TimS
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
Posts posted by TimS
-
-
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.
-
There is one thing that bothers me in the argument and its not that it could lead to bad outcome since Stefan says do not look to outcome, but to process. The problem is the obvious situation coercion, the child depending on you for survival, which makes the child much more susceptible to abuse of this kind.
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 think people underestimate the power of creating environments that forces people do things they would not normally do even in the absence of physical coercion.
The real question is- do you as the hypothetical consumer of the hypothetical DRO want to purchase a service which uses torture as you say, in its practices?
I think it will look more like DRO's using proactive measures in prevention of crime: ostracism, sharing of data with other DRO's, and literal protection in the way of armed patrols, emergency responders, escorts etc.
Money and time restitution (paying for leave and so on) would be the most rational things to supply the DRO's customers in the event of the occasional crisis.
I really doubt there will be free-world 'spooks.' Goons who will go out and club people who rob you, I don't think will be too popular in most of the free world. It's too expensive.
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.
No, I used the word spanking specifically for a reason. In the OP you said "Admittedly I am coming around to the FDR view that spanking is just bad period".
'Coming around' implies ambivalence. Which means you might think spanking could be good in some way. I was just curious as to what way spanking a child could be good, even if it is part of a previously arranged agreement for "dispute resolution with a child".
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.
If the child understands and agrees, then there is no violation of NAP since its voluntary, if he disagrees, then we can renegotiate till we reach some acceptable conclusion. However, if the child cannot understand me for one reason or the other, then the spanking will act as conditioning since negotiation is off the table.
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?
-
As in a dispute resolution between the parent and the child?
...and if spanking's not just bad period, in what way(s) could it be good?
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.
In what way would beating/torture lead to restitution or correction? It seems to me that if immorality is rooted in abuse, then abuse would be the last thing to prescribe.
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.
-
To the OP, just curious, have you brought your concerns over the methodolgy used by Mr. Straus to his attention and if so, what was his reply?
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.
So it isn't proceeding with integrity to say "Hey you mentioned these
statistics here. Could you please share the source with me?" rather than
"throwing them out"?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
Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative? Support?
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.Perhaps I am not the one here ignoring the OP's sentiments. Statements such as the ones from the OP above are judgements. To avoid answering questions about the motivation behind such judgement remarks by claiming the post is merely about data is disingenous at best and blatantly hypocritical at worst.
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.
Why not reasons from first principles, using logic as the guide? The OP contends the data suggests we modify our attitude toward spankers, so as not to be "ridiculous". Because it's the data, not logic that make this ridiculous, no?
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.
-
Does asking for clarification constitute derailing?
The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection. So far so good, better to be accurate with the data. But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate. Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking. My question was and still is: "Why?" Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area? Why the evasive answer about derailing?
Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned? I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions.
Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking? If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?
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. -
Is this to suggest that we should think of darker-skinned as being being inherently predisposed to underachieving largely due to biological factors?
Still trying to derail the thread?
-
I fully agree. +1This is the second time this has come up and I thought we were just talking about ethical issues - like whether some people are born without brains with a capacity for conscience, born psychopaths, for example - and the person instead took it toward the racial subject. Racial differences is not where I'm going with it at all.
I agree with maximizing healthy parenting. That's a no-lose. But repeatedly we've been over, in different threads, the fact that not currently having any quick fix for biological contributors to unethical behavior is no excuse for not strongly supporting research into finding them, as well. We never know where that could lead. And, as I've pointed out many times, finding biological markers could, at the very least, allow us to tailor caregiving to a particular child's needs. Perhaps children with certain brain patterns need one type of parenting and those with other patterns respond better to a different type.
Both sides of this puzzle deserve serious attention. But when you've already made up your mind that it's "all nurture" you not only don't support the nature side of things being investigated, you tend to oppose it.
-
Thank you Tim, I really appreciate you bringing that up, I will put our researcher on the data!
Cool, thanks for the response. [
] -
Nature vs. nurture is polarizing in part because, in these areas, it's very unsettled science. As I point out often, I don't know of any credible scientist who claims we know one way or another on traits as complex as those involved in ethical behavior. In fact, I think all the credible ones I've heard accept that it's some combination of them and they are inextricably interconnected. So I find it hard to understand anyone claiming it's one or the other and the matter is settled.
Even Stefan admits both are involved. But then he usually speaks and prioritizes as if it's really about nurture, not nature. And much of the forum seems to take it as gospel that it's nurture, not nature. And if you question that you get ad hominems and evasions and so on. So I rarely bother bringing it up anymore. It was interesting to see how all you did is question one of the studies in an anti-spanking video and you got the same kinds of responses.
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 toI've learned that
unfortunately whenever you question any of the arguments or data on the
subject of nature vs. nurture regarding children and the problems they
develop here, you will mostly have several people ignore your factual
arguments and act as if you just endorsed abusing children. The idea
that all of the ills of the world stem from child abuse and none of them
come from any innate traits in any people is dogma to many here and is
not up for reasoned discussion. This forum is great at reasoned
discussion of many topics, but this one, I find, is as ideologically
driven here as religion is to many religious people.
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.fullAt 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.
Resolving acts of aggression: restitution, punishment, deterrence
in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
Posted