Usethem

I should've made my point clearer. Calling spanking "physical punishment" and not "physical violence" shows that the thinking behind the story is that the two are distinct, which is false. Its definitely good that the topic is getting some media exposure, maybe it'll help to engender change. My only problem with the story was that they treated spanking as something else besides an act of violence, like the violence inherent to it was simply an unfortunate by-product of a well-meaning parent's frustration. This is an excuse, just like her closing statistic of "50% of us were spanked as children." So its progress but there's some central misconceptions which should be nipped while they're still buds.

Do you think that casting a vote counts as an initiation of force?

You notice in the video how the anchor refers to it specifically as "physical punishment" as distinct from "physical violence?"

How about a better definition of "equality" too, as its one of the most tried and true carrots in the demagogue's arsenal? Maybe equality = non-aggression principle?

I guess I should've explained it a littler better. What I meant was to set up the criteria of ownership as based on whether or not an object is natural might require a precise definition of natural. When does something become 'unnatural?' If human beings are made by nature and if robots are made by human beings then robots would be made by nature too, wouldn't they? And if everything that is natural cannot be owned than we can't really own anything. Or we have to own everything. Obviously this sort my overextension of this metaphor is more than a little absurd, I just had to appease my neurosis and at least explain myself.

Agreed. Another political carrot-rope. No one pursuing it is ever going to win, they're just losing a little less than other people. In these situations an individual has the possibility of falling onto one of three perspectives; either the mule, the farmer holding the carrot-stick, or one of the kids leaning sitting on the fence watching the foolishness. Its a tough thing to properly define though. I mean the debate over the concept of Identity has been batted around by the most luminous of luminaries. Its hard enough to prove that A = A, much less in terms of economy. I dunno, let me know if I'm wrong. I just figured I'd throw it out there.

I think the problem sometimes is that we associate objectivity with distance, whether that distance is spatial, temporal, real or imagined. Its a lot harder to be objective the closer you get to anything, whether its a quantum state or an individual human being. If you and someone else were blind-folded and walked right up against a painting, the blindfolds were taken off and you were asked to describe what you saw, you'd both have a subjective judgement about a situation. I don't know if this is considered an explanation of anything but I thought your post was worth elaborating on.

I agree with your points, although I also think that it is a potentially solvable dilemma, given time and the right minds applied. However just to be Devil's Advocate (to to hear your opinion) I just want to take your idea of natural resources and wonder where you draw the line? What is considered natural? Is the idea of a natural resources only considered to be non-sentient/organic etc. objects, e.g. air or water? I think that the phrase "made by nature" and "made in nature" are interchangeable. And so we could say then that human beings, being made in nature, are also capable of being owned....of course I'm assuming there would be protections against a regression to slavery in this anarcho-captialist society. I dunno, just some thoughts

One would be to separate a person from their behavior and the second would be to judge a person based on their behavior.

That idea, of being a victim of a victim, is ubiquitous and indisputable. I agree wholeheartedly. Intergenerational trauma, chronic stress and complex PTSD are some of the more insidious and pervasive elements of the human condition. It boggles the mind when you think about the number of minor, unrecognized traumas which we carry behind us like so many Marley shackles...isn't a Christmas Carol a myth about PTSD (well if I'm being liberal with my analysis). I recently heard a social worker say to a child in an emotional support class that "there isn't such a thing as bad people, only bad behavior." This of course means that there's no such thing as good people either...but more importantly the fact (whether true or false) that only behavior is good or bad doesn't change the reality that the child is still rewarded or punished. What this got me thinking on was this message that one's behavior and one's self are separate entities. I don't agree, but I think its a common mantra in psychology. The alternative is the old standby of good and bad people, us vs them, etc. So the two moral options presented are a disunion of the individual and his/her acts on the one hand, and on the other a qualitative assessment of the individual in totem. My question is whether there's a third option. I have little idea myself.

You're right about the imbalance of negative socialization versus positive in the school system. However eliminating the (admittedly archaic and negative) school system could cause things to become even more dichotomized; the moral and non-aggressive parents would have more time to raise their children but so too would immoral and aggressive parents. I think something in an earlier post mentioned tutors as an alternative, which is a good idea. But its the parents who are the problem isn't it? They remain the problem no matter how the equation is shifted around and I don't think being an egalitarian example is enough.

There's a funny essay about it by Russell Baker. The internet provides a possible new method of learning, something like falling down the rabbit hole after an idea. Moving outwards in degrees from the original topic, learning connections, learning metaphors. But what should be taken into account are the social aspects of school, and whether these are essential or not. Do the goods outweigh the cons?