Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An-Cap and Child Abuse

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 10:41:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So lets say I am living in an an-cap society. My hedges are fine, and there are currently no wars being waged in my neighbourhood. However the local community believes I am abusing my children. How should this, or would this issue be resolved.

Of these four options, which is most likely?

1: Property rights/non-aggression principle means that they would not intervene in my private business. Because it is occuring on my land, they have no right to involve themselves. In which case, who enforces this principle... or is it just cultural?

2: They contact their security firm who contacts me or my security firm and an amicable agreement is reached over tea and scones.

3: They contact their security firm who simply attacks. If my security firm wants to reciprocate they can, if not I am screwed.

4: Anarcho-capitalist wizards intervene and make sure I can't abuse my kids and everyone lives in great mansions in the sky.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 10:45:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
They contact a security firm, who will come in and check out what's going on. If it's apparent that you are abusing the child (which violates the NAP) they will take the child away and give it to someone who wants one. Your security firm will not back you up if you are abusing children because that will make people hate them, which is bad business. Also, they may actually care about not harming children.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 10:49:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Society will probably hate you if you abuse your children, so that most people wouldn't want to deal with the likes of you. Also, there will probably be some organization dedicated to fighting child abuse that will discover you in some way and defend the child against you.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 10:49:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 10:45:36 PM, Grape wrote:
They contact a security firm, who will come in and check out what's going on.

Are there jurisdictional issues, will they contact my security firm first?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 10:52:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 10:49:46 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 10:45:36 PM, Grape wrote:
They contact a security firm, who will come in and check out what's going on.

Are there jurisdictional issues, will they contact my security firm first?

They wouldn't have geographically limited jurisdictions, they just don't serve people too far away. Kind of like you don't order a pizza from the pizza shops near my house. You would probably have the same security firm, or at least be familiar with each other's firms.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 8:27:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also do I get a trial, or is this just based on the gut instinct of the 'invading' security firm. It rather seems like this could easily go the way of the hedge issue and be another problem for which an-cap has no reply.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 9:18:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 10:41:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So lets say I am living in an an-cap society. My hedges are fine, and there are currently no wars being waged in my neighbourhood. However the local community believes I am abusing my children. How should this, or would this issue be resolved.:

C_N, why not ask them the granddaddy of all questions to pose to an AnCap, a question that indirectly confronts all these other questions about national defense, child abuse, property disputes, etc?

Question: In an AnCap society who implements law?

Any small group out of the collective which asserts it's will over the people is certainly behaving like a government, so that the solution of ridding government is not solved. It's just a bait and switch, substituting one form of government for another while falsely claiming that government is abolished.

Their central concern seems to be that government's monopolize force, but there is no way to have an ordered society with laws and not to do the exact same thing! The only alternative is to live in a free-for-all society where everyone does what they want, where the only rule is kill or be killed.

Their canned solution for everything is the privitazation of everything. But the only real difference between public and private is how a program is funded. Whether you have a private military or a public one, whether you have public laws or private ones, the central complaint is NOT remedied!

There still exists a monopoly of force, and there still remains an oligarchy creating the rules of the game.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 9:36:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
C_N's scenario isn't only a problem for An-Caps, but Libertarians have no real good way of dealing with private abuse in general.

That's why any political 'ology' taken to an extreme is unlikely to work. Some moderation is needed to accommodate all the potential variables that a society can throw at a system. There's just too much wishful thinking in the An-Cap world.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 9:59:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Depends if the an-cap society uses a social contract model as it's metaethic. The only way you could - interfere with private affair of others is (Cody's going to hate this) using a deontological ethics, ie deontological libertarianism.

Deontological libertarianism is the belief that everyone has a duty to respect the rights of other people and for people to respects his own rights. The non aggression contract, like you said, is an example of this form of ethic. I'm going to cite the first and second/end it itself formulation of the categorical imperative in Grundlegung.

"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

First, by abusing a child you yourself are accepting that all people in society must be abused.
Second, by abusing a child you are asserting your own rights on the child, using the child, a person in their own rights, a means to an ends. It denies the status of a person as an end in themselves.
=========================================================

At 3/7/2011 9:36:25 AM, innomen wrote:
C_N's scenario isn't only a problem for An-Caps, but Libertarians have no real good way of dealing with private abuse in general.

That's why any political 'ology' taken to an extreme is unlikely to work. Some moderation is needed to accommodate all the potential variables that a society can throw at a system. There's just too much wishful thinking in the An-Cap world.

Likewise, moderation can, and has, brought the ills of both worlds.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 10:03:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So:

1: Property rights/non-aggression principle means that they would not intervene in my private business. Because it is occuring on my land, they have no right to involve themselves. In which case, who enforces this principle... or is it just cultural?

It cannot be enforced UNLESS, like Cody has said before: by doing an immoral action you own rights become forfeit. You ceases to be a person with rights. If some one catches you in the act, the people can then PWN your arse morally.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 10:11:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 9:59:04 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Depends if the an-cap society uses a social contract model as it's metaethic. The only way you could - interfere with private affair of others is (Cody's going to hate this) using a deontological ethics, ie deontological libertarianism.

Deontological libertarianism is the belief that everyone has a duty to respect the rights of other people and for people to respects his own rights. The non aggression contract, like you said, is an example of this form of ethic. I'm going to cite the first and second/end it itself formulation of the categorical imperative in Grundlegung.

"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

First, by abusing a child you yourself are accepting that all people in society must be abused.
Second, by abusing a child you are asserting your own rights on the child, using the child, a person in their own rights, a means to an ends. It denies the status of a person as an end in themselves.
=========================================================

At 3/7/2011 9:36:25 AM, innomen wrote:
C_N's scenario isn't only a problem for An-Caps, but Libertarians have no real good way of dealing with private abuse in general.

That's why any political 'ology' taken to an extreme is unlikely to work. Some moderation is needed to accommodate all the potential variables that a society can throw at a system. There's just too much wishful thinking in the An-Cap world.

Likewise, moderation can, and has, brought the ills of both worlds.

Moderation is not the same as compromise or accommodation.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 10:18:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 10:11:18 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/7/2011 9:59:04 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
=========================================================

At 3/7/2011 9:36:25 AM, innomen wrote:
C_N's scenario isn't only a problem for An-Caps, but Libertarians have no real good way of dealing with private abuse in general.

That's why any political 'ology' taken to an extreme is unlikely to work. Some moderation is needed to accommodate all the potential variables that a society can throw at a system. There's just too much wishful thinking in the An-Cap world.

Likewise, moderation can, and has, brought the ills of both worlds.

Moderation is not the same as compromise or accommodation.
Moderation is the numbing of the most radical of both ends and can sometimes include the strengthening/stressing of common ideals.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 10:27:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 10:18:16 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 3/7/2011 10:11:18 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/7/2011 9:59:04 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
=========================================================

At 3/7/2011 9:36:25 AM, innomen wrote:
C_N's scenario isn't only a problem for An-Caps, but Libertarians have no real good way of dealing with private abuse in general.

That's why any political 'ology' taken to an extreme is unlikely to work. Some moderation is needed to accommodate all the potential variables that a society can throw at a system. There's just too much wishful thinking in the An-Cap world.

Likewise, moderation can, and has, brought the ills of both worlds.

Moderation is not the same as compromise or accommodation.
Moderation is the numbing of the most radical of both ends and can sometimes include the strengthening/stressing of common ideals.

Are you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? - Which is fine, just checking.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 10:44:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 10:27:14 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/7/2011 10:18:16 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 3/7/2011 10:11:18 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/7/2011 9:59:04 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
=========================================================

At 3/7/2011 9:36:25 AM, innomen wrote:
C_N's scenario isn't only a problem for An-Caps, but Libertarians have no real good way of dealing with private abuse in general.

That's why any political 'ology' taken to an extreme is unlikely to work. Some moderation is needed to accommodate all the potential variables that a society can throw at a system. There's just too much wishful thinking in the An-Cap world.

Likewise, moderation can, and has, brought the ills of both worlds.

Moderation is not the same as compromise or accommodation.
Moderation is the numbing of the most radical of both ends and can sometimes include the strengthening/stressing of common ideals.

Are you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? - Which is fine, just checking.
Moderation is a silly compromise for the sake of compromise. There's no true rationale in moderation, just a attempt to "patch" what doesn't work.

With that said I'm still waiting for the world to give me my perfect free market.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 10:49:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 10:44:06 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 3/7/2011 10:27:14 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/7/2011 10:18:16 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 3/7/2011 10:11:18 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/7/2011 9:59:04 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
=========================================================

At 3/7/2011 9:36:25 AM, innomen wrote:
C_N's scenario isn't only a problem for An-Caps, but Libertarians have no real good way of dealing with private abuse in general.

That's why any political 'ology' taken to an extreme is unlikely to work. Some moderation is needed to accommodate all the potential variables that a society can throw at a system. There's just too much wishful thinking in the An-Cap world.

Likewise, moderation can, and has, brought the ills of both worlds.

Moderation is not the same as compromise or accommodation.
Moderation is the numbing of the most radical of both ends and can sometimes include the strengthening/stressing of common ideals.

Are you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? - Which is fine, just checking.
Moderation is a silly compromise for the sake of compromise. There's no true rationale in moderation, just a attempt to "patch" what doesn't work.

With that said I'm still waiting for the world to give me my perfect free market.

Is it international troll day and no one told me about it?
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 11:13:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 10:49:14 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/7/2011 10:44:06 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Moderation is a silly compromise for the sake of compromise. There's no true rationale in moderation, just a attempt to "patch" what doesn't work.

With that said I'm still waiting for the world to give me my perfect free market.

Is it international troll day and no one told me about it?
lol, which part?

Moderation is a concept dependent on a pre-existing status, the one moderated. I was serious.

As for the free market, I was on a british student exams forum with lots of socialist kiddies(they're older, 16-24 but they think like kids). I started trollin their threads with neo-con, Tory arguments about the privatisation of universities and the NHS. It was quite funny, 8 pages latter I said I was trollin'; they mad, they mad. I sorta paraphrased what gets said here.

That, Adam Smith and Robert Nozick made be a believer. Not libertarian yet but messing with ideas.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 11:15:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 9:36:25 AM, innomen wrote:
C_N's scenario isn't only a problem for An-Caps, but Libertarians have no real good way of dealing with private abuse in general.:

Sure they do. Even in a free market (traditional free market, not purely anarcho), fraud is left to the government to enforce, as sort of a referee.

"A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That's why any political 'ology' taken to an extreme is unlikely to work. Some moderation is needed to accommodate all the potential variables that a society can throw at a system. There's just too much wishful thinking in the An-Cap world.:

Agreed. I think they start with a good premise, that large governments tend towards self-annihilation (such as we're seeing here and the middle east), but that the extreme polar opposite has a chilling effect that is every bit as dangerous as what they propose to rescue us from.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 11:27:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Deontological libertarianism is the belief that everyone has a duty to respect the rights of other people and for people to respects his own rights. The non aggression contract, like you said, is an example of this form of ethic.:

That assumes 100% voluntary participation 100% of the time for 100% of the population, which has never been seen anywhere in the history of the world.

Call me a realist, but there's a word for that. It's called "utopia," and it doesn't exist, nor will it ever.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 11:34:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 11:27:12 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Deontological libertarianism is the belief that everyone has a duty to respect the rights of other people and for people to respects his own rights. The non aggression contract, like you said, is an example of this form of ethic.:

That assumes 100% voluntary participation 100% of the time for 100% of the population, which has never been seen anywhere in the history of the world.

Call me a realist, but there's a word for that. It's called "utopia," and it doesn't exist, nor will it ever.
No, it doesn't. It merely defines what maxims are moral and which are immoral, it makes NO conclusions, what so ever.

Deontological Ethics are supposedly a groundwork for Law, were immoral actions(as opposed to maxims used in hypotheticals) can be punished.

I said:
It cannot be enforced UNLESS, like Cody has said before: by doing an immoral action you own rights become forfeit. You ceases to be a person with rights. If some one catches you in the act, the people can then PWN your arse morally.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 11:44:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No, it doesn't. It merely defines what maxims are moral and which are immoral, it makes NO conclusions, what so ever.:

I don't think you understand what I mean. Many AnCap's (definitely not all), from a philosophical point of view, believe that there are inherent rights of man, and for the sake of putting a face on it, think of the Constitution.

Ideals and practice are two very different entities; theory and implementation are two very different things, I'm sure you would agree.

The fundamental problem arises when considering who has the authority to enforce these inherent rights in an AnCap society. IOW, who determines what is lawful?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 11:47:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 11:44:35 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fundamental problem arises when considering who has the authority to enforce these inherent rights in an AnCap society. IOW, who determines what is lawful?

Even those who do not recognize "inherent rights" or follow the ethical assertions of the NAP, like myself, can find consensus with those who do. Whenever I talk with a fellow ancap, we agree on what we would want to avoid in such a society. The only thing that differs is the justification -- his will be ethical while mine will be logical or risk/benefit. Agreeing on what is lawful is actually quite easy.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 11:55:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Even those who do not recognize "inherent rights" or follow the ethical assertions of the NAP, like myself, can find consensus with those who do.:

That's great that you, personally, see things that way. But what about the homicidal rapist who doesn't? Laws aren't designed for people who would inherently obey them by their nature, they're designed for people who blatantly would disobey them.

Agreeing on what is lawful is actually quite easy.:

Okay, so then laws are left to a popular vote? AnCap through to a Direct Democracy?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:01:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 11:47:33 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/7/2011 11:44:35 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fundamental problem arises when considering who has the authority to enforce these inherent rights in an AnCap society. IOW, who determines what is lawful?

Even those who do not recognize "inherent rights" or follow the ethical assertions of the NAP, like myself, can find consensus with those who do. Whenever I talk with a fellow ancap, we agree on what we would want to avoid in such a society. The only thing that differs is the justification -- his will be ethical while mine will be logical or risk/benefit. Agreeing on what is lawful is actually quite easy.

But there are instances of child abuse that you don't consider abuse in the first place. How would you deal with those problems or would you not deal with them at all?
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:51:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 10:49:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
1) Society will probably hate you if you abuse your children, so that most people wouldn't want to deal with the likes of you. 2) Also, there will probably be some organization dedicated to fighting child abuse that will discover you in some way and defend the child against you.

1.) Well... that may be true. However, most child abuse goes unreported. Statistically speaking, you probably know at least a few child abusers who you don't know are child abusers.

2.) How will this organization defend the child against the perpetrator? Are they going to take the child away? On what authority would they be doing that? Would they not be acting as a pseudo state by doing that?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 4:44:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 11:44:35 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
No, it doesn't. It merely defines what maxims are moral and which are immoral, it makes NO conclusions, what so ever.:

I don't think you understand what I mean. Many AnCap's (definitely not all), from a philosophical point of view, believe that there are inherent rights of man, and for the sake of putting a face on it, think of the Constitution.

Ideals and practice are two very different entities; theory and implementation are two very different things, I'm sure you would agree.

The fundamental problem arises when considering who has the authority to enforce these inherent rights in an AnCap society. IOW, who determines what is lawful?
Well I didn't write that so...
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 4:50:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 10:45:36 PM, Grape wrote:
They contact a security firm, who will come in and check out what's going on. If it's apparent that you are abusing the child (which violates the NAP) they will take the child away and give it to someone who wants one. Your security firm will not back you up if you are abusing children because that will make people hate them, which is bad business. Also, they may actually care about not harming children.

Does a security firm entering my private property without permission on nothing but an accusation (no hard evidence) violate the person's rights? Or is the right to private property not concerned with in An-cap?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 7:57:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oops didn't see this. Dx

At 3/7/2011 12:01:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/7/2011 11:47:33 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/7/2011 11:44:35 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fundamental problem arises when considering who has the authority to enforce these inherent rights in an AnCap society. IOW, who determines what is lawful?

Even those who do not recognize "inherent rights" or follow the ethical assertions of the NAP, like myself, can find consensus with those who do. Whenever I talk with a fellow ancap, we agree on what we would want to avoid in such a society. The only thing that differs is the justification -- his will be ethical while mine will be logical or risk/benefit. Agreeing on what is lawful is actually quite easy.

But there are instances of child abuse that you don't consider abuse in the first place.

Yes.

How would you deal with those problems or would you not deal with them at all?

Personally, I would not feel compelled to "deal" with them. However, if they are violating laws set up within the society, then I would report to the agency closest to them which is most likely representing them and make sure they are aware of the violations. I do this out of respect for the laws of the land -- if these laws are put into place and are meant to keep any semblance of order, than I feel I can report him/her without an ethical impulse as justification.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 9:51:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:51:15 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 3/6/2011 10:49:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
1) Society will probably hate you if you abuse your children, so that most people wouldn't want to deal with the likes of you. 2) Also, there will probably be some organization dedicated to fighting child abuse that will discover you in some way and defend the child against you.

1.) Well... that may be true. However, most child abuse goes unreported. Statistically speaking, you probably know at least a few child abusers who you don't know are child abusers.

Then how is anybody supposed to solve this problem?

2.) How will this organization defend the child against the perpetrator? Are they going to take the child away? On what authority would they be doing that? Would they not be acting as a pseudo state by doing that?

How about arming the child with a gun?
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:52:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 9:51:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:51:15 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 3/6/2011 10:49:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
1) Society will probably hate you if you abuse your children, so that most people wouldn't want to deal with the likes of you. 2) Also, there will probably be some organization dedicated to fighting child abuse that will discover you in some way and defend the child against you.

1.) Well... that may be true. However, most child abuse goes unreported. Statistically speaking, you probably know at least a few child abusers who you don't know are child abusers.

Then how is anybody supposed to solve this problem?

We can't know about all cases; however, it is my view that a state is better equipped to deal with these problems than lots of private (and unaccountable) agencies.

Secondly, we know with a good degree of certainty that the Pope helped cover up child abuse in the Vatican. He is also responsible for protecting several priests (e.g., father Hullerman) who went on to abuse more children. Sure, we (atheists and some other secular groups) plotted on having him arrested, but it didn't work even though prominent human rights lawyers were helping out. If your theory is correct, why is he still the Pope? Lots of people still like him.

2.) How will this organization defend the child against the perpetrator? Are they going to take the child away? On what authority would they be doing that? Would they not be acting as a pseudo state by doing that?

How about arming the child with a gun?

Yes, let's start having private (and unaccountable) agencies give children guns. I'm sure that would have a positive effect on society.

I really don't think there is an intelligible anarchistic solution to this problem.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright