ylevanon

Just fyi, the person on the right is Hans Hermann Hoppe, he's the chair of the PFS, and is potentially one of the greatest philosophers in the history of man kind. He is responsible for argumentation ethics which bridges the is/ought chasm and is somewhat similar to Stef's UPB in this regard (but Hoppe was there first). I'm at a loss to his superficial treatment of the subject.

Yes, this was very disappointing on various levels. For example, in the case of Hoppe, given his immense logical faculties, one would expect that he would refrain from deducing from what he believes his own experience is, to what is generally true. Even if we accept that spanking didn't hinder him from finding the philosophy of liberty, it doesn't follow that this is the case in general. And of course, he should have also been aware of the epistemic problem of how he knows that it didn't do him any harm. Then, to hear the same from the psychiatrist, without any reference to what the science has to say about the question, was also very disappointing. On the better side, it seems that the unease among the younger panelist stemmed from the fact that they didn't concur with their older colleagues and just didn't want to open this up in order not to present the latter in their obsolescence. One way or another, norms are changing to the better.

In the last Property and Freedom Society gathering, Hoppe and some other panelists said that they didn't think refraining from child spanking is that important for the future of liberty. This was specifically in response to a question about Stefan. One of the panelists, Dr. Daniels, is a psychiatrist, perhaps he can be persuaded to debate? Please see here: