TimS

I appreciate the response and I agree with all that.And yes, I was using the term "ostracism" in a very different way. If someone is found guilty of theft, or lying, that will have a big impact on their ability to trade, since no one would trust them. I'm sure firms would still offer employment in low-responsibility positions, and/or with a wage reduction that compensates them for the risk of hiring a thief/liar. Nevertheless, that label is stuck with you for life. No matter how repentant your future behavior, you will always be thought of as The Guy who might just be pulling a long con.My point is that whatever resolution the DRO decides, the emergent behavior of the market (I hate saying "collective") will continue to punish you indefinitely. So if you are bothered by this, perhaps when you sign up at a DRO you choose a more expensive policy--one that will (in the event you are found to have committed aggression) provide sufficient compensation to the parties you trade with, such that they overlook the risk of doing business with you. For that matter you could choose a policy that amounts to incorporation, again at a premium.

Inflation has a bad rap because of its association with fiat currency (a state institution), because of its association with war (fiat currency is typically instituted to finance imperial aggression), because the state uses inflation to "regulate" the market, and because the state and its pet institutions use inflation to steal resources, since they spend the newly minted "money" before prices have had a chance to adjust. However outside the context of fiat currency and inside the context of free market money, inflation is neither good nor bad. If precious metals are used as a bias for money, there will be some level of inflation as additional precious metals are mined, and perhaps some level of deflation if precious metals are taken out of circulation--probably for industrial use. But it doesn't matter because prices simply adjust to reflect the scarcity of money.

That's a good rule of thumb, but the set of (morally) good acts is very, very large. And some of those acts will produce objectively better outcomes than others. For example, it is not immoral for a business owner to pay too much for his factors of production. But it will cause him to take a loss and eventually go out of business. So some consideration for outcomes seems like a good idea. I agree. And I think those social forces will be much, much stronger in the absence of the state. Hopefully for good, but maybe for ill. And that's an extremely important issue for DROs to handle. I don't know. That's exactly what I'm asking: if I murder someone in cold blood, how much of my humanity--how much of my "moral status"--have I ceded, if any? Is still just as wrong to injure (or punitively fine!) me as some random innocent? I'm glad you brought up ostracism. I think ostracism is among the most personally destructive punishments available, and I'm not sure it can be legitimately separated from physical injury. (Let me put it this way: I suffer from a combination of social anxiety and depression. If I could choose between an extended session of torture and ostracism, I would take the torture every time.) Furthermore, ostracism seems like it would almost always just happen naturally due to the inherent revulsion that normal people have for aggression. Because of this, and because of its tremendously punitive nature, I strongly suspect that many DROs will spend a lot of money paying the community to restrain their tendency to ostracize aggressors--at least if the community values reform over retribution. I suppose a DRO could resolve all the financial aspects without the need to kidnap an aggressor and physically sit him down in a court room. However, I think DROs will definitely field repo teams to recover stolen property, or extract fines from unocooperative aggressors. But that only works in the case where the aggressor has assets to repo. The only way to extract money from someone who has no assets is enslave them, which would require "spooks". And I don't see how this would be that expensive if you already have the infrastructure for a large guard force. You just take a handful of interested guards and train them to be ninjas. You wouldn't need very many, I think. Help me understand what you are saying. I wrote, "Are you really asking" and you said "no". Do I take this to mean that you disagree that spanking is a subset of violence? Because when I say that "violence can be good", that applies to all its subsets, including spanking. If you say, "spanking is never good", then it is I who am curious as to how you distinguish spanking from other types of violence.

Honestly I wasn't trying to make this specific to children; that's just the particular issue that piqued my interest. I am trying to think about how these principles might be (or should be) generalized to any dispute resolution process. What I'm suggesting is that if physical injury is axiomatically excluded from the list of possible resolutions because it is abusive, it therefore follows that all punitive resolutions are excluded on the same basis. And if the resolution cannot involve punishment, there is no deterrent (economic disincentive) for aggression. What I mean is: it is not clear to me how you could meaningfully distinguish between a deterrent and a punishment, and between punishment and abuse. Maybe you could; I don't know. On the other hand, if there are people who believe that aggressors should be punished (perhaps out of a childish desire for vengeance, or out of a desire to deter future aggression), it is not clear to me how you could meaningfully distinguish between punishments that merely involve fines and punishments that involve personal injury. I guess that seems reasonable, but I suppose there is a lot of room to disagree. For example, what if spanking conditions the child to be less reasonable and more open to violence?

Disputes a parent might be expected to resolve include (at least): child-parent, child-spouse (i.e., the parent is resolving a dispute between the child and the other parent), child-sibling, child-third party child, child-third party adult. Are you really asking, "If violence is not just bad period, in what way(s) could it be good?" Violence can be good if used to protect people and property from aggression, and if used to implement moral dispute resolutions. That's what I'm asking. How does the DRO do business? Is it legitimate for the victimized party to seek a punative resolution? If so, is there difference between a punative resolution that's limited to extracting money from the aggressor, and a punative resolution that inflicts injury on the aggressor's body? (Obviously any injury is by definition punative and not restorative--but fines can be punative too.) Is it legitmate for the DRO to employ punative resolutions to provide an economic incentive (deterrence) against future aggression? It seems to be the case that immorality is rooted (but not solely rooted) in abuse, so if reform is part of the DRO's mission then it seems like any punative resolution would be off the table, since punishment seems to be abusive by definition. Only purely restitutive resolutions would be considered. However I don't see why it is a moral imperative for anyone to try to reform the aggressor. If enough people don't want to try, or if they think deterrence outweighs reform, there will be DROs for them too. And those DROs won't have a problem with punative (abusive) resolutions. Would you consider living in a society with DROs like that?

If, in an anarcho capitalist society, a person is duly and reasonably found to have commited an act of aggression, what sort of moral limits might there be on a DRO's proposed resolution? The most obvious aspect is restitution, particularly for theft or destruction of property. For personal injury, the aggressor could be held liable for incurred medical expenses and lost income. Presumably any reasonable resolution is going to restore the victim to their previous status, if possible. Murder is more problematic, since life is irreplaceable. Also some instances of property may have particular sentimental value that cannot be replaced, or easily measured. Another factor is actual punishment. Is it morally/philosophically valid for the DRO to propose a punative resolution that significantly exceeds a reasonable level of restitution? I.e., you stole $50 worth of property, but we declare you liable for $100 as retribution for your evil behavior. What about a resolution that includes personal injury or the intentional infliction of pain. Is it in any way legitimate for a DRO to ever prescribe beating or some other form of torture as part of a resolution? Does it matter if the injury is permanent? What about killing the aggressor, is that ever okay? Does deterrence of future aggression play any consideration? Rape is an especially insidious form of aggression, even more insidious when perpetrated against children. In the case of cold-blooded rape (for example as commited by soldiers in wartime), is it reasonable or moral to prescribe an excessive level of monetary liability simply for the purpose of deterring future rapists? What got me thinking about this is the topic of spanking. Admittedly I am coming around to the FDR view that spanking is just bad period, but I am not clear on how spanking represents aggression if it is preformed as part of a dispute resolution. Regardless, if spanking is never okay, even as retribution for aggression, then it clearly stands to reason that personal injury can never be part of a moral dispute resolution. However it is not immediately obvious to me why this should necessarily be the case, especially if the aggression involved personal injury. However if restitition is the only valid form of resolution, then it would make sense--since of course injury is purely retributive. But it is also not immediately obvious why retribution and deterrence could not be reasonable factors. Thoughts?

The recent debate between Molyneux and Block reminded me of this. Molyneux introduces the debate with comments on sociological data which are reflected by The Facts About Spanking. At 3:30 he mentions the study by Straus which links spanking to worldwide IQ and then references The Facts About Spanking, which is also linked in the video description. The Facts About Spanking is misleading and not intuitively referenced. It is particularly misleading on the subject of cognitive development. It is also misleading on the relationship between spanking and aggression. None of the objections I raised have been addressed. Getting the facts about spanking right should be a higher priority than it is.

Sorry, I work all day on the weekends. Answer: I haven't had any contact with Straus. The guy is an elite academic, I'm just a kid with a technical background who works at a grocery store. I also don't care about all the journalists who seem to be constantly reporting soft-science papers (esp. re: medicine) in questionable ways...only reason I made this is because I do care about Stef. Heh, I went a step further and managed to track them down despite the links on the video's source page not being quite as helpful as I hoped they would be. How can people discuss anything in the absence of good faith?

It looks like all the contributors express some level of misgiving towards Stef’s video. Success? I guess. I have limited interest in meta-discussions, so that’s probably it for me. Thanks all!

Got back from work to find that STer has said everything I could have said and more, except better and without the seething irritation. <3 The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP. You display a misunderstanding of what disingenouity/hypocrisy are, because my motivation(s) have now been provided. STer got the main one, and I listed other contributing motivations. I suppose your basis for accusations of "evasion" is that I haven't admitted what you just know is my secret desire to promote child abuse. Divine revelation, no doubt.I'm feeling slightly charitable, so re: the comment I made about the dark/light skin and IQ: this is was in response to STer affirming my assertion that nature vs. nurture is polarizing and presenting a reason for its polarization. I agreed with him, and then noted what I think is the primary reason for its polarization; namely, the fact that the 100% environment view has been at the core of anti-racism everywhere: in academia, in politics, in gradeschool, on the street. (This is why it is taken for granted that anyone promoting a non-100% environment view should be demonized as racist. Look at Jensen, Murray, Lynn, Rushton, etc.) In fact I think it is safe to say that it is the sine qua non of egalitarianism. If it needs to be spelled out: since racism is perhaps the most viciously polarized issue of our time, it is hardly surprising that this would carry over into the defense of the 100% nurture position. If you want to know the arguments for and against the heritability of intelligence, well, that's a funny trick question. The best research has been done on european people (for reasons that hardly require an explanation) and I don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement that intelligence is highly heritable when it comes to europeans. The controversy is when you start talking about the fact that different "races" score differently on intelligence tests (still not really in dispute), and then it starts in earnest when you start discussing the heritability of intelligence for africans and latin americans. That's because here, like in another topic that could apparently be named, truth usually takes a backseat to ideaology. Best place to start reading? Wikipedia. I happen to think they give a pretty comprehensive and balanced report (despite various articles remaining in an apparently perpetual flagged state). I also recommend listening to a debate between Flynn (of the Flynn Effect) and Murray on the black-white IQ gap, which can be found on YT. Both are gentlemen and scholars. Stop being so goddamned difficult! Did you ask Stefan that when he posted the video? Have you ever commented on a piece of sociological research which confirmed your views, "I am no particular fan of stats on human behavior"? And you have the gall to accuse others of hypocrisy. But cute tactic: if soci/psychology doesn't support your case, you discard the discipline altogether. Really. So tell me again about first principles, please. Because the last time I checked, the value of the soft sciences was derived from first principles. Hypocrisy, what? At this point I cannot even conceive of trying to discuss logic with you, so stop asking. (I flatter myself by thinking you were asking me.) But thanks for your contributions.

Here are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term “bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et cetera, et cetera. The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless. (And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent. And now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being trolled (by you). Please. If you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the negative.

Still trying to derail the thread?

I fully agree. +1

Cool, thanks for the response. []

I agree, although I think the chief reason it’s polarizing is because nobody wants to even think about the possibility that people with darker skin underachieve largely for biological reasons and not purely on the basis of oppression from light-skinned people (if you’re a leftist) or purely on the basis of otherwise reparable cultural dysfunction (if you’re a conservative). Too much hangs on the "everyone created equal" dogma. Thus everything in nature vs. nurture gets tarred and feathered. And of course, ironically, being on the “nature” side really just means you think that nature has a significant effect. Not that environment has no significant effect. (I have never heard of anyone who thinks that.) Meanwhile so many people are desperate to say that everything is 100% environment. I’m glad Stefan agrees it’s both--and I completely understand the prioritization of nurturing techniques, because of course we can’t do anything about nature, and because legit child abuse remains rampant--so if you’ve committed to never striking your children, physical abuse is automatically ruled out. So I sympathize. I just object to dressing up the position with purported “facts” that...aren’t.

More precious foreplay, thanks. If you could spare the incredible bother of reading the OP, you will discover that there are study conclusions which anyone can accept in good faith. Also, rating = 1/5? Wow, there must be so many other threads that challenge “The Facts about Spanking” on the basis of its sources. Total topic fatigue. Classy. Yeah. Thanks for the moral support. Of course nature vs. nurture is easily one of the most polarizing topics anywhere. Main reason I posted this was to vent irritation after watching the video; I did not seriously expect any serious responses. (For example it blew my mind that Stefan cited a paper which is based on research by Richard Lynn...) But it's fun to be an anarchist on the "nature" side, even if it's a hated minority of a hated minority.

Skip the oh so effing precious foreplay. In case you missed it (and that would be really easy considering the self-evident opacity of the title/OP), this is not really a thread about promoting or condeming spanking. This is a thread about some/all of the studies that Stefan cites in his video "The Facts about Spanking" and Stefan's presentation of and reaction to the results of those studies. Who could have guessed that, right? I apologize for not interspersing said caveat in the OP; it should have been in every other paragraph. No, who am I kidding, it should have been every other flipping character. Because I'm sure that would have made a difference.

At 5:39ish, Molyneux cites a paper by Murray Straus concerning IQ. This paper is questionable. First, the chart showing IQ vs. CP is dreadful. You could change the x-axis to pretty much any negative anything and create an essentially identical chart. Why? Because IQ positively correlates with basically all good social things, and negatively correlates with basically all bad social things. Most importantly, of course, the chart would be unchanged regardless of whether it is that spanking is a contributing factor to low IQ, or whether low IQ is a contributing factor to behaviors that warrant spanking. (This is to say, that no, the chart does not show that spanking is a bad social thing.) Indeed the chart is meaningless if you are trying to arguing against spanking, because it tells us nothing about causation. Secondly, if you begin to discard the most suspect data points (those from less-developed countries, that is), the correlation starts to vanish. Does anyone really believe, for example, that africans are only a few points above mental retardation? That under better socioeconomic conditions their IQ wouldn’t easily jump 15 to 20 points? (African-Americans average at 85, for example.) Third, are people still not aware that the single strongest factor in determining a child's IQ is...his parent's IQ? There are a myriad of environmental factors that contribute as well, of course--thus any part that spanking could possibly play is very minor. Nevertheless, Molyneux, breathlessly: “This holds back an entire culture from advancing intellectually!” Come on, really? And what about all those leading IQ asian countries, whose rates are higher or much higher than the average Western country. Look how much 23 million Taiwanese have apparently benefited from hitting their children. Staus also reports that children who are spanked lose ~5 IQ points over a period of several years compared to children not spanked. But where are the other controls? None are evident from what I have been able to find. For example, in another study (noted below), there are many important controls. But no mention here of the fact that children's IQs often fluctuate wildly. No mention of demographics, which would be very useful to know because, well... “disadvantaged urban children” (i.e., blacks) have been reported (Breslau, et al.) to lose ~5 points of IQ over a comparable set of ages for apparently no good reason. Breslau doesn’t control for spanking, and Staus has already established or strongly suggested that blacks spank more frequently. Breslau, et al. Stability and Change in Children's Intelligence Quotient Scores: A Comparison of Two Socioeconomically Disparate Communities. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/154/8/711.full At about 8:14 Molyneux talks about aggression. I think he is using this study: Mothers’ Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children's Aggressive Behavior. The study seems to do a great job with the controls, so I can accept the conclusions in good faith. Which are: Spanking 3+ times per month offers a 49% higher chance of the child being more aggressive, but spanking 1-2 times per month has no effect. Did we fail to report that detail? Moreover, the study was nice enough to also report that a child demonstrating aggression at age 3 was 235% more likely to be more aggressive at age 5, which is useful for comparison. The authors do us the courtesy of including this line (which should be obvious anyway to those with knowledge of stats): “Given the problem of potential unmeasured confounders, it is not possible to assert causality between CP and child aggression in observational studies such as this.” And how much less in studies that can't be bothered to control for parental risk factors or preexisting aggression! But I guess Stefan was not going to mention that one way or the other. While I was busy trying to figure out which studies Stefan was using, I ran across this one (Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective Study of Infants and Young Toddlers) which has a bizarre conclusion: namely, that white children show a correlation between spanking and behavioral problems, but black children and hispanic children do not. Regardless, the study fails to control for the pre-existence of behavioral problems, which makes it useless one way or another for assessing causality. Not sure if Stefan cited this at any point, but I wanted to bring it up as an example of how worthless these studies can be. On the same site (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org) I also found a (subscription-only, to my chagrin) article entitled, "A Blanket Injunction Against Disciplinary Use of Spanking Is Not Warranted by the Data". I guess that's not "shocking" science, though. I'm going to stop here, as my quest to examine the sources has left me disappointed. I apologize for not addressing all of Stefan’s points, and for the snarky nature of my commentary. But I was really expecting more. Bottom line: the attitude of those opposed to spanking is wildly out of sync with the data I've seen so far. Spanking is the equivalent of being tossed into a battlefield? Spanking is responsible for third world’s lack of development? Parents who spank are deserving of contempt/hatred? This is ridiculous.