For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[arthrimus]

After reading your first sentence, I thought I knew where you were going with your statement... "Its not an act of aggression, it is an act of love".

Wow did I ever miss that. lol

Well yes, it is that too, but I thought that given the nature of this conversation so far, I needed to explain it in the context of the whole aggression/retaliation thing.

 

[level.eleven]

Disciplining your child is not an act of aggression. If your child violates a stated rule of the house, then they have acted in aggression against the house. As the leader of the house it is the parent's obligation to respond to the violation.

So, spanking isn't an initiation of force? Leader of the house? Has the child given his consent to be a subject of your coercion and violence?

Stephan Molyneux lays out why spanking violates the NAP.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/36077/279666.aspx

 

[IndyDave1776]

So, spanking isn't an initiation of force? Leader of the house? Has the child given his consent to be a subject of your coercion and violence?

Stephan Molyneux lays out why spanking violates the NAP.

Does Spanking Violate the Non-Aggression Principle? - Freedomain Radio

It works like this (which is why most of us oppose 'nanny state' programs):

Same deal is open to those not yet teens. Try it. See how it works out for you.

 

[level.eleven]

It works like this (which is why most of us oppose 'nanny state' programs):

Same deal is open to those not yet teens. Try it. See how it works out for you.

I've always wondered why Ayn didn't have children. Well, not really.

 

[arthrimus]

So, spanking isn't an initiation of force? Leader of the house? Has the child given his consent to be a subject of your coercion and violence?

Stephan Molyneux lays out why spanking violates the NAP.

Does Spanking Violate the Non-Aggression Principle? - Freedomain Radio

Mister Molyneux uses a lot of complex scenarios to make his points, but misses the bigger picture. Disciplining a child is for the well being of said child. I, for example, am incredibly grateful for every ounce of discipline that I received when I was younger. That is because when I look back on how it formed me as a person, and how effective it was at deterring bad behaviors which could have grown into much larger problems if left unchecked, I can see and appreciate the value of it. I did not consent at the time, but now as a fully formed adult I do retroactively consent.

His assertion that anyone subjected to spanking cannot have a valid opinion on the subject is absurd, because he assumes that spanking is abusive in nature. The physical act of spanking is only a tiny cog in the mechanism of effective parenting. There are far too many factors involved in the parenting process to single out spanking as the greatest emotional troublemaker. Constant and senseless beating of a child is clearly abuse, but a system of escalating consequences for violation of rules that ultimately leads to measured physical action is not abuse. An effective parent balances all of the disciplinary tools available to achieve the best results.

Saying that all spanking is abusive is equivalent to saying that all killing is murder. It is a conclusion that is reached without examining any of the surrounding circumstances.

 

[level.eleven]

So we add another exception to the NAP. Retroactive consent to aggression.

 

[steveh_131]

Winkles? NAP is an absolute statement. Absolutism is a glaring weakness of deontological ethics. A main reason why it makes for an inadequate core idea of libertarianism. Or, libertarianism is itself inadequate philosophy. Perhaps that is why it isn't popular on a national scale. Perhaps that is why the best example given is tribal Celts - of which could just as easily be described as warlord socialism.

NAP plus a laundry list of ever growing exceptions.

NAP is a solid base for a political philosophy. Like everything else in life, and especially in ethics, there will be shades of gray.

I can poke just as many holes in the core of any political system. That said, the exceptions can be fairly far and few between in libertarianism.

Every one of us utilizes the NAP in our daily lives, so let's not pretend that it's some weird cultish belief shared by a handful of kooks. It is at the core of freedom and the core of our justice system.

 

[arthrimus]

So we add another exception to the NAP. Retroactive consent to aggression.

Nope, discipline is not aggression.

 

[poptab]

NAP is a solid base for a political philosophy. Like everything else in life, and especially in ethics, there will be shades of gray.

I can poke just as many holes in the core of any political system. That said, the exceptions can be fairly far and few between in libertarianism.

Every one of us utilizes the NAP in our daily lives, so let's not pretend that it's some weird cultish belief shared by a handful of kooks. It is at the core of freedom and the core of our justice system.

That is level.elevens mo. He just sits on the side line making asinine statements and never offers any solutions of his own. Im guessing he is afraid of getting a taste of his own medicine.

 

[level.eleven]

Every one of us utilizes the NAP in our daily lives, so let's not pretend that it's some weird cultish belief shared by a handful of kooks. It is at the core of freedom and the core of our justice system.

I disagree. It is a cultish belief. The strongest argument for that point is its failure to gain even the slightest foothold in the world, spanning hundreds of thousands of societies. Remember, any social service violates NAP. Any court, any cop, any road. City snow removal? Violation. Its core is not freedom. Its core is anarchy. Justice is impossible within the constraints of NAP unless one resort to vigilantism.

 

[level.eleven]

That is level.elevens mo. He just sits on the side line making asinine statements and never offers any solutions of his own. Im guessing he is afraid of getting a taste of his own medicine.

It sounds as if you are still sore to learn your paleocon heroes buddied up with the Klan to push the "redneck" agenda.

 

[level.eleven]

Nope, discipline is not aggression.

Not according to NAP.

How so?

Principle of non-aggression - Mises Wiki

Are you denying the child self ownership?

 

[poptab]

It sounds as if you are still sore to learn your paleocon heroes buddied up with the Klan to push the "redneck" agenda.

Touch a nerve did I?

 

[level.eleven]

Touch a nerve did I?

Not at all. They aren't my heroes. I am not an anarchist advocating for black states and white states.

 

[arthrimus]

Not according to NAP.

How so?

Principle of non-aggression - Mises Wiki

Are you denying the child self ownership?

Yes, I am denying a child self ownership. Ownership is best defined within the context of this conversation as possession of self.

Possession in this context is best defined as "To take control of".

If a child is dependent on a parent for survival then he cannot possess (take control of) his own well being. If he cannot possess the responsibility of his well being, then he cannot claim possession of self. Therefore, a child who relies on a parent for survival does not have a claim to self ownership.

If, for example, a 16 year old is tired of conforming to the restrictions of his household, and he thinks he can hack it in the real world, then by all means, he should be able to claim that self ownership. But if he proves to be still dependent on his parents for survival, then he must again relinquish his self ownership. It is simply an exchange of rights for the necessities of survival.

 

[level.eleven]

Yes, I am denying a child self ownership. Ownership is best defined within the context of this conversation as possession of self.

Possession in this context is best defined as "To take control of".

If a child is dependent on a parent for survival then he cannot possess (take control of) his own well being. If he cannot possess the responsibility of his well being, then he cannot claim possession of self. Therefore, a child who relies on a parent for survival does not have a claim to self ownership.

If, for example, a 16 year old is tired of conforming to the restrictions of his household, and he thinks he can hack it in the real world, then by all means, he should be able to claim that self ownership. But if he proves to be still dependent on his parents for survival, then he must again relinquish his self ownership.

Add another item to the list. Coerced age requirements. You guys are shredding NAP to pieces.

What of a person in a coma? The sick? The mentally ill? They are denied self ownership under your definition.

 

[arthrimus]

Add another item to the list. Coerced age requirements. You guys are shredding NAP to pieces.

What of a person in a coma? The sick? The mentally ill? They are denied self ownership under your definition.

Well no, nothing is being added to any list. I don't understand why you're having trouble figuring this out. These are not exceptions, these are logical conclusions that operate within the confines of NAP. Nobody said anything about age requirements, in fact I specifically cited the example of a 16 year old (a minor in the eyes of the government and society) taking control of his own life. That example was intended to indicate that age is not the issue, rather it is the ability to survive.

If a sick, or comatose, person's medical bills and sustenance are being provided by an insurance policy that they have payed for then they are still independent and therefore do not relinquish any level of self ownership. If a mental illness is debilitating to the point that the person cannot provide for themselves and are completely dependent on another for survival then yes, they lose some amount of self ownership.

It's not my definition, it's THE definition. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't change the fact that these words mean what they mean.

 

[steveh_131]

I disagree. It is a cultish belief. The strongest argument for that point is its failure to gain even the slightest foothold in the world, spanning hundreds of thousands of societies.

Absolutely not true. It has been the cornerstone of every justice system since the beginning of time. All of your basic crimes that have ever been punished are examples of aggression. The way we treat each other every day follows its principles.

Remember, any social service violates NAP. Any court, any cop, any road. City snow removal? Violation. Its core is not freedom. Its core is anarchy. Justice is impossible within the constraints of NAP unless one resort to vigilantism.

All of these things could be accomplished within a voluntary and contractual framework. They aren't, but they could be.

Add another item to the list. Coerced age requirements. You guys are shredding NAP to pieces.

What of a person in a coma? The sick? The mentally ill? They are denied self ownership under your definition.

All of these people are dependent upon someone for their very existence. This requires some sort of implied contract. It's a gray area, but I certainly would not call it an exception.

So. What is your idea of the best political ideal? What framework would you advocate a society adhere to?

 

[mrjarrell]

Murray takes a look at the myths and truths of libertarianism.

https://mises.org/daily/2616

 

[mydoghasfleas]

You do not own your child, just the temperary responsibility of taking care of it. The state owns your child.