june

your previous statement is also a causal description: abuse leads to particular behaviour.i'm simply asking how "free will" factors into your assertion, seeing as you claim that the behvaviour is caused by the abuse, and thus not by free will. so how does a person's "free will" factor in here?

"We can even say what kinds of abuse will produce what kinds of dysfunctional behavior later in life."if abuse produces a certain behaviour, then where is the "free choice" of the person involved? because they are not "choosing" to behave that way, they have only inherited such behaviour from the abuse.

yes, this is what i was referring to by calling for a clarification of what actually qualifies as "labour".is walking in the sand "labour" and thus that sand can then be considered your "property"? if your answer is "no", then what is the distinction between the labour of walking in the sand and, say, working at an office job? is there a distinction at all?

this is an argument that "property rights" doesn't seem to account for, so bravo for pointing it out. it would be great to see if anyone can offer a rebuttal. a big problem here is distinguishing what actually qualifies as "labour"

that's not what i said at all. all i was saying is that a structure will produce certain effects -- that's it; a planet having scarce resources coupled with billions of organisms which need a lot of resources will inevitably produce certain effects, such as attempted management of those resources (which may include taxation, as just one example) this is entirely beside the argument of the discussion. it's irrelevant whether or not we can account for every variable ever, the question is that should we account for other variables at all, or should we only account for the person literally performing the act. stefan says that only the person performing the act can take responsibility because it was their free choice to do so, so stefan can not take into account other variables of the act (such as abusive parents).we have already both shown ourselves to agree on this matter. when you say, "...I don't look at the structure as a whole....we need to focus...on individuals" it seems like you're gravely missing the point, because the term "structure" in this context is centered on the individuals, it's just a fact of reality that to change the individual you also need to account for the "structure" around them. essentially you are agreeing but are arguing about matters of degree, ie. you don't want to focus on broad scale influences (societal law, for example) and would rather focus on "individual" influences (presumably this boils down to direct education).

you must state your self-claimed caveat here dsayers -- people are fundamentally different, in that some can reason reason, and some can not. and those who cannot reason do not have self-ownership. and thus theft, assault, rape and murder become legitimate upon such people.source: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38826-importance-of-non-violent-child-rearing-derided-by-hoppe/

your failure to respond makes me very anxious, especially when you have responded to my posts in the mean-time in other topics. at the very least i hope you have taken this topic to heart and gave serious thought toward it, because i sincerely do not believe it is right to just leave this discussion knowing that you believe new born babies have no self-ownership. imagine if that perspective was wide-spread

again you are just diverting the topic and basically saying "why are you thinking about that thing when i think this thing is more important?". stop trying to grapple the topic into your corner, please.so i repeat, if you want to actually address the claim being made, you are still open to do so. the proposition is quite simple: is stefan making an argument against free will when he says he knows for certain what choice his daughter will make 10 years into the future, because of his influence as a parent?

"There's nothing you can do in front of a blank slate that mimics that will not take choices out of the equation."this then implies that a person's choice is dependent upon influences, rather than being totally free."So how about focusing on people that violate morality while doing this rather than those who are upholding it by doing this?"talk about "appealing to emotion". i am merely pointing out what i find to be a contradiction in logic. if you disagree with my claim then provide a counter-argument to it, just saying "don't focus on that, focus on this!" is an attempt to divert the discussion.

do you still believe this to be true, dsayers?

very good point. it appears stefan is making an exception for his daughter. i watched the said section that this took part in and stefan does say that it is "impossible" for a 16 year old to make that decision, at that age. in the paul walker video itself he again says that a 16 year old cannot "objectively" make that decision, and that it is "not fair".another thing i find interesting with stefan's argument is that by saying that his daughter will not make the decision to date an older man he is also denying her inherent free choice. for instance, stefan says that his future-16 year old daughter will not make such a decision (to date 33 year old) because he has been parenting her for 16 years. so he basically is saying that you can parent out the choices of another person.

"Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have."whoa! so newborns do not have self-ownership? that's a huge statement to make. that means any horrific acts like murder, rape or harvesting of organs of a newborn baby is totally valid within property rights.

almost. i have removed P2, because property rights are the crux here, not solely child abuse, and i have altered one word from C2 of your rundown -- "baseless" to "accurate". and then i would agree with your list. P1. taking away a child's ice-cream and attacking a child are both violations of property rights P3. I don't and wouldn't reasonably condemn a parent for taking away ice-cream C1. I am being inconsistent about my application of property rights and/or moralityC2. It is similarly accurate to say attacking a child is immoral as it is to say that taking away a child's ice-cream is immoral so the question that needs to be asked is: is there an inconsistency with this application of property rights? if you answer yes, then you are making an exemption to property rights (which means such rights are not universal), and if you answer no, then could you explain how taking away the ice-cream (or any other number of similar acts of parenting which overrides the child's free choice) is not considered a violation of property rights?

Prairie attempted to highlight the absurdity of spanking a child by imposing the same situation unto an adult, so i pointed out that many number of 'normal' acts of parenting would also seem absurd if imposed unto an adult, and thus Prairie's comment was rather insubstantial as a response

yes, because it violates property rights. just like any number of acts of parenting is a violation of property rights, such as taking away as child's ice-cream

you can replace this with any number of acts of parenting and it would sound equally as ridiculous when applied to an adult""...Imagine someone regularly grabbed you, took away your ice-cream, gave you vegetables for a reason you couldn't understand, and you had zero legal recourse. If you told anyone in law they just laugh at you. This is not conducive to liberty.""

"Yes you created a sovereign being but you also created the moral obligation to care for it." you keep having to go outside the bounds of property rights to defend property rights. "I do not know were you're getting this idea that abandoning the child is respecting its property rights. You don't have to physically DO something TO someone to violate them." so you are saying that someones property rights can be breached by not interfering with their property rights. "Abandonment of a child is the same thing as active murder of the child. I made no argument from consequences." you just did. "You may have forgotten but we've already had something like this discussion. I am pretty certain I successfully rebutted and answered all the antinatalist arguments you made and questions you asked. But you did not respond any further." i do not remember. please provide a link to your argument and i will either respond to it or inform you why i did not respond previously ( if it recalls any memory). "If the child HAS self-ownership then it has property rights over itself; So the parents created those rights, correct? Similarly they created its right to be cared for." i dont see how your logic follows. yes, a parent literally creates a child, and therefore the childs property rights too, but that is where the buck stops, because once these rights are established then the child is it's own sovereign entity, so where does the obligation "to be cared for" come from? and also what does "to be cared for" actually mean anyway, define it, define the standard of "being cared for". this is very serious question because whatever parent falls below your definition of "to be cared for" is the initiator of a breach of property rights (if we follow your argument) and thus retribution can be acted upon them.

"You may own yourself 100% and people may not have the right to violate that but you also own the effects of your actions. So when you have a child you have created the situation were the child will die if you do not care for it."when you have a child you create a sovereign being with 100% property rights over itself. to not interact with that child is to respect it's property rights. to say "the child might be harmed if you don't do anything" is an argument from consequences, not from property rights, which is: "to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life""Part of the child's property rights is the right to be cared for and that right is one created by the parent."a sovereign being with 100% ownership over itself has the right to be cared for by someone else? can you explain, specifically, how a person (the parent in this case) can be in breach of someones elses 100% right to self-ownership by not interacting with them in any way shape or form?so far your argument has been (paraphrased): "they did interact with the child, by having the child", but again, in regards to property rights, the child only gains it's rights at birth (or conception, depending on what you believe) and that is the point -- the point at which the child gets property rights -- in which the parents decide to not interact with the child and to respect it's property rights as a sovereign being. so again: how, specifically, does this constitute as a breach of property rights?"It's not like the baby created the situation."no, it did not. so (and this is a new, separate question) would you say the act of having a child is a breach of property rights, seeing as it did not consent?"It does not own the effect of of being helpless. The parent owns that."the parent owns the action of creating the baby (which is a separate matter that i have asked for your opinion on, just above). once the baby is conceived (or birthed; whichever point in time you believe self-ownership to begin) then that baby now has 100% selfownership rights over itself. the parents do not own anything at this point, it is the child who owns, because it now has full self-ownership.

yes... i claimed that stefan's quote was a good description of structural violence; you then disagreed and asked how can something be violent if there is no breach of property rights; i then proposed an alternate, more extreme example of how something may be considered violent without the breach of property rights; instead of providing an actual counter-argument to my claim you just accuse me of not answering your question; and now here we are, arguing over nothing instead of staying within the bounds of the argument at hand. sigh. thanks again for sticking to relevant points in regards to our discussion. you have stated several things here but i will look to respond in concern with property rights"The parents choose to care for the child when they choose to have one... Property rights are valid and property exists objectively. If a parent abandons their child after birth then have murdered it."when a baby is born it is given full 100% property rights over itself as a sovereign being, so what obligation, in regards to property rights, does a parent have to interact with the child in anyway, after the birth? in this scenario the parent isn't "abandoning" their child, they are respecting the childs rights of property/self-ownership, are they not?"They choose guardianship of the child's property rights until such time as the child can exercise them."what is "guardianship", can you provide your definition? who is entitled to claim "guardianship" over another sovereign human-being, and what does this title grant them? does "guardianship" overrule the childs right of self-ownership?

ugh, are you really going to argue pointless semantics? "For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?" the way this is phrased implies that you are both stating your assertion (beginning the sentence with "for") and also asking a question. but whatever, i am not going to go down this semantic path. i have already provided my argument to rebut your question, a refutation which claims that something can be deemed as "violent" when property rights are not breached, which is to the contrary of your very claim. what now is your counter-argument against my claim? thank you for providing a constructive argument in this discussion. this is the type of input that holds information that can be looked into and argued for and/or against.okay, so your argument pertains to a moral standpoint, and to that i have to ask: what is every parents moral obligation to their child, and does it change if it is "unchosen"? those are 2 questions that should be asked in regards to your moral position. i'm looking forward to the potential dialogue with regards to your stance here, however....... lets not to deviate too much here, what is your stance in the realm of property rights? in realm of property rights -- which this discussion is largely centered upon -- has their been a breach of such rights by the parent? and if not, would you still consider the parents action (or inaction i should say) as "violent"?

"I am aware of your parents as inherent aggressors stance. Not talking about parents here."you made a statement/proposed an argument ("For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?") and i proposed a refutation ("... the child will likely starve and die, but that is the childs doing for not taking care of its own property. nothing to do with the parent. would you consider this "violence" by the parent.. and if so, what "rights of property" did they breach?") which just so happened to involve parents. either it's an act of violence by the parents or it isn't; which do you believe? if you classify my example as an act of violence then i have answered your question/refuted your proposition that violence can in fact occur when property rights are not breached.

""Suboptimal" and "eligible for improvement" is not the same as "violence.""this is not what i am saying. my point is simply that there is more to be accounted for in "violence" than just the final act. that's it. "violence is a process, not a singular action". this is why i think stefan's quote provided a good example of the term "structural violence", because he acutely described the "process" of how a teenage boy is inflicted with negative physical and mental consequences because of his agent/workers and how they have damaging "structural" incentive (profit).earlier you stated that this is an attempt to "not accrue responsibility to the responsible", but this is not the case at all. it is merely recognising that there is more factors that take part in the "process" (of EVERYTHING, not only violence) and thus they must be taken into account. if you disagree with this and believe that the person/final action holds 100% full responibility of a violent action, then if you ever want to solve that problem you can ONLY look at the person/act and cannot take into account outside influences, and that would pretty much destroy stefans whole position on the importance of good parenting (because parenting is an influence which would then not be taken into account because it is not held accountable). i'm not sure if you subscribe to stefan's thoughts on parenting though, so feel free to point that out if it is the case"An agent's... incentive is no different from that of the talent themselves...."what is your argument for this? stefan quote is in clear disagreement of your proposal. eg: "There are hundreds of people around Justin Bieber who rely on him for their income — are those people going to give him clear and objective advice about what is best for his own long-term mental emotional and spiritual health? Of course not! Or at least it's quite unlikely...""... your agent stands to make 100/200,000 or more from you landing a film role — is that agent gonna say: "no no no, it's important to rest... balance of life is important"? No, their financial incentive is to keep you working as hard as possible, [and] working that hard takes a huge toll on a person... and so what happens is you end up surrounded by people who really really have a huge incentive to have you work like crazy, and that's what they do. The workaholicism [then] takes its toll and you turn to stimulants... you have a headache and you've got... 20,000/50,000 people who paid tickets, [and] you have to go on [stage]."For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?"interesting. so no violation of property rights = no violence. i have made previous arguments against this very notion before (please view my thread partly on this topic: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37657-nap-property-rights-how-it-applies-to-children/#entry344502 ). but to make an argument in this thread to acquire a direct response/feedback (and this query is open to anyone): if someone has a child, then that child then earns 100% property rights over itself. yes? so at this point what obligation does the parent have to interact with this childs property in any form? would it not be completely within the bounds of property rights for this parent to simply walk away and let the child live on its own devices and property rights? of course the child will likely starve and die, but that is the childs doing for not taking care of its own property. nothing to do with the parent. would you consider this "violence" by the parent.. and if so, what "rights of property" did they breach?

firstly, i dont view it as an "inanimate force". i view it as a set circumstance which has inevitable effects when combined with other factors. for instance, in stefans quote he acknowledges that the agent has a huge incentive to gain profit because his livelihood depends on it, and the agent will even go so far as to promote physically and emotionally negative advice onto a teenager to gain this profit. the 'incentive'/'structure'/cause... or whatever you want to call it... is stemming from this necessity to gain profit -- or to go slightly deeper, it is basically stemming from the need of survival (it just so happens that gaining money is one such way to achieve optimal survival at this point in time).secondly, i dont then view this as "not accruing responbility to the responsible". the agent is "responsible" (or "accountable" -- i feel that is a more applicable term) for his actions, but he is not only only party that exists in this scenario, the "incentive"/"structure" is also a factor that has to be taken into account. "violence is a process, not a singular action". it is vital that this is understood, because only when things are understood can they then be properly improved. for instance, if you do not agree with what i have just said, and you place sole accountability onto the agent with no regards to the "incentive/structure", then your solution can only involve change to that single agent/person. whereas if you agree with what i said -- that the incentive/structure is also accountable -- then you can look at that incentive/structure and alter it for the beter (if possible of course) creating true solution, e.g. if profit wasn't such a necessity for survival, would the agent have acted the way he did? so to be clear, this is not about making excuses for peoples behaviour and blaming it on the "structure", but rather it is about understanding the reasons for the behaviour (which inevitably accounts for both the person and the environment) so that they can be truly altered for the better (as opposed to the standard ancap perspective in which only the person is to be altered (education -- morals, ethics etc), this means that all relevant factors need to be altered as best as possible, which again, is both people and enivorment)

i thought stefan gave a pretty good example of structural violence in his recent "Justin Beiber: What They Aren't Telling You!" video: -- "'Gotta remember too [that] when you become rich and famous you end up surrounded by people whose very livelihood depends upon you being a crazy... powerbar eating workaholic. I mean that's just the way it is. There are hundreds of people around Justin Bieber who rely on him for their income — are those people going to give him clear and objective advice about what is best for his own long-term mental emotional and spiritual health? Of course not! Or at least it's quite unlikely... so they want to keep you on the treadmill, they want to keep you working. It's like being an actor who's in demand: your agent stands to make 100/200,000 or more from you landing a film role — is that agent gonna say: "no no no, it's important to rest... balance of life is important"? No, their financial incentive is to keep you working as hard as possible, [and] working that hard takes a huge toll on a person... the jet lag, the travel, the constant sense of threat from paparazzi, from crazy fans... and so what happens is you end up surrounded by people who really really have a huge incentive to have you work like crazy, and that's what they do. The workaholicism [then] takes its toll and you turn to stimulants... you have a headache and you've got... 20,000/50,000 people who paid tickets, [and] you have to go on [stage]. The poor guy threw up on stage, got up and kept going, I mean that's impressive in terms of his dedication, but that's the world that you live in."

Its sad that you consider logical tests "trolling". That is a serious acusation upon my character. I demand you explain the reasoning behind this accusation, specifically -- not just listing arguments i have partaken in, but why the arguments themselves can be considered trolling. 1) Have you actually proved that having a child is NOT a breach of the nap? 2)i already explained this to you two times and yet you continue to choose to misrepresent my position. 3) this wasnt me at all. Youre blatently making stuff up just to discredit me. Ughh