RoR: Forum

Thank you for this breath of sanity, George. I too have been incredulous these past couple of days at some of the air-headed, sanctimonious PC claptrap, not to mention the vicious totalitarian import, of some of the posts on the smacking thread. It's one thing to disapprove of smacking; quite another to advocate the jailing of a smacker. Re the former, like you I wonder, since when were kids supposed to be made of porcelain?; re the latter, I struggle to find words of contempt adequate to convey my loathing for anyone who could suggest such an obscenity, let alone claim to be a libertarian at the same time.

No doubt I'll awake tomorrow to find someone proposing the criminalising of *yelling* at kids, since there's no shortage of feminazis stomping around claiming that that too is a form of abuse (perpetrated by males, of course).

Maybe someone will even propose the criminalising of *me* for yelling at SOLOists!

Clearly, the rights of children are of necessity, by the nature of reality, attenuated. They have the unabridged right to life, of course, but their rights to liberty & the pursuit of happiness are vested in their parents or guardians, & the law must recognise that. For the child, there can be no such thing as a right not to be punished. Parents are at liberty to try sweet reason with a tantrum-thrower if that's what they think will work; equally, parents who don't think that are entitled to spank, or confine the child to a room, or prevent him watching television, or whatever else (all of these involve force, direct or indirect).

Barbara mentioned earlier how appalled she was by someone - was it Rothbard? - saying that parents should not be prosecuted for letting a child die, by failing to feed him for instance. Barbara is quite right to be appalled. But you know, here in NZ, which has a lot wrong with it, we have two commonsense laws that have worked well for decades: one making it an offence (& allowing the state to step in) to fail to provide a child with the "necessaries of life"; and the other specifically *allowing* the use of "reasonable force" in disciplining a child. Recently, after a couple of high-profile cases where state-subsidised savages beat their kids to death with logs, the PC brigade blamed the law allowing "reasonable force" & started a campaign for its repeal. Public opinion is overwhelmingly against them at this point, but there's little doubt they'll succeed in the end, & we'll go the way of Britain - that repository of whining sissies (since their descent into socialism begun by Clement Attlee's post-war Labour Government).

I look back at my own childhood, on a farm - a time of fun & frolic, most of which is now banned. Swinging on vines across rivers, swimming (unsupervised) in said rivers (unfenced), uninhibited rough-&-tumble with siblings & schoolmates, including ... gasp ... boxing & wrestling, resulting in ... gasp ... pain & blood. Yes, physical discipline too. Nothing as scary as George describes, but physical (sufficient to have my parents jailed if certain SOLOists had their way). And I tell you, those were golden days, full of adventure & discovery but with definite boundaries. I compare them to the bubble-wrapped coddling & boundary-less *mis*education that kids are spoiled with now, & I know why this generation of kids, unlike mine & previous, has no attention span & is on Ritalin & can't spell, punctuate, write or think. *That* is the real abuse going on here - perpetrated by the self-same PC Nazis who want to criminalise spanking! *They* are the comprachicos of our time.

Unspeakable.

Linz

(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 1/17, 1:31am)

Post 1

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 1:30am

I propose to all that we give George and Linz some time to come down from their tantrums and decide how they will make an argument. It�s an important lesson�they should be ignored until they stop sputtering and choose to say something comprehensible. I have experience with this. Trust me. Say nothing. Wait and watch.

Jon

Post 2

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 1:43am

Well said, George.

This is where I find the root of my disagreement with the child-spanking law:

[Children] have the unabridged right to life, of course, but their rights to liberty & the pursuit of happiness are vested in their parents or guardians, & the law must recognise that.

My thoughts go beyond to spank or not to spank. What consumes me is that whether or not these choices are correct or incorrect, they are OUR choices as individuals. It is not the place of the government to tell us how we can and cannot raise our children. The exception, of course, is when a child is being abused. But there are already laws on the books for this.

We have created a society that wants to prevent people from making any kind of mistake, perceived or otherwise; to give us the exact rules, regulations and codes for how we are to conduct ourselves. Individual liberty is being thrown to the wayside, and people are cheering it on.

I thought that here, of all places, there would be utter disgust for such a law.

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 1/17, 2:28am)

Post 3

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 1:52am

What am I talking about?

I don�t happen to be one of �those of you who suggest that under a proper governement guys like Bertelsen should� wa, wha, wha, waaa�

However, Fuck you, too, George.

There. Both of us can lose it and abandon reason.

Here�s the rub George. You seem like an intelligent guy to me. Your potential is palpable. But we will never know what could have become of the un-beaten George. HE could be doing things today that would embarrass your performance here beyond comprehension. We will never know, because THAT George died with THIS George�s first recollection of being treated like the family dog.

Jon
(Edited by Jon Letendre on 1/17, 2:40am)

Post 4

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 2:01am

By the way, Marcus, one good thing out of all of this is that we won't be asked to babysit anytime soon. :)

But keep your eye on Visser -- if he starts breeding en masse we'll have to move. He might suddenly start "dropping by."

Post 5

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 2:58am

This is the craziest discussion I have ever seen on Solo -- and we all know some of them have been pretty crazy. Linz, no one has said that you should go to jail for swatting your child. Can we not discuss the moral issue and separate it from the legal one? They are different, you know.

My conviction -- and I believe it is the conviction of the others who oppose physical punishment -- is that the infliction of pain and fear is not a proper means of teaching children. It is a very simple proposition I'm arguing for, and I'd really like it if someone would present arguments against it, instead of responding as if I'm saying you ought to be given twenty years at hard labor if you swat a child. Separately, if we wish to, we can consider at what point corporeal punishment of children becomes a legal, not merely a moral issue. But we're getting nowhere because a package deal is being made of the two issues.

And I am not saying that children are so fragile that one swat will destroy them, This is another straw man. We do not argue that it's okay for the government to take our money in taxes because it hasn't destroyed us. We talk about the principle involved in this use of force -- or at least I hope we do.

Now the following, Linz, is another matter, to which I shall have to give serious consideration: "Maybe someone will even propose the criminalising of *me* for yelling at SOLOists!"

Barbara

Post 6

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 3:23am

Barbara wrote:

>> Linz, no one has said that you should go to jail for swatting your child.

Linz has a child???? Now this *is* interesting.

Post 7

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 4:27am

Barbara wrote:

>> Linz, no one has said that you should go to jail for swatting your child.

Linz has a child???? Now this *is* interesting.

Is THAT what there calling it these days Linz :-)

Post 8

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 6:10am

the infliction of pain and fear is not a proper means of teaching children.

Barbara,
It is certainly true that the infliction of pain and fear is not the best ways to teach children. But from many people's experience, it is nevertheless a simple, clear, and effective way to teach children - that doing things bad IS associated with bad consequence, not losing a job or going to jail as an adult does, but perhaps pain in the butt. We need to install the fear in them for the consequence of doing things that they shouldn't be doing.

Actually, there may be a general problem with the society today: even for many adults, as much as they live irresponsibly, they sometimes were never punished as they deserve. There is often a safety net that always give them ways out.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/17, 6:12am)

Post 9

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 7:28am

Barbara Branden wrote: This is the craziest discussion I have ever seen on Solo -- and we all know some of them have been pretty crazy. ... Can we not discuss the moral issue and separate it from the legal one? ... My conviction -- and I believe it is the conviction of the others who oppose physical punishment -- is that the infliction of pain and fear is not a proper means of teaching children.

I agree on all counts. Like the thread on Prostitution, this one, and several others, run on, and get overheated, because empirical and rational discussion has broken down.

The argument that "My parents hit me and it did not do any harm" is invalid on several counts.

The harm done is actually apparent on the outside, though being denied from the inside. I submit that discussion here shows that those who eschew violence are more reasonable in seeking creative solutions to conflict. Those who endorse physical punishment of children also endorse "traditional" solutions such as war and the inevitable killing not only of combatants but of innocent civilians, even to the point of denying the possibility of innocence among such populations.

The argument that there are worse forms of punishment than being hit with a belt on the buttocks is invalid. As a child, when hit, I got the same message: Don't complain because the kids down the street get it worse. That was invalid then and it remains so. (In fact, it was only a year or so ago, in an idle moment, that I finally put two and two together and realized how one of the kids on the street got his arm broken twice "falling out of a tree" in his yard that none of us could climb in the first place.)

(Today is MLK Day. To me, the child spankers are really asking: "How can these civil rights nannies complain when the police use perfectly acceptable forms of maintaining social order such as non-lethal water hoses? After all, it is not like we are endorsing gas chambers. And really, isn't it horrible when governments cannot control their people in public? Sometimes people need to learn that government is authority.")

It is a common complaint that children who misbehave in public cannot be controled by their parents. I submit in the first place that such "misbehavior" is being miscategorized. If the crying of a child were not disturbing to an adult, the world would soon be short of children -- and eventually adults.
As a parent, I learned to ignore other people's kids. I also learned to intervene. Sometimes, just getting the kid's attention with eye contact is enough to break their focus on crying. Also, as far as discipline goes, I have told some other parent's kid, "Lookl, you can't do that here. So, stop!" Having a stranger do that also often stops the kid's cycle of acting out. It's pretty easy. And it prevents abuse.

Do children have rights? What rights do children have? What is the "social contract" -- if such a thing exists at all -- between a government and a child? Those questions are, as Barbara pointed out, separate from the more basic question: How do you teach your child to use their mind?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/17, 7:34am)

Post 10

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 7:52am

I submit that discussion here shows that those who eschew violence are more reasonable in seeking creative solutions to conflict. Those who endorse physical punishment of children also endorse "traditional" solutions such as war and the inevitable killing not only of combatants but of innocent civilians, even to the point of denying the possibility of innocence among such populations.

You have got to be joking. I am one of the "child-spankers," and never have I used violence in the place of creative solutions, nor do I advocate genocide of innocent civilians. Your generalization is beyond ludicrous.

To me, the child spankers are really asking: "How can these civil rights nannies complain when the police use perfectly acceptable forms of maintaining social order such as non-lethal water hoses? After all, it is not like we are endorsing gas chambers. And really, isn't it horrible when governments cannot control their people in public? Sometimes people need to learn that government is authority."

So, I exercise my right as a parent by saying how I raise my child is my business, and yet advocate that the government should be my governing authority? You have your premises backwards here, Michael. Children are not rioting adults. Adults are fully expected to be responsible for their own behavior. You have tried to form an analogy that directly contradicts the entire premise of the argument.

Post 11

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 8:43am

Jennifer Iannolo wrote: You have got to be joking. I am one of the "child-spankers," and never have I used violence in the place of creative solutions, nor do I advocate genocide of innocent civilians. Your generalization is beyond ludicrous.

You are right. It was unfair of me to uncategorically lump all spankers in the same genocidal group. Simple compartmentalization makes it easy for some of all people who say one thing to also believe something different on another topic. Again, I could have written than better. I do believe that little household violences -- like little personal irrationalities -- do compound into larger problems and tragedies.

Jennifer Iannolo wrote: I exercise my right as a parent by saying how I raise my child is my business...

Well, that is another topic, entirely, or perhaps the same topic. It has been suggested elsewhere that the personal pronouns that we use for objects cause problems when applied to people. Saying "my car, my house, my wife, my child" puts things into the same class that do not belong in the same class. You do not own "your" child. The child is not your property. You are more like a regent who looks after the interests of an underage monarch.

Jennifer Iannolo wrote: .Adults are fully expected to be responsible for their own behavior.

Actually, we establish a gradient of adulthood. My brother and his wife were declared "emancipated juveniles" in order that they be married below the then-legal age of 21, or 18 with parental consent. Today, you can vote at 18, but not drink until you are 21. You can join the Marine Corp at 17 with parental consent, or 18 without it, and kill and die for your country but not drink until you are 21.

You can drive a car at 16, but not own one until you are 18 -- and getting insurance, say as a commercial truck driver, below 25 might be impossible, really, since no one owes you insurance.

In most states, you have to be at least 16 to work and in Ohio when I was a kid and in Michigan when my daughter was you had to get permission from the school board to work if you were under 18.

Public schools let kids choose their own electives. That varies, but basically, we believe that 9th graders are ready the responsibiliy, though 8th graders are not.

Back in the days when newspapers hired children as carriers, different papers had similar but different age policies depending on how they view a 12-year old's abilities and responsibilties.

If you can hit a 2-year old who is too young to understand, can you hit a 2-month old or a 12-year old or a 17 year old? Who decides? What standard do they use? It all comes down to the parent -- on the premise that the parent owns the child and has a right to do whatever they want by whatever standard they have, if any. I fail too see the reason in that.

Post 12

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 9:05am

George,

Thank you for this provocative article. It illustrates my contention that we need a full treatise on parenting and the rights of children from an Objectivist viewpoint. So I sanctioned this item.

Hyrum Smith shares a wonderful anecdote about his childhood in What Matters Most, one of my favorite books and a core reference in the SOLO Florida Authentic Self program. As a boy, Smith had managed one week to cross his mother in some terrible way. He did not recall the nature of the trespass when he wrote the book decades later, but he did recall the consequences. His mother, intensely concerned with the profound moral instruction that actions have consequences, good and bad, informed him that he could choose his punishment for the violation: He could either forfeit his weekend scouting trip, or he could take a whipping. She gave him until the end of the week to select his punishment.

As a boy, he childishly thought that his mother would "forget" about this ultimatum by the end of the week. When Friday came, he asked his mother to take him to the Boy Scout meetup location. She reminded him of the ultimatum. Smith had to decide what mattered most to him -- the campout or pain-free buttocks. He opted to take the whipping and enjoy the campout.

In retrospect, Smith writes, he saw great wisdom in his mother's moral instruction through this concrete example -- namely, the principle that actions have consequences. Given Smith's success in his formation of Franklin Covey, I find it difficult to believe that corporal punishment has no place as a tool for moral instruction. Nor do I believe that infliction of such punishment onto children will cause them long term harm when employed rationally.

When SOLO Florida discussed this book in December 2004, I purposely asked the group to assess the value of this anecdote. No one in our discussion forum objected to the content. I found that a bit surprising but instructive. No one disagreed with Smith's contention that the whipping offered valid feedback about the nature of his misbehavior.

I have yet to see anyone here examine adult corporal punishment as practiced in other cultures. The infamous Singapore caning of a 16 year old American boy in the early 1990s for spray paint vandalism of automobiles created quite a stir in America. Many got up in arms about it while others saw wisdom in the approach. Certainly such a punishment would cost a nation far less than lengthy incarcerations and "therapy." Given the boy's alleged "attention deficit disorder," Rush Limbaugh even suggested that Singapore double the number of lashes just to make sure the boy remembered. In any case, as I understand it, Singapore has a very low crime rate. I cannot fairly compare the two cultures because Singapore has many fewer freedoms than America, but I can respect their use of corporal punishment of adults as valid.

If I had to choose between a caning and a lengthy prison term, I would certainly give the caning serious consideration since I value my time highly.

While I agree that reason and not force always stands as a first resort, I contend that corporal punishment of adults as well as children deserves consideration as a valid penalty for wrongdoing.

I have an idea for a Toastmasters speech called "Spanking Your Inner Child" that would illustrate the theme that one needs to demand more from oneself than anyone else could rationally demand. It would involve smacking that whiny, childish inner voice that says, "But I don't feel like working for a living," etc.

Luke Setzer

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 1/17, 9:26am)

Post 13

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 9:27am

Luther Sezter wrote: While I agree that reason and not force always stands as a first resort, I contend that corporal punishment of adults as well as children deserves consideration as a valid penalty for wrongdoing.

Again, this is probably part of a whole other discussion entirely, or perhaps it reveals certain basic problems with this discussion.

What is the purpose of "punishment"?

If you want to enforce social norms, then punishment teaches people to obey (or at least not get caught). Of course, the total failure of the most horrific public punishments to actually teach that lesson is a point to be considered. (That was true even for those who did not reify society.)

On the other hand, I am researching the "Fair Courts" of the late Middle Ages (called "Pie Powder" courts in the UK). Lacking legal power to punish anyone in the first place, and not wanting to alienate other merchants in the second, and certainly not wanting to establish a precedent for their own flogging or worse, Fair Courts sought to re-establish balance.

In a rational, (property-based) legal system, the purpose of law is to recompensate the victim to whatever extent is possible.

Caning the kid did not repair the damage to the cars, or recompensate the claimants for their time in court.

Spanking a child does not redress the grievance that caused the spanking -- unless, of course, perhaps, the real grievance is that the authority of the parent was challenged.

Post 14

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:20am

Michael,

Part of the education I have received regarding real estate investing has revealed some startling facts laws regarding judgments in lawsuits.

Even if a plaintiff wins a lawsuit, he still has to collect. Such collections cannot always get enforced. Defendants often have their financial affairs arranged in such a fashion as to hide assets and so forth. But the IRS treats the award to the plaintiff as if the plaintiff had already collected. This happened with the O.J. Simpson "wrongful death" lawsuit.

A 16 year old boy who commits vandalism would not likely have the resources to pay thousands of dollars in damages to car owners. His parents may not, either. Even if a judgment against them shows on their credit report, the long term damage by such a suit against them or their son could prove inconsequential in their quest for credit.

This explanation illustrates how things stand now. Any attempt to change them to make judgments more readily collectible must, by necessity, involve some form of physical force and would also disrupt the conduct of much of today's commerce. Such threats of disruption make changes to the law undesireable and politically unsaleable.

In nature, failing to comply with natural law results in pain and suffering and death via cause and effect. In a man-made society, laws need to reflect natural cause and effect so that wrongful behavior meets with similar natural consquences. Evolution has wired humans to learn in this fashion about the law of causality.

Properly employed corporal punishment serves not only as a prompt retaliatory force against those who initiate its use, but as an example that the government tasked with defending property rights will indeed protect them. It discourages the violator as well as potential violators from engaging in the violation. Good law enforcement mandates such incentives swiftly executed. Those who worship unreason and live by force must, by their nature, experience immediate negative feedback in order to learn. Anthony Robbins discusses this pain-pleasure principle throughout his book Awaken the Giant Within. In fact, I contend that a lack of recognizable feedback, including pain and pleasure, makes learning to reason impossible.

As the "local government" of a household, parents have an obligation to use retaliatory force against children who initiate its use. A young child cannot possibly reimburse his parents for the cost of the screen door he purposely vandalized. So he needs to learn not to repeat it by the lesson of pain and suffering. Many ways exist to inflict such pain. Corporal punishment remains a valid tool in such a household law enforcement toolbox.

Rather than penalizing parents for enforcing household law, rational governments would encourage parents to use retaliatory physical force against children who initiate its use.

More to the point, parents have an obligation to raise their children into fully functional, productive adults. This means that children need to learn from infancy the virtues of rationality, productiveness and pride. Part of rationality includes mastering the law of cause and effect. Part of productivity includes mastering the law of life-affirming goals. Part of pride includes the shaping of one's own character and habits in alignment with the best in man qua man. Holding children responsible for household chores would help them to embody all three virtues.

I have seen members of the U.S. Libertarian Party contend in letters to the editor of their national newspaper that parents have no right to expect their children to take the household trash to the curb. Rubbish! This lack of reason regarding the upbringing of children into reality-oriented adults who understand the benefits and costs of living in an industrial society illustrates the sharp divide between the "axiomatic libertarians" and the Objectivists.

Luke Setzer

Post 15

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:44am

Michael M,
I usually do not directly connect children's behavior to the sanity of their parents. However, when you taught your 11 year old daughter to drive, your erred grossly and had put your daughter's life as well as many other motorists' lives in danger. When your 12 years' old daughter was arrested by the police for driving alone, it was actually you who should be responsible. It showed an utterly lack of judgement and rationality on your part. What you said about your daughter on the other thread, which is yet to be finished, reflects rather poorly on yourself. Many of your posts here also indicate a rather muddy mind. Frankly, it has become nauseating for me read most of them.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/17, 10:53am)

Post 16

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:49am

Hong said:

"When your 12 years' old daughter was arrested by the police for driving alone, it was actually you who should be responsible. It showed an utterly lack of judgement and rationality on your part."

Sorry Hong, but I cannot agree with you. According to the law a man can only be held responibile if he is sane.

George

Post 17

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:54am

Hong,

I will not defend Michael here for his actions, but I do want to share that contexts exist for teaching young children to drive.

I grew up on a farm and my dad insisted that I "stretch my wings early" by assuming responsibilities on the farm. Undertaking these responsibilities included learning to drive the tractor and the pickup truck around the age of nine. Although the law forbade me from driving the pickup truck on the open highway at that age, it did permit me to drive the tractor.

Rest assured that had I violated my dad's trust to engage in responsible behavior on the road, he would quickly have employed appropriate penalties to rectify that misbehavior long before any government law enforcement got involved.

Luke Setzer

Post 18

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 11:12am

Luke,
Oh, no, I have no problem with your scenario. I also had quite some experience myself when I was little. It is all context dependent. Most importantly it depends on kid's character/maturity and parents judgement. The context of Michael's daughter is told in this and this posts. Based on what I read there, I think what Michael did with his daughter is inappropriate.

Post 19

Monday, January 17, 2005 - 11:17am