Delaware spanking poll

[cjm]

Your poll is far too simple imho and misses other nuanced viewpoints.

My poll was designed to satisfy my own curiosity about parents' and non-parents' support for the Delaware law. It was neither too simple nor too complex.

 

[asurfaholic]

I took your anecdote and created a hypothetical to show that spanking could be considered self-defense in some cases. This was for those that consider spanking unconditionally wrong.

But even your case could be considered self-defense in my opinion. If an adult hits me, am I prohibited from hitting back since his first punch has already been completed? Do I have to wait for another strike to be launched before I react and am I only allowed to react while that punch is in progress? That's silly. A spank after a bite is just as much self-defense as a return hit after being hit yourself.

My point is that the NAP is being misinterpreted as a pacifist doctrine when it really isn't.

I see. I agree.

 

[silverhandorder]

I voted for support but I am not sure. I do think spanking is wrong and should be opposed but I don't think government law is the way to do it.

 

[pahs1994]

My parents hit me in the ass with a belt if I did something wrong and I learned not to do the wrong things at that young age or get hit and sit on the couch. I feel that when I reached my teen years I was more responsible and a better person for it, I really think there is a difference between being disciplined and a parent who beats a child. My parents never beat me. In my opinion, for some kids, they will never get the difference between right and wrong unless there is a negative consequence.

 

[RonPaulMania]

Naming your child can be cruel and unusual punishment
Forcing them to clean their hands before a meal is aggression
Forcing them to take a bath is torture and waterboarding
Stopping them throwing food in the house is a form of psychological aggression of intimidation
Forcing them to go with you to the supermarket is kidnapping, violence, and potentially torture.

The idiocy on here is amazing.

Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility. Maybe I'm on the wrong board, and trust me, I know the 30 year old "I live in my mother's basement" crowd will happily see me go, but honestly I think I've had enough here. I can see why Ayn Rand didn't like it but I tried believing it wasn't true.

 

[fr33]

Naming your child can be cruel and unusual punishment
Forcing them to clean their hands before a meal is aggression
Forcing them to take a bath is torture and waterboarding
Stopping them throwing food in the house is a form of psychological aggression of intimidation
Forcing them to go with you to the supermarket is kidnapping, violence, and potentially torture.

The idiocy on here is amazing.

Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility. Maybe I'm on the wrong board, and trust me, I know the 30 year old "I live in my mother's basement" crowd will happily see me go, but honestly I think I've had enough here. I can see why Ayn Rand didn't like it but I tried believing it wasn't true.

Rawr! Nevermind that the overwhelming majority on this thread agree with you on subject being discussed.

 

[asurfaholic]

Naming your child can be cruel and unusual punishment
Forcing them to clean their hands before a meal is aggression
Forcing them to take a bath is torture and waterboarding
Stopping them throwing food in the house is a form of psychological aggression of intimidation
Forcing them to go with you to the supermarket is kidnapping, violence, and potentially torture.

The idiocy on here is amazing.

Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility. Maybe I'm on the wrong board, and trust me, I know the 30 year old "I live in my mother's basement" crowd will happily see me go, but honestly I think I've had enough here. I can see why Ayn Rand didn't like it but I tried believing it wasn't true.

Its not all of us, actually the type of people you described are a small minority. Check out the OP poll - 56 oppose the DE law, and only 8 approve. Shows that there is a string of common sense here.

Libertarians should focus less on how other people run their lives... Or else they become authoritarians liberals.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't support Statutory law, but if it was under common law Battery, I'd support it. Your poll is far too simple imho and misses other nuanced viewpoints. The plain fact is; spanking is battery, unless done after your person was violated by your child and even then the principle of proportional force comes into effect. I still view hitting your child as abhorrent - just as much as Child Labor Laws or all the other litany of laws that have turned children into serfs and slaves.

I can't tell from your post if you for or against child labor laws. I can't think of any logical argument how banning anyone from labor makes that person a serf, since serfs, by definition, have to work. I do think child labor laws are wrong as they are a violation of the family's right of self governance. I say the same thing for spanking laws. Anyone who thinks government should willy nilly be able to violate the sanctity of the home just because some child psychologist says so isn't following limited government principles IMO.

 

[cjm]

Naming your child can be cruel and unusual punishment
Forcing them to clean their hands before a meal is aggression
Forcing them to take a bath is torture and waterboarding
Stopping them throwing food in the house is a form of psychological aggression of intimidation
Forcing them to go with you to the supermarket is kidnapping, violence, and potentially torture.

The idiocy on here is amazing.

Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility. Maybe I'm on the wrong board, and trust me, I know the 30 year old "I live in my mother's basement" crowd will happily see me go, but honestly I think I've had enough here. I can see why Ayn Rand didn't like it but I tried believing it wasn't true.

Most libertarian philosophy that I've read deals with interactions between rational adults. Trying to apply those principles to adult-child relationships, or more specifically parent-offspring relationships, is usually a mistake. Applying them to parent-toddler relationships is ridiculous. Is it really libertarianism that makes people illogical and immoral? or do illogical or immoral people distort libertarianism?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Its not all of us, actually the type of people you described are a small minority. Check out the OP poll - 56 oppose the DE law, and only 8 approve. Shows that there is a string of common sense here.

Libertarians should focus less on how other people run their lives... Or else they become authoritarians liberals.

The whole point of libertarianism is to tell people what are acceptable actions and what aren't. It doesn't say what you should do, only what you can't do. Perhaps you guys are on the wrong board after-all, because Nihilism is >>>> that way.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I can't tell from your post if you for or against child labor laws. I can't think of any logical argument how banning anyone from labor makes that person a serf, since serfs, by definition, have to work. I do think child labor laws are wrong as they are a violation of the family's right of self governance. I say the same thing for spanking laws. Anyone who thinks government should willy nilly be able to violate the sanctity of the home just because some child psychologist says so isn't following limited government principles IMO.

Families do not have rights, individuals do. I am staunchly opposed to child labor laws, and any laws interfering in the contractual rights of consenting parties. As to how it makes them serfs and slaves...how about we take your ability to be independent from you, and make you entirely dependent on the charity and assistance of others whether family or otherwise. You call people dependent on Government - serfs and slaves, I call people dependent on anyone else to such an extent that they are forcefully stricken from providing for themselves about as close as you can get to complete serfdom.

Your inability to see this causal-reality is ... unfortunate. Also, your characteristic because some 'psychologist' said so, is a complete red-herring. I base my beliefs on a simple guiding principle - that self-propriety is inviolable. That is it. Just because you give birth to a new life doesn't mean you own that person. No, he or she owns themselves. As far as Government is concerned, I'd rather they not exist at all, but as long as they are going to have a monopoly on law, justice, security, etc. you'd damn well better believe they should at least recognize actual violations of self-propriety. The child should absolutely have the right to take their case to the police if that is their choice. Taking this choice away from them strips them of further rights and ingratiates a system of legalized-battery. I am opposed. Simple as. Take your bullshit red-herrings and non-sequiturs elsewhere.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Most libertarian philosophy that I've read deals with interactions between rational adults. Trying to apply those principles to adult-child relationships, or more specifically parent-offspring relationships, is usually a mistake. Applying them to parent-toddler relationships is ridiculous. Is it really libertarianism that makes people illogical and immoral? or do illogical or immoral people distort libertarianism?

So only 'rational adults' have rights in your opinion? Perhaps you've not read any libertarian literature at all.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I don't support Statutory law, but if it was under common law Battery, I'd support it. Your poll is far too simple imho and misses other nuanced viewpoints. The plain fact is; spanking is battery, unless done after your person was violated by your child and even then the principle of proportional force comes into effect. I still view hitting your child as abhorrent - just as much as Child Labor Laws or all the other litany of laws that have turned children into serfs and slaves.

Yeah, kinda.

My poll was designed to satisfy my own curiosity about parents' and non-parents' support for the Delaware law. It was neither too simple nor too complex.

It was one, the other, both, or neither depending on who was reading and their reading comprehension level. How fucked up is that?

I don't support Delaware making new arbitrary laws they can decide to enforce or not.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

.

Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility.

oh this board is just getting good lately. We are dissecting the nature and scope of coercion at a level that we can actually affect, in our own lives. That you of course turn to a string of harsh condemnations of the side advocating reason and tolerant compassion indicates to me that you were in fact hit, and are just not ready to confront that terrible barrier stone that yet blocks all men from free thought, the idea that your parents fucked up and didn't know shit, maybe even didn't like you.

One day though you will be able to examine that and move past it.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Option 3, cause children shouldn't be spanked. There's ways of raising children that avoid physical abuse.

 

[specsaregood]

So only 'rational adults' have rights in your opinion? Perhaps you've not read any libertarian literature at all.

I'm so glad I'm not a libertarian. It sounds exhausting.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

It is remarkable to me that anyone who is even remotely sympathetic to Libertarianism still confuses force-conditioning with "instilling morals" or whatever. If we took Caligula's hand and burned the fuck out of it everytime he reached for a boy to screw, pretty soon, when he saw fresh little cherub asses, instead of getting an erection, he would cradle his hand in terror. That does not mean he has discipline or morality now.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm so glad I'm not a libertarian. It sounds exhausting.

Yeah, I've noticed people don't want to be free - many even here on these boards, love control and authority. They can't stand the thought of free people as long as it fits their narrow personal values. The Paine's, Rothbard's, and Bastiat's of the world are rare.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

fuckin Tea Party

 

[specsaregood]

Yeah, I've noticed people don't want to be free - many even here on these boards, love control and authority. They can't stand the thought of free people as long as it fits their narrow personal values. The Paine's, Rothbard's, and Bastiat's of the world are rare.

Meh, I try to live my life by the golden rule, its pretty freeing and I don't need a bunch of people to tell me what it means.