and had to deal with other children growing up.
...might be better able to distance themselves from the situation and see it through clear eyes, rather than the "my little angel would never do that" attitude a lot of parents seem to adopt.

So, yeah, cut the stereotype.

 

[Origanalist]

The "you don't have any kids" argument has been used by both sides ad nauseum. It's stupid.

People who don't have any full-time children of their own...

...can be educators who actually deal with children for more of the day than their parents do.
...can have to deal with children in their work in other scenarios (retail, etc., get to know a LOT about kids).
...often have relatives whose children they have to deal with a lot.
...were always, unfailingly, children themselves and had to deal with other children growing up.
...might be better able to distance themselves from the situation and see it through clear eyes, rather than the "my little angel would never do that" attitude a lot of parents seem to adopt.

So, yeah, cut the stereotype.

Ok, fine. It may be a stereotype, but it's not my fault he fits it so well.

 

[tod evans]

Theories about raising kids are as abundant as kids.

There are so many varied family dynamics that it's impossible to set some sort of blueprint.

Just like grown ups, kids each have their own personalities and each personality responds differently to different stimuli.

Personally I sincerely hope that many of the posters in his thread are "blessed" with children who behave as I did when I was a kid.

For those who advocate this NAP philosophy, try carrying this behavior into your local biker bar or inner-city barrio, see how well your philosophy flies in the face of reality...Kids are actually much meaner than bikers or gangsters when they're in groups.....

 

[Origanalist]

Theories about raising kids are as abundant as kids.

There are so many varied family dynamics that it's impossible to set some sort of blueprint.

Just like grown ups, kids each have their own personalities and each personality responds differently to different stimuli.

Personally I sincerely hope that many of the posters in his thread are "blessed" with children who behave as I did when I was a kid.

For those who advocate this NAP philosophy, try carrying this behavior into your local biker bar or inner-city barrio, see how well your philosophy flies in the face of reality...Kids are actually much meaner than bikers or gangsters when they're in groups.....

More devious too.

 

[cjm]

I'm not addressing it because it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. You're moving the goalposts after your argument was shown to be incorrect. First you argued there was an "exception" existing in property theory. I explained why it isn't an exception. You didn't rebut.

Yes, you lose ownership once, biologically, a new individual human being has come into being. Obviously. When that precisely occurs I don't care to delve into here, because, once again, this isn't an abortion discussion, and it's totally irrelevant to this discussion. And what do you mean by "it's not explained via standard libertarian rights doctrines"? The "when does it occur" isn't explained? Well, no, because that's a scientific question, not a libertarian question. If you mean it's not explained at all, I would disagree, or assert that it's very clearly implied; the stance that all individuals have self-ownership clearly implies that such a "transfer" takes place. There is no explicit "explanation" necessary.

Is it irrelevant? If there isn't a clear point of transfer that libertarians can agree on, then it's subjective. Some libertarians will say that the fertilized egg is not a human and not entitled to the rights that come with self-ownership. Many people have different views on when a fetus becomes a human and is entitled to the right to life. But right to life is only one right. Should doctors not induce labor since that would be considered an aggression against the fetus? If one is allowed to aggress against a fetus, why wouldn't one be allowed to aggress against a small child? Birth is certainly a milestone in human development, but is that really the point that all natural rights are assumed? Infants cannot enter contracts. Maybe the point at which all rights of life, liberty, and property come later in life? Maybe at puberty?

I know several of you are rolling your eyes when reading this thinking that this is "obviously" wrong. If Rothbard asked these questions instead of an anonymous screen name, would you roll your eyes and think he was wrong? Well, I did. When he said that parents have no rights to spank their kids and should be legally allowed to let them starve (the child cannot demand food from the parent due to the NAP), I rolled my eyes and said, "Murray got this one wrong."

When we deal with children and parents, issues of aggression and property rights get a little murky. I sometimes use the analogy of Newtonian physics that seemed to hold true universally until people started looking that the extreme micro and extreme macro. The Newtonian world view didn't really apply. It's my contention that property rights and non-aggression don't really apply to parenting. I don't have the answers as to what the libertarian doctrine should be, I just know that neither complete ownership nor complete NAP work, so they don't apply.

 

[king_nothing_]

For those who advocate this NAP philosophy, try carrying this behavior into your local biker bar or inner-city barrio, see how well your philosophy flies in the face of reality...Kids are actually much meaner than bikers or gangsters when they're in groups.....

I wonder what ridiculous misconception about the NAP elicited this comment. I'm sure it's a hilarious one.