ylevanon Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 In the last Property and Freedom Society gathering, Hoppe and some other panelists said that they didn't think refraining from child spanking is that important for the future of liberty. This was specifically in response to a question about Stefan. One of the panelists, Dr. Daniels, is a psychiatrist, perhaps he can be persuaded to debate? Please see here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My apologies for commenting on this thread without actually watching the video. I was looking at how it's called "Property and Freedom Society." How can we have freedom amid violations of property? Spanking violates property rights and those who do it are a threat to freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Don't be intimidated by the length of the video. The part mentioned by the OP is at the very beginning. It's,... disappointing. Is it just me or did the whole room become suddenly very awkward after the question was asked? Didn't the laughter sound a little like nervous laughter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Is it just me or did the whole room become suddenly very awkward after the question was asked? Didn't the laughter sound a little like nervous laughter? Yeah, very nervous laughter. It was disappointing to hear the standard, "I got spanked, and I turned out okay." arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What I'd like to have heard: "But you didn't turn out OK! You condone violence towards the most defenseless of us who are still developing their orientation to the world. Imagine someone regularly grabbed you, pulled your pants down, spanked you for a reason you couldn't understand, and you had zero legal recourse. If you told anyone in law they just laugh at you. This is not conducive to liberty." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylevanon Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Yes, this was very disappointing on various levels. For example, in the case of Hoppe, given his immense logical faculties, one would expect that he would refrain from deducing from what he believes his own experience is, to what is generally true. Even if we accept that spanking didn't hinder him from finding the philosophy of liberty, it doesn't follow that this is the case in general. And of course, he should have also been aware of the epistemic problem of how he knows that it didn't do him any harm. Then, to hear the same from the psychiatrist, without any reference to what the science has to say about the question, was also very disappointing. On the better side, it seems that the unease among the younger panelist stemmed from the fact that they didn't concur with their older colleagues and just didn't want to open this up in order not to present the latter in their obsolescence. One way or another, norms are changing to the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 You guys convinced me to watch it and I was appalled. The first guy spoke as if the claim "stop spanking and everything will be alright" was ever made. What difference does it make if it will solve everything or not? It's within our control, is very easy to do, has the largest effort:yield, and it's moral! How many (other) people do spanking users/promoters assault to correct or "discipline"? This is proof that even they understand it is immoral. Then the second guy talked about it being normal. He even said that he would be strange as a parent if he didn't. I thought we couldn't derive an ought from an is? Everybody gets infections, does this mean the proper course is to yield to the infection? Prevalence speaks ZERO as to the (im)morality of a behavior. Is the 3rd guy Steph Kinsella? Kind of looks and sounds like him. Either way, I was surprised to hear him bring up the libertarian point of view and then cross it. I had high hopes when he pointed out the parent acting as an agent. Were a child full grown, of course they would consent to a tonsillectomy if the science available at the time said it was beneficial. We have no expectation that were a child full grown, they would consent to being assaulted in lieu of verbal, egalitarian communication. He was wrong to call it optional since it is immoral, but I really thought he dropped the ball when he started off with a good point and then went back on it. And to think that these people are promoting an immorality that could harm millions of human beings in the future just to protect their dishonest view of their own TWO parents. It's sad to behold in the abstract. That these people are panelists speaking in front of an audience is reprehensible. I seriously hope Stef is able to get an interview or debate with some of these guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylevanon Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Just fyi, the person on the right is Hans Hermann Hoppe, he's the chair of the PFS, and is potentially one of the greatest philosophers in the history of man kind. He is responsible for argumentation ethics which bridges the is/ought chasm and is somewhat similar to Stef's UPB in this regard (but Hoppe was there first). I'm at a loss to his superficial treatment of the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The first guy spoke as if the claim "stop spanking and everything will be alright" was ever made. Oh wow, that sounds like my mother's objection. "It's not like if you solve this serious problem your life will be perfect. [Therefore, there's no reason to even address it. Your life will never be perfect.]" And to think that these people are promoting an immorality that could harm millions of human beings in the future just to protect their dishonest view of their own TWO parents. You nailed it; in each case it's about each of their own parents. Of course they demonstrate exactly why spanking is harmful: it causes even people as thoughtful and self-examined as them to be blind to its effects, precisely because it was done to them and nobody significant in their life acknowledged it as abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What I'd like to have heard: "...Imagine someone regularly grabbed you, pulled your pants down, spanked you for a reason you couldn't understand, and you had zero legal recourse. If you told anyone in law they just laugh at you. This is not conducive to liberty." you can replace this with any number of acts of parenting and it would sound equally as ridiculous when applied to an adult""...Imagine someone regularly grabbed you, took away your ice-cream, gave you vegetables for a reason you couldn't understand, and you had zero legal recourse. If you told anyone in law they just laugh at you. This is not conducive to liberty."" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 you can replace this with any number of acts of parenting and it would sound equally as ridiculous when applied to an adult""...Imagine someone regularly grabbed you, took away your ice-cream, gave you vegetables for a reason you couldn't understand, and you had zero legal recourse. If you told anyone in law they just laugh at you. This is not conducive to liberty."" absurd ≠ immoral Attacking an adult is immoral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Attacking an adult is immoral yes, because it violates property rights. just like any number of acts of parenting is a violation of property rights, such as taking away as child's ice-cream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 yes, because it violates property rights. just like any number of acts of parenting is a violation of property rights, such as taking away as child's ice-cream Is this your argument? P1. taking away a child's ice-cream and attacking a child are both violations of property rights P2. I am claiming that child abuse is immoral because it's a violation of property rights P3. I don't and wouldn't reasonably condemn a parent for taking away ice-cream C1. I am being inconsistent about my application of property rights and/or morality C2. It is similarly baseless to say attacking a child is immoral as it is to say that taking away a child's ice-cream is immoral This seems to be the implication in your statements. Have I interpreted it correctly? If so, would you say that this is a good argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 well, taking away the ice cream is kind of a weird example, as the parent must've handed it to them in the first place. But yeah, a lot of standrad parenting stuff is quite ridiculous when you think it through for a few seconds imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Is this your argument? P1. taking away a child's ice-cream and attacking a child are both violations of property rights P2. I am claiming that child abuse is immoral because it's a violation of property rights P3. I don't and wouldn't reasonably condemn a parent for taking away ice-cream C1. I am being inconsistent about my application of property rights and/or morality C2. It is similarly baseless to say attacking a child is immoral as it is to say that taking away a child's ice-cream is immoral This seems to be the implication in your statements. Have I interpreted it correctly? If so, would you say that this is a good argument? Prairie attempted to highlight the absurdity of spanking a child by imposing the same situation unto an adult, so i pointed out that many number of 'normal' acts of parenting would also seem absurd if imposed unto an adult, and thus Prairie's comment was rather insubstantial as a response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Prairie attempted to highlight the absurdity of spanking a child by imposing the same situation unto an adult, so i pointed out that many number of 'normal' acts of parenting would also seem absurd if imposed unto an adult, and thus Prairie's comment was rather insubstantial as a response Is that a yes or a no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Is that a yes or a no? almost. i have removed P2, because property rights are the crux here, not solely child abuse, and i have altered one word from C2 of your rundown -- "baseless" to "accurate". and then i would agree with your list. P1. taking away a child's ice-cream and attacking a child are both violations of property rights P3. I don't and wouldn't reasonably condemn a parent for taking away ice-cream C1. I am being inconsistent about my application of property rights and/or moralityC2. It is similarly accurate to say attacking a child is immoral as it is to say that taking away a child's ice-cream is immoral so the question that needs to be asked is: is there an inconsistency with this application of property rights? if you answer yes, then you are making an exemption to property rights (which means such rights are not universal), and if you answer no, then could you explain how taking away the ice-cream (or any other number of similar acts of parenting which overrides the child's free choice) is not considered a violation of property rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have. I agree with Robin's point that ice cream is a bad example because the child wouldn't even have it were it not for the parent allowing access to it. But yes, there are ways a parent has agency over a child before the child is able to reason (somewhere between 2-4) and moreso before the child can speak. At no point would intentionally using the baby's nervous system for the purpose of behavior modification (inflicting external will) be anything but immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 A parent can provide a child healthy food without grabbing things from the child, so the ice cream example seemed poor. Even if such a parent's child somehow came in possession of ice cream, the parent could suggest that the child save it until after other food, or just let the child eat it, since it would be a rare occurrence (if the parent has ice cream in the freezer that the child can get any time, and the child would just choose to eat it instead of other food, that's a symptom of something else, perhaps that the parent shouldn't keep such food around). There's an important difference between grabbing something from someone and not providing it to them in the first place.Just consider a parent that keeps lots of candy bars, etc. around the house within reach of the child, and the child frequently eats them, and the parent yells at the child/grabs them from the child, versus a parent who just doesn't keep that around. It's pretty hard to argue that the first doesn't have a negative effect compared to the second, even though they both involve the parent exercising control over what the child eats.june, my post wasn't so much to make a sterile logical argument, but to attempt to have adults like those on stage consider what it would be like to be in a similar situation as the child being spanked, and perhaps unlock some of that empathic part of themselves that was dormant when they dismissed the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have. I agree with Robin's point that ice cream is a bad example because the child wouldn't even have it were it not for the parent allowing access to it. But yes, there are ways a parent has agency over a child before the child is able to reason (somewhere between 2-4) and moreso before the child can speak. At no point would intentionally using the baby's nervous system for the purpose of behavior modification (inflicting external will) be anything but immoral. Now you got me confused though. IF the baby doesn't have self-ownership, then how can you claim it's immoral to hit it? Wouldn't that then be the equivalent of hitting a dog for purpose of behaviour modificiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) I don't think so. A dog is born fully formed. Humans are born prematurely. Dogs have never demonstrated the capacity for reason. 99%+ of humans have demonstrated the capacity for reason. We understand that a human baby's inability to reason is the result of not yet being fully formed. Besides, as I understand it, behavior modification without "aggression" is a possibility with dogs as well. [EDIT] I was thinking about this more and I had another point I wanted to make. Humans do not come with any behavior by default that is worthy of modifying. The default human behavior is adapting. We can adapt better the more we understand the world we're in, so we tend to explore. If a child had the capability of exploring in a manner that was dangerous to the child, it is the parent's fault for providing an environment that was dangerous to the child that they keep there intentionally. Whether this translates to not barricading a flight of stairs or simply not watching over them, it's not the baby's fault. Edited February 11, 2014 by dsayers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 okay, but then you'd have to modify your orignal argument to include self-ownership, when there's a potential (or reasonable assumption) for reson to develop later, which then retroactively grants self-ownership even during a time where reason is not present and maybe explain why that works. (Or something along those lines).But I fully agree with aggresion being neither moral nor necessary in either case. I just have a hard time justifying it or seeing why the ability to reason is the essential criteria. I mean, I see how reason is necessary for BEING a moral agent, but as you said, the baby certainly can't be thought of a morally responsible for it's actions. And the question is around the actions of other people that affect the baby.Also if reason is the criteria for personhood, then mentally retarded people or people with brain damage or senile old people would have no rights whatsoever,as they can't reason and wouldn't count as having self-ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have. I agree with Robin's point that ice cream is a bad example because the child wouldn't even have it were it not for the parent allowing access to it. But yes, there are ways a parent has agency over a child before the child is able to reason (somewhere between 2-4) and moreso before the child can speak. At no point would intentionally using the baby's nervous system for the purpose of behavior modification (inflicting external will) be anything but immoral. "Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have."whoa! so newborns do not have self-ownership? that's a huge statement to make. that means any horrific acts like murder, rape or harvesting of organs of a newborn baby is totally valid within property rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkIX Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 "Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have."whoa! so newborns do not have self-ownership? that's a huge statement to make. that means any horrific acts like murder, rape or harvesting of organs of a newborn baby is totally valid within property rights. a very modest proposal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nala Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Don't be intimidated by the length of the video. The part mentioned by the OP is at the very beginning. It's,... disappointing. Is it just me or did the whole room become suddenly very awkward after the question was asked? Didn't the laughter sound a little like nervous laughter? I noticed the same right away. I felt the shields of armor arise over the ghosts of their aggressors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh -Lel- Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have. Unconscious (sleeping, coma) people can't reason. Does that mean they don't own themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fleming Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I think that the question was asked and, from the responses, is reasonably well-known in libertarian circles is the important thing. OK, so these guys didn't like it and don't think it will help. That's fine. They can continue doing their thing and Stef and others will do theirs. We've already had Walter Block so it's not a huge surprise. And tbh, I don't think their opinion on this matter really matters all that much. It's already taking off, it's not like these guys are going to stop the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I think that the question was asked and, from the responses, is reasonably well-known in libertarian circles is the important thing. OK, so these guys didn't like it and don't think it will help. That's fine. They can continue doing their thing and Stef and others will do theirs. I disagree for two reasons; one rational and one emotional. The rational reason is that we cannot change out there if we won't change in here first. If we reject egalitarianism and accept violence in spheres where we have influence, we cannot change anything. The emotional reason is that the stories of abuse are not only horrifyingly common, but they can get be downright brutal. I was just commenting on this last night. The things some abusers do because they think it's okay or they'll get away with it, we have to keep the important issues to the forefront. "Stop torturing human beings," is easy and the torturing of human beings will not stop without it. There is no structural violence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have. do you still believe this to be true, dsayers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 was the question asked in the right way? saying no spanking and we all turn out great was never the argument. saying no spanking is one step towards a better and more free society could be more in line with the argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 was the question asked in the right way? saying no spanking and we all turn out great was never the argument. saying no spanking is one step towards a better and more free society could be more in line with the argument? You can listen to the first couple minutes and hear for yourself, but basically the guy brought up that the solution worth focusing on is extending the NAP to children and not spanking them, as talked about by Stef-dawg. If I told you that working in the government corrupts you, do you instantly think that I'm saying that everyone working in government is wholly corrupt and evil? Of course not. People take the least favorable interpretation of something in order to reject it when they don't know why they actually feel the urge to reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 You can listen to the first couple minutes and hear for yourself, but basically the guy brought up that the solution worth focusing on is extending the NAP to children and not spanking them, as talked about by Step-down. If I told you that working in the government corrupt you, do you instantly think that I'm saying that everyone working in government is wholly corrupt and evil? Of course not. People take the least favorable interpretation of something in order to reject it when they don't know why they actually feel the urge to reject it. Watching the first few minutes again The question the key to reach a better world in the future Where children don't get punished They will not grow up thinking violence is a solution to whatever problems If the parent is telling the child to follow NAP or be spanked, spanking a child after the child broke NAP at least has some cause -effect relationship. If the parent is spanking the child regardless of NAP being broken, then the parent is being a hypocrite and not logical anyway. If the parent tells the child to not violate NAP, then does violate NAP by spanking a child who did not violate NAP, then the parent is the problem. so maybe the question could be " how ought parent deal with children (nap violent children), so that children (nap violent children) don't turn into nap violating adults"? with the question of not spanking children being key to nonviolent solution, it would have to be measured as to what are the causes of violent solutions. if the responders have not had the expirence to say spanking children was the difference between violent and nonviolent adults, i don't think they could call this ishue being key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 do you still believe this to be true, dsayers? your failure to respond makes me very anxious, especially when you have responded to my posts in the mean-time in other topics. at the very least i hope you have taken this topic to heart and gave serious thought toward it, because i sincerely do not believe it is right to just leave this discussion knowing that you believe new born babies have no self-ownership. imagine if that perspective was wide-spread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-William Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 It's sad to see people advocating for liberty who don't choose to stand up for children. Reminds me of a shirt I saw "Fuck the whales! Save the children" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Just wanted to add that Stephan Kinsella has changed his mind entirely on spanking now. This was after a telephone conversation he had with Stefan apparently. Unfortunately he made the announcement on Facebook, which makes it nigh on impossible to find right now. But it was a public posting, so you might be able to Google dredge it perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts