Thursday, August 15, 2013

Gotta Laugh When Some Complain About Their Liberty Being Violated

It's never a good thing when libertarianism is discarded, such as this judge apparently did in changing a baby's first name against the parents will. But I can't muster much sympathy for most people whining about this case, because nearly every other aspect of their politics involves imposing a myriad of other views on everyone. It's rather amusing but also sad to watch the ignorance and hypocrisy of statists as they get a taste of their own medicine.

22 comments:

  1. Yeah, if only anarchy prevailed and parents could abuse their children however they wished, with no worries about interference from pesky "statists".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gotta laugh when a blogger says that interaction through comments and sharing is much appreciated, but rarely posts and even more rarely responds to comments in anything approaching a reasonable manner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, this blog gets less attention from me these days as I have other increased responsibilities to deal with.

      As far as responding reasonably, sometimes no response is the most reasonable. There's a saying, "don't feed the trolls". For example, the comment from August 20th - just silliness that doesn't even address anything from this post.

      Delete
  3. The comment from August 20th perfectly addresses this post, as long as one is sensible and reasonable enough to understand that it is possible to give a child a name so inappropriate as to constitute a form of abuse. The post advocates for a condition of anarchy where there is no governmental authority in place to deal with parents who abuse children. Don't feed the trolls but enable child abusers? Nice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you suggesting that happened in this case?

      The comment simply said "parents could abuse their children however they wished", a broad statement that can only be interpreted as the words of a troll. If it was intended to narrowly focus on child names as the post did, the author chose poor wording.

      At any rate, I'm not sure how a name constitutes a form of abuse that requires force to change. Neither the child as he/she grows older nor society have to continue using the name. And the parent can't be forced to stop calling their child whatever they like. There is no role for the state here.

      Delete
  4. Advocating for a condition of anarchy where there is no governmental authority in place to deal with parents who abuse children should be interpreted as the actions of a troll. That you claim to be unable to understand how naming a child can be abusive should be interpreted as the words of a troll. And of someone who will hopefully never reproduce. The role for the state is to remove children from abusive parents. The role for the state is to overturn this idiot judge's ridiculous ruling, and to charge him with violating the code of conduct. As it has done.

    But you keep laughing at, and turning a blind eye, to instances of child abuse, and claiming that it's all in the name of "liberty". That's really great PR for the anarchist/libertarian cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "where there is no governmental authority in place to deal with parents who abuse children"

      Strawman. Nothing in a libertarian philosophy prevents us from rescuing children from abusive parents.

      "naming a child can be abusive"

      Let's define abusive (via Wikipedia):

      "Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of an entity, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. Abuse can come in many forms, such as: physical or verbal maltreatment, injury, sexual assault, violation, rape, unjust practices; wrongful practice or custom; offense; crime, or otherwise verbal aggression."

      In this we see many things that violate the non-aggression principle, but a few things that do not. A parent could be said to abuse their child by talking harshly to them. Is it therefore the role of the state to remove the child from that parent? Is not a name very similar? How is it an act of aggression?

      Delete
    2. It doesn't really matter what you think "libertarian philosophy" does or doesn't do, what matters is what libertarians actually do. Are you rescuing children from abusive parents, or are you too busy advocating for a condition of anarchy where there is no government authority in place to deal with parents who abuse their children?

      That non-aggression principle doesn't do much good when libertarians like Murray Rothbard insist that a parent letting a child die of starvation/neglect isn't engaging in an act of aggression. Talking harshly to a child CAN be a form of abuse, but if you insist that it isn't, who the hell is going to rescue that child? You? Of course not. You're not going to rescue any abused children any more than you're going to tell people in the military how ashamed of themselves they should be. You're too busy whining about how the government took away all your liberty and shilling for douchebags like Ron Paul and Gary North.

      Delete
    3. Rothbard also thought abortion was not a violation of the NAP, claiming children had no right to things from their parents. Thus he consistently applied that to born children as well. He is wrong on both counts and it is the same error.

      I never claimed a harsh talking parent isn't being abusive. I'm claiming that "abuse" doesn't automatically equal aggression in all cases. Names fall under this category too, and for me to agree a name can be abusive does not imply I think forceful intervention is called for.

      FYI, your tone is deteriorating close to the point where it is subtracting from the blog instead of adding quality discussion. Obviously I allow disagreement but not abusive commenting (pun intended). Consider this a warning.

      Delete
    4. If not all libertarians agree, then it seems silly to talk about "libertarian philosophy" does or does not allow or prevent. Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will is a particularly nasty form of aggression in my book, and shouldn't be tolerated by anybody who claims to care about liberty. Let me guess; public stoning to put a stop to it?

      Whether or not you think any particular act of abuse equals "aggression" is irrelevant. Abusing a child is wrong, and if forceful intervention is the only way to stop it, then so be it.

      FYI, I couldn't care less what you think about my tone (just as I'm sure you don't care about my opinions about the lack of quality of your blog posts and comments). Nor could I care less about your warnings. I don't think my comments are any more abusive than some of the things you say in your blog posts; the difference is that I say them knowing that you'll most likely read them, whereas you can be fairly confident that none of the people you say negative things about will ever read them. Delete the comments, ban me, or whatever else you think will help ensure "quality discussion", LMAO. Doesn't worry me a bit.

      Delete
    5. So anything that can be label abusive requires forceful intervention? A parent is caught talking harshly to their child several times. Time to call the cops? There would be very few children left with their parents and a lot of caretakers needed, who would somehow not ever be abusive...

      Nah, I think it is very relevant that we define when abuse is aggression and when it is not.

      Delete
    6. The number of children removed from abusive parents has no bearing on whether or not the behavior was abusive. That you'd rather ignore the abuse, just "live and let live" doesn't surprise me at all. After all, you've got more important things to do, like whining about the evil government that won't let you live free and sell your labor for $1 an hour. Besides, if you somehow got involved and tried to stop a parent from abusing their child, they might try to abuse YOU, and that would be SCARY, wouldn't it, Matthew?

      No, I'm sure it's much better to sit around trying to work out definitions of abuse and aggression that fit into the way you'd like the world to be.

      A world where a parent who not only calls their child a stupid slut, but actually NAMES her that isn't considered abusive.

      A world where forcing women to remain pregnant against their will isn't considered aggression, but a woman having an abortion is, and is a crime punishable by publically stoning her to death.

      For all the problems with the world as it is, I'll take it over the world of your whacked-out anarchist fever-dream any day.

      Delete
    7. I'm sorry you have a problem with logical fallacies. In this case, the strawman has got the best of you again. I never argued that "The number of children removed from abusive parents has no bearing on whether or not the behavior was abusive." I did argue "it is very relevant that we define when abuse is aggression and when it is not." If you disagree, I asked "So anything that can be label abusive requires forceful intervention?" Communication is not possible when we cannot agree on the meaning of words.

      Delete
    8. You claimed that "there would be very few children left with their parents", as if that ought to be taken into consideration. It shouldn't. The abuse is the same whether it is one parent or 50 parents.

      And it's not relevant that we define when abuse is aggression and when it's not if what we're interested in dealing with is abuse, whether it is aggression or not. Especially if your notion of "aggression" only deals with physical force and ignores behaviors that cause emotional harm to the child. Like, say, naming a child Stupid Slut or Ugly Mongrel. Yes, I think those are acts of abuse, and that might very well require forceful intervention to deal with.

      From what I've seen, anarchists and various other types of libertarian types are no more likely to agree on the meanings of words than anybody else. When agreement can't be reached over what constitutes the abuse of a child, communication fails and action is needed instead. "Not my kid, not my business" kinds of attitudes are nothing more than cowardly cop-outs.

      Delete
    9. "And it's not relevant that we define when abuse is aggression and when it's not if what we're interested in dealing with is abuse"

      In this discussion, we're actually interested in how to deal with abuse, and I've argued for different responses, depending on the kind of abuse. For me, not everything that can be labeled abusive calls for forceful intervention. I don't think that's a controversial statement at all.

      Delete
    10. In this discussion, I'm interested in how to deal with abuse as well as how to define it. For me, abuse calls for intervention, and if you consider any intervention to be forceful intervention, then so be it. I don't think that's a controversial statement at all. But presumably anarchists (or "hardcore libertarians" if you prefer consider it controversial if that intervention involves government.

      This discussion started with your post. Which, as expressed in the title, was about laughing at people you consider brutish, destructive, evil statist thugs, because it's funny when THEY complain about their rights being violated. And these are the people whose hearts and minds you're trying to change so that they'll stop taking all your freeeeedom. Great PR work, Matthew.

      Delete
    11. For me, abuse calls for intervention, and if you consider any intervention to be forceful intervention, then so be it.

      Not all intervention is "forceful intervention". So I don't necessarily disagree on this.

      I'm not trying to change the minds of everyone. Some are too deeply committed to some version of statism to be reachable, and there are plenty of others who are open-minded. Fortunately, it does not require 100% of a population to change how society is governed.

      Delete
    12. I can't recall reading anything you've ever said that suggested anything other than the idea that any intervention is "forceful intervention", but if you want to talk about some ways of intervening to stop child abuse that you feel aren't "forceful", go for it.

      If "committed to some version of statism" means advocating anything other than total anarchy, then I can't imagine who you think these "plenty of others" are. If you believe that to be true, I suspect you're spending far too much time engaged in various sorts of anarchist circle-jerks. Judging by the comments here, you don't seem to be changing the minds of ANYONE. But maybe you've got a lot of newly-converted anarchist lurkers who're too busy preparing to take down the government (all of them!) to leave comments of support.

      Delete
    13. " if you want to talk about some ways of intervening to stop child abuse that you feel aren't "forceful", go for it."

      I don't really, this thread is boring, because of your trollish behavior. For anyone else that happens to be reading, there are all sorts of ways to persuade a parent to not be abusive, provided that the abuse doesn't rise to the point that calls for forceful intervention. Usually talking, helping, giving, or otherwise being a good friend is the easiest route; in some cases one may choose other means including the negative such as withholding trade or association until behavior changes. Given how interdependent most everyone is, that can be a very powerful means to change someone's behavior. Bottom line, we can in should do something about abusive parenting in a libertarian society, and for the most part it will be no different than what we do in America today.

      If "committed to some version of statism" means advocating anything other than total anarchy

      Maybe if you considered the whole sentence I wrote, particularly the "too deeply... to be reachable" part that you left off, you wouldn't be able to paint me as such a disconnected-from-reality jerk. But I guess that's something you prioritize over being accurate.

      Delete
    14. "Talking, helping, being a good friend, etc" are what you have in mind when you talk about intervention without force? Now let me think about how that might have worked with the woman I saw hitting her kid in Walmart.

      Me:"Excuse me, but you shouldn't hit your child. It's a violation of the non-aggression principle."

      Her: "Fuck off and mind your own goddamned business!"

      Me: "Okay, I will. But I want you to know that I will be withholding trade and association from you until your behavior changes.

      Her: "Yeah, whatever, you fucking weirdo! Get away from me before I stand my ground and shoot your sorry ass!"

      Yes, I'm sure in your anarchist fantasyland, talking and helping and being a friend of abusers puts an end to all child abuse, and everybody lives happily ever after. Except that you're actually enabling abuse by insisting that a parent can name their child anything they want, even if it's something like Stupid Slut or Ugly Mongrel, because that doesn't fit your libertarian/anarchist definition of "abuse".

      And I considered the whole sentence you wrote. Where are all these people who're teetering on the edge between statist and anarchist, Matthew? Do you think they're all just LURKING? Maybe they're too afraid to leave a comment, worried that you'll call them names (like troll, statist thug, etc.) if they express any disagreement, or that you'll threaten to withhold trade or association if they don't show 100% commitment to the anarchist cause.

      Delete
    15. As usual, this commeter distorts what I write, as if I would support the right of a parent to hit their child in a store (or anywhere). What does he mean by hit? A swat, or violent attack on a child? I repeat what I said earlier: "Bottom line, we can in should do something about abusive parenting in a libertarian society, and for the most part it will be no different than what we do in America today."

      "Where are all these people who're teetering on the edge between statist and anarchist, Matthew?" is another distortion, when all I said was "I'm not trying to change the minds of everyone. Some are too deeply committed to some version of statism to be reachable, and there are plenty of others who are open-minded."

      Delete
    16. That you differentiate between a "swat" and a "violent attack" makes it clear that you do support the right of a parent to hit a child. As long as the hit is something you describe as a "swat" or some other word that somehow differentiates it from a "violent attack". If an adult is HITTING a child, how the hell is that anything other than a violent attack?

      Where are all these people with who you think are "open-minded" enough to the notion that anarchy is preferable to government, Matthew? I think they're the same place they've been for a long time -- hanging out in dorm rooms passing bongs, or posting in online anarchist circle-jerk forums from their parents' basements.

      Delete