NAP Doesn't Apply to Children, Says Walter Block

[Magenta]

 

0:56 "A light spanking is not child abuse. Children are different, they're little animals, you have to civilize them."

 

24:11 "[My son] didn't want to brush his teeth, didn't want to drink his milk, he was a pain in the neck. I didn't engage in physical abuse, there are no scars."

 

25:19 On extending the NAP to children: "Only people that haven't had children think that this is sensible."

[Rob_Ilir]

"I didn't engage in physical abuse, there are no scars."


 

What is this?

[LovePrevails]

perhaps he should be blackballed by libertarian community including FDR from now until he looks at the facts.and admits he was wrong

[Wesley]

Wait, so I can hit my girlfriend as long as it doesn't leave scars? Police can throw me in jail as long as it doesn't leave scars? People can torture me as long as they don't leave any scars (think water-boarding)?

 

Yea, this is obviously illogical defenses rearing their ugly head. Walter Block doesn't want to look at himself as a child abuser.

 

He also seems to not have met Stefan who has a child and thinks that the NAP should apply to children. There are many more libertarians that follow in that thread of thought who have children as well.

[JohnH.]

I've always been a little weary of Block, this basically seals the deal for me.

[Guest - Josh -]

0:56 "A light spanking is not child abuse. Children are different, they're little animals, you have to civilize them."24:11 "[My son] didn't want to brush his teeth, didn't want to drink his milk, he was a pain in the neck. I didn't engage in physical abuse, there are no scars."25:19 On extending the NAP to children: "Only people that haven't had children think that this is sensible."

 

Rather than treat children like dogs, perhaps it is more ethical to treat pets like children -- and by that I mean don't hit or yell at them, just as you wouldn't do to children. Good relationships are more effective at producing desired behavior than "correction" anyway.

 

 

 

 

perhaps he should be blackballed by libertarian community including FDR from now until he looks at the facts.and admits he was wrong

 

Since admitting wrongdoing requires that one bear the title of "child abuser," as opposed to acknowledging they violated the NAP, it seems as though the request is over the top, and that the solution is altogether religious in nature. I, being a former Christian, am very familiar with this sort of ostracism (see Matt. 18:15-17, and 1 Cor. 5:11-13), and I don't see how it could be an effective approach at reducing the level of false beliefs so prevalent in the world right now.

 

The libertarian community, including FDR, is composed of individuals; the suggestion that "we" should ban as a group is a collectivist one. There is no "we." If you don't want to listen to Dr. Block anymore, that is your preference as an individual. You may defoo him on your own accord. I, on the other hand, am not interested in excommunication -- although, I can't say that I'm a fan either, as I do not have any role models.

 

 

 

 

Wait, so I can hit my girlfriend as long as it doesn't leave scars? Police can throw me in jail as long as it doesn't leave scars? People can torture me as long as they don't leave any scars (think water-boarding)?

 

Yea, this is obviously illogical defenses rearing their ugly head. Walter Block doesn't want to look at himself as a child abuser.

 

He also seems to not have met Stefan who has a child and thinks that the NAP should apply to children. There are many more libertarians that follow in that thread of thought who have children as well.

 

His comments in that regard reminded me of a documentary, Taxi to the Darkside, which shows the ugly nature of those "techniques." Fully understanding that the benefits states have in employing doublespeak, it ultimately doesn't matter what you call it -- whether it's leaving a mark, rending off arms, or force feeding, it's the action (the initiation of force) which makes it immoral. The term "torture" and the results of that process appeal to the emotions quite powerfully indeed, but state interrogation is wrong because it violates the NAP.

 

Secondly, why would anyone want to wear the scarlet letter of "Child abuser" -- a term colloquially understood as to imply child rape, vicious beatings, etc.? May this be the real reason why he hasn't admitted fault, or apologized to his kids? Technically all parents, short of those on FDR and Mr. Molyneux, are child abusers by that definition. Perhaps it would be more effective to persuade people into admitting wrongdoing without employing emotionally charged, loaded words like "child abuse" in reference to spanking and time outs.

 

One reason why so many supported "enhanced interrogation" was because they rolled their eyes when people labeled it "torture." In their minds torture probably involved pulling out teeth and other brutal examples. Part of the reason people such as Fox News viewers refused to admit "enhanced interrogation" was wrong because they thought a little water or a feeding tube never hurt anyone. Again, it's consent that makes the difference here. Divers who can hold their breath for long periods enjoy doing so. People who need feeding tubes, even children, can put feeding tubes down their nose themselves, and it's not a problem because no one is holding them down and subjecting them to it. People who enjoy rough sex aren't hurting anyone, but if one of the partners doesn't consent, that's what makes it rape. (Although, there are feminists who would readily label rough sex as rape because of the content involved, rather than the consent). And rather than question the ethics or "healthiness" of consensual rough sex, people roll their eyes when they hear that labeled as "rape."  

 

Why does this happen? Well, because emotive rhetoric probably does quite a bit to shut down discourse. Labeling people and things either results in dismissive reactions or puts you in an emotionally manipulative position. At least in my experience, whenever I have labeled the state as "violent" or state employees as "parasitical," rather than walk people through the steps on how the state violates the NAP through the initiation of force -- I get a lot of eye rolling and dismissive comments. In other debates where I try to avoid that particular linguistic style, I manage to convince more people. This of course is just my personal preference. You can use moral reasoning without any compromises and without needing counterproductive language.

[Wesley]

His comments in that regard reminded me of a documentary, Taxi to the Darkside, which shows the ugly nature of those "techniques." Fully understanding that the benefits states have in employing doublespeak, it ultimately doesn't matter what you call it -- whether it's leaving a mark, rending off arms, or force feeding, it's the action (the initiation of force) which makes it immoral. The term "torture" and the results of that process appeal to the emotions quite powerfully indeed, but state interrogation is wrong because it violates the NAP.

 

Secondly, why would anyone want to wear the scarlet letter of "Child abuser" -- a term colloquially understood as to imply child rape, vicious beatings, etc.? May this be the real reason why he hasn't admitted fault, or apologized to his kids? Technically all parents, short of those on FDR and Mr. Molyneux, are child abusers by that definition. Perhaps it would be more effective to persuade people into admitting wrongdoing without employing emotionally charged, loaded words like "child abuse" in reference to spanking and time outs.

 

I could completely care less about the emotional comfort of an abuser. The goal is not to get Block to admit wrongdoing. It is to not support him and to tell others about how he has abused children and that he justifies it. That he doesn't want to extend personhood to children in the same way that people didn't want to extend personhood to slaves. There is an age and an amount of abuse by which people can't come back and say they are wrong. I am not trying to "save" those who cannot be "saved". Just because I hit a child a little less than someone else does not mean that hitting a child is not abusive.

 

One reason why so many supported "enhanced interrogation" was because they rolled their eyes when people labeled it "torture." In their minds torture probably involved pulling out teeth and other brutal examples. Part of the reason people such as Fox News viewers refused to admit "enhanced interrogation" was wrong because they thought a little water or a feeding tube never hurt anyone. Again, it's consent that makes the difference here. Divers who can hold their breath for long periods enjoy doing so. People who need feeding tubes, even children, can put feeding tubes down their nose themselves, and it's not a problem because no one is holding them down and subjecting them to it. People who enjoy rough sex aren't hurting anyone, but if one of the partners doesn't consent, that's what makes it rape. (Although, there are feminists who would readily label rough sex as rape because of the content involved, rather than the consent). And rather than question the ethics or "healthiness" of consensual rough sex, people roll their eyes when they hear that labeled as "rape."  

 

No. They knew it was about nearly drowning someone. Most of them would be fine with torture too in order to be able to use it. They understood the problems with calling it torture and that it would be illegal, so they were fine in calling it enhanced interrogation. They hate Muslims, or terrorists, or whatever bullshit they think and believe them to be less than human. Therefore, using force and violence against them is ok. It is not about the word, it is about the extension of personhood to include all people.

 

I also think you are smart enough to not conflate voluntary or life-saving things for force, so I will ignore those parts.

 

Why does this happen? Well, because emotive rhetoric probably does quite a bit to shut down discourse. Labeling people and things either results in dismissive reactions or puts you in an emotionally manipulative position. At least in my experience, whenever I have labeled the state as "violent" or state employees as "parasitical," rather than walk people through the steps on how the state violates the NAP through the initiation of force -- I get a lot of eye rolling and dismissive comments. In other debates where I try to avoid that particular linguistic style, I manage to convince more people. This of course is just my personal preference. You can use moral reasoning without any compromises and without needing counterproductive language.

 

Hitting people is assault and abuse. Kids are people. Hitting kids is assault and abuse. In fact, it is even worse because a child cannot escape. Regardless, there is no more logic than this to say that someone who hits their kids and justifies calling them a child abuser. I do not care about the emotional comfort of an abuser when faced with the truth of their actions. You do not use the term out of the blue. You use a logical case and go through the steps. Block knows that case, he chooses to ignore it and he justifies his actions anyway. This is what makes him an irredeemable abuser.

[Hannibal]

While I don't think that it would ever be necessary to 'spank' a child, the NAP clearly does NOT apply to children. If it did human beings would be extinct in no time at all. As such, I think that a socially acceptable NAP-lite applies to children. I don't think it's a big deal because in a society of NAP advocates, defining such an NAP-lite would be fairly non contentious.

[ErinGo]

While I don't think that it would ever be necessary to 'spank' a child, the NAP clearly does NOT apply to children. If it did human beings would be extinct in no time at all. As such, I think that a socially acceptable NAP-lite applies to children. I don't think it's a big deal because in a society of NAP advocates, defining such an NAP-lite would be fairly non contentious.

Can you explain how applying NAP when dealing with children would cause human extinction "in no time at all". Feel free to apply a specific time period instead or switch to eventually if you must. I'm interested in what you mean and would like to see how applying NAP to children could result in extinction of the race ever?

[Hannibal]

Can you explain how applying NAP when dealing with children would cause human extinction "in no time at all". Feel free to apply a specific time period instead or switch to eventually if you must. I'm interested in what you mean and would like to see how applying NAP to children could result in extinction of the race ever?

 

Its not hard, for anyone not being deliberately obtuse, to understand.  Any child afforded the full protection of non-aggression would very likely die shortly after they first decided that they wanted to freely leave their home and cross the street, or the first time they decided that they wanted to see what the bottle of bleach under the kitchen sink tasted like, etc. I won't assume that you need education of how extinction works.

[Wesley]

I feel angry and disgusted by this.

[Lians]

Well, you see, children are not people. The moment you become big enough to pose a physical threat to your parents, you're magically promoted to a full-fledged human.

[Guest - Josh -]

I could completely care less about the emotional comfort of an abuser.

 

Who said anything about protecting people’s emotions? I do not see how you could infer that, and I would argue that to say that is to straw man my position.

 

I consider myself a pretty understanding person, but that’s for other people to decide of course. However, when discussing the truth, I don’t let emotion dictate the conclusions. I don’t care if the facts bring discomfort to people, although it is not my intention to shame people into accepting the truth. I am also not interested in allowing any emotional need to condemn trump steps that would ultimately be better for his kids.

 

I can certainly understand how people who were abused by their parents could readily and eagerly wish to smear someone else who hit their children once or twice. But he didn’t treat his kids as though they were stunt doubles on a SAW film. He didn’t sexually molest his children.

 

There is no recognition of degree here at all. Yes, it is a violation of the NAP to steal a pen and to rob a bank. Are the consequences (social and legal) the same? Should they be the same, and should society deem the violator “Thief” regardless of whether he took a penny from a friend or robbed a store? No.

 

Therefore, to insist upon the label of “Child Abuser” is not grounded in logic, but emotion, and most likely projection. Why wouldn’t you be satisfied with “NAP violator,” or – forget the labels altogether – why isn’t wrongdoing good enough for you? It’s not that “Child Abuser” has a nice ring to it, but I suspect it’s ultimately a way to subconsciously get back at mom and dad. Tell me I’m wrong.

 

 

 

 

The goal is not to get Block to admit wrongdoing.

 

I’m sorry, “the goal”? Did I miss the memo? What goal?

 

I don't see how Dr. Block admitting to wrongdoing is a bad thing. I think that would be positive for his kids and for "the movement" if I must call it that.

 

 

 

 

It is to not support him and to tell others about how he has abused children and that he justifies it.

 

You’re more than welcome to do that, just don’t pretend your decision is a goal for everyone else to follow.

 

 

 

 

That he doesn't want to extend personhood to children in the same way that people didn't want to extend personhood to slaves.

 

I understand his logic clearly falls short on this matter. Perhaps he could be better persuaded by people not pointing fingers crying "shame!" and "abuser!" Really... the feminist method of shouting "rape apologist!" is not at all effective, and downright unworthy of adoption by rational people if you ask me. Do you think the men's rights folks are open to dialogue and persuasion about ideas like patriarchy when labeled as rapists and rape apologists? No, but the goal of feminists is not to persuade, but to bully. Labeling others with emotionally charged labels is manipulative, period. It’s altogether counterproductive for those who are interesting in spreading reason, and it’s undeniably making it worse for the kids in this instance.

 

 

 

 

There is an age and an amount of abuse by which people can't come back and say they are wrong. I am not trying to "save" those who cannot be "saved".

 

I certainly agree that there is a level of abuse endured that makes reconciliation impossible and undesirable, and that that level is clearly up to the abused.

 

However, the idea that there's an age limit where people can no longer reason or are no longer capable of learning or changing (apart from those who suffer from Alzheimer's), well it's fundamentally ignorant. Notice, I did not label you an ageist, because that wouldn't be constructive. In any case, you're wrong, and I won't even bother to ask you to cite a source for what you just said about older people because it's not grounded in anything factual.

 

 

 

 

Just because I hit a child a little less than someone else does not mean that hitting a child is not abusive.

 

I never said it wasn't. It's theft whether a penny is stolen from a friend, a convenience store is robbed, or taxes are collected. And it's wrong no matter what you want to call it. We agree on that much.

 

But I'm concerned with the failure to recognize severity and degree. If Dr. Block had sexually molested his children, I would share your desire to disassociate and condemn; and I would have no desire to sit down and have a debate with him. But because he only spanked his children on occasion, I would have the same tolerance and desire to reason with him as I would my own parents. Perhaps you would wish to shun anyone who's ever put their child in a time-out chair, for nothing else but not knowing how to parent properly, but I personally don't find that constructive.

 

If you can't convince Dr. Block of wrongdoing, you won't be able to convince the wider population (most of whom do not share the same economic and political views expressed here). And while no one here would probably care to have a chat with sexual abusers, the more of us who sit and dally and refuse to reason with spankers, the longer spanking will continue. Just a thought.

 

 

 

[Alan C.]

"[My son] didn't want to brush his teeth, didn't want to drink his milk, he was a pain in the neck. I didn't engage in physical abuse, there are no scars."

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it attempts to establish the following principle: 'refusal to do something' or 'being a pain in the neck' is grounds for aggression.People with dementia can also be a pain in the neck. Is it ok to apply the same principle to people with dementia that Walter Block wants to apply to children?

[Mike Fleming]

Well, you see, children are not people. The moment you become big enough to pose a physical threat to your parents, you're magically promoted to a full-fledged human.

 

That's when the psychological abuse kicks in to high gear. 

[Lians]

Let's look at this from another angle. Dogs are little animals. According to Walter Block's logic, we should beat our dogs to discipline them. Do you think he'd agree with this statement? Why, no! That's animal abuse! People on the internet would go after him with pitchforks. Ah, the perils of doublethink...

 

People like Walter Block criticize the general public for being irrational. What was that old saying? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.