k.lode Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Hey everyone! Thank you for taking the time to help spread the peaceful parenting. I plan on writing a collection of peaceful parenting essays that are aimed at the libertarian community. I want to get as much feedback and push-back on my articles as possible, so that I can then address any logical failures or gaps--and also increase the entertainment value--by editing and re-releasing more and more complete works. I thought that the FDR community would be the best place to start. So, for those of you who have made it this far, here is my first attempt: "A Free Society Begins at Home." The stated goals of the Libertarian Party—at the center of which is the goal of building a peaceful and prosperous society by banishing force and fraud from human relationships("Platform.")—may be enough to hold off the “thousand years of darkness” that Ronald Reagan warned of. But since the 1970’s, libertarians and libertarian-aligned groups have invested tons of resources on politics and education, but have seen very little return. Despite the elaborate homicide of the market that began with the Federal Reserve Act and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the not-yet-rigid corpse of the free market continues to produce amazing technological advancements. The downside of these advancements is that governments now have the ability to use that same technology to intercept, track, compile, and analyze the online activities of every single American. The National Security Agency of the U.S. government has the ability to tap into almost any online system at will, and even watch—in real time—as an email is being written. As a rule, government power always increases over time. We now find ourselves balancing on a knife’s edge; on one side of the blade is a world in which the full potential of mankind’s creativity, productivity and compassion can be realized; and on the other side is a world wherein every aspect of our lives is regulated, controlled, and electronically supervised by massively intrusive governmental apparatus. Governments have always justified their positions of power. Before the scientific method gave rise to the supremacy of rationality and empiricism over superstitions, governments used the heavenly mandate to justify the use of violence in enforcing the will of kings and bureaucrats. Often referred to in western cultures as the “divine right of kings,” this was a way of legitimizing absolute rule by stating that the king ruled according to the will of the local deity. The unspoken supposition to this claim, is that disobedience to the king was in fact disobedience to god. As the preference for rationality spread from the great thinkers of the enlightenment to the common man, the illusory ideal of “the consent of the governed” became popular. But when logically examined, the idea that the government operated with the consent of all of those it governed falls quickly by the way-side. “Consent of the governed” would logically require that tax laws could only legitimately be enforced among those who consent to such laws. One can infer how quickly the set-up that we currently live under in America would fall apart—and how quickly people would fall victim to bad-actors—if the “consent of the governed” were the true source of state power. In an attempt to bind subjects to the will of their oppressors, those who would defend the initiation of the use of force by governments sometimes attempt to conjure up the mythical “social contract.” But this so-called contract requires unfounded belief in order for the concept to have any real efficacy in people’s lives. The will of the Christian does not bend to accommodate the will of pagan gods; the will of the atheist does not subvert itself to make way for the will of Yahweh nor of Allah. It is in similar fashion that the will of a human who is aware of his self-evident liberty does not bend completely to the will of the state, no matter what “contract” is fictitiously thrust upon him. The basis of the idea of contracts—or at least the legitimacy of them—is based upon consent; and a well thought out contract will also include specific language that determines in what way the contract may be broken. This may include penalties for choosing to terminate a contract, but any contract that does not recognize the right of a party to withdraw consent implies some sort of slavery. After all, if a person who has chosen to take part in consensual sexual intercourse chooses to withdraw consent during the act, the other party or parties engaged in the act must cease immediately or else the act stops being consensual and becomes rape. So what is the common thread that binds together the people in societies that are generally peaceful? It cannot be that religious doctrine and the threat of everlasting torment is enough to ensure a safe, peaceful and free society. On the contrary, there are many atheists who have contributed significantly to efforts to improve the human condition. Likewise, the so-called Islamic State, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the former kingdom of Tibet could hardly be used as great examples of free and prosperous nations. While the majority of those who live under the authority of Iran’s Ayatollah may be pious and peaceful, these attributes are more likely to be a mechanism of defense meant to shield a person from the vagaries of a harsh dictator. The most likely answer is that western peoples have attained their freedom from serfdom—such as it is—by spending enormous amounts of blood and treasure in order to secure certain freedoms from the state. While it is true that we now enjoy a measure of freedom and wealth that would absolutely baffle the hereditary aristocracies of old, we have not yet secured our liberty. Even in America we have yet to realize the state of true freedom described by Thomas Jefferson, a state of being wherein the initiation of the use of force is prohibited and any other action is allowed under the rules of a small government, common law, or lex non scripta so long as “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”(Jefferson) So why is it the case when presently—thanks mainly to recent and ongoing advancements in information technology—we have all of the pages of the history of government and elite oppression laid out in front of us; that we do not shake off the remnants of our state-forged shackles and push on into the wilderness of our future; that we do not come together, cooperating in a peaceful manner while we step over the corpse of our shared history of coercion and trauma; that we do not see the bars of the cages that hold us; that no one is willing to stand up and admit frankly to the world that the emperor has no clothes? There is a saying that is often attributed to the Catholic Church’s Society of Jesus, or Jesuits, that may hold the key to unravelling the Gordian knot of government-driven violence: “Give me a child for the first seven years and I don't care who has him later.” In other words, a person’s earliest indoctrinations tend to influence their character more than any other controllable factor. The behaviors, relationships, and basic unspoken truths that a child observes during this developmental period may influence how that person thinks over the course of his life. And reaching back into history to the first agrarian societies, governments that use violence to punish subjects who do not conform to the edicts of the tribal council or of the local warlord, have always benefitted from parents’ use of physical violence to control and instruct children. Despite the myriad possibilities that are available in managing and learning from conflicts, the—usually—subconscious message that is put across is: “Legitimate authority figures may make use of violence legitimately.” But the other message that few people ever talk about is: “Violence is bad, therefore those who use it for ‘constructive’ purposes must have the legitimate authority to do so, or else they are also bad.” When this logic is applied to the most common means of initiation of the use of force—spanking—then we wind up with a mental version of the old dilemma between the immovable object and the irresistible force. This logical problem is caused by two suppositions, namely that our parents are good and violence is bad. Because many of our concepts around good or bad reflect a binary nature—an action is either good or bad, like a switch is either open or closed—this leads to a dilemma in how we think about parents and violence. If initiatory violence is always bad, and our parents are always good, how can most people reconcile these concepts if their parents utilized spanking as part their repertoire of child rearing tools? The reconciliation of concepts takes place by creating a new stipulation to the maxim that initiatory violence is bad or immoral. This new stipulation exempts figures in authority—whether they be cops, judges, or lawmakers or the local chief warlord—from moral accountability that would normally be required of the common people. This unspoken moral exemption can be semi-logically extended to cover most any type of immoral activity, in fact it is probably the subconscious basis for any ex post facto justification for the immoral behaviors of people who attain high levels of governmental power. This may also explain the concept that power can—or, depending on who one asks, always will—corrupt. It may explain why doctors, dentists, life-coaches and golf-pros rarely feel the need to resort to violence and coercion in order to change the behavior of their patients and clients. A doctor has a type of power—an authority—that may be able to change the behavior of his patient, but this power has a legitimate source. It comes from the voluntary nature of the doctor-patient relationship and has as its foundation credibility, rather than fear and violence. As you can see, any overly authoritarian government would benefit from children growing under this unspoken might-makes-right paradigm. But let us also look at the moral aspects of spanking as a parenting tool. It is almost universally understood that our interactions with children should be held to a higher standard of conduct than our interactions with other adults. The best way to explain why this is necessary, is that children have much less knowledge about the world. Having fewer experiences gives children a much narrower understanding of the meaning of things like non-verbal communication, tone and volume in speech, or context. Therefore, the interactions that we have with children must be held to a higher moral standard than interactions between adults. Another way to understand this concept is by looking at customs and laws around the subject of sexual intercourse and violence, and then checking to see if we can universalize the conclusions. We can use as an example the case of a child who resists following the instructions of a parent—in this instance we will discuss the brushing of teeth—when following instructions would result in the best outcome for the child. The case could be made that if a child throws up great resistance against this instruction, then the use of force— a very mild spanking coupled with a firm tone may be suggested—may in fact be beneficial to the child. If the parent were to give in completely and never again attempt to cajole the child into brushing his teeth, this would likely result in a great deal of pain cause by dental cavities. The child may eventually learn the importance of good dental hygiene, but at a considerable cost. This cost would be measured by the pain experienced by the child, and in the monetary cost of dental work to be paid by the parent. This case illustrates that a mild spanking could have prevented considerable pain on the part of the child. So, one who is making the case for spanking might argue that: the best outcome for the child is to learn through spanking, as opposed to learning through true suffering. Can this “beneficial” initiation of force really be the morally superior choice? For a choice to positively reflect morality, it needs to be able to be applied universally. If theft is immoral for one person to engage in today, then it must also be immoral for another person tomorrow. Therefore when this concept of moral universalization is applied, we can test the method of resolving the “toothbrush” conflict to see if it really does pass the morality muster. If a coworker or a classmate refuses to maintain their dental hygiene, are we still justified in using violence to “teach them” the errors of their ways? Common sense, common law, and statutes all over the Western world would say not. And because of the higher standard of morality that is required of us when interacting with children, our kids deserve better treatment—not worse—than our coworkers. Another way of illustrating the higher standards of adult-child interaction that we must hold ourselves—and those around us—to, is by looking at generally acceptable standards in the area of sexual conduct. Outside of somewhat common social views on premarital or extramarital sexual intercourse, we may generally accept that two people entering into sexual congress is not necessarily an immoral act. The most important factor in determining the morality of the act would be determined by the factor of consent. I’m sure that in the Western world, most people would agree that consenting to sexual intercourse is the most important factor in separating the physical act of love from the act of rape. It would then follow that if two mutually consenting people decide to have sex, then—if we do not take into account marital status for those who tend to follow a moral code that is based on superstition and religiosity—the act cannot really be considered immoral. But we did not address the ages of the people involved. And again, we recognize that consent given in this area must be the consent of an adult, as a twelve year old does not have the necessary information or experience to make an informed decision that could have major impact on his life. Needless to say, we must have higher standards when considering the morality of a situation when a child is involved. Because the initiation of the use of force against someone is a violation of that person’s right of self-ownership, there is also a need to address such property rights when considering the positions for or against spanking. A libertarian-minded person may consider children—because of their limited experience and knowledge—to fall into the “marginalized persons” category. Because a marginalized person has a cognitive capacity that does not meet the minimum level of what we would call a “responsible adult,” the rights of such people must be curtailed somewhat to ensure their safety. After all, it would not make sense to allow a patient with severe dementia to wander outside, alone in their bedclothes, into a freezing winter night. What true and good moral framework would allow someone who does not possess the cognitive faculties necessary for moral responsibility to unintentionally freeze to death, in order to protect their rights? Some libertarians have even suggested that a child has no property rights at all, and that a child’s right to own and control their own bodies does not belong to the child. Any such rights are possessed by—and actually define what it means to be—the child’s legal guardian. The fact is that such a relationship is not one of parent and child, but of a slave-owner and slave. This fact would make the relationship that is established by becoming a parent not very libertarian—anti-libertarian in fact. Being a libertarian and being a slave-owner are two states that—by their definitions—are so oppositional that one cannot be both at the same time—like a square-circle. As to the idea that being a child is the same as being a marginalized person, well it just doesn’t fit the facts. An elderly dementia patient is not likely to get better, in fact they are more likely to require more—and more careful—care as time goes on. A child is someone that will hopefully assume the responsibilities and exercise the natural rights of adulthood at some point in the future. The highest goal of a parent should be aimed at delivering to that future adult: a well-nourished body that has been protected from harm, a mind free of worthless propaganda and sharpened by education—especially in logic—and a childhood spent learning negotiation without the trauma of verbal or physical aggression. Another point that may brought up is the practicality of the peaceful parenting approach. Arguments designed to poke holes in peaceful child-rearing usually take some form of the following: “What if your son or daughter is in the road, and the only way to save the kid’s life from being hit by a distracted driver is to run and knock them out of the way?” Sometimes hot cooking implements are substituted for speeding cars in this type of argument. Regardless, this type of argument attempts to establish a false dichotomy wherein a parent is forced to choose between two different methods of physical attacks against a child. Of course all parents should choose to save their child from being hit by a car. This is the point at which a pro-spanking debater would have their big “Ah-ha!” moment. They might say that; “You would tackle your kid, possibly hurting them, to save their life! That’s what spanking is all about, a little pain now to save the kids later.” A good debater might also point out that you have just broken your moral principles also. But this hypothetical debater fails to understand both morality and the limits of using hypotheticals to prove a point. A very important factor in judging morality—one that is often misunderstood—is the choice factor. If a person had to choose between paying for a war of aggression through taxes, or breaking tax and revenue laws—a choice that the U.S. government prevents its subjects from having to make since most taxes are deducted at source and fiat money coupled with massive deficit financing means that invading a sovereign nation won’t be felt where people pay attention: their pocketbooks—a rational person wouldn’t accuse any individual tax-payer of willfully taking part in murder. After all, without massive nation-wide tax protests any one person who refuses to pay up for the previously mentioned moral reasons would first get a notice in the mail, then be visited by federal agents, and then an arrest warrant would be issued. If this tax-protester then decided to resist arrest on the grounds that he is innocent because he has not acted violently, and sees any attempt to use violence against him—either to extort the money from him, or to punish him for failing to bend to the will of his political masters—as the initiation of the use of force, he will be killed. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled that tax-payers have no standing to sue the government or its employees for any damages caused by government theft, when such theft is classified by statutes as a “tax.” This essentially leaves tax-payers in a situation where there is no real choice, as the only choice they are allowed to make is obey-or-die. As a side note I must acknowledge that the previous paragraph states that “massive nation-wide tax protests” would be required to prevent any single tax-payer from being attacked by his government for attempting to keep his property safe from confiscation. However in February of 2003, the largest anti-war protest in recorded human history took place—with about 5.8 million people taking part globally—to protest against the U.S. led invasion of Iraq (“Largest Anti-War Rally,”). Despite this unprecedented pushback against state-sanctioned violence, the invasion of Iraq commenced less than a month later. Much as a tax-payer has no way to continue to live his life completely unmolested by thugs with badges, a parent who has to choose between slapping a child’s hand and letting a pan full of boiling water scald the child’s whole body has no real alternative to avoiding violence. But this situation does show us the limits of such hypotheticals. The real-world peaceful parent understands that failing to prepare is preparing to fail. A parent faced with one of these awful scenarios has failed to properly educate and instruct their children about the dangers that are commonplace in life. This is one of the most important responsibilities that a parent should be working to fulfill: teaching children how to make good, rational choices in the absence of authority. It is just as possible for a child to notice the cooking that is happening and to carefully avoid touching any of the implements—if he has been taught all about the dangers of the kitchen—as it is for him to grab a pan-handle through ignorance. The key here is to make very sure of the child’s safety when he is too young to understand the concepts surrounding heat, burns, cars and roads; and then, one should waste no time teaching that child everything that they need to know about the dangers of everyday life. We have discussed to morality of corporal punishment, and we have cleared away many of the false arguments that have been used as ex post facto justifications for physically assaulting children. There remains one last refuge for anyone who wants to be able to hurt a child and to not be made to feel guilty about it—what do the outcomes look like for children who have been hit? The outcomes are the focus of both sides of the argument. People who are for spanking will point to statistics about teenage pregnancy rates or drug use, and they will claim that these outcomes are the reason that children must be instilled with discipline. But some of the most in-depth and exhaustive scientific research illuminates these claims as being foundationless. The first claim—that children who grow up to make bad decisions should have been spanked more—made by those who have a pro-violence bias, loses credibility when compared to the facts. The more—and more intensely—corporal punishment is inflicted on a child, the more a child is likely to reject the parent’s values (Gershoff). Studies done on the subject of corporal punishment have also failed to show any positive correlation between parents’ use of spanking and the “internalization of positive conduct,” (Gershoff). The net effect of spanking in these cases can be the exact opposite of what was intended by the parent—including having a corrosive effect on the parent-child bond and undermining the parents’ attempts to influence future behavior (Gershoff). The use of corporal punishment can be an effective tool to teach children, but the most common lessons learned are in opposition to the values that parents intend to pass along. According to Elizabeth Gershoff’s meta-analysis of corporal punishment studies: “a parent who spanks a child for running into the street intends for the child to learn that such a behavior is dangerous, yet the child may interpret the parent's response to mean that he or she should not run into the street when the parent is around.” If the primary lesson that a child learns from being spanked is that he must avoid being caught doing things that his parents disapprove of, and the child rejects the legitimacy of the use of physical violence by his parents—this would lead one to understand more fully why a teen-aged child of parents who made use of spanking would be inclined to also reject his parents’ warnings concerning illicit drug use, potentially dangerous sexual activities, and other high-risk behaviors. Further muddying the possibility for any net benefits of the pro-spanking argument, is the correlation between increased use and severity of corporal punishment by single parents, the predictive factor between spanking and future criminality, and the high number of incarcerated juveniles who grew up in fatherless homes (Gershoff; Molyneux). This is not to say that there is a definite cause-and-effect relationship between the use of corporal punishment and increased rates of criminality. However, a meta-analysis of corporal punishment-related studies “reported that corporal punishment by mothers and fathers during childhood predicted whether boys would commit serious crimes 30 years later regardless of whether the parents had been rated as warm and affectionate with their sons in childhood” (Gershoff). Studies covered by the meta-analysis indicate that single parents use of corporal punishment while very stressed—single parents recently separated predictably experience more stress than parents in two-parent households (Gershoff)—and that use of physical punishment while stressed was “more harsh and inept” (Gershoff). The fact that most—nearly three-quarters—of youth incarceration in state-operated facilities, is comprised of individuals who grew up in fatherless homes (Molyneux, “The Truth”) may be an important supporting factor for the against-spanking argument. Close attention should also be payed to the possible physiological impact that physical and emotional punishment can have on a child’s body when considering whether or not corporal punishment should be acceptable in society. There are many “detrimental effects of stress on the brain, and on IQ,” (Schore, 208). As a matter of fact the author, philosopher and internet podcaster Stefan Molyneux, has made the argument that not breastfeeding and using corporal punishment can—together—lower a child’s IQ by up to ten points (Molyneux, “The Truth”). One of the greatest dangers to society as a whole arises from the normalization of the use of violence—with the intent to modify or control behavior—by whatever authority is subjectively considered to be legitimate. The dangers inherent in this type of psychological conditioning are illustrated by the atrocities that were carried out during the Second World War: The plans made by the Nazi rulers of Germany to rid Europe of Jews, homosexuals, and other “undesirables;” the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire-bombing of Tokyo. Refusal by an individual to take part in these acts of mass murder would have most likely have resulted in an increase in the final death-tolls of these acts, an increase that would perfectly correspond to the exact number of individuals who made firm refusals. It must be noted, that a precise adherence to moral theory requires an acknowledgement that the soldiers who are under the potential threat of being murdered by their own superiors are not themselves responsible for the acts of murder. Only for those people—like the Nazi SS Officers who could have at the very least applied to be transferred—who do have options and choices available to them that would not end in their own deaths, do we acknowledge that “following orders” is not an acceptable justification for murder. Even without the type of psychological conditioning that are commonly used by militaries throughout the world, there remains some evidence that people will knowingly torture others, and even commit murder if they are able to be convinced—or convince themselves as the case may be—that the ultimate responsibility for their actions is carried by others. The infamous “Milgram Experiments” lend some credence to this assertion. During the course of these observational studies, it was determined that people were able to justify knowingly causing harm to others; and this type of self-justification was more likely to enable subjects to complete the “experiment”—and thereby almost certainly kill another participant, according to the labeling of the equipment used—when the circumstances presented to subjects were along more credible lines (AS Psychology). This became evident when observations made on the campus of Yale University showed that about two-thirds of subjects were willing to complete the experiment, but when the same study was undertaken in a dilapidated building away from the campus the results were that less than half of the participants were willing to complete the experiment (AS Psychology). Worse than wartime atrocities—because they lack any sort of collectivist “national defense” credibility—are instances where government officials have unnecessarily used deadly force to enforce political decisions. One could argue that any time a police officer in the U.S. uses deadly force in a situation wherein the loss of life is not imminent, is a politically motivated killing. This would require an acknowledgement of the fact that laws designed to protect members of the police from criminal prosecution when they use deadly force outside of a life-or-death scenario—such as laws that allow for the use of deadly force when an officer witnesses the commission of a felony, even a felony that is non-violent in nature—allow police to murder to enforce political decisions. One may wonder what this has to do with spanking, but there is good evidence that spanking tends to normalize the use of violence for the purpose of enforcing the edicts of people in positions of authority. While the “Milgram Experiments” showed us how people can off-load moral responsibility for their own actions, spanking can tend to make children more willing to accept the legitimacy of the idea of violent physical punishment (Gershoff). This can even lead children to believe that they are legitimate in using physical aggression against others—“Because children see aggression modeled, in the form of corporal punishment, and rewarded, in the form of their own compliance with it, they learn that aggression is an effective way to get others to behave as they want and will be disposed to imitate it,” (Gershoff). Many of the problems that we find in our society—from drug abuse to criminal recidivism to securities fraud and counterfeiting—may have a common thread. It is very likely that people learn to justify their own actions—though violent, dishonest, or hypocritical—based on the modeling of the actions of parents. The fact that parents use physical punishment “despite the risk of imitation… more in response to children's aggression than to any other child misbehavior,” (Gershoff) illustrates this point plainly. Sadly, many libertarians—ranging from members of the Libertarian Party to anarcho-capitalists and voluntarists—have misunderstood the source of government violence, even as they worked to end the legitimacy of institutional violence. I fully support the work being done by people like Stefan Molyneux, to highlight the fact that if we end the historical cycle of violence between parents and their nearly helpless children, we may live to see the day when our society applauds the efforts of any organization to improve the lives of other people—providing value to other people through voluntary exchange of good and services, this is the essence of the capitalistic obverse of the aracho-capitalist coin—and rises up through non-violent cooperation to prevent violence and disassociate perpetrators from civil society. In this way, we may avoid the Roman Empire-style collapse that comes about when societies are governed by greed and corruption, rather than being self-governed according to universal moral principles. Massive government couldn’t save the Romans and their descendants from the Dark Ages thrust upon them by their inept political overlords. But perhaps by replacing the violence in our homes with peaceful negotiations, we can avoid following in their blood-soaked footprints. Works Cited "ASPsychologyHolah.co.uk Milgram." AS Psychology Holah.co.uk Milgram. Web. 23 Nov. 2015. Gershoff, Elizabeth Thompson. "Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review." Psychological bulletin 128.4 (2002): 539-79. ProQuest. Web. 22 Nov. 2015. Jefferson, Thomas. "Avalon Project - Notes on the State of Virginia." Avalon Project – Notes on the State of Virginia. 2008. Web. 23 Nov. 2015. "Largest Anti-War Rally." History and Society/War & Weapons/Anti-War Rally. Guinness World Records. Web. 30 Nov. 2015 Molyneux, Stefan “The Truth About Single Moms.” YouTube. Video. 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 22 Nov. 2015. -- "The Bomb in the Brain: Brain Development and Violence with Stefan Molyneux." YouTube. Video.12 June 2014. Web. 22 Nov. 2015. "Platform." Libertarian Party. Web. 23 Nov. 2015. Reagan, Ronald. ""A Time for Choosing"" YouTube. Video. 02 Apr. 2009 Web. 23 Nov. 2015. Schore, Allen N. "The Effects of Early Relational Trauma on Right Brain Development, Affect Regulation, and Infant Mental Health." Infant Mental Health Journal 22.1 2001. 201–269. 23 Nov. 2015. Web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Wow, this is incredible. Great job! Seriously, please follow up when you've published the final essay because I would love to share this as widely as possible. Here are some comments I wrote down whilst reading. Feel free to incorporate or discard as you see fit. -- "As the preference for rationality spread from the great thinkers of the enlightenment to the common man, the illusory ideal of “the consent of the governed” became popular." A lot of these great thinkers were in fact Christians or theists. There's nothing to correct, however I think many people forget that rational enlightenment came out of centuries of philosophical disputes within the church. "...and a well thought out contract will also include specific language that determines in what way the contract may be broken." All contracts must have this, not just those which are well thought out. You can't sell yourself into indefinite servitude and you can't give up your right to choose to break a contract. Good rape analogy! "So what is the common thread that binds together the people in societies that are generally peaceful?" 'Generally peaceful' sounds too vague imo. "While it is true that we now enjoy a measure of freedom and wealth that would absolutely baffle the hereditary aristocracies of old, we have not yet secured our liberty." I wonder if it's possible to secure liberty. You can choose liberty and even die for it, but the moment you think you're secure is the moment you're willing to forgo liberty for the sake of maintaining security. "...governments that use violence to punish subjects who do not conform to the edicts of the tribal council or of the local warlord, have always benefitted from parents’ use of physical violence to control and instruct children." Perhaps the word 'instruct' is to kind and only begs the question. At the very least, you might say 'discipline' or put quotations marks around "instruct". "It is almost universally understood that our interactions with children should be held to a higher standard of conduct than our interactions with other adults." If I were on the other side of the argument, I would feel annoyed that you are stating something is near universally understood before you have explained it to me, and I clearly don't understand it otherwise I wouldn't need to read your article. Also, it's not only the fact that children have fewer experiences, but the fact that children didn't choose to be born to a given family that we must hold a higher moral standard to our interactions with children. (Watch my illustrated video on Peaceful Parenting linked below. Stef does a good job with this concept.) "And again, we recognize that consent given in this area must be the consent of an adult, as a twelve year old does not have the necessary information or experience to make an informed decision that could have major impact on his life." If I were a devil's advocate I'd ask: Then is it justifiable to use force to stop a twelve-year old from having sex with an adult if both parties consent? "A child is someone that will hopefully assume the responsibilities and exercise the natural rights of adulthood at some point in the future. " Right. For instance, I am technically the slave master to plants and animals if I own pets or care for a flower. Although they are beings with limited consciousness and experience, I'm not really immoral for holding them as my captive because they will not later grow into human adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts