Practicality of abuse prevention in a free society

[DaProle]

Stephan mentioned a few times that in a free society there will be ways to determine which kids are abused by running brain scans. What is a practical implementation of that? Free society is not Soviet Union and kids don't get checks in schools every 6 months. Moreover, an abusive - or any -  parent would simply have the right not to subject kids to any medical examination. That's part of living in a free society. Isn't it? 

 

[empyblessing]

 

Stephan mentioned a few times that in a free society there will be ways to determine which kids are abused by brain scans. What is a practical implementation of that? Free society is not Soviet Union and kids don't get checks in schools every 6 months. Moreover, an abusive - or any -  parent would simply have the right not to subject kids to any medical examination. That's part of living in a free society. Isn't it?

Health insurance companies, financial incentive, and educating parents can protect most children. If a parent doesn't want their child on health insurance than that's a red flag. If they want to maintain their job and their own insurance than they take the kid for a checkup. 

[DaProle]

Yes, I can see how providing certain exam results to health insurance company voluntarily could reduce the premium for kids. However, again, insurance company cannot force parents to provide that. There will be insurers that will not pay attention to that at all.

I didn't get the point about "maintaining their job". Do you mean employer would inerfere? That sounds kinda intrusive as well. What's in it for the employer?

[empyblessing]

 

Yes, I can see how providing certain exam results to health insurance company voluntarily could reduce the premium for kids. However, again, insurance company cannot force parents to provide that. There will be insurers that will not pay attention to that at all.

I didn't get the point about "maintaining their job". Do you mean employer would inerfere? That sounds kinda intrusive as well. What's in it for the employer?

 

A stateless society does not mean there is no control or rules. There are rules but they're kept by all members of that society. Certain groups or individuals are not given exemption. The current insurance system is not a private market. In all countries the insurance companies are hand in glove with the state. In a stateless society an abused child would represent a future threat to both a person's well being and their profits. Violent people are costly to society and unproductive and in order to keep premiums low the insurance companies would push preventative measures instead of reactionary payments. 

Counseling would be widely available for both children and parents. Seeing as how most parents who abuse were also abused as children, the therapy and education of parents would be a top ideal for everyone. The very basis of our civilization would be the proper raising of children. From what I understand, I think you overestimate violence as a means of control and protecting children and underestimate peer pressure and education. If violent coercion worked to protect children, why are so many still abused, even after tens of thousands of years of the violent control approach? We come to peace through peaceful means and maintain peace with peaceful means. 

The importance is on establishing social mores which would abhor any form of non-defensive violence as the most disgusting act conceivable. 

[DaProle]

First, as I already mentioned, there will be no way for insurers to "push preventative measures". The very nature of voluntary business dictates that. 

Second, no, I don't "overestimate violence as a means of control and protecting children and underestimate peer pressure and education". I simply suggest that in a free society there will be always a possibility for abuse.

The answer I would agree with would be along the lines: the abuse will always be, it's just as long as it's not institutionalized and centralized. I do believe that instances of abuse will be much more rare in a free society but there is no way to avoid that.

[empyblessing]

 

 

First, as I already mentioned, there will be no way for insurers to "push preventative measures". The very nature of voluntary business dictates that.

I don't understand why it violates a voluntary business.

Second, no, I don't "overestimate violence as a means of control and protecting children and underestimate peer pressure and education". I simply suggest that in a free society there will be always a possibility for abuse.

there will always be a possibility of abuse.

The answer I would agree with would be along the lines: the abuse will always be, it's just as long as it's not institutionalized and centralized. I do believe that instances of abuse will be much more rare in a free society but there is no way to avoid that.

I disagree that the abuse will always be. It seems like an argument in favor of a malign human nature. Abused children grow up and abuse children. They continue to repeat the same abuse they experienced as a child until they become conscious of that behavior and change. There's no reason why being violent to a child is inevitable. The importance of educating parents on peaceful parenting is that it shows a superior form of parenting to domination based relationships. When the current model becomes obsolete than the old models are left behind. There will be exceptions, at first. But even the Amish use smart phones now. 

 

[PatrickC]

The answer I would agree with would be along the lines: the abuse will always be, it's just as long as it's not institutionalized and centralized. I do believe that instances of abuse will be much more rare in a free society but there is no way to avoid that.

Yes it's entirely feasible that some children will still be abused. However, abusers will be impoverishing themselves economically.

For instance some people have suggested that in a free society races can voluntarily segregate themselves from other races. Which I agree, they will be entirely at liberty to do so. However, upon making those decisions the free market itself will punish them, by making the goods and services they wish to provide each other as more expensive. More expensive because they will only want to employ people of their own race, thus eliminating a much wider (and cheaper) population from their workforce. Even if they do decide to employ people of different races, how likely are those of a different race to work for them? And if they do, then they are still likely to have to pay more for them. They also risk being ostracised from specialised and cheaper markets elsewhere outside their community. All in all racial segregation will likely lead to more expensive goods and services and general economic impoverishment.

The same risks go for abusive parents. If parents want all the benefits of a state of the art and cheap health service, then many insurance companies will draw up contracts which will want to avoid future liability from the results of poor parenting. So testing children for those signs will be a part of any contract these companies will have with parents. Of course there may well be insurance companies that might be less stringent, but this will be reflected in the overall higher cost of the premiums the parents pay them. Depending on the cost difference, this may well encourage abusive parents to seek help. But as you suggest, it's impossible to say that abuse will be entirely irradiated, it's just that abuse will no longer be a profitable or benign investment for anyone.

[Rick Horton]

This is pretty troubling. We want to be free, right? What good is it to have no government, but "then" have contracts which can limit a person MORE than a sloppy government which tries to use force.  A streamlined, efficient, contract based society could be far worse because the tentacles could be unstoppable in limiting freedom. It's when people get nosy in other people's business that problems occur. I haven't heard a good argument for why contracts as opposed to government would restrict people less. In fact, a society with thousands of contracts that weave in and out of everyday life could be terrifying to try and manouver through. I'd rather (untill there were strict limits on contracts that could end up making me immobile) go with a big, sloppy, lazy government than a bunch of intricate hoops that dont use force to make me comply, but use economic pressures that leave me no alternative.  Insurance could voluntarily create situations FAR more invasive than government, in order to afford people mobility across geographic areas. I can easily imagine blood tests, drug tests, fines, check ups, psychological examinations that all go totally mad in a contract driven society, and it would have a far greater efficiency in it's terror.  If the CORE reasons you want freedom are important, you must be careful NOT to let contracts become as immobilizing as laws, because ending up with something far worse than any society ever imagined could result, instead of something that gives REAL liberty.  

[Rick Horton]

 

This is pretty troubling. We want to be free, right? What good is it to have no government, but "then" have contracts which can limit a person MORE than a sloppy government which tries to use force.  A streamlined, efficient, contract based society could be far worse because the tentacles could be unstoppable in limiting freedom. It's when people get nosy in other people's business that problems occur. I haven't heard a good argument for why contracts as opposed to government would restrict people less. In fact, a society with thousands of contracts that weave in and out of everyday life could be terrifying to try and manouver through. I'd rather (untill there were strict limits on contracts that could end up making me immobile) go with a big, sloppy, lazy government than a bunch of intricate hoops that dont use force to make me comply, but use economic pressures that leave me no alternative.  Insurance could voluntarily create situations FAR more invasive than government, in order to afford people mobility across geographic areas. I can easily imagine blood tests, drug tests, fines, check ups, psychological examinations that all go totally mad in a contract driven society, and it would have a far greater efficiency in it's terror.  If the CORE reasons you want freedom are important, you must be careful NOT to let contracts become as immobilizing as laws, because ending up with something far worse than any society ever imagined could result, instead of something that gives REAL liberty.  

 

I'll go further and say that contracts are immoral. They're not in the moment, they restrict mobility, and prevent the changing of one's mind.  Verbal agreements and reputation should be as far as it goes. Trust in people you CAN trust. It's a personal thing. Who ever said we have to control, or trust people that we don't know? Keep it simple, and personal. Sure it could damage many areas like medicine, infestructure, and technology, but personally I think liberty is far more valuable than those things.

 

[PatrickC]

 

 

This is pretty troubling. We want to be free, right? What good is it to have no government, but "then" have contracts which can limit a person MORE than a sloppy government which tries to use force.  A streamlined, efficient, contract based society could be far worse because the tentacles could be unstoppable in limiting freedom. It's when people get nosy in other people's business that problems occur. I haven't heard a good argument for why contracts as opposed to government would restrict people less. In fact, a society with thousands of contracts that weave in and out of everyday life could be terrifying to try and manouver through. I'd rather (untill there were strict limits on contracts that could end up making me immobile) go with a big, sloppy, lazy government than a bunch of intricate hoops that dont use force to make me comply, but use economic pressures that leave me no alternative.  Insurance could voluntarily create situations FAR more invasive than government, in order to afford people mobility across geographic areas. I can easily imagine blood tests, drug tests, fines, check ups, psychological examinations that all go totally mad in a contract driven society, and it would have a far greater efficiency in it's terror.  If the CORE reasons you want freedom are important, you must be careful NOT to let contracts become as immobilizing as laws, because ending up with something far worse than any society ever imagined could result, instead of something that gives REAL liberty.  

 

I'll go further and say that contracts are immoral. They're not in the moment, they restrict mobility, and prevent the changing of one's mind.  Verbal agreements and reputation should be as far as it goes. Trust in people you CAN trust. It's a personal thing. Who ever said we have to control, or trust people that we don't know? Keep it simple, and personal. Sure it could damage many areas like medicine, infestructure, and technology, but personally I think liberty is far more valuable than those things.

It's not clear to me how signing a contract voluntarily is more tyrannical than statism and laws. Bear in mind that we have little to no control over what laws are passed, but we do have considerable control over what contracts we sign.

However, I think I might understand where some of your fears might be coming from perhaps. Certainly contracts we have to sign these days all too often work against us, particularly contracts we make with corporations and large organisations. They often intertwine law with statist contract law which is all too often indecipherable and verging on the relative at times.

We are also striving towards a society that is based on universal and consistent ethics and not arbitrary ones. So in that regard it's perfectly fine for people to disengage (ostracise) with those they don't agree with. However, depending on which values win out within a free society, they are most likely and indeed highly likely to be considered the best ones economically.

People are entirely free to make their own course in the world, it's just their decisions, beliefs and way of life may not be considered as congruent with others. So in theory, If they happen to be in a very small minority then they could risk the possiblity of subsistence living. But I have to ask, who is really going to subject themselves to this. Since insurance companies will be entirely beholden to what the market wants, as in individual customers. If their contracts become so invasive, then people will simply use a company that is less intrusive. The market will find a respectable balance that will meet the needs and demands of everyone.

Ostracism and voluntary contracts should not be considered similar to theft, imprisonment and murder, which is what the state indulges in continually. I hope that helps.

[Rick Horton]

Ostracism is probably worse than violence. Free will, freedom, and morals, don't seem to have much to do with popular culture. So with contracts, the most successfull, therefore powerful insurance, dispute resolution firms, etc, will cater to the most equitable segment, the most, the most popular segment in order to stay in business and make money, and again, these arent the most moral just because they are the most popular. But how do you make sure that there is mobility for yourself as a moral, free person, in a society based on contracts that would be based on popularity of wants and needs, and not on your individual freedoms? Whenever many, many people that you don't know, have contracts that you can either sign, obey, or be "ostracized" (which has various results that could cause huge conflict) if you don't sign, you have a huge decrease in mobility, freedom, and liberty to change your mind, grow, be where you want, do what you want, wear, eat, drink, smoke, etc....what you want. That's not freedom. It's participatory intrapment. You end up in the same place, but perhaps worse than if you had a sloppy, slow, beauracratic government in charge. What I do is private to a large extent, and contracts will likely be as invasive in forcing people to behave in ways they don't want because the mobility will be so crushed by so many contractual obligations that if they don't get in with a lot of them, any of them, or most if not all of the big contracts they probably won't have any liberty, mobility, place to live, etc... 

[Rick Horton]

Btw, I don't believe claiming property is moral. The only property anybody really has is the sum of the experience of their reality. All else can only be preserved ultimately through the barrel of a gun if there is a refusal on one party's behalf to obey the other, contract or no contract. Or you can show me my error in this statement without detouring from what I said, and adress it in its entirety. Therefore property is a claim, not a thing, and is immoral to enforce, therefore immoral to impose a claim of yours against mine, etc...

[PatrickC]

Ostracism is probably worse than violence.

Excuse the extreme metaphor, but trying telling that to a rape victim or the family of a murdered loved one.. Indeed imagine I punched you in the face rather than just walking away.

I recommend you read Stef's books Everyday Anarchy & Practical Anarchy. Murray Rothbard has some useful insight that can rebut those claims you have made rather well. I understand why people think this way, but frankly I just have to remind myself of the world we currently inhabit. You could call it one giant DRO overlord if you will.

[Rick Horton]

Rape is a terrible example. Physical trauma heels. Psychological trauma lingers forever. Rape is not a physical form of violence that comes and goes. It is an extreme psychological assault. Rape causes (in many cases) self ostricization. I'd much rather get punched in the nose than raped, or assaulted psychologically. Ostracization is worse than violence as a way to enforce. You have just as little chance in escaping either, but physical wounds at least have a chance sometimes of healing without breaking your brain into a thousand bits.

 

[Rick Horton]

I hope you accept my apology. I'm sorry for using the word terrible. . Let me say, instead, it was not as useful an analogy is maybe you could have used... Sorry.

[stigskog]

A kid could have their own DRO, not neccessarily paid for by their parents. There wouldn't be anything to stop a concerned stranger paying the DRO on the kids behalf, and informing those parents that they had signed the child up to the WeLoveKids DRO.

If the parents committed a crime against the kid, a DRO could intervene and get restitution for the child.

[PatrickC]

I hope you accept my apology. I'm sorry for using the word terrible. . Let me say, instead, it was not as useful an analogy is maybe you could have used... Sorry

Yes I accept it of course.

Clearly you feel very passionately about the effects of ostracism and I certainly don't wish to belittle that feeling you have with it. Certainly ostracism that has been unfairly applied to an individual, can be a very hurtful.and painful experience sometimes.