v_bachvarov

But I would like to see if there is principally defendable and reasonable position on this subject, or it must be always a compromise? Because legal systems should be based on principles. If you choose compromise, then it always boils down to who is deciding what to compromise and to which degree.

The link does not work!

I had problems with my kid about a 1,5 y. ago. She ate too much candy. And we had those quarrels where she screamed and insisted to get even more candy. One day I had the idea to use the free market principles to solve the problem. Enter capitalism. I printed small notes, called "gummibear dollars" and we made the rules. 1 gummibear costs 1 GB dollar. She can earn the dollars by doing stuff I need or like. So far she has watered the plants, she has sold me a bunch of her pictures or she has helped me with some small deeds. Each time we bargain - how much would the thing cost. When she earns them, she can spend them on sweets anytime. I have recently begun paying her with fiat currency. She's become more responsible and mature. We haven't had a single quarrel about candy since. It has been a staggering success. I later split our family finances with my wife, because we had so many arguements about whether to buy something or not. Since the financing split we have had almost no fights at all. So recap: - As we had communism in the family, we fought, we argued, we screamed and we were unhappy. - Since we introduced capitalism, our life has become very very peaceful and happier in general. Everyone knows what is theirs. Initially I thought that communism works on a small scale (family), but now I am not sure even about this. I guess freedom and property rights beat communism even on this scale.

Hello, friends, I totally subscribe to the ideas of a free and 100% voluntary society. There is only one single thing that bothers me and I kind of cannot find a satisfactory answer to this question. In a free society kids should have the same rights as everybody else. This means, they should be free to take decisions for themselves, even if they parents don't like those decisions. So if a 13 year old kid for example wants to have sex with a 40 year old (which in my opinion would be rape), the parents do not agree. How would a free society deal with such a problem? 1. On the one hand the kid has the right to make their own decisions and the parents are not allowed to force them. So manipulative pedofiles can influence the kids and get them into bed. 2. On the other hand the parents have the right to raise their children and if they feel the children are in danger, they should protect them. But abusive parents may find excuse for forcing their kids and hurting them, but pretending to excercise their parent rights for protection. In some extreme cases parents may beat or circumcise their kids, stating that it is "for their own good". So how would a free society decide when it is acceptable to protect kids from their parents? How to decide principally and not case by case, what are the criteria for prevention of child abuse without hurting legitimate parenting? Right now I have only one suggestion - austersizing. If parents are abusive, society can simply reject dealing with them in any form. Their life would become so much harder that they would fix their behavior and return to normal life. But this would not be sufficient in all cases. In some cases children might even get killed. How can this be avoided in a free society? Thanks in advance, V

Thanks a lot, guys! I am watching the debate right now.

Hi, all, I recently watched the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_869127&feature=iv&src_vid=UNpjp1logjY&v=vRcL0gEMvz4 "Anarcho-capitalism Why it's Broken & How to Fix it" I would love hearing Stefan's or your responses on that! Best Regards, Vasil