Spanking and Natural Rights

[Rael]

Disclaimer for the pervs: I don't mean the voluntary spanking your girlfriend gives you while wearing a strapon. I'm referring to spanking children.

I don't have kids. But if I did, I don't believe in spanking, with exception to this or a simliar scenario:

If I have a toddler who is about to touch an extremely hot surface, I would deal out a nasty slap. Of course this serves 2 functions, stopping the child from getting burned, and teaching a lesson to someone I cannot reason with verbally.

From a hardcore natural rights perspective, have I violated the toddlers natural rights? Is this not a violation of the aggression principle because it prevents a greater violence (a nasty burn)?

What if the surface was not hot but normally is. The child faces no injury, but I smack him anyway to teach him that touching that = pain. Is this a violation of natural rights since the child faces no immediate danger?

 

[Scofield]

Why would you spank your child for touching a hot surface? If you want to teach your toddler that touching the stove is hot, by coming to the conclusion that spanking (pain) = no-no, just let them touch the stove.

Tell them "NO!" or to "STOP!" and explain to them why it's hot. If they ignore your warning, and they touch it, they just learned a lesson. No need to spank them.

I am not against spanking, as it is necessary at times. But I don't support spanking them to stop them from experiencing something. They will learn a lesson the minute they touch the hot stove.

 

[torchbearer]

I was always taught the with freedom comes responsibility.
You can't have one without the other. (if you think so, please list an example).

Why doesn't a 1 year old have the "natural" right to weild an Uzi? http://www.opednews.com/articles/Where-are-our-priorities--by-John-Toradze-081222-324.html
Because the one year old has no idea of the responsibility that comes with wielding an Uzi.

And yeah, age limits are subjective. At what age does one become responsible?
Not even the social sciences can really agree...
But most agree its not at the time of birth.

So, at birth, the responsibility of the child's actions are placed on the parents. All liability lies on the parents, and thus, the child is a subject of the parents until immancipation.
By being human, you have the rights.. but until you weild the responsibility you do not own those rights. The person responsible for the penalities owns the rights.

Thus, spanking would be within the rights of the parents.

Some social scientist say that spanking teaches your kids that hitting someone is ok in conflict resolution.
I say this is false.
I got my ass tore up many times... I've never thrown a punch at anyone.

What it did teach me is there are dire consequences for breaking the rules... and later I realized those rules were for my benefit when it came to dealing with the outside world.

You aren't really born with a full understanding of property rights. If we were... we wouldn't have this socialist government we have now...

The belt can be a good teaching tool if used correctly.

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

For more insight, please do reseach of the socialization of children: http://www.google.com/search?q=soci...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

 

[Scofield]

Some social scientist say that spanking teaches your kids that hitting someone is ok in conflict resolution.
I say this is false.
I got my ass tore up many times... I've never thrown a punch at anyone.

This is truth.

I used to get spanked by my parents all the time. Hell, I've gotten the belt to the ass a few times too. Yet, like you, I've never been in a fight or thrown any punches.

 

[danberkeley]

I got my ass tore up many times... I've never thrown a punch at anyone.

How come you never defended yourself?

 

[brandon]

Disclaimer for the pervs: I don't mean the voluntary spanking your girlfriend gives you while wearing a strapon. I'm referring to spanking children.

I don't have kids. But if I did, I don't believe in spanking, with exception to this or a simliar scenario:

If I have a toddler who is about to touch an extremely hot surface, I would deal out a nasty slap. Of course this serves 2 functions, stopping the child from getting burned, and teaching a lesson to someone I cannot reason with verbally.

From a hardcore natural rights perspective, have I violated the toddlers natural rights? Is this not a violation of the aggression principle because it prevents a greater violence (a nasty burn)?

What if the surface was not hot but normally is. The child faces no injury, but I smack him anyway to teach him that touching that = pain. Is this a violation of natural rights since the child faces no immediate danger?

You have a lot of good questions. I actually started a spanking thread a month ago which you may find interesting if you havn't read it yet.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=172432

 

[Rael]

I didn't really intend to start a debate on whether spanking is right or wrong, but rather a natural rights perspective. Maybe I am wrong, but the theory of natural rights sounds like it rules out spanking altogether.

 

[Rael]

You have a lot of good questions. I actually started a spanking thread a month ago which you may find interesting if you havn't read it yet.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=172432

thanks I will check it out

 

[torchbearer]

How come you never defended yourself?

Because I earned those ass whippings.
Had I done nothing wrong and someone was attacking me, I would have fought or run...
BUt being that those people were the people providing everything for me.. and made the rules very clear.. and I conciously broke those rules... and wanted to keep sleeping in their nice home and eating their food... I took the punishment for my transgression.

 

[torchbearer]

How come you never defended yourself?

Or are you talking about why I never defended myself in a fight?
Not sure... i'm not really a pacifist.. I'm more of a killer.
If I unleash on someone, it will be until their body no longer moves... so it will have to be a life/death situation and not some machismo bullshit... and then, i'm fighting until the person isn't breathing...
And i'm not using fist... and i'm not fighting "fair".
So, knowing that about myself... I reserve aggression for only the most dire of situations.

 

[Scofield]

Or are you talking about why I never defended myself in a fight?
Not sure... i'm not really a pacifist.. I'm more of a killer.
If I unleash on someone, it will be until their body no longer moves... so it will have to be a life/death situation and not some machismo bullshit... and then, i'm fighting until the person isn't breathing...
And i'm not using fist... and i'm not fighting "fair".
So, knowing that about myself... I reserve aggression for only the most dire of situations.

Exactly.

I get no "pleasure" from fighting. I do it for my survival, so if I am ever in a situation where self-defense is needed, I will be doing everything in my power to survive. If that means a kick in the balls, so be it.

People bitch about people fighting dirty, but those are the type of people that enjoy violence and fighting. I don't enjoy violence and fighting, so when I need to use physical force, it's going to be for my survival. I don't have rules when my survival is on the line. There is no "losing fairly" in my perspective. You either win and survive, or you lose and you die. Regardless of the fairness of the fight.

 

[OmegaWolf747]

Why would you spank your child for touching a hot surface? If you want to teach your toddler that touching the stove is hot, by coming to the conclusion that spanking (pain) = no-no, just let them touch the stove.

Tell them "NO!" or to "STOP!" and explain to them why it's hot. If they ignore your warning, and they touch it, they just learned a lesson. No need to spank them.

I am not against spanking, as it is necessary at times. But I don't support spanking them to stop them from experiencing something. They will learn a lesson the minute they touch the hot stove.

As much as I agree with this in principle, the reality is if a parent allowed their kid to burn themselves to teach them a lesson, they would be charged with child abuse, neglect or some other nanny state crap.

The other sad reality is if parents spank their kids to stop them from burning themselves, they will still be charged with abuse.

My bottom line is if the parent is responsible for the toddler, they have the right to spank the child if it is warranted. Do I advocate beating a child for every misdemeanor? Certainly not. But we now live in a country where parents can't correct their children at all without the fear of losing custody.

 

[Scofield]

As much as I agree with this in principle, the reality is if a parent allowed their kid to burn themselves to teach them a lesson, they would be charged with child abuse, neglect or some other nanny state crap.

The other sad reality is if parents spank their kids to stop them from burning themselves, they will still be charged with abuse.

My bottom line is if the parent is responsible for the toddler, they have the right to spank the child if it is warranted. Do I advocate beating a child for every misdemeanor? Certainly not. But we now live in a country where parents can't correct their children at all without the fear of losing custody.

"From my cold, dead hands."

(pretend he never said it about guns)