AustinJames

I don't think it's useful to construct ethical principles based on who is 'harmed.' A drug dealer may facilitate the harming of an individual, but not violate their property rights, and a statutory rapist may not technically 'harm' someone, but the property of the victim will have been violated. Looking at ethics in terms of property and not in terms of harm helps universalize ethical principles. As far as what I would do, I would remove the child from the environment and file charges against the abuser. There is no ambiguity in the violation of the boy's personal property, or the evil (or perhaps just malignant incompetence) of the mother.

I was making a general statement in reference to the original post, but I think it pertains to your disappointment as well. Questioning moral dilemmas is fine, and attempting to "raise the ongoing conversation" to your standard is fine. When you are accused of conceit or dismissed as arrogant, however, to be surprised is evidence that you may be setting yourself up for disappointment. If I were to enter the chat room and see a non-philosophical conversation about shit, I might try to elevate the conversation; but if I failed to elicit a positive response, I would hardly be disappointed or surprised, considering these are people talking about feces on a philosophy site to begin with. I'm not saying you should be curious about shit, I'm saying you should be curious about yourself. In the same way, I sometimes debate with theists and statists whom I know are very unlikely to change their position, or even recognize mine as valid or even cogent. When I fail to convert them, I am not overwhelmed with disappointment and I do not waste time condemning them or shaming them into submission. Rather, I look with curiosity at my own approach, and attempt to see what might be improved to have greater success inspiring others. This was not always the case with me. Because of the way I was raised, I consistently sought dismissal, marginalization, and rejection in my discourse, as these were the ends with which I was most familiar in my upbringing. It took me a long time to realize what I was doing, and change to seek healthy interactions. For this reason, these comments may not pertain to you; I'm open to the idea that they are a projection on my part. It may be worth considering if you experience feelings of disappointment or hopelessness.

I suggest you interact with people in real time, so you can develop elasticity in your expectations. If you find yourself consistently disappointed, it doesn't say anything about the reality of the outcomes; it only says something about your method of expectation. When I have gone into the chat room in the past, I first observe what is being said, and then seek to contribute. More often than not, I have nothing to contribute. I don't seek to superimpose my expectations upon the ideas being presented. If I don't find any topics I'm interested in, that's just another way of saying I don't have anything meaningful to contribute. Curiosity is the key to avoiding disappointment in human interactions. Premature assertions are the antithesis of curiosity.

Native American Reservations and African villages are not removed from government coercion. On the contrary, the festering stagnation in such areas is a direct result of state violence. Moreover, the fact that we may be benefitting from coercion is irrelevant to whether we are victims of coercion. A mafia may do well in the role of protecting a local business from some crime, but this doesn't mean the business owner should prefer to pay the mafia. How can I find a place to start a libertarian community outside of state control? Every desirable tract of land is currently under the control of some state. I would have to ask permission to leave my current state, and if I renounce my citizenship, I will be far from free, but rather ostracized, unless I took up citizenship in some other state. Free societies in the past (and in the present, i.e. Somalia) have either been economically ostracized or violently pillaged. The problem is not that I would be "threatened by the state" at some time in the future, but rather that our avenues for voluntary interaction are restricted in the present. As for how I would handle a threat without resorting to violence; if there is an explicit threat against me, the use of violence against such threat has no moral content. Violence may have to be used to handle threats, but it is rarely economical. There are many free market institutions that have specialized in deescalation of conflicts, with minimal or no use of state power. The most prevalent among these are currently replacing the police department and court system in Detroit, which have collapsed under their own weight. You have not presented any universal principles by which we may judge human action. Dsayers was commendable in his analysis of these purported principles. This is a straw man. Nobody on this forum, and I doubt anyone in the world, has asserted that "everything that operates under a government is coercive." The modern state relies on voluntary transactions within the free market to grow the economy, so they have something to tax.

Labmath, I agree with what you say is missing with TZM's approach (peaceful parenting is the basis of a peaceful society). I think you're also right in saying it boils down to incentives, and that TZM's approach is missing this crucial element of human action; I'm leaning toward making that the crux of my argument. I'm with dsayers in not understanding what principle you support.

I down-voted this post because it seems malicious and non-sensical. Can you bring any reason to this idea? What does this have to do with determinism? What is added to the conversation?

I think I might give it a shot, if only for the sake of performing some mental aerobics. In reading TZM's broad thesis in the essay guidelines, the first thought I had was: The assertion that “scarcity now has no ecological/technical basis with respect to meeting all our basic human needs” is not only unproven, but is rather irrelevant to the actual demand for resources. Even if we are to accept that there are enough resources to allow the healthy subsistence of every individual on the planet (though ‘healthy subsistence’ in this instance is abstract, due to the complex and disparate nature of predisposition to ailments), this conclusion ignores the fact that human desire for resources expands beyond what is needed to subsist. Once resources enough to survive are secured, a person will immediately seek out methods of improving their quality of life. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Pepin, I agree the possible negative outcomes are likely due to the surrounding culture, and not a direct result of gay parenting. While you're also right that "negative results are highly politicized without an understanding of the factors involved," positive results are often claimed as well, or negative results obscured, for the same reason of politicization. I would be interested in a study centered around gender roles as opposed to sexuality. I was raised in a traditional family, and I found the gender roles modeled by my parents to be helpful in learning how to solve problems and negotiate. It seems to me the traditional gender roles are optimal for child-rearing, but that's not to say that these roles could not be modeled by homosexual couples, perhaps better even than heterosexual ones (i.e. Robin Williams and Nathan Lane in The Birdcage).

There are a few studies that have sought to answer this question, though the conclusions drawn from the data are steeped in controversy. There is an AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) report, citing dozens of independent studies, that claims there is no direct correlation between negative childhood experiences/developmental problems and gay parents. This report is at odds with a study by Mark Regnerus, which claims that data shows adverse complications with gay parenting. The Regnerus study has been roundly criticized. Its critics say the flaw lies in lumping all parents who have homosexual tendencies into one category. They claim the conclusions would be vastly different if they considered gay couples in long-term, committed relationships to be in a different category than heterosexual couples in which one partner has had homosexual experiences. The AAP report has also been criticized, along with the associated studies, most prominently by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai. They produced a report entitled, "No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting." This report can be found here: http://protectmarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/nobasis.pdf I'm not sure there is anything close to a scientific consensus on this issue, but there is a lot of compelling evidence that gay couples can do a fine job raising children; though they may be more likely to have problems with their children dealing with sexuality and other identity issues.

Some clarification is needed before more can be known of this incident. When you say 'locals,' to whom do you refer? U.S. citizens, native americans, or something else? When you say "they were checking locations of known handguns," what do you mean by that? Were the 'locals' asking each other, in their native language, about the guns they might be carrying on their own person? Also, do you know what language, besides English, was spoken? Once the details are sorted out, I'm interested to know what information in this story is important to you. Are you implying that the locals were planning on shooting the cops, and the cops got wise and retreated? I'm confused as to why this is significant.

Why do you feel so strongly about the life of a friend of an (ex)friend? Why is this struggle worth your time? Millions of kids are experiencing tortuous childhoods. Why focus on one you don't have any power to change?

Glen Beck has a big audience here, indeed. He does seem to be making a positive difference in the liberty movement, as he introduces a large demographic to libertarian values in a non-threatening manner. Fortunately, Mormons are taught fiscal conservancy and self-sufficiency, and can understand the lack of sustainability inherent in the current system. Unfortunately, the common denominator between Glen and his listeners seems to be religious propaganda. There has been some recent disillusionment amongst the local statists regarding their power of representation. Utah has a long history of holding states' rights over federal authority. I believe Utah to be the potential epicenter of libertarian usurpation.

Despite having a starkly conservative reputation, there is a strong libertarian sentiment in the state of Utah; and it's growing stronger. A friend of mine heads the Libertas Institute (http://libertasutah.org/) and they are at the front of the pack on medical cannabis. A poll of physicians would have a heavy bias that is not necessarily religious; Utah doctors generally get more sweetheart deals from big pharma than those in other states, and I suspect the poll to which you refer may reflect this. "According to the poll of 500 random voters, 57 percent of Utahns oppose legalizing marijuana for personal use but 61 percent support allowing individuals to use marijuana if their doctor has prescribed it." http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/poll-utahns-support-legalization-of-medical-marijuana/article_6491666f-a2f0-55de-b99b-f98e9ba9946c.html