|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I think you'll find reputation agencies can't have problems with collusion, bribery or force, because there will be competing reputation agencies that report on the reputations of the reputation agencies. But to make sure those guys are honest, you'll need reputation agencies to certify them.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:But to make sure those guys are honest, you'll need reputation agencies to certify them. Oh NO! Regulation!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
It's not technically regulation; these are all privately contracted subscription-based services after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh NO! Regulation! Nonsense; it's reputation agencies all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
My reputation agency will cut out the middleman and certify their own reputation. We'll pass the savings on to you, the customer. Karia Reputation Agency and Police (KRAP) has received an A+ rating yearly since their founding, with great customer service, well-maintained premises, and a non-aggression pact with Valhalla DRO*. Only $99.99 per month for our basic plan, with full coverage for sudden fires**, charity***, and homicidal decisions to kill your wife****. * Shh. We haven't told them we exist. Maybe if they don't know they'll leave us alone. ** On properties own by KRAP. *** Since you didn't want that money anyway we'll be glad to take it off your hands. **** Intent to commit crimes will result in immediate termination of contract and transfer over to our problem solving division.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you go from utilitarianism to libertarianism? My dad is in love with von Mises, and gave me Human Action when I was eighteen, here's my distillation of how this works: 1) Begging the question with a self-serving definition of voluntary. We've already talked about this. 2) Positivist view of psychology (but only where it's convenient). It's impossible to observe people's internal states and any attempt to model or make inferences on them is fantasy, except we will assume that the only reason people do things is because they judge it to be in their best interest. Unless they're doing it because a law says to, because the purpose of laws is to make people do what they don't want to do, so by the previous sentence we will assume laws always make people act against their self-interest. Please ignore that I support laws and coercive taxation to fund the police and the military 3) Complete subjectivism in values. Whatever someone think is in their best interest, is, because they're in a better position to know their interests than anyone else. If someone says "I'm not vaccinating my kid because I think it is harmful to him" and the kid dies from measles, this was in their self-interest because they acted to prevent their kid from being vaccinated and succeeded. If other people lose vulnerable family members to this outbreak, this didn't harm their self-interest because the only thing we can say about vaccines is people get them because they want to be pierced by needles, theorizing about their reasons or state of mind is meaningless. You might think we can infer their internal states when they start sobbing but there's no way to directly observe what made them decide to expel excess salinity, or why their mouth is making noises that sound like "my daughter died needlessly because so many people didn't vaccinate" 4) Ignorance of game theory, specifically nonoptimal equilibrium points. It couldn't possibly serve anyone's long-term self-interest to have an effectively enforced law that everyone must cooperate in the prisoners' dilemma. Thus, the greatest happiness for the greatest number consists in not having any laws at all except the ones I like, because when everyone follows what they think is in their own self-interest all the time, we'll get the (subjective) best of all possible worlds. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Who regulates DROs and licenses them to perform their duties? In a situation where your DRO status is stored on a database people can refer to to ensure whether to do trade with you, who maintains the database and ensures your DRO has adequate license to cover you? The regulation side of things seems like it would be an easy thing to gently caress with in the absence of a string central government; a DRO of sufficient influence over the regulation and licensing of the legal authority to run DROs could do a lot to prevent the operation of smaller DRO organizations...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
They wouldn't do that because not recognizing court orders or officers of other smaller DROs would be an obvious anti-competitive tactic that would piss of customers, so they'd cancel their service to send a market signa-- *gets shot by a vigilante hunter of uncovered persons, falls into a privately-owned ditch alongside the emaciated forms of other unsatisfied customers exercising their right not to contract with the big DROs*
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Who regulates DROs and licenses them to perform their duties? In a situation where your DRO status is stored on a database people can refer to to ensure whether to do trade with you, who maintains the database and ensures your DRO has adequate license to cover you? The regulation side of things seems like it would be an easy thing to gently caress with in the absence of a string central government; a DRO of sufficient influence over the regulation and licensing of the legal authority to run DROs could do a lot to prevent the operation of smaller DRO organizations... Free market How will it accomplish this? I don't need to know how, it just will. And it'll be the most optimal solution. By definition
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
The most amazing part of that primer is, according to his own logic, if you are not covered by a DRO, you cannot be punished for crimes you commit while lacking coverage. At worst, the DRO of the person you act against can sue you for monetary damages. Maybe. According to the essay, it's not the DRO of the person you harm that punishes you, it's your own DRO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
Yeah that's how you make investigation, arrest, fines, prison time, executions, etc voluntary: you sign a contract that gives your DRO permission to do those things to you if you break the law. But instead of evil tools of statist oppression like due process and constitutional rights, free market DROs have mandatory contractual security cameras in you house, tracking bracelets if you're merely accused of a crime, and impose a duty to abandon your husband forever if the DRO even suspects he may turn to crime. Liberty! Also, I'm not sure what protects people who don't have DROs from being robbed, raped, and murdered for sport. Ideally the perp's own DRO will prosecute him for that, but in reality why would they ever do that. We've asked jrod, but the only answer is people are good-hearted and won't want to see the homeless tortured for kicks or child-slave sex trafficking rings doing a brisk business in penniless orphans, or Emirates-style immigrant slave labor so they'll make charitable donations to extend DRO protection to them and/or will refuse to buy anything from a company that depends on slave labor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also, I'm not sure what protects people who don't have DROs from being robbed, raped, and murdered for sport. Ideally the perp's own DRO will prosecute him for that, but in reality why would they ever do that. We've asked jrod, but the only answer is people are good-hearted and won't want to see the homeless tortured for kicks or child-slave sex trafficking rings doing a brisk business in penniless orphans, or Emirates-style immigrant slave labor so they'll make charitable donations to extend DRO protection to them and/or will refuse to buy anything from a company that depends on slave labor. Communism was blind, it was anarcho-capitalism, that shows man is fundamentally good, all along...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Communism was blind, it was anarcho-capitalism, that shows man is fundamentally good, all along... It's pretty funny that the only other time you see people arguing that "system X only works if people are perfect angels" is in the most vulgar critiques of various socialist systems. I think Jrod is the only proponent of a political system that I've ever seen actually and unironically claiming that his system will work because people are inherently good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 11:15
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's pretty funny that the only other time you see people arguing that "system X only works if people are perfect angels" is in the most vulgar critiques of various socialist systems. I think Jrod is the only proponent of a political system that I've ever seen actually and unironically claiming that his system will work because people are inherently good. Lots of people make that claim for their political system, and if you actually read between the lines jrode is really saying white rich males are inherently good and need to be freed of petty restrictions so they can run the world as they see fit, but don't worry, perhaps you can ride on their coat tails or work at their plantations.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
So what would happen if you didn't have DRO coverage, were refused service at a shop, so you murdered the shopkeeper and when the DRO goons arrived, you were off the shopkeeper's property and didn't offer any resistance? Technically you would no longer be aggressing against them so self-defence would no longer apply and they have no voluntary agreement with you that would allow them to detain you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
Not only are people inherently good, but the mere existence of government turns them bad which is the only reason why conscientious consumer boycotts haven't ended slavery and exploitation and sweatshops today.jrodefeld posted:I never claimed that anyone is capable of "self-regulation". This is a straw-man argument usually put forward by leftists who don't really comprehend the libertarian position. I believe that consumers, courts, laws against property rights abuses, consumer advocate and watchdog groups, competition from competing businesses and class action lawsuits on behalf of injured parties will combine to regulate private industry as best as can be done. The problem with government regulation is that it is easily corrupted and once private business interests captures the levers of power and influence, then these other methods of regulation become ineffective when business has the legal protection of the State.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:So what would happen if you didn't have DRO coverage, were refused service at a shop, so you murdered the shopkeeper and when the DRO goons arrived, you were off the shopkeeper's property and didn't offer any resistance? Technically you would no longer be aggressing against them so self-defence would no longer apply and they have no voluntary agreement with you that would allow them to detain you. DROs have a publicly available database of people without DRO coverage so they can be refused service everywhere, and there's already a DRO-operated panopticon. You would never have made it to the shop to kill the shopkeeper because you would already have been robbed, incapacitated, vivisected, and sold for organ transplants and sausages. And no family or friends would report your death or even know to miss you because their own DRO contracts stipulate that they immediately sever all contact with any uncovered nonpersons or face loss of coverage and personhood themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:So what would happen if you didn't have DRO coverage, were refused service at a shop, so you murdered the shopkeeper and when the DRO goons arrived, you were off the shopkeeper's property and didn't offer any resistance? Technically you would no longer be aggressing against them so self-defence would no longer apply and they have no voluntary agreement with you that would allow them to detain you. You don't need to make an agreement to let a DRO punish you for aggressing against one of its customers. Aggression is the only crime, and there's no statute of limitations. And a DRO needs the ability to protect its customers from outside threats, or else what good is it? Incidentally, this is the exact line of reasoning Nozick uses in his libertarian defense of the state, so well done there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's pretty funny that the only other time you see people arguing that "system X only works if people are perfect angels" is in the most vulgar critiques of various socialist systems. I think Jrod is the only proponent of a political system that I've ever seen actually and unironically claiming that his system will work because people are inherently good. I remember seeing an interview once where, in one of his infrequent moments of genuine self-reflection, Penn Jillette admitted that the root of his libertarianism is deep-felt personal optimism and faith in others. For as obnoxious as the man often is, and as toxic and repellent as his political philosophy always is, I have to admit that's among the less-bad reasons to believe something (as bad and nonsensical as what he believes actually is). VitalSigns posted:Not only are people inherently good, but the mere existence of government turns them bad which is the only reason why conscientious consumer boycotts haven't ended slavery and exploitation and sweatshops today. Were I feeling generous and/or didn't know that the base of all of Jrod's arguments was personal greed and a juvenile desire to not pay taxes/go to be on time, I'd say there's almost something neo-Rousseauian in his dislike for the state and insistence on I'm not feeling that generous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:You don't need to make an agreement to let a DRO punish you for aggressing against one of its customers. Aggression is the only crime, and there's no statute of limitations. And a DRO needs the ability to protect its customers from outside threats, or else what good is it? From the way the example was given on the website, using the thief, the only thing the DRO can do after the fact is retrieve any stolen property. They can and will attempt to prevent the crime, up to and including lethal force for every offence. Otherwise, the only other restitution the DRO can do is attempt to sue you in a court of arbitration that I guess is made up of a panel of "industry captains." But you totally have to agree to a venue, and if you're an rear end in a top hat who refuses to play along, you get put on a credit-report like database that shows that you're a lovely contract-keeper, and you go further down the rabbit hole of non-personhood. Otherwise, if you feel you no longer want to live the life of a vagabond unperson, you can agree to a venue, and then you'll owe the DRO lots of money that you can't pay back, and get tossed into a hell-hole debtors prison, or forced into slave labor to pay off your debts. And that's if DROs work as advertised according to jrode and his links. Obviously what will happen is high-speed low-drag operators will gun you down like the dog that you are, because bullets are cheaper than lawyers, then seize your assets to "pay back" whoever you aggressed (they won't actually pay that person back, but will raise their rates for the convenience of having used a service they paid for, and tough titties if they get pissed about it.) The punishment thing is suppose to work akin to how car insurance works now - if you're at fault in an accident, the other person's insurance company sues your insurance company, and your insurance company in turn "punishes" you. If you have no insurance, then the insurance company has to sue you directly for financial recompense, but there isn't anything they can actually do to you (except, with a state, MEN WITH GUNS will force you to go to a court that's sure to be rigged by the insurance company - and it wouldn't be rigged if it weren't for the state - and then STEAL YOUR MONEY via liens against your property or having money from your paychecks withheld to pay them back. ULTIMATE AGGRESSION!) Basically, you don't ever get punished for the crime, per se, but rather punished for the financial harm or burden you caused to your own DRO by them being sued by a third party. CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:You don't need to make an agreement to let a DRO punish you for aggressing against one of its customers. Aggression is the only crime, and there's no statute of limitations. And a DRO needs the ability to protect its customers from outside threats, or else what good is it? That would make sense, and that's undoubtedly how it would actually work (well no not really, the way it would actually work is you pay the DRO to protect you, your family, and your business from getting smashed up by your own DRO), but that's not what Molyneaux proposed because then it just looks like the government: men with guns can come imprison you even if you don't agree. That's why if you read his proposal you'll see that he assumes all DROs would strictly follow the NAP (or else they'd be punished by the market) and will never touch you without your consent except in self-defense when you're actually engaging in an attack at that moment. It's your own DRO that extracts restitution from you if you commit a crime and reimburses the victim's DRO for the compensation it paid him. And your DRO can do that because you voluntarily signed a contract saying under what conditions they could punish you (which bizarrely are insanely draconian and disdainful of human rights even within his own argument but that's okay because you agreed). That's why all DRO's would, according to Molyneaux, have to stipulate that anyone without coverage is a nonperson who must be banned from all private property and refused any and all means of survival, because they're too moral to use force on someone who isn't a customer (except in direct self-defense), but fortunately imprisoning someone in their house and besieging them so they can't obtain food and water until they do what you want is noncoercive. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah that's how you make investigation, arrest, fines, prison time, executions, etc voluntary: you sign a contract that gives your DRO permission to do those things to you if you break the law. This is supposed to be a point of contrast with a social contract model, but it ends up being an example of how libertarianism is so strongly modeled on the premise of the independent autonomous actor as the basic unit of social analysis that it can't really deal with the fact that humans reproduce: it is not at all clear how or why children would be bound to any of the clauses of any DRO contract. Are they considered competent to make their own decisions in this regard? That's unlikely at best in their teens and preposterous in younger childhood. Do they simply inherit the DRO contract of their parents? If so, how does this actually differ from a social contract, and leaving your parents' DRO for another once you are old enough differ from immigrating to another nation-state? Never has the idea that "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction" been more true than in libertopia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:fortunately imprisoning someone in their house and besieging them so they can't obtain food and water until they do what you want is noncoercive. This really boils down the core problem with libertarianism. It's a house of cards built on unintuitive and arbitrary definitions of common words and then logical deductions from said definitions, and if inductive reasoning and empirical evidence appear to contradict this, no they don't, shut up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's why if you read his proposal you'll see that he assumes all DROs would strictly follow the NAP (or else they'd be punished by the market) and will never touch you without your consent except in self-defense when you're actually engaging in an attack at that moment. It's your own DRO that extracts restitution from you if you commit a crime and reimburses the victim's DRO for the compensation it paid him. And your DRO can do that because you voluntarily signed a contract saying under what conditions they could punish you (which bizarrely are insanely draconian and disdainful of human rights even within his own argument but that's okay because you agreed). That's why all DRO's would, according to Molyneaux, have to stipulate that anyone without coverage is a nonperson who must be banned from all private property and refused any and all means of survival, because they're too moral to use force on someone who isn't a customer (except in direct self-defense), but fortunately imprisoning someone in their house and besieging them so they can't obtain food and water until they do what you want is noncoercive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This is supposed to be a point of contrast with a social contract model, but it ends up being an example of how libertarianism is so strongly modeled on the premise of the independent autonomous actor as the basic unit of social analysis that it can't really deal with the fact that humans reproduce: it is not at all clear how or why children would be bound to any of the clauses of any DRO contract. Are they considered competent to make their own decisions in this regard? That's unlikely at best in their teens and preposterous in younger childhood. Do they simply inherit the DRO contract of their parents? If so, how does this actually differ from a social contract, and leaving your parents' DRO for another once you are old enough differ from immigrating to another nation-state? This is a part that I have trouble understanding (the parent-child relation) as libertarians seem to contradict themselves over it. From what I can glean* it's the following: 1) Children are equally "independent" actors or persons, separate from their parents. 2) Parents have no moral or ethical obligation to raise their child - that includes feeding them, housing them, etc. There was no contract signed, and the fetus was an "invader" and "trespasser" in the first place. 3) If the child chooses to remain in the home of the parent, this is somehow an unwritten/unspoken contract on the part of the child that they "follow the rules of the house" up to and including the parents being able to sell the child -- but the parents are still under no contractual obligation to feed, clothe, or care for the child, even though the child must submit to the parents' every whim. 4) If a child decides to run away, that child is released from the child-parent contract and the parent may not attempt to retrieve the child, or return them home. The parents' DRO cannot force the child to come home, as apparently "running away" is a valid method of breaking contracts, though the child's name might go into a credit-bureau like database of contract-breakers. At that time it would be up to the child to enter into a contract with a DRO of their choosing, or become an unperson. *"Gleaning" is an aggressive form of trespassing which can be met with violence should the property owner so wish, and the property owner will be backed by the full might of his DRO, which are totally not a paramilitary police force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:This is a part that I have trouble understanding (the parent-child relation) as libertarians seem to contradict themselves over it. From what I can glean* it's the following: That whole line of argument starts from an insane and reality-defying premise: the self-sufficient autonomy of children as capable of meaningfully consenting to decisions on this scale. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's an example of the difficulty of a political philosophy that simply can't account for the possibility that actually existing humans are not always able to give meaningful consent in all situations where the direct threat of violence is not present. Honestly, though, it's a lot worse than that for their kids, or for their whole model of property. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:*"Gleaning" is an aggressive form of trespassing which can be met with violence should the property owner so wish, and the property owner will be backed by the full might of his DRO, which are totally not a paramilitary police force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This is supposed to be a point of contrast with a social contract model, but it ends up being an example of how libertarianism is so strongly modeled on the premise of the independent autonomous actor as the basic unit of social analysis that it can't really deal with the fact that humans reproduce: it is not at all clear how or why children would be bound to any of the clauses of any DRO contract. Are they considered competent to make their own decisions in this regard? That's unlikely at best in their teens and preposterous in younger childhood. Do they simply inherit the DRO contract of their parents? If so, how does this actually differ from a social contract, and leaving your parents' DRO for another once you are old enough differ from immigrating to another nation-state? Well, let's find out! [Googles "age of consent" site:mises.org] 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Well, let's find out! On a scale of, oh let's say, 0-18, lower being worse, how bad is it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:On a scale of, oh let's say, 0-18, lower being worse, how bad is it? Oh ho nothing like that. It's literally "let the market decide age of consent." *drooling capitalist looks up at auction block* "I think she's trying to consent"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That would make sense, and that's undoubtedly how it would actually work (well no not really, the way it would actually work is you pay the DRO to protect you, your family, and your business from getting smashed up by your own DRO), but that's not what Molyneaux proposed because then it just looks like the government: men with guns can come imprison you even if you don't agree. I do love how the DRO solution is literally an annoying child jamming their hand inches from your face and going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:What if you're gleaning fish from waters that no white people have fished in before? Something something mixing your labor with the land/sea(?) something something no of course it doesn't apply to those red savages something something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Actually, all property and rights belong only to he that has the power to seize them by force, OP. Argue all you want, but nothing else is enforceable, and a law that cannot be enforced, even a so-called "natural" law, is no law at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
For those wanting to see the approximate effect DROs would have on a community, read a bit into the militia movement in brazilian favelas, or just watch the movie Tropa de Elite 2. Short version: Rio's shantytowns have been ruled by drug gangs since the late 1960s, turning them into a stateless void. In the early 2000s, 'local' militias formed to try and wrest back control from them, composed of security workers, retired/off duty cops, and anyone they could recruit. They had some success in a few favelas, and were hailed as a great development by the media. Soon enough, reality asserted itself. The drug gangs were horrible, but they also had a vested interest in not making GBS threads where they ate, and made their money outside the favelas. For the militias, squeezing the favela for protection against the drug gangs was the whole idea. People living there were were now being charged out the nose for cooking gas, electricity (obtained through illegal shunts of the public lines), 'security' and you name it. Anyone not on board with the program was beaten up at best, tortured and disappeared at worst. Journalists trying to investigate the situation were murdered. In a few cases, undercover reporters were sold out to the militia by their own bosses. Before too long, politicians were 'contracting' the militias to make sure the local population voted for them in legislative election, meaning the there was an actual militia caucus forming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
I wrote a joke post about how working with politicians was the real evil there, but it just made me sad.  Seriously though, that is a solid and depressing example of why we can't expect the Free Market to assert itself without someone there to knock down anyone who breaks the rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Yeah. My dot-outside-the-curve slavic girl libertarian friend always kept sending me links about what a great thing the militias were, just private citizens with guns fixing things without the government...then they suddenly stopped. I'll give her points for not going against the evidence and continuing to prop up a rotten thing just because it's more aligned to her ideology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
How would the crimes of children be handled by a DRO? If little 8 year old Johnny gets into his neighbor's SUV and accidentally backs over their indentured gardener, is he responsible for manslaughter, theft, trespassing, or all three? Or are his parents the ones who get whacked?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:How would the crimes of children be handled by a DRO? If little 8 year old Johnny gets into his neighbor's SUV and accidentally backs over their indentured gardener, is he responsible for manslaughter, theft, trespassing, or all three? Or are his parents the ones who get whacked? *shrug* Humans act
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:15
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:How would the crimes of children be handled by a DRO? If little 8 year old Johnny gets into his neighbor's SUV and accidentally backs over their indentured gardener, is he responsible for manslaughter, theft, trespassing, or all three? Or are his parents the ones who get whacked? In this situation it would be analagous to a legal proceedings with regard to the act of a slave in, say, the early-mid Roman empire or a Greek city state. The slave is represented by the master, and you handle the matter through financial compensation or through some pre-agreed schedule of punishments particular to that class. It's certainly the case that in the extreme libertarian analysis children are property of their parents: some libertarians Jrode likes, like Walter Block, have even argued for a limited moral and legal right to sell children in to prostitution or slavery.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:In this situation it would be analagous to a legal proceedings with regard to the act of a slave in, say, the early-mid Roman empire or a Greek city state. The slave is represented by the master, and you handle the matter through financial compensation or through some pre-agreed schedule of punishments particular to that class. It's certainly the case that in the extreme libertarian analysis children are property of their parents: some libertarians Jrode likes, like Walter Block, have even argued for a limited moral and legal right to sell children in to prostitution or slavery. But if a child is property, it seems ridiculous to punish the child. If my gun shoots a man while it's in my hand, it's me we punish, not the gun. If my child runs over a man while ostensibly under my supervision, it should logically follow that I am the one that's culpable for the trespassing, theft, and manslaughter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 21:11
|
|