Delaware becomes 1st state to officially outlaw spanking

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/delaware-1st-state-to-jail-for-parents-who-use-spanking-to-discipline

It seems the bill makes a criminal out of anyone who causes a child pain. I guess doctors and nurses who give shots to all these kid should be nervous.,

[acptulsa]

I see. So, letting the toddler to young to understand play with electrical outlets is better for the toddler than surprising the toddler with a light swat to the diaper. I'd have never guessed that, myself.

Are there no parents at all in the Delaware state legislature?

[dannno]

Stephan Molyneux approves.....errr...wait...

[James Madison]

No football I guess.

Why don't we just dress the kids up in bras and tin-foil hats. They can toss a balloon back and forth, while complementing each other and hugging. Sounds great.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Only a matter of time before you see this legislation proposed on a federal level.

[tangent4ronpaul]

No football I guess.

Why don't we just dress the kids up in bras and tin-foil hats. They can toss a balloon back and forth, while complementing each other and hugging. Sounds great.

Which state banned hugging on school grounds? Or was that just a school district?

DE age of consent is 18, that's fairly rare and high as states go. It used to be 21. Imagine being a college student in DE... This is not too surprising, as DE has a long history of making laws "to protect the children". :rolleyes:

-t

[Anti Federalist]

IR cameras linked in to the local Fusion Center, are to be mounted in every home with minor children, to monitor for compliance.

It's coming.

And nobody fucking cares.

[alucard13mmfmj]

USA's future is screwed. More and more kids feel self-entitled and are empowered by the liberals... Taking power out of "grown-ups".

Spanking exists for thousands of years and humans turned out fine.

[tangent4ronpaul]

IR cameras linked in to the local Fusion Center, are to be mounted in every home with minor children, to monitor for compliance.

It's coming.

And nobody fucking cares.

Please define "minor children"....

-t

[AlexAmore]

and humans turned out fine.

I beg to differ.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Please define "minor children"....

-t

12yo to 21 yo - varies by state...

:(

-t

[Carehn]

Why doesn't the state just take all new born children and raise them how they please? Damn, now I'm giving them ideas.

[Don Lapre]

As long as us adults are free to spank away on each other - I have no problem with this.



:D

[tangent4ronpaul]

As long as us adults are free to spank away on each other - I have no problem with this.



:D

Screw the roses - send me the thorns! - It's a book..

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

OH YEAH! - FUCK THE STATE!

-t

[mad cow]

As long as us adults are free to spank away on each other - I have no problem with this.



:D
Well,it does take a Village.

[AlexAmore]

How does spanking fit into the Non-Aggression Principal? Spanking is not self-defence, it's the initiation of force.

Are we teaching our kids the Non-Aggression Principal or the all-mighty "do as I say, not as I do" principal?

[tod evans]

How does spanking fit into the Non-Aggression Principal? Spanking is not self-defence, it's the initiation of force.

Are we teaching our kids the Non-Aggression Principal or the all-mighty "do as I say, not as I do" principal?

I'm not a subscriber to this "Non-Aggression" philosophy, so don't include me in the we you speak of.

Just wondering, how many kids do you have?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Stopping spanking = good

Passing law to do so = bad

[AlexAmore]

I'm not a subscriber to this "Non-Aggression" philosophy, so don't include me in the we you speak of.

Just wondering, how many kids do you have?

Lol you don't have to quote Non-Aggression Principal like I just pulled it out of my ass. The Non-Aggression Principal IS Libertarianism, it's the foundational philosophy for all things Libertarian. If you don't subscribe to it, then you're not a Libertarian. If that's the case, I wasn't talking to you in my previous post.

Here's the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) on it, so you can catch up.

How many kids do I have? Are you implying that if I have no kids then I'm not qualified to discuss this? That's an Ad Hominem. Here's an Ad Hominem example: Perhaps you spank because you lack communication skills (e.g Ad Hominem attacks).
-----------------

To Feeding the Abscess. I believe the Non-Aggression Principal SHOULD be law.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Lol you don't have to quote Non-Aggression Principal like I just pulled it out of my ass. The Non-Aggression Principal IS Libertarianism, it's the foundational philosophy for all things Libertarian. If you don't subscribe to it, then you're not a Libertarian. If that's the case, I wasn't talking to you in my previous post.

Here's the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) on it, so you can catch up.

How many kids do I have? Are you implying that if I have no kids then I'm not qualified to discuss this? That's an Ad Hominem. Here's an Ad Hominem example: Perhaps you spank because you lack communication skills (e.g Ad Hominem attacks).
-----------------

To Feeding the Abscess. I believe the Non-Aggression Principal SHOULD be law.

Our differences are semantic. Under our current monopoly law system, there's no way I'd support legislation restricting spanking. Under a free market law system, I'd probably be okay with it.

[tod evans]

Geeze, defensive much?

I'm not a libertarian either so any attempt to pigeon-hole me isn't going to work..

I don't need to "catch-up" as you put it, I've actually lived life for over 50 years, often in ways you can't imagine.

I'm guessing, (because you didn't actually answer) that you don't have kids?

It's really a shame that you would advocate for any more laws. You've been a member here for quite a while, hasn't it registered that politicians passing new legislation is a really large part of the mess our country is in?

Have a nice day.


Lol you don't have to quote Non-Aggression Principal like I just pulled it out of my ass. The Non-Aggression Principal IS Libertarianism, it's the foundational philosophy for all things Libertarian. If you don't subscribe to it, then you're not a Libertarian. If that's the case, I wasn't talking to you in my previous post.

Here's the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) on it, so you can catch up.

How many kids do I have? Are you implying that if I have no kids then I'm not qualified to discuss this? That's an Ad Hominem. Here's an Ad Hominem example: Perhaps you spank because you lack communication skills (e.g Ad Hominem attacks).
-----------------

To Feeding the Abscess. I believe the Non-Aggression Principal SHOULD be law.

[Smart3]

Last month, Gov. Jack Markell signed Senate Bill 234 into law, making Delaware the first state in the nation to effectively make it illegal for parents to use corporal discipline on their children.

The bill was opposed by several organizations, including the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which worked with the Delaware Home Education Association and the Delaware Family Policy Council in a failed bid to defeat the legislation earlier this year.

The legislation - sponsored by state Senate Majority Leader Patricia M. Blevins, a Senator representing Delaware’s 7th District -- alters the state’s current child abuse and neglect laws by changing the definition of “physical injury” on Delaware’s existing statutes.

Under the legislation, a “physical injury” is described as the intentional infliction of “pain or impairment of physical condition” on a child. Under the new law, child abuse is categorized as a separate crime in Delaware, whereas child abuse cases before the law was enacted were prosecuted using the same statutes that pertain to adult victims.

The new legislation creates three new categories of child abuse. Parents that intentionally inflict “a physical injury” on a young person under the age of 18 are now guilty of class A misdemeanors, which may subject offenders to a one-year prison sentence. Those that are found guilty of intentionally or recklessly injuring a child who is under the age of 4 or has “significant” developmental disabilities -- considered class G felonies within the state -- may find themselves imprisoned for two years.

“The statute also expands the state of mind necessary for certain offenses against children allowing for more effective prosecution of parents who subject their children to abuse by others and fail to protect their children,” the law reads.

“These new statutes combine current statues and redefine physical injury and serious physical injury to reflect the medical realities of pain and impairment suffered by children,” the law reads.

[low preference guy]

fun thread ahead

[zach]

Spanking actually does curb behaviors that are inappropriate.

[tod evans]

Many here might want to move just for this law.

I'm not one of 'em.

[angelatc]

Spanking actually does curb behaviors that are inappropriate.

And it does it pdq.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Ridiculous.

[angelatc]

While I usually snicker at the whole concept of the non-aggression principle, I find it especially hilarious to apply it to dealing with toddlers. Those little demons will eat you alive.

There are only two ways to persuade people. Logic and force. 2 year olds don't comprehend logic.

[low preference guy]

While I usually snicker at the whole concept of the non-aggression principle, I find it especially hilarious to apply it to dealing with toddlers. Those little demons will eat you alive.

There are only two ways to persuade people. Logic and force. 2 year olds don't comprehend logic.

dang. too bad ron paul didn't know that.

[Origanalist]

My inner child needs good spanking. :p

http://ts4.explicit.bing.net/th?id=i.4971627214341175&pid=15.1

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

USA's future is screwed. More and more kids feel self-entitled and are empowered by the liberals... Taking power out of "grown-ups".

Spanking exists for thousands of years and humans turned out fine.

God forbid they don't have their persons violated. Seems like parents are the self-entitled to lay their hands on another human being. /Shrug

As far as the OP...they didn't need a new law. Battery is all ready law, no? If you don't think spanking is battery, then...I don't know what to say - just because you gave birth to a new life doesn't 'entitle' you to violate their rights and yes, that means being secure in their person.

[Shane Harris]

I bet the founding fathers were spanked and spanked their children. Not that I condone spanking personally, but passing a law restricting spanking is asking quite literally for a nanny-state to raise children for us.

For those here who support this, how would you propose to enforce such a law?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I bet the founding fathers were spanked and spanked their children. Not that I condone spanking personally, but passing a law restricting spanking is asking quite literally for a nanny-state to raise children for us.

How is making spanking fall under battery (which for instance wouldn't necessitate a new 'law'), asking for a Nanny-State? Is making murder illegal, creating a totalitarian state?

In the United States, criminal battery, or simply battery, is the use of force against another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact.[1] It is a specific common law misdemeanor, although the term is used more generally to refer to any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, and may be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Battery was defined at common law as "any unlawful touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in motion by him."[2] In most cases, battery is now governed by statute, and its severity is determined by the law of the specific jurisdiction.

That sounds like spanking to me. I can appeal to authority too - Ron Paul never spanked his children in fact, he's openly talked about how he doesn't like it (corporal punishment..), because he understands liberty - you have no right to lay your hands on another human being to inflict violence and punishment.

[Shane Harris]

How is making spanking fall under battery (which for instance wouldn't necessitate a new 'law'), asking for a Nanny-State? Is making murder illegal, creating a totalitarian state?

In the United States, criminal battery, or simply battery, is the use of force against another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact.[1] It is a specific common law misdemeanor, although the term is used more generally to refer to any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, and may be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Battery was defined at common law as "any unlawful touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in motion by him."[2] In most cases, battery is now governed by statute, and its severity is determined by the law of the specific jurisdiction.

That sounds like spanking to me. I can appeal to authority too - Ron Paul never spanked his children in fact, he's openly talked about how he doesn't like it (corporal punishment..), because he understands liberty - you have no right to lay your hands on another human being to inflict violence and punishment.

so you think Ron Paul is celebrating the passage of this law? Spanking is far from murder, and far from actual battery. In my opinion a woman slapping a man across the face shouldn't put her in prison. How would you enforce this?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://i45.tinypic.com/2sbtx6f.jpg

[tod evans]

Ron Paul never spanked his children in fact, he's openly talked about how he doesn't like it

Ron Paul chose to battle in congress for years too.......He's a far more patient man than I.

Me, I'll let you do as you choose with your kids and I'll raise mine as I see fit.

Do not interfere if I need to spank my child because I don't subscribe to this "non-aggressive" mind-set.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

so you think Ron Paul is celebrating the passage of this law? Spanking is far from murder, and far from actual battery. In my opinion a woman slapping a man across the face shouldn't put her in prison. How would you enforce this?

No one should be put in prison - our 'justice' system is no justice at all. It punishes you twice - once for the infliction or injury violating your liberty by the initial aggressor and secondly for paying for his incarceration. You get drilled twice. I don't know what Ron Paul is doing, do you? Also, I'm quite aware that battery and murder are far apart and I don't believe I ever made any other statement contrary.

How would you enforce this? Like any other - someone reports it and then the monopoly police investigate the claim. Unless you seem to think a child is not a person and has no liberties. I bet you're just fine viewing children as property of the parent. Unlike you, I don't selectively apply my morality.

[JK/SEA]

is there a common sense Amendment somewhere in the Constitution?...

yeah...thought so....geezus...wtf...

[Shane Harris]

something tells me a lot of the proponents of this law would have had no objection to that child being aborted.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron Paul chose to battle in congress for years too.......He's a far more patient man than I.

Me, I'll let you do as you choose with your kids and I'll raise mine as I see fit.

Do not interfere if I need to spank my child because I don't subscribe to this "non-aggressive" mind-set.

Sounds an awful lot like a plantation owner in 1820s Georgia. I care about the liberties of all persons. I don't discriminate and selectively apply my principles and beliefs.

[libertyfanatic]

Children are people too

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Children are people too

Not-ugh. They are property. PROPERTY of the parent. How dare you say they aren't! Who do you think you are...John Brown?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

No one should be put in prison - our 'justice' system is no justice at all. It punishes you twice - once for the infliction or injury violating your liberty by the initial aggressor and secondly for paying for his incarceration. You get drilled twice. I don't know what Ron Paul is doing, do you? Also, I'm quite aware that battery and murder are far apart and I don't believe I ever made any other statement contrary.

How would you enforce this? Like any other - someone reports it and then the monopoly police investigate the claim. Unless you seem to think a child is not a person and has no liberties. I bet you're just fine viewing children as property of the parent. Unlike you, I don't selectively apply my morality.

You have to be about the most rigid-to-the-point-of-sounding-crazy member here. You have this narrow philosophy and stick to it, even when it forces you to say things such as "no one should be put in prison" and (in the past) serious posts about how you think little kids should be able to smoke/drink/drive/consent to sex/carry and purchase guns/etc., because they're people too, and rights don't come by age.

These posts read like they're written by some bratty ten-year-old denied ice cream and the ability to stay up till midnight each night, and that grudge still exists today. "I'll show you mom. When I grow up, I'll fight to let every kid do what they want! You'll see."

[tod evans]

Sounds an awful lot like a plantation owner in 1820s Georgia.
First hand knowledge?

I care about the liberties of all persons. I don't discriminate and selectively apply my principles and beliefs.
I'll leave you and yours alone and you will leave me and mine alone.

[Shane Harris]

No one should be put in prison - our 'justice' system is no justice at all. It punishes you twice - once for the infliction or injury violating your liberty by the initial aggressor and secondly for paying for his incarceration. You get drilled twice. I don't know what Ron Paul is doing, do you? Also, I'm quite aware that battery and murder are far apart and I don't believe I ever made any other statement contrary.

How would you enforce this? Like any other - someone reports it and then the monopoly police investigate the claim. Unless you seem to think a child is not a person and has no liberties. I bet you're just fine viewing children as property of the parent. Unlike you, I don't selectively apply my morality.

I don't plan on spanking my children, but I don't support any laws prohibiting parenting. Parenting and child abuse are separate issues. Children are a sticky issue because as bad as some parents are I think that state intervention is on a whole worse. Children are not property but they are dependent tenants living on your property and must live by the rules you make for them as long as they live under your roof. There's a reason we treat minors differently from adults. They are incapable of being a self-sufficient adult and for that same reason laws pertaining to children are inherently unique, just as they should be regarding the mentally ill. Use common sense.

[youngbuck]

Maybe this will wake some people up and they'll realize that their kids actually belong to the state - and so do the parents themselves. Stupid parents, physical punishment is the job of the state, not you!

[Shane Harris]

You have to be about the most rigid-to-the-point-of-sounding-crazy member here. You have this narrow philosophy and stick to it, even when it forces you to say things such as "no one should be put in prison" and (in the past) serious posts about how you think little kids should be able to smoke/drink/drive/consent to sex/carry and purchase guns/etc., because they're people too, and rights don't come by age.

These posts read like they're written by some bratty ten-year-old denied ice cream and the ability to stay up till midnight each night, and that grudge still exists today. "I'll show you mom. When I grow up, I'll fight to let every kid do what they want! You'll see."

well said

[libertyfanatic]

You have to be about the most rigid-to-the-point-of-sounding-crazy member here. You have this narrow philosophy and stick to it, even when it forces you to say things such as "no one should be put in prison" and (in the past) serious posts about how you think little kids should be able to smoke/drink/drive/consent to sex/carry and purchase guns/etc., because they're people too and rights don't come by age.

These posts read like they're written by some bratty ten-year-old denied ice cream and the ability to stay up till midnight each night, and that grudge still exists today. "I'll show you mom. When I grow up, I'll fight to let every kid do what they want! You'll see."

You're not making the distinction between positive and negative rights.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You have to be about the most rigid-to-the-point-of-sounding-crazy member here. You have this narrow philosophy and stick to it, even when it forces you to say things such as "no one should be put in prison" and (in the past) serious posts about how you think little kids should be able to smoke/drink/drive/consent to sex/carry and purchase guns/etc., because they're people too, and rights don't come by age.

These posts read like they're written by some bratty ten-year-old denied ice cream and the ability to stay up till midnight each night, and that grudge still exists today. "I'll show you mom. When I grow up, I'll fight to let every kid do what they want! You'll see."

I'll take this diatribe as a compliment. Yes, I'm principled. Why aren't you?

[Shane Harris]

I'll take this diatribe as a compliment. Yes, I'm principled. Why aren't you?

Are you pro-life?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Are you pro-life?

I am against abortion. I'm not opposed to eviction (JMDrake had a better word for this..., but I forget it). In other words if you mean am I against murdering the unborn - yes. They are just as much persons as any other.

What point are you trying to make?

[Shane Harris]

I am against abortion. I'm not opposed to eviction (JMDrake had a better word for this..., but I forget it). In other words if you mean am I against murdering the unborn - yes. They are just as much persons as any other.

Well at least we agree on that. You really don't see any potential blowback or unintended consequences coming from this law?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well at least we agree on that. You really don't see any potential blowback or unintended consequences coming from this law?

I don't care about consequences. I am not a utilitarian. I've yet to meet a violation of liberty that I am for. Also, if you notice, I'm not for this law per se, as is, since, you didn't need a new 'law' for this in the first place. It is redundant. It can easily fall under common law battery as I stated. No statutory law needed.

[Shane Harris]

I don't care about consequences. I am not a utilitarian. I've yet to meet a violation of liberty that I am for. Also, if you notice, I'm not for this law per se, as is, since, you didn't need a new 'law' for this in the first place. It is redundant. It can easily fall under common law battery as I stated. No law needed.

Okay so where would you draw the line where battery is no longer battery? Is a woman slapping a man in the face at a bar battery?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Okay so where would you draw the line where battery is no longer battery? Is a woman slapping a man in the face at a bar battery?

Yes, if the man did not consent to being slapped. The line is called property rights. Not all offenses are going to be pursued - it is up to the victim to decide. (This is an antiquated notion in our so-called justice system)

[Shane Harris]

Yes, if the man did not consent to being slapped. The line is called property rights. Not all offenses are going to be pursued - it is up to the victim to decide. (This is an antiquated notion in our so-called justice system)

Okay no argument there.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Okay no argument there.

I keep it simple.

"No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."

KISS

:p

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I'll take this diatribe as a compliment. Yes, I'm principled. Why aren't you?

Nobody cares about anyones' "principles" if they're too fringy and goofy to be taken seriously.

[John F Kennedy III]

IR cameras linked in to the local Fusion Center, are to be mounted in every home with minor children, to monitor for compliance.

It's coming.

And nobody fucking cares.

Sad but true.

[John F Kennedy III]

I'm not a subscriber to this "Non-Aggression" philosophy, so don't include me in the we you speak of.

Just wondering, how many kids do you have?

I second this.

[John F Kennedy III]

Spanking actually does curb behaviors that are inappropriate.

Spare the rod spoil the child.

[John F Kennedy III]

While I usually snicker at the whole concept of the non-aggression principle, I find it especially hilarious to apply it to dealing with toddlers. Those little demons will eat you alive.

There are only two ways to persuade people. Logic and force. 2 year olds don't comprehend logic.

+rep

[mad cow]

Not-ugh. They are property. PROPERTY of the parent. How dare you say they aren't! Who do you think you are...John Brown?

Children are The RESPONSIBILITY of the parent,not the State and the child is not responsible for himself.

If a 2 year old spills his sippy cup on his dad's TV ruining it,may the parents put him outside in the snow and tell him to hit the road?They may do that all day long with a 22 year old,even if related.

[low preference guy]

Children are The RESPONSIBILITY of the parent,not the State and the child is not responsible for himself.

If a 2 year old spills his sippy cup on his dad's TV ruining it,may the parents put him outside in the snow and tell him to hit the road?They may do that all day long with a 22 year old,even if related.

if parents hate their kid so much that they would do that, forcing them to have the child at home might produce more damage to him than letting the child get adopted by somebody else.

[mad cow]

if parents hate their kid so much that they would do that, forcing them to have the child at home might produce more damage to him than letting the child get adopted by somebody else.

Suppose a Dad had a signed contract from his 11 year old daughter stipulating he could have sex with her in return for a Malibu Barbie?

In both cases,the parent should be punished severely.Parents are responsible for the health and well being of their children,kids can't sign contracts,kids don't have any responsibilities not granted by their parents,parents have massive responsibilities to their children,morally and legally.

A parent spanking a 2 year old to teach him not to do something that might get him killed is a responsible act.

[John F Kennedy III]

something tells me a lot of the proponents of this law would have had no objection to that child being aborted.

I told this story to my two friends I live with. They both applauded the law. They're both pro choice.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

if parents hate their kid so much that they would do that, forcing them to have the child at home might produce more damage to him than letting the child get adopted by somebody else.

Adopted? Isn't that more welfare? They're human beings and should have every right adults have. Make them juggle preschool and the factory job they'll have to get to survive.

[silverhandorder]

I told this story to my two friends I live with. They both applauded the law. They're both pro choice.

Well since you live with them seems like that issue is not that big of a deal to you after all.

[Republicanguy]

I think the whole idea of disciplining a child that way is stupid.

[tod evans]

I think the whole idea of disciplining a child that way is stupid.

Fine, personally I'm all for leaving you to raise your child as you see fit.

I demand the same courtesy.

[Republicanguy]

Fine, personally I'm all for leaving you to raise your child as you see fit.

I demand the same courtesy.

I see it as a backwards way, that is my point about it. No I don't have a family. But I do see you're point.

[tod evans]

I see it as a backwards way, that is my point about it. No I don't have a family. But I do see you're point.

My point? ;)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61QTQP6R9ZL.jpg

[Tod]

Is spanking not a form of communication? Does it not only communicate but demonstrate at the same time that actions have consequences?

[Tod]

Those who wish to outlaw spanking as being violent can only enforce the law by themselves being violent. Hmmmm

[Republicanguy]

My point? ;)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61QTQP6R9ZL.jpg

That you see it as acceptable so long as it isn't abuse, and the fact that one state has outlawed this.

Tod - Children require a great great deal of patience, it just reminds of animalistic ways, yet since we orginate via evolution this way, I suppose it is only natural. I just don't see it as a modern way of discipline. There are other ways, from the looks of things it appears that this is the most common way. Ron Paul said in the past he never did touch his children in discipline, he taught them the way, and showed responsibility requires effort and doing things for themselves, earn their own way, and that if they want something in life they must work at it. A fairly reasonable approach towards his son's upbringing.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Those who wish to outlaw spanking as being violent can only enforce the law by themselves being violent. Hmmmm

Your point? I'm not against violence, only the initiation thereof. If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to say. Also, you don't need to outlaw shit; it is self-evident that spanking is a violent act. The only time spanking is acceptable is if it is consensual. Har-har. :p

[Republicanguy]

http://i45.tinypic.com/2sbtx6f.jpg

LOL!:D I just had too.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That you see it as acceptable so long as it isn't abuse, and the fact that one state has outlawed this.

Tod - Children require a great great deal of patience, it just reminds of animalistic ways, yet since we orginate via evolution this way, I suppose it is only natural. I just don't see it as a modern way of discipline. There are other ways, from the looks of things it appears that this is the most common way. Ron Paul said in the past he never did touch his children in discipline, he taught them the way, and showed responsibility requires effort and doing things for themselves, earn their own way, and that if they want something in life they must work at it. A fairly reasonable approach towards his son's upbringing.

Ron is a consistent libertarian. He doesn't just selectively apply his beliefs, principles, and morality. He is a true example to aspire to. Those folks who think their child is their property should take a second-look in the mirror and reflect on how you can so wantonly violate every principle you believe in because of this false-belief that you can own another human being and do to them whatever the hell you desire.

[tod evans]

That you see it as acceptable so long as it isn't abuse, and the fact that one state has outlawed this.

Tod - Children require a great great deal of patience, it just reminds of animalistic ways, yet since we orginate via evolution this way, I suppose it is only natural. I just don't see it as a modern way of discipline. There are other ways, from the looks of things it appears that this is the most common way. Ron Paul said in the past he never did touch his children in discipline, he taught them the way, and showed responsibility requires effort and doing things for themselves, earn their own way, and that if they want something in life they must work at it. A fairly reasonable approach towards his son's upbringing.

My son is eight, I honestly can't recall spanking him more than 4-5 times his whole life and these weren't "whippings" they were swats on his butt.

But every kid is different and spanking is a very effective threat as well as a punishment.

I'm not qualified to discuss anybody elses child rearing techniques but based on my observations of others children those who employ spanking seem to have better behaved children.

I've never met Dr. Paul but I can assure you if I had been his child in the 60's he very well might tell a different tale.

[AlexAmore]

While I usually snicker at the whole concept of the non-aggression principle, I find it especially hilarious to apply it to dealing with toddlers. Those little demons will eat you alive.

There are only two ways to persuade people. Logic and force. 2 year olds don't comprehend logic.

Ha, okay great logic you have here. 2 year olds don't understand logic....so let's hit em. 2 year olds don't understand logic, yet they understand the logic behind getting hit. They can't connect the dots, yet they can. *Headsplodes*

If they can't understand logic. If you hit the child, they will simply see this as an assault from their parent. They will learn nothing.

If they can understand logic. They will learn hitting smaller, weaker people is okay to resolve problems. Kids model after their parents all the time.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ha, okay great logic you have here. 2 year olds don't understand logic....so let's hit em. 2 year olds don't understand logic, yet they understand the logic behind getting hit. They can't connect the dots, yet they can. *Headsplodes*

If they can't understand logic. If you hit the child, they will simply see this as an assault from their parent. They will learn nothing.

If they can understand logic. They will learn hitting smaller, weaker people is okay to resolve problems. Kids model after their parents all the time.

This. You are the example, the role-model for your children. How you act will teach them, and if they're smart, hopefully they come to their own conclusions, which usually means they understand the logic of what you're trying to do and their experience teaches them it doesn't work, or is counter-productive.

Children are much smarter and intelligent than anyone gives them credit for. They understand more than you can imagine. They're very intuitive. If you're telling them hitting others is wrong, and you go and hit them, they're going to know you're in the wrong, even if you have some blase justification for your wanton violence.

[tod evans]

Ha, okay great logic you have here. 2 year olds don't understand logic....so let's hit em. 2 year olds don't understand logic, yet they understand the logic behind getting hit. They can't connect the dots, yet they can. *Headsplodes*

If they can't understand logic. If you hit the child, they will simply see this as an assault from their parent. They will learn nothing.

If they can understand logic. They will learn hitting smaller, weaker people is okay to resolve problems. Kids model after their parents all the time.

A degree in child psychology at some uber-liberal college might be in your future...

Once you've obtained said degree and a suitable mate, procreate and care for your progeny for a couple of years.

Chances are your views might be a tad different...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

A degree in child psychology at some uber-liberal college might be in your future...

Once you've obtained said degree and a suitable mate, procreate and care for your progeny for a couple of years.

Chances are your views might be a tad different...

The last scourge of the loser in any argument is attacking the character of those they are conversing with. So, advocating not violating your child's liberties, is 'uber-progressive', as if your connotation is that he is some sort of out in left-field crazy communist who has no idea about anything. How clever.

Guess what, Ron raised his children the same way we are advocating - simply to respect, reaffirm, and apply libertarianism to all aspects of your life. Violating another's liberty is wrong no matter if you gave that person life or not. You do not own another human being and acting like you have some sort of 'divine' right to lay your hands on another human being because you're a 'parent' is obscene. Parental tyranny is real, and very alive. Children are treated like animals, slaves, neanderthals. The State has stripped them of all their rights, and the Parent's continually justify their authoritarian powers in the name of the Child's good. It's sickening.

Outlaw child labor. Make them a slave. Well, you guys got what you want. You won the 'debate'. If the child 'runs away' from their parent, the State will come track him or her down, forcefully kidnap them, and bring them back to their plantation owner...sorry Parent. Parallels anyone?

It's even worse because there are hardly any advocates for their behalf. No one listens to 'children' (and this definition of child is constantly expanding in our crazy society. Many people consider even people as old as 20 'children'), because they like you think they are dumb, unable to use their God-endowed reason and logic, and act on their own accord. You're not any more special or gifted than any other child. I know children that can speak multiple languages, are smarter than most adults, and are more mature, but hey, what do I know.

[acptulsa]

It's even worse because there are hardly any advocates for their behalf. No one listens to 'children' (and this definition of child is constantly expanding in our crazy society. Many people consider even people as old as 20 'children'), because they like you think they are dumb, unable to use their God-endowed reason and logic, and act on their own accord. You're not any more special or gifted than any other child. I know children that can speak multiple languages, are smarter than most adults, and are more mature, but hey, what do I know.

You know how to rant and rave and foam at the mouth. You also do a good job of ignoring the fact that a two year old is not a six year old. And you know that propaganda requires you ignore a few simple, obvious facts such as even a kitten is capable of logic enough to understand, I do play with an electrical outlet I do get a swat; I don't play with the electrical outlet I don't get a swat.

What if two people were both right, but neither one knew it because they were both shouting propaganda instead of having a rational discussion?

[tod evans]

Moving back to page one in this thread;



Geeze, defensive much?

I'm not a libertarian either so any attempt to pigeon-hole me isn't going to work..

I don't need to "catch-up" as you put it, I've actually lived life for over 50 years, often in ways you can't imagine.

I'm guessing, (because you didn't actually answer) that you don't have kids?

It's really a shame that you would advocate for any more laws. You've been a member here for quite a while, hasn't it registered that politicians passing new legislation is a really large part of the mess our country is in?

Have a nice day.

I haven't "attacked" anyone or their character, I've merely suggested living life and educating one's self might be in order prior to attempting proscribe how others should raise their offspring.

If that makes me a "loser" in your eyes then so be it.

The voice of experience sounds much different than the voice philosophy, please by all means enjoy your philosophical outlook until reality kicks you in the teeth.




The last scourge of the loser in any argument is attacking the character of those they are conversing with. So, advocating not violating your child's liberties, is 'uber-progressive', as if your connotation is that he is some sort of out in left-field crazy communist who has no idea about anything. How clever.

Guess what, Ron raised his children the same way we are advocating - simply to respect, reaffirm, and apply libertarianism to all aspects of your life. Violating another's liberty is wrong no matter if you gave that person life or not. You do not own another human being and acting like you have some sort of 'divine' right to lay your hands on another human being because you're a 'parent' is obscene. Parental tyranny is real, and very alive. Children are treated like animals, slaves, neanderthals. The State has stripped them of all their rights, and the Parent's continually justify their authoritarian powers in the name of the Child's good. It's sickening.

Outlaw child labor. Make them a slave. Well, you guys got what you want. You won the 'debate'. If the child 'runs away' from their parent, the State will come track him or her down, forcefully kidnap them, and bring them back to their plantation owner...sorry Parent. Parallels anyone?

It's even worse because there are hardly any advocates for their behalf. No one listens to 'children', because they like you think they are dumb, unable to use their God-endowed reason and logic, and act on their own accord. You're not any more special or gifted than any other child. I know children that can speak multiple languages, are smarter than most adults, and are more mature, but hey, what do I know.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Moving back to page one in this thread;




I haven't "attacked" anyone or their character, I've merely suggested living life and educating one's self might be in order prior to attempting proscribe how others should raise their offspring.

If that makes me a "loser" in your eyes then so be it.

The voice of experience sounds much different than the voice philosophy, please by all means enjoy your philosophical outlook until reality kicks you in the teeth.

You've made claim, but simply making a claim is not an argument. Why do you think hitting another human being is ever acceptable? It is acceptable if it prevents some bad outcome in your view? How can you be against the State-doing likewise in it's paternal role in society? How can you be against one, and for the other? You're simply inconsistent. Either it is wrong, or not wrong. It can't be both.

I've lived 26 years and experienced much. You don't know what I have or haven't experienced, learned, and adopted. You did impugn his character by saying he must be some crazy lib-loon. We all know why you'd say such ridiculous things. You never attempted to refute his or our argumentation. You simply keep shouting that hitting your child is ok - even necessary -, and that treating them like a human being with every right as any other human being is wrong or misguided. How would you like it if your child hit you.

[tod evans]

Okay bud, spanking and hitting are completely different things........got it?

I'm not going to even entertain the idea of the state and a parent sharing responsibility for a childs welfare that's foolish double speak.

I'm glad you've made it 26 years and I sincerely hope you make it another 26, hopefully you'll experience the wonders of a child and you can use all the tools in your arsenal to shape their life as you see fit.

I'll advocate for your right to raise your child as you choose, if you try to infringe on my right to do the same we'll have issues.

If you or he choose to attend some uber liberal or conservative university by all means do so, but be forewarned the "non-spanking" doctrine will most likely only be taught at the uber-liberal university.

Freedom is a difficult concept for some folks to grab, I'll fight all day for you to have the freedom to raise your child as you see fit...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Okay bud, spanking and hitting are completely different things........got it?

I'm not going to even entertain the idea of the state and a parent sharing responsibility for a childs welfare that's foolish double speak.

I'm glad you've made it 26 years and I sincerely hope you make it another 26, hopefully you'll experience the wonders of a child and you can use all the tools in your arsenal to shape their life as you see fit.

I'll advocate for your right to raise your child as you choose, if you try to infringe on my right to do the same we'll have issues.

If you or he choose to attend some uber liberal or conservative university by all means do so, but be forewarned the "non-spanking" doctrine will most likely only be taught at the uber-liberal university.

Freedom is a difficult concept for some folks to grab, I'll fight all day for you to have the freedom to raise your child as you see fit...

No one has the right to raise a children by violating their persons. You have all the rights to raise your child so long as you do not likewise violate their liberties and rights. This is not a hard concept to comprehend. Just because you're a parent doesn't mean you have a tabula rasa to shape and create in whatever way you like or feel is appropriate. The child should absolutely have some legal recourse if they choose to use it - I simply reject your argument that you have the right to assault or hit/spank/battery your child.

I fight for everyone's liberties, period. Whether you are 75, 35, or 15, I don't care - we're all human beings. Your rights suddenly don't magically appear at a pre-determined age bracket. That's non-sense, nor does giving birth entitle you to treat that person in whatever manner you desire.

You think it's wrong for the State to prevent or punish folks for making bad decisions, but you think it's ok for you to do so. I simply think it is wrong for any individual to do so. If you have a right to do something, then you can't say the State can't do it either. It's called individual rights as the basis of all rights. If one individual has the right to do it, then all individuals do - and thus, all groups, since all groups must necessarily be made of individuals.

In any event, do I think you are an abuser? No. You're probably a very good parent. I just don't accept your claim that hitting your child is necessary, or morally right to do.

[libertygrl]

Aren't people missing the point that it's not the state's business how you discipline your own children????

Background on the governor:

Personal details
Born Jack A. Markell
November 26, 1960 (age 51)
Newark, Delaware
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Carla Markell
Residence Governor's Mansion
Alma mater Brown University (B.A.)
University of Chicago (M.B.A.)
Profession Businessman
Religion Judaism

Markell grew up in Newark, Delaware, and graduated from Newark High School. As a child, he attended Camp Galil, a summer camp in the Labor Zionist youth movement, Habonim Dror.**[1] He graduated from Brown University earning his Bachelor of Arts in economics and development studies, and went on to the University of Chicago, earning his MBA.

h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Markell


**Habonim Dror

Today, HDNA is an autonomous Progressive Labor Zionist youth movement whose members strive for the concrete expression of its ideals in their own lives and in society. Habonim Dror has the following aims:

To up-build the State of Israel as a progressive, egalitarian, cooperative society, at peace with its neighbors; actively involved in a Peace Process with the Palestinian people with the common goal of a just and lasting peace; and as the physical and spiritual center of the Jewish people. To this end, Habonim Dror calls first and foremost for Aliya to communal and collective frameworks that actively work to achieve the aforementioned goal. In addition, Habonim Dror also calls for active involvement in progressive Zionist and Jewish issues in Diaspora communities.

To strengthen the relationship between North American Jewish youth and Judaism through their involvement in progressive Jewish communities with the purposes of enlisting their participation in the up-building of a renewed Jewish culture. This will be accomplished by the development of individual Jewish identities by means of promoting the exploration of Jewish spirituality, the full expression of the Hebrew language, an understanding of Jewish history and a personal relationship with Israel.

To participate in the creation of a new social order throughout the world, based on the principles of self-determination, individual freedom, political democracy, and cooperative economics, the equality of all peopleand the equality of human value (shivyon d’erech h’adam).

To participate in constructive activities in the North American Jewish community while advocating change where necessary to foster Jewish continuity and creativity and the democratization of the community.

To develop within its members the will to realize their own capabilities and to develop a collectivist attitude to actualize the movement’s goals through cooperative frameworks (kvutzah).

The pillars, the educational concepts that guide us, of Habonim Dror North America are:

Cultural Judaism
Progressive Labor Zionism
Hagshama (Actualization of Movement Values)
Social Justice
Socialism

h ttps://www.habonimdror.org/about-us/aims

[opal]

Parenting is kind of a personal thing. No one knows your child like you do and each child has his/her own quirks.

I used to work in retail - we had a woman with a small boy - still in a diaper, but walking, shopping one day. The little guy, curious as any little kid would be, found the sparkly things on our earring tree - which was just the right height for him to dismantle... at least the bottom part of it was.
His mom told him no.. up close and personal - not mean but he got the message - and watched her until she looked away - and his little hand went right back to knocking things off the display.
She reached down and gave him a swat on the diaper and OMG.. I thought two little old ladies would come unglued.. their faces puckered and they started to confront this mother about child abuse.

This woman, listened respectfully then said, matter of factly., listen ladies, if you want him breaking into your houses in 10 years, I won't disipline him... would that make you happy?

One of the best retorts I've ever heard.

[tod evans]

No one has the right to raise a children by violating their persons. You have all the rights to raise your child so long as you do not likewise violate their liberties and rights. This is not a hard concept to comprehend. Just because you're a parent doesn't mean you have a tabula rasa to shape and create in whatever way you like or feel is appropriate. The child should absolutely have some legal recourse if they choose to use it - I simply reject your argument that you have the right to assault or hit/spank/battery your child.

I fight for everyone's liberties, period. Whether you are 75, 35, or 15, I don't care - we're all human beings. Your rights suddenly don't magically appear at a pre-determined age bracket. That's non-sense, nor does giving birth entitle you to treat that person in whatever manner you desire.

You think it's wrong for the State to prevent or punish folks for making bad decisions, but you think it's ok for you to do so. I simply think it is wrong for any individual to do so. If you have a right to do something, then you can't say the State can't do it either. It's called individual rights as the basis of all rights. If one individual has the right to do it, then all individuals do - and thus, all groups, since all groups must necessarily be made of individuals.

In any event, do I think you are an abuser? No. You're probably a very good parent. I just don't accept your claim that hitting your child is necessary, or morally right to do.

About the time you set foot on my property (or have a government agent do it in your stead) we will have issues that cannot be settled with words or money.

Children are the legal responsibility of their parents, they are not free and sovereign individuals as you profess, if you'd like to change that you'll be combating centuries of legislation spanning many countries.

Your arbitrary definition of violating a child is completely detached from standing law in most states (this is a thread about Delaware), I don't live there and probably never will.

Telling me what "I think" probably isn't your best approach... Some people do need to be held accountable for their actions and currently "the state" is the only mechanism to deal with them.

[Origanalist]

Parenting is kind of a personal thing. No one knows your child like you do and each child has his/her own quirks.

I used to work in retail - we had a woman with a small boy - still in a diaper, but walking, shopping one day. The little guy, curious as any little kid would be, found the sparkly things on our earring tree - which was just the right height for him to dismantle... at least the bottom part of it was.
His mom told him no.. up close and personal - not mean but he got the message - and watched her until she looked away - and his little hand went right back to knocking things off the display.
She reached down and gave him a swat on the diaper and OMG.. I thought two little old ladies would come unglued.. their faces puckered and they started to confront this mother about child abuse.

This woman, listened respectfully then said, matter of factly., listen ladies, if you want him breaking into your houses in 10 years, I won't disipline him... would that make you happy?

One of the best retorts I've ever heard.

Yep, and these same ones who get such a case of the faints when a child gets a whack on the bottom are the same ones who say * my little Johnny would never do that * when little Johnny steals the neighbors tires and sells them.

[asurfaholic]

Hi. I am the father of a 13 mo old girl. She bit me a little while back, so i popped her a good one on the rear and said "no!" She hasn bit me since, and is the happiest little girl in the world.

If you disagree with that, bite me.

[Hospitaller]

In the same way our economy turns out fine with state management for thousands of years, humans turn out "fine" with spanking for thousands of years. Its the unseen losses that are important. Please research Freedomainradio and Stefan Molyneaux extensive research on the subject.

[TheTexan]

To Feeding the Abscess. I believe the Non-Aggression Principal SHOULD be law.

Laws don't mean shit by themselves they are just words on paper

[familydog]

Spanking is child abuse. I have no sympathy for people who abuse their children. Yet the state won't solve child abuse by banning it.

[TheTexan]

No one has the right to raise a children by violating their persons. You have all the rights to raise your child so long as you do not likewise violate their liberties and rights. This is not a hard concept to comprehend. Just because you're a parent doesn't mean you have a tabula rasa to shape and create in whatever way you like or feel is appropriate. The child should absolutely have some legal recourse if they choose to use it - I simply reject your argument that you have the right to assault or hit/spank/battery your child.

At the same time, it's not practical to enforce these rights. If the children appeal for outside help, then yes, but otherwise, its none of our business. We can't go around having home inspections and mandatory quarterly children's rights interviews.

So yes.. the child should have legal recourse against it... but any laws on this matter would do more harm than good. Can't legislate morality

[DamianTV]

Welcome to Democracy where Mob Rule tells you how to raise your own child.

Whats next? Imprisoning the Parents and making the child a ward of the state if the parent doesnt get a Government License to have a child?

[Tod]

In a way, spanking of a child by a reasonable caring parent IS consensual, because, done properly the child understands that if he/she insist on doing whatever they are doing, they will be spanked. So, the child decides to push the limits and see how unreasonably they can behave. When they are spanked, they have traded poor behavior for a spanking and upon being spanked, if the spanking is done properly, with just enough force that the child wouldn't want to repeat the process, at least until the child again gets too big for their britches and thinks once more that they can deal with a spanking.

I can really only recall being spanked one time by my dad. I was misbehaving and was sent to my room where I proceeded to throw a tantrum, laying on my back with my butt near the wall, slamming my feet against the wall, risking breaking the plaster that my mom had recently wallpapered. My dad told me that if I didn't stop immediately, I would get a spanking. I defied him. I was not open to reason. I got spanked, and then behaved, sulking in silence, the lesson about not behaving in that way learned at a time when mere talking was a waste of breath and would have done nothing but teach me that my parents were spineless wimps who could be pushed around.

Certainly, often an issue can be resolved by mere talking. But sometimes, mere talking is viewed as weakness and does not command respect of a self-centered irrational child.

[acptulsa]

To me, the brat and the abused child are in the same boat. The abused child suffers whether the child behaves or not; the brat doesn't suffer whether he or she behaves or not. So, they are the ones who come out unable to connect their actions and consequences. And I don't know, between the abused and the brat, which is worse off. But neither is doing as well as those whose parents do make the effort to fairly connect the child's actions and the consequences--whether they do it perfectly or not.

[Tod]

No one has the right to raise a children by violating their persons. You have all the rights to raise your child so long as you do not likewise violate their liberties and rights.

violate a child's liberties? You mean I can tell a child not to stick a pin in an electrical socket but I can't actually prevent them from doing it because it would take away their liberty to do as they please to themselves?

Sorry, that is just sick.

Additionally:

Parents have the right to avoid teaching their child that they are to be respected and obeyed, particularly when the child's behavior is self-destructive? Sometimes, children see "all talk no action" as weakness and grow to despise it. Much of childhood is a determination of acceptable boundaries and it is a parent's responsibility to place boundaries in front of behaviors that would be - in the parent's opinion - unacceptably dangerous, while maintaining respect of the parent.

[Danan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8h6_N3UlzI

[Feeding the Abscess]

violate a child's liberties? You mean I can tell a child not to stick a pin in an electrical socket but I can't actually prevent them from doing it because it would take away their liberty to do as they please to themselves?

Sorry, that is just sick.

Additionally:

Parents have the right to avoid teaching their child that they are to be respected and obeyed, particularly when the child's behavior is self-destructive? Sometimes, children see "all talk no action" as weakness and grow to despise it. Much of childhood is a determination of acceptable boundaries and it is a parent's responsibility to place boundaries in front of behaviors that would be - in the parent's opinion - unacceptably dangerous, while maintaining respect of the parent.

I completely agree, which is why teaching them that using violence to get what you want is very dangerous.

[mad cow]

Suppose your 2 year old wants to go out and play in the blizzard in his spiderman underwear of his own free will and just won't listen to reason.Stopping him and keeping him inside against his will would be kidnapping,hence violence,no?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Suppose your 2 year old wants to go out and play in the blizzard in his spiderman underwear of his own free will and just won't listen to reason.Stopping him and keeping him inside against his will would be kidnapping,hence violence,no?

Then be a proactive parent and tell the child you'll go out there with them, and invite them to get dressed to go outside.

Any other false dilemmas you want to try?

[tod evans]

Then be a proactive parent and tell the child you'll go out there with them, and invite them to get dressed to go outside.

Any other false dilemmas you want to try?

No kids eh?

[Tod]

I completely agree, which is why teaching them that using violence to get what you want is very dangerous.

Sometimes violence is justified, and one must be careful that violence merely to get what you want is not acceptable. For example, if someone has a ball that you want, striking them to gain control of it is not acceptable. A good parent is able to teach their child the differences while a poor parent glosses over them.

[Feeding the Abscess]

No kids eh?

None of my own, but I was the oldest child, and I've had 100s, if not 1000s, of hours of experience with young children, both relative and non-relative.

I've never smoked marijuana in my life, but I do know some of the benefits. Same with steroid use.

Experience (or lack thereof) is not a qualification for using aggression to achieve desired outcomes.

[asurfaholic]

No kids eh?

This.

I dont care how you raise your kids, just stay out of my way when i am parenting. Using the force of govt, of all things, to prevent me from using force on my offspring is really hypocritical.. Dontcha think?

Abuse and spanking are two very very different things, i can testify. I was spanked as a young'un and learned valuable lessons in life at a young age. I was disiplined and never acted out. Then my mom married my stepdad, who was abusive. I have been kicked, beat, pushed down a small flight of stairs, and have the photos of my injuries to prove it.

So you anti spanking authoritarians have NOTHING that would convince me one way or another. Mind your own stinking business, thats what true libertarianism is really about.

[Shane Harris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EBOI06r6c4

not to be taken too seriously haha just seems semi-appropriate



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOxoZ3exM_Q

[mad cow]

Then be a proactive parent and tell the child you'll go out there with them, and invite them to get dressed to go outside.

Any other false dilemmas you want to try?

Well,I could try 'wants to go out swimming in his spongebob squarepants underwear in the hurricane swept waters in the front yard' but what's the point?

[heavenlyboy34]

You know how to rant and rave and foam at the mouth. You also do a good job of ignoring the fact that a two year old is not a six year old. And you know that propaganda requires you ignore a few simple, obvious facts such as even a kitten is capable of logic enough to understand, I do play with an electrical outlet I do get a swat; I don't play with the electrical outlet I don't get a swat.

What if two people were both right, but neither one knew it because they were both shouting propaganda instead of having a rational discussion?
I don't know a lot about this subject other than my subjective personal experience being on the receiving end of corporal punishment. Isn't spanking more pavlovian training than "teaching"? If so, why not find a way to accomplish the same goal without striking the child?

[jmdrake]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/delaware-1st-state-to-jail-for-parents-who-use-spanking-to-discipline

It seems the bill makes a criminal out of anyone who causes a child pain. I guess doctors and nurses who give shots to all these kid should be nervous.,

Police are exempt I'm sure. Expect more cases of police brutality of unruly children.

[Origanalist]

This.

I dont care how you raise your kids, just stay out of my way when i am parenting. Using the force of govt, of all things, to prevent me from using force on my offspring is really hypocritical.. Dontcha think?

Abuse and spanking are two very very different things, i can testify. I was spanked as a young'un and learned valuable lessons in life at a young age. I was disiplined and never acted out. Then my mom married my stepdad, who was abusive. I have been kicked, beat, pushed down a small flight of stairs, and have the photos of my injuries to prove it.

So you anti spanking authoritarians have NOTHING that would convince me one way or another. Mind your own stinking business, thats what true libertarianism is really about.

No, you don't understand. True libertarionism is minding your business. (and telling you how to raise your kids )

[DamianTV]

You got chocolate in my peanut butter!

No! You got peanut butter on my chocolate!

(Insert Authoritarian Approach)

Lets outlaw Peanut Butter!

(Alternate Authoritarian Approach)

Lets outlaw Chocolate but not Peanut Butter!

The fallacy here is that what works for one does not work for another. But like acptulsa said, a kitten of ANY age still has the capacity of learning. What differs is the level of teaching being appropriate for the age. If a kitten wants to bite, pull your hand away, but if the kitten is becoming excessively agressive, then there are appropriate courses to teach it that such behavior is not going to be accepted by those it lives with. Hence, a light tap on the nose, which is probably physically equivilant of a spanking to a child.

The problem is both extremism and people not being able to mind their own business. If a child is going to be disciplined by taking six swats upside the skull with a baseball bat at full on major league baseball force, they arent going to survive the very first strike, and definitely wont survive the next. That is the most extreme thing I can think of that I believe everyone would agree is excessive. At the same time, there is that old proverb of "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" which also has merit. We've all met these types of children and know full well what they grow up to become. Thus, the opposite end of the extreme of zero discipline is also not a viable solution. There is an acceptable range of what can be done without becoming extreme or abuse. But as we continue to try to use Government as a replacement for parents that are right fucking there, we narrow this window until what is acceptable is outside of the range of what works.

There are already laws on the books for the most extreme cases of child abuse. Forcing a child to live in a closet for weeks and months at a time I think we can all agree is abuse because it is excessive. We dont need to pass new laws for every little fucking thing. When we even think that this type of solution is going to work, we legislate away our morality, our dignity, and our liberty.

Always look to the future.

What is the next thing that is going to be considered abuse? Your kid is five pounds over / under weight? You should spend a year in jail because you are a negligent parent! Is that what we want? It is pretty damn obvious that we do because we keep opening up the doors that leads to your arrest for giving your child toast with butter on it.

The Free Man does not need the intervention of Government to raise a child. And nosy know-it-all neighbors who want to tell everyone else whether they should be "allowed" to eat peanut butter, or to eat chocolate accomplishes nothing but alienates the child from the community, which can be taken to the extremes just as anything else can be, and has the potential to cause much deeper psychological trauma on the child than a simple spanking ever could, and it all results because people wont mind their own fucking business.

This is what happens when you have Zero Privacy. Every busy body on the planet will tell you how to live your life.

[Origanalist]

You got chocolate in my peanut butter!

No! You got peanut butter on my chocolate!

(Insert Authoritarian Approach)

Lets outlaw Peanut Butter!

(Alternate Authoritarian Approach)

Lets outlaw Chocolate but not Peanut Butter!

The fallacy here is that what works for one does not work for another. But like acptulsa said, a kitten of ANY age still has the capacity of learning. What differs is the level of teaching being appropriate for the age. If a kitten wants to bite, pull your hand away, but if the kitten is becoming excessively agressive, then there are appropriate courses to teach it that such behavior is not going to be accepted by those it lives with. Hence, a light tap on the nose, which is probably physically equivilant of a spanking to a child.

The problem is both extremism and people not being able to mind their own business. If a child is going to be disciplined by taking six swats upside the skull with a baseball bat at full on major league baseball force, they arent going to survive the very first strike, and definitely wont survive the next. That is the most extreme thing I can think of that I believe everyone would agree is excessive. At the same time, there is that old proverb of "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" which also has merit. We've all met these types of children and know full well what they grow up to become. Thus, the opposite end of the extreme of zero discipline is also not a viable solution. There is an acceptable range of what can be done without becoming extreme or abuse. But as we continue to try to use Government as a replacement for parents that are right fucking there, we narrow this window until what is acceptable is outside of the range of what works.

There are already laws on the books for the most extreme cases of child abuse. Forcing a child to live in a closet for weeks and months at a time I think we can all agree is abuse because it is excessive. We dont need to pass new laws for every little fucking thing. When we even think that this type of solution is going to work, we legislate away our morality, our dignity, and our liberty.

Always look to the future.

What is the next thing that is going to be considered abuse? Your kid is five pounds over / under weight? You should spend a year in jail because you are a negligent parent! Is that what we want? It is pretty damn obvious that we do because we keep opening up the doors that leads to your arrest for giving your child toast with butter on it.

The Free Man does not need the intervention of Government to raise a child. And nosy know-it-all neighbors who want to tell everyone else whether they should be "allowed" to eat peanut butter, or to eat chocolate accomplishes nothing but alienates the child from the community, which can be taken to the extremes just as anything else can be, and has the potential to cause much deeper psychological trauma on the child than a simple spanking ever could, and it all results because people wont mind their own fucking business.

This is what happens when you have Zero Privacy. Every busy body on the planet will tell you how to live your life.

A thousand times THIS. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DamianTV again.

Dammit!!

[shane77m]

A degree in child psychology at some uber-liberal college might be in your future...

Once you've obtained said degree and a suitable mate, procreate and care for your progeny for a couple of years.

Chances are your views might be a tad different...

+rep

[shane77m]

No kids eh?

I would say not. LOL

[cavalier973]

Well at least we agree on that. You really don't see any potential blowback or unintended consequences coming from this law?

He says that he's "not opposed to eviction", which means that the doctor can force a three-month-old to be born, and then leave him on the table to starve to death. The problem with that is that a baby that is still in the womb is not a trespasser, nor a parasite; he is exactly where he is supposed to be. A tapeworm, for example, can live comfortably in one's intestine, obtaining all the nutrients it needs from that organ. The intestine, though, does not exist for the purpose of maintaining the life of a tapeworm. A woman's womb, however, has no other purpose than to create and sustain the life of a fetus until it is ready to be born. "Evictionism" is a violation of the baby's natural rights to remain in its native environs.

[cavalier973]

I completely agree, which is why teaching them that using violence to get what you want is very dangerous.

They already know how to use violence, which is why they need spankings.

[Dr.3D]

Lol you don't have to quote Non-Aggression Principal like I just pulled it out of my ass. The Non-Aggression Principal IS Libertarianism, it's the foundational philosophy for all things Libertarian. If you don't subscribe to it, then you're not a Libertarian. If that's the case, I wasn't talking to you in my previous post.

Here's the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) on it, so you can catch up.

How many kids do I have? Are you implying that if I have no kids then I'm not qualified to discuss this? That's an Ad Hominem. Here's an Ad Hominem example: Perhaps you spank because you lack communication skills (e.g Ad Hominem attacks).
-----------------

To Feeding the Abscess. I believe the Non-Aggression Principal SHOULD be law.


Is spanking not a form of communication? Does it not only communicate but demonstrate at the same time that actions have consequences?

Yep, spanking is a form of communication. Those who don't understand this, need to try training horses. Sometimes there is no better way to communicate than to apply to the physical side of things. When negative behavior happens, the appropriate response should be immediate and consistent. It's much like how people learn when there is no one around. When you touch a hot burner and your finger gets burned, you quickly learn not to touch hot burners.

[cavalier973]

The last scourge of the loser in any argument is attacking the character of those they are conversing with.
Like when certain folks say (or imply) that certain other folks are "child abusers"?


It's even worse because there are hardly any advocates for their behalf.
And this is just nonsense. Parents, even (maybe especially) those who spank their child, are the greatest advocates that the child will ever know. Facebook philosophers who don't feed the child, care for the child when he is sick, take responsibility for the child's education, provide for the child's entertainment, sacrifice for the child's comfort, are hardly the ones to tell a parent that he is "doing it wrong".

My children aren't my property, but they are my responsibility, and as such they feel my authority over their lives. If I feel that spanking is necessary for their well-being, then I will spank them.

I suspect that a lot of the people who oppose spanking are followers of Stefan Molyneux (http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/2009/08/defoo-story.html).

[CaptainAmerica]

Dictatorship anyone?

[Dr.3D]

Dictatorship anyone?
I'm the dictator in my home.

[CaptainAmerica]

http://www.dulwichmum.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/spanking.jpg

I have something for the judges and courts and government of Delaware.CPS needs to be abolished

[Dr.3D]

http://www.dulwichmum.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/spanking.jpg

I have something for the judges and courts and government of Delaware.CPS needs to be abolished

LOL, we had one of those hanging on the wall in our kitchen. It was different in only one way though, it had the words, "Board of Education" printed on it.

[cavalier973]

None of my own, but I was the oldest child, and I've had 100s, if not 1000s, of hours of experience with young children, both relative and non-relative.
In other words, your experience does not entail children that you love unconditionally, and that love you in return.

[CaptainAmerica]

the only circumstance in which I believe a child of the age 4-5 maybe 6 needs to be spanked is when they do something violent against a sibling such as hit/scratch or bite purposely to harm their sibling or someone else and that it must be done immediately to show them that what they did was wrong then place them in time out to think about it.Letting a kid become violent towards their brother/sister/mother/father/grandparent at an early age is a VERY bad thing to allow.

[specsaregood]

In other words, your experience does not entail children that you love unconditionally, and that love you in return.

i hope that I never have to spank my child as the thought of it hurts. but if I judge that I need to, I will. and the state has no business in the matter.

[asurfaholic]

In other words, your experience does not entail children that you love unconditionally, and that love you in return.

Who cares even if he did have that blessing, he would still have no business acting like he knows whats best for MY child..

But i agree, whats more insulting than someone trying to tell you how to raise your child, is someone without children telling you how.

[Origanalist]

Who cares even if he did have that blessing, he would still have no business acting like he knows whats best for MY child..

But i agree, whats more insulting than someone trying to tell you how to raise your child, is someone without children telling you how.

What's the difference between a self righteous libertarian and a self righteous progressive? Apparently not much when it comes to telling others how to conduct their family affairs.

[DamianTV]

What's the difference between a self righteous libertarian and a self righteous progressive? Apparently not much when it comes to telling others how to conduct their family affairs.

Peanut Butter. Chocolate.

[specsaregood]

Peanut Butter. Chocolate.

I'm not sure you can feed those to kids anymore, some might deem it abusive. esp. if the kid has bad teeth, a weight problem, adhd, acne, or something.

[ZenBowman]

USA's future is screwed. More and more kids feel self-entitled and are empowered by the liberals... Taking power out of "grown-ups".

Spanking exists for thousands of years and humans turned out fine.

Not really, no.

Spanking is for neocons (srs).

[DamianTV]

Neocons also want Waterboarding to be legal too. Maybe instead of spanking the Neocons when they misbehave, we should Waterboard them instead? I fear too many Neocons would actually enjoy being spanked, but being Waterboarded, thats a whole different story...

[jkr]

are they gonna ban cops kicking the shit out of people too...cause that seems a lot more of a problem these days

[Nirvikalpa]

While I usually snicker at the whole concept of the non-aggression principle, I find it especially hilarious to apply it to dealing with toddlers. Those little demons will eat you alive.

There are only two ways to persuade people. Logic and force. 2 year olds don't comprehend logic.

The concrete operational stage doesn't occur until ages 7-11, and is the stage where "logic thought" first (according to science) occurs. Shall we still spank our 7-11 year olds because all they understand is force?

[Mr. Perfidy]

The weak under-belly of the libertarian intellectual movement is child rights.

I think that we need like a Manifesto of Child Rights

[king_nothing_]

What's the difference between a self righteous libertarian and a self righteous progressive? Apparently not much when it comes to telling others how to conduct their family affairs.
When you dress it up as "conducting family affairs", it sounds fine, and you sound like the victim of tyranny. When you call it what it is, physical assault, the child is rightly portrayed as the victim. Deep down I think you may know your stance on this is flimsy and a bit off...why else would you dress it up as "conducting family affairs" and avoid describing it as simply as possible: "It's insulting that someone would try to tell me that I can't hit/strike/beat my child." If you actually have no moral qualms with such actions, then you should have no problem referring to it plainly instead of using euphemisms.

Do children deserve enough individual rights to be protected from physical abuse? And before you say it's not really physical abuse...what is the purpose of the action? The purpose is to cause physical pain to the child to teach them some lesson. Striking someone in order to cause them physical pain is physical abuse, regardless of whatever positive purpose you attach to it.

Should you have the right to beat your wife if she misbehaves? No? Why not? Because her mental capacity is higher than that of a child's, and she is able to respond to reasoning, whereas a child cannot? What if she's mentally disabled? What's the difference then? Should you be able to beat her then?

The "it's the only way to make them listen" argument is obviously fallacious as well; plenty of people have raised children without spanking them and been enormously successful. There's also mountains of empirical evidence proving that spanked children develop mental health issues at a higher frequency than non-spanked children. Mountains. I'm guessing you've either never bothered to explore such evidence, or just wrote it off as "lefty nonsense" or something upon merely hearing about it.

I'm not all that enamored by arguments from effect such as those, though. The moral argument is more than sufficient: the initiation of violence is wrong. Stop initiating violence against your children.

[Mr. Perfidy]

Many could reasonably argue that violence entails limiting legitimate natural expressions of force, among them, hitting offspring. Is it not violent, for example, to make a lion not hunt and kill? We might argue that hitting kids is a natural property of man. devil's advocate and all

[specsaregood]

Do children deserve enough individual rights to be protected from physical abuse? And before you say it's not really physical abuse...what is the purpose of the action? The purpose is to cause physical pain to the child to teach them some lesson. Striking someone in order to cause them physical pain is physical abuse, regardless of whatever positive purpose you attach to it.


Is it child abuse when a mamma dog nips her puppy to teach it not to do something?

[king_nothing_]

Many could reasonably argue that violence entails limiting legitimate natural expressions of force, among them, hitting offspring. Is it not violent, for example, to make a lion not hunt and kill? We might argue that hitting kids is a natural property of man. devil's advocate and all
Yes, there is possibly violence (in the purest sense of the word) in both cases. The difference, though, is who initiated violence. The parent initiated violence against their child, and a third party stepped in and acted against the parent in defense of the child. Violence in self-defense, or in defense of someone else, is fine. The initiation of violence is not.

[Mr. Perfidy]

I am trying to distinguish between the use of force and the initiation of violence. I watch my cats chase after and kill flies in my house. They kill crickets too. I do not ever think, "what violent monsters!"

[king_nothing_]

Is it child abuse when a mamma dog nips her puppy to teach it not to do something?
I'm not sure, you'd have to ask the ethical and philosophical leaders of the canine society to figure that out. Oh wait...

Are we finished with the totally inane comparisons now?

[specsaregood]

I'm not sure, you'd have to ask ethical and philosophical leaders of the canine society to figure that out. Oh wait...
Are we finished with the totally inane comparisons now?

Seems like an appropriate comparison to me, especially when the child is too young to understand/communicate with language effectively.

[king_nothing_]

Seems like an appropriate comparison to me, especially when the child is too young to understand/communicate with language effectively.
Is canine nature and human nature two different things? Right, so you can let go of that ridiculous comparison then. If you're expecting to make any convincing argument regarding ethics by using interspecies comparisons, you're sorely mistaken.

The "too young to understand" argument is bunk. Newborns can't understand; do you beat newborns to shut them up? I'm pretty damn sure that the age in which you advocate using corporal punishment is well past the age when they begin to understand language. They don't even need to have a firm grasp of language anyway; there are more ways to get something across other than complex language and pain, you know (or maybe you don't). This is all irrelevant anyway, since as I've already mentioned, plenty of people have successfully raised children without hitting them. You present your argument as if there is no evidence whatsoever of non-hitting parenting being possible. There is real world evidence to the contrary.

[specsaregood]

Is canine nature and human nature two different things?

Well the nature of man probably belongs in the religion or philosophy section. But as I often find that it is the atheists or agnostics promoting the no-spanking philosophy, I wouldn't think they'd think we are too different from any other mammal.



You present your argument as if there is no evidence whatsoever of non-hitting parenting being possible.
Please point out where I made such an argument, thanks in advance. if anything, I feel I made the opposite argument in my posts.

[Shredmonster]

Some kids learn from a spanking. Some never need a spanking. I never spanked my kid but he did not need it. With some kids it is the only thing they will react to and behave from.
Circumstances are different for different kids. Nothing wrong with spanking when needed. Child abuse is something totally different. Government idiots can't figure that out. Or anything else out from the direction this country is going in.
Teachers can't control kids in the classroom anymore. It is a horrible situation. When I was a kid I saw kids slammed against lockers and teachers scared the shit out of them - these were bad kids and I knew nothing else would work. The threat of violence was the only thing these kids would respect. Otherwise they would push and push and push to where other kids could not learn because it was too disrupting.
Fuck Delaware. I hope they get what they deserve. Gee - maybe next they will vote it is too violent for cops to physically apprehend suspects there too. "Please Mr. Criminal get in the back of my squad car."

[DamianTV]

^^^

"Stop! Im warning you! If you dont stop, I'll shout Stop again!"

LOL, /agree

[cjm]

Yes, there is possibly violence (in the purest sense of the word) in both cases. The difference, though, is who initiated violence. The parent initiated violence against their child, and a third party stepped in and acted against the parent in defense of the child. Violence in self-defense, or in defense of someone else, is fine. The initiation of violence is not.

Not all spankings are the initiation of violence. There's one example in this thread where the kid was biting the parent and got a swat. Biting is the initiation of violence here. Wouldn't the NAP uphold the spanking in this case?

I'm getting the impression that most of the anti-spanking crowd here thinks that small children are perfect angels and are not initiating violence towards person and property when they get a spanking. Whether a spanking is an appropriate response to the child's violence can be debated, but assuming that the spanking is the initiation of violence is a poor assumption in my opinion.

[James Madison]

No football I guess.

Why don't we just dress the kids up in bras and tin-foil hats. They can toss a balloon back and forth, while complementing each other and hugging. Sounds great.

Wow. Thanks for the -rep, Nirvikalpa.


You could have made your point without being sexist

You might want to watch this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzym9PywqUo&feature=related

:rolleyes:

[asurfaholic]

When you dress it up as "conducting family affairs", it sounds fine, and you sound like the victim of tyranny. When you call it what it is, physical assault, the child is rightly portrayed as the victim.

I think you are missing a major point here, and that is that a loving caring parent spanking their child is a far cry from "physical assault." Make much mountain of molehills much?


Deep down I think you may know your stance on this is flimsy and a bit off...why else would you dress it up as "conducting family affairs" and avoid describing it as simply as possible: "It's insulting that someone would try to tell me that I can't hit/strike/beat my child." If you actually have no moral qualms with such actions, then you should have no problem referring to it plainly instead of using euphemisms.

It really is that simple though, a family consist of parents and children. The parents have a responsibility to ensure the child grows up safely and capable of making the right decisions. Spanking at a young age is a personal, family by family decision that should only be made IN the family. Not by some outside group. So when a family sits down for dinner and the rule is "no throwing dishes," and little jonny takes it upon himself to throw all the dishes in a ft of rage, the family has a responsibility to end the bad behavior. If daddy and mommy know that saying "No!" doesn't do the trick, they have a decision to make. Does the child learn that bad behavior gets ignored or lightly chided, then swept under the rug, or that bad behavior is followed by consequences? Family affairs is far from flimsy. Again, mountains out of molehills. Abuse and spanking are 2 different ballgames.


Do children deserve enough individual rights to be protected from physical abuse?

Yes. I was 8 years old, my stepdad was drunk and mad because I wouldnt pour the younger sibling more cereal (yes, drunk at cereal time). I was pulled out of the kitchen chair, pulling my shoulder out of socket, taken down the hall to my bedroom, kicked in the thigh with steel toe boots, and tossed into my top bunk and he left for work. I didn't say anything, but teachers noticed bruises, and was called into the guidance councelors office, where pictures were taken and reports made. My stepdad, being an officer in the Navy, was given a slap on the wrist, and had to apologise to me. He did not stop the violence there.

So yes, children, and all people, deserve he right to be protected from physical abuse.


And before you say it's not really physical abuse...what is the purpose of the action? The purpose is to cause physical pain to the child to teach them some lesson. Striking someone in order to cause them physical pain is physical abuse, regardless of whatever positive purpose you attach to it.

Before moving in with my stepdad, my mother would spank me and my older brother when we acted out. The spankings were few and far between, and served as valuable lessons when we really messed up. We never acted out and respected those who deserved respect (teachers, other family members, ect). The actual purpose of the action, contrary to what you think, is NOT to cause physical pain, but to teach a lesson. A sharp lesson that will get the child's immediate attention. Earlier in this thread I made the comment that my 13 mo old baby girl decided to bite down hard on my arm.. Believe me, the last thing I ever want to do is cause my baby physical pain, but I knew that there was one way to send a clear message that biting was wrong. You told a baby "no" before? It doesn't exactly always work. I swatted her little rear end good enough so she knew that she did something that daddy didn't like. And you know something, she hasn't bit me since. 13 months old, she learned something. On the other hand, she likes to go turn my xbox off while we are watching netflix or whatever. We tell her no, but some times she doesn't listen, and turns it off while we are saying "No riley, no riley" and looks back afterwards and laughs. Little brat, but its not a big deal, no biggie. Theres no need to spank her, its nothing major, but the point here is - saying NO doesn't do the trick, so if I have to teach her something, how do I do it? Oh, this baby is absolutely the happiest little pumpkin in the world.

SO you are suggesting that I have physically abused my baby, becaues of what I just described to you?


Should you have the right to beat your wife if she misbehaves? No? Why not? Because her mental capacity is higher than that of a child's, and she is able to respond to reasoning, whereas a child cannot? What if she's mentally disabled? What's the difference then? Should you be able to beat her then?

My goodness, totally irrelevant. We are talking about children. No, you shouldnt beat your wife, or you dog. Or your child. Beating other people up is wrong. Spanking a child, however is not wrong.


The "it's the only way to make them listen" argument is obviously fallacious as well; plenty of people have raised children without spanking them and been enormously successful. There's also mountains of empirical evidence proving that spanked children develop mental health issues at a higher frequency than non-spanked children. Mountains. I'm guessing you've either never bothered to explore such evidence, or just wrote it off as "lefty nonsense" or something upon merely hearing about it.

Reading through a bunch of stuff, it seems that most of the "it causes mental illness" nonsense seems to be connected to what seems to be actual cases of abuse. Proper spanking by a loving nuturing parent will never leave a child with mental illness. I was abused, and spanked, and I turned out perfectly fine.


I'm not all that enamored by arguments from effect such as those, though. The moral argument is more than sufficient: the initiation of violence is wrong. Stop initiating violence against your children.

How about you just worry about yourself?

[tod evans]

When you call it what it is, physical assault, the child is rightly portrayed as the victim.

This is the biggest load of horseshit I've seen yet today.

A spanking is a "physical assault"?............Not in my book it's not.

If I physically assault somebody there's blood usually associated with anger, if I spank my child it's for correction and there's never blood and I don't spank when I'm angry.

Attempting to call a spanking an assault is like these idiots who scream sexual assault when the waitress gets her ass pinched.

Then again maybe you can't differentiate?

[king_nothing_]

Not all spankings are the initiation of violence. There's one example in this thread where the kid was biting the parent and got a swat. Biting is the initiation of violence here. Wouldn't the NAP uphold the spanking in this case?
I don't think so, because spanking after a bite is not violence committed in self-defense.


I'm getting the impression that most of the anti-spanking crowd here thinks that small children are perfect angels and are not initiating violence towards person and property when they get a spanking. Whether a spanking is an appropriate response to the child's violence can be debated, but assuming that the spanking is the initiation of violence is a poor assumption in my opinion.
Of course I don't think they're all angels. I've seen first hand that they aren't.

About it not always being the initiation of violence, well, I think I addressed this above, but I'll reiterate it. Who used violence first is not the only factor. The other factor is whether or not the force is in self-defense. Committing violence against someone which is not strictly for the purpose of defending yourself from harm is not just.


I think you are missing a major point here, and that is that a loving caring parent spanking their child is a far cry from "physical assault." Make much mountain of molehills much?
Whether they love or care about the child is irrelevant to the fact that hitting someone to the point of causing physical pain, not for the purpose of defending yourself, is physical assault. I don't know how many different ways I can say that. "The person in question must not love or care about the other person in question" is not a requisite to defining an act as physical assault. You're just redefining the term to suit your purposes.

In the same way that theft does not become something other than theft if the thieves insist they are doing it for the greater good of society, physical assault does not become something other than physical assault if the assaulter insists they are doing it for the good of the child because they love and care about him or her.


Reading through a bunch of stuff, it seems that most of the "it causes mental illness" nonsense seems to be connected to what seems to be actual cases of abuse. Proper spanking by a loving nuturing parent will never leave a child with mental illness. I was abused, and spanked, and I turned out perfectly fine.
There are many studies which have been done specifically on the milder, very prevalent form of corporal punishment -- swatting on the butt without the intention of causing injury. I would appreciate it if you would watch the following:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONNRfflggBg

It's a bunch of information culled from various formal studies (sources are provided) on the results of spanking, and it's made clear from the start what type of corporal punishment they're talking about (not the extreme, injurious type).

[Dr.3D]

How Dr. Spock destroyed America (http://www.wnd.com/2009/01/87179/)

[cjm]

I don't think so, because spanking after a bite is not violence committed in self-defense.

But then again, I didn't say the swat came after a bite, did I? I said the child was biting the parent. Present tense, not past.

[bunklocoempire]

Parenting is kind of a personal thing. No one knows your child like you do and each child has his/her own quirks.

I used to work in retail - we had a woman with a small boy - still in a diaper, but walking, shopping one day. The little guy, curious as any little kid would be, found the sparkly things on our earring tree - which was just the right height for him to dismantle... at least the bottom part of it was.
His mom told him no.. up close and personal - not mean but he got the message - and watched her until she looked away - and his little hand went right back to knocking things off the display.
She reached down and gave him a swat on the diaper and OMG.. I thought two little old ladies would come unglued.. their faces puckered and they started to confront this mother about child abuse.

This woman, listened respectfully then said, matter of factly., listen ladies, if you want him breaking into your houses in 10 years, I won't disipline him... would that make you happy?

One of the best retorts I've ever heard.

That was my parents take on it too -and the fact that if I was ever caught by the individual I would end up dead and if caught by the law dead or jailed.

They wouldn't like somebody shooting or jailing their son, but nobody owed them or their kids anything either.

I was given verbal warnings with the logic behind them first, and then when I ignored those warnings I was spanked -privately. For the behavior that made sense to me but not to them the logic was explained as "Because I said so". I learned to eventually trust their good judgement.

Every spanking was clearly explained to me before receiving it, and at the spanking age and then beyond when they had the opportunity, they never put me to bed without telling me they loved me and going over what might have happened during my day good or bad.

Have a look at that video and see how much that is mentioned -yet there's time devoted to implements? :rolleyes:

Spanking is just another tool for discipline plain and simple.

Disciplining a child in any form and with a real intention to modify behavior is 100% about attitude and communication from the responsible adult.

THAT's where it starts, from there you can determine if the child needs a spanking or their privileges revoked for a month or what have you.

video: "If you're doing it wrong half the time you probably shouldn't be doing it at all" Really Stephen? :toady:

[cjm]

For those that are willing to participate, I was curious to see how parenthood correlated to the opinions on this law and I put up a poll:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?392177-Delaware-spanking-poll

[Origanalist]

You know, just when I was starting to think libertarians were worth taking seriously this thread blows that right out of the water. They're apparently no better than the progressives at reigning in their impulses to control other people.

And if you think I'm prone to bashing libertarians please check my comments.

[Philhelm]

Sheesh, what a messy thread. I'm having my first child in a couple of months, and I guess I'll have to rethink using disciplinary techniques such as beating my daughter with a rusty, iron chain, burning her with cigarettes, lightly swatting her bottom when she misbehaves and does not respond to reason, punching her in the face, or tying her to the back of my car and driving over a gravelly road.

[Origanalist]

Sheesh, what a messy thread. I'm having my first child in a couple of months, and I guess I'll have to rethink using disciplinary techniques such as beating my daughter with a rusty, iron chain, burning her with cigarettes, lightly swatting her bottom when she misbehaves and does not respond to reason, punching her in the face, or tying her to the back of my car and driving over a gravelly road.

Well you know, they get real uppity if you don't beat the hell out of them at least once a week.

[Wesker1982]

I think changing people's beliefs on this is a better solution than using government force, but spanking children is abuse. (http://wesker1982.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/spanking-children-is-abuse) (please actually read before saying "wuuuuut about running into the street?!")

[cjm]

There are many studies which have been done specifically on the milder, very prevalent form of corporal punishment -- swatting on the butt without the intention of causing injury. I would appreciate it if you would watch the following

At 6:45 or so they define corporal punishment as spanking at least 3 times a week. He also talks about spanking all the way up through high school. I would agree that there are probably long term effects on both the children and parents in this sort of relationship. That being said, I don't think an infrequent swat on the bottom of a small child (up through age 5 or so) will lead to alcoholism or any of the other claimed results.

[BSWPaulsen]

Wesker1982 - Picking up the child trying to run into the street qualifies as abuse using your criteria (see: "offensive physical contact" part of the definition of the word "assault" you cited in your article). The child does not want you to pick him up and keep him out of the street, making it assault by definition - you are not allowed to arrest anyone's person without their permission even when the activity is considered detrimental to the individual. Given you have conflated "assault" with "abuse", you don't have a case here.

Similarly, words are devious - it can be argued spanking isn't abuse by virtue of arguing that spanking isn't producing pain caused by mal-treatment, but rather beneficial treatment that resulted in pain as a side-effect.

The problem is what qualifies as abuse is largely a matter of perspective dependent on an individual's philosophy and understanding of the world. Even if all the world reached universal agreement that spanking is abuse...that doesn't make it so.

Of course, you are free to view parents that spank in a lower light than those that don't, but beyond that your arguments don't hold any particular special relevance in the matter. All that matters, in the end, is that parents are going to parent how they see fit. The State isn't the solution, and if people really want to stop spanking, then they need to make an appeal to prospective parents that will raise the next generation.

[heavenlyboy34]

You know, just when I was starting to think libertarians were worth taking seriously this thread blows that right out of the water. They're apparently no better than the progressives at reigning in their impulses to control other people.

And if you think I'm prone to bashing libertarians please check my comments.
Collectivist. :p

[Origanalist]

Collectivist. :p

Touche

[KingRobbStark]

And I'm guessing the parents who dont comply with this law will get shot?

[Mr. Perfidy]

If I physically assault somebody there's blood usually associated with anger, if I spank my child it's for correction and there's never blood and I don't spank when I'm angry.


hahahahaha


I am so glad you brought this up.


My parents hit me when I was growing up- all of us actually. (I am the eldest of 5). Sometimes I would do something particularly offensive to my mother, and she would throw something at me while uttering a curse. Sometimes I would just insult and disrespectfully talk to my father and he would just punch my arm hard. Or the finger poke- he lost the tip of his middle finger as a kid in a bike chain, so his middle and index finger were the same length, and that was a mean jab to the pecs.

They were volatile, mediterranean people- my father explained that as a kid, his dad's family from the old country (malta) would visit, and he saw BOTH PARENTS bite the shit out of their daughter over knocking a ball in a neighbor's yard. His own father was an abusive drunk. So, they just had mad rage in them. (haha I don't know what my mother's problem is- her father is a very civlized opera-listener/oil-painting piano player and her mom was pretty mellow- I think her oldest sister is a violent psycho though). It was multi-generational; as a little kid I was aware of this, that it just gets passed along.

But, that was an understanding of angry violence, which is entirely to this day, eminently rational to me. If one angers another more powerful than himself, one is inviting hurt. That is a property of dealing with anger and what I am glad to have learned from my parents hitting me.



haha so anyway, for years, I thought that this is what people meant by spanking, and I defended spanking kids, thinking it meant swatting the upstart cubs with restrained claw in moments of heat and tension.


I was like 18 though when I read desmond morris, and he discussed school-spanking, and even older when I saw depicted on television that you are talking about- dispassionate, "not angry" spanking. Policy spanking! LOL

THAT seems thorooughly wrong, warped, and twisted to me. I think that would be way more damaging than internalizing not to fuck with the aggressive one.

How do you not feel very uncomfortable with the sadistic sexual element of it? Do you imagine that your child is not learning twisted sexual lessons from it? So fuckin' weird. Ew it creeps me out to envision. When i learned that this is what people meant by spanking! haha fuck that- I am an anti-spanker.
But I do think that a house should have a jail-house, clan-of-the-cave-bear curriculum dimension to it, in order for one to grow up capable of defending themselves and recognizing threatening situations/body language.

[tod evans]

How do you not feel very uncomfortable with the sadistic sexual element of it? Do you imagine that your child is not learning twisted sexual lessons from it? So fuckin' weird. Ew it creeps me out to envision. When i learned that this is what people meant by spanking! haha fuck that- I am an anti-spanker.


Being able to equate sexual behavior with disciplining a child is more than just a tad off in my opinion.

If a person gets aroused by their own child there's some underlying issues that have nothing to do with discipline.

It's really difficult to grasp your concept that anyone could confuse disciplining a child with sexual spanking, I suppose there are some genuinely confused and screwed up people in the world, (or else you never would have brought up this twisted scenario), but somehow I don't think it's the average parent who spanks their child as punishment.

You know what creeps me out? Adults teaching children that parents get off on spanking their kids.

What's even creepier is adults teaching kids that they can use "the trauma of being spanked" to justify abhorrent behavior later in life.

Yup, creepy.

[DamianTV]

Son of a Bitch!

Now I cant go to Delaware anymore to get my S&M Fetish on!

Oh, spanking children, my bad!

[asurfaholic]

I think changing people's beliefs on this is a better solution than using government force, but spanking children is abuse. (http://wesker1982.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/spanking-children-is-abuse) (please actually read before saying "wuuuuut about running into the street?!")

Thats an opinion. Your opinion. One that is flawed. Equating spanking as physical assault is just plain twisting things around to push an agenda. There has been a powerful movement to strip parents of thier ability to properly disipline their children, surrendering that responsibility to the state.

Sure there are cases of abuse, but banning all forms of spanking is not the answer. It would be like banning alcohol because some people abuse it. It is not the answer. Personal responsibility....

[Todd]

How many kids do I have? Are you implying that if I have no kids then I'm not qualified to discuss this?

I think what most people think about when people start advocating things they have no experience with such as having a 4 year old go out of control and destructive and violent, then you might not know what your talking about.

[specsaregood]

I think what most people think about when people start advocating things they have no experience with such as having a 4 year old go out of control and destructive and violent, then you might not know what your talking about.

And even if they have that particular experience, they still don't have the experience of being the ultimate caregiver and decision maker in regards to teaching that child. It is easy to make rules and tell people what they can and can't do when you aren't ultimately the one that is responsible.

[Mr. Perfidy]

Being able to equate sexual behavior with disciplining a child is more than just a tad off in my opinion.

well then you are a sexually repressed, anal-retentive lol.

are you seriously going to deny the parallels?




If a person gets aroused by their own child there's some underlying issues that have nothing to do with discipline.

well see "my child" is an idea- ass-cheeks turning pink is a sense-impression. The mind is aroused by sense impressions and ideas alike. And I didn't even mention the parent being aroused anyway- I asked about the obvious sexual parallels, and how you imagine this might affect the child's sexual development. Haha, you brought that into the conversation man.


It's really difficult to grasp your concept that anyone could confuse disciplining a child with sexual spanking,

see again you are assigning this concept to the behavior- I am not talking about the concept of discipline, I am talking about the act of dispassionately telling someone to bend over, and then, without any anger(?!) spanking them. Just the act itself...is weird. Say it out loud and see how it affects your heart rate. I bet it makes you uncomfortable to even speak, even alone. That's because it's creepy.


I suppose there are some genuinely confused and screwed up people in the world, (or else you never would have brought up this twisted scenario), but somehow I don't think it's the average parent who spanks their child as punishment.

ok so to clariy- when you say that you spank them, but not when you are angry: can you like, tell me what that means? Haha is their ass bare? I actually meant that, for the record, as I mentioned old spanking as done in schools or in the victorian era or some shit. Crazy white people stuff.


You know what creeps me out? Adults teaching children that parents get off on spanking their kids.

nope, wasn't talking about getting off. I was only saying that the imagery and actions and speech involved are most definitely sexual impressions, and question how effective this is as a child-rearing technique.


What's even creepier is adults teaching kids that they can use "the trauma of being spanked" to justify abhorrent behavior later in life.

I know that if my father or mother practiced this strange form of spanking, I'd have some of you motherfuckers in jars in my closet. I can't see how that doesn't warp the psyche. It probably manifests though as Conservative voting behavior, support for war, and homophobia.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think what most people think about when people start advocating things they have no experience with such as having a 4 year old go out of control and destructive and violent, then you might not know what your talking about.

Have you ever been to Afghanistan or Iraq? How dare you voice your opinion on such matters. If you haven't experienced it first-hand then you cannot possibly form a perfectly valid cogent analysis. Right....I have an imaginary bridge to sell you, never mind the fact that every single human being was a child at some point.

[Mr. Perfidy]

I actually tore free from the womb fully formed and armed like Marduk

[AlexAmore]

You can say spanking isn't hitting or abuse...but our government says a lot of things as well.

All I'm doing is looking at our Non-Aggression Principal and definitions of hitting, assault and battery, and abuse. In no case can I find any qualifiers that would allow special privileges to parents. I can't find anything that qualifies a child as less than a "person". I find no qualifiers for good intentions, nor does "love" have a part in these definitions. I also find no qualifiers for "parenting".

Now if you want to create an unwritten amendment to these definitions, then please stop railing on the government for doing the same. In the mean-time I find it to be dangerous and authoritarian to group people as collectives (ie. children, adults, blacks, whites...etc). Once you start doing that you set a precedent. I also find it dangerous to own people as that sets a precedent. This mindset of ownership means you can do whatever you want, but obviously you can't do whatever you want with your child (kill, torture are obvious examples)...so you don't own him/her.

[jmdrake]

Expect more of this in Delaware.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqpc_mseJ2Q

[bunklocoempire]

Expect more of this in Delaware.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqpc_mseJ2Q

An excellent argument for confinement loaf.

The loaf could also be designed to curb obeseity.

Sadly, over the scanner I frequently hear of police getting called to the public schools for bad behavior. Most recently the kids have been around the age of 10.

Don't know about any handcuffs used, but handcuffs or not this whole state-children 'relationship' is bullshit. The sooner the state gets out of the child rearing/brainwashing business the better.

[asurfaholic]

You can say spanking isn't hitting or abuse...but our government says a lot of things as well.

All I'm doing is looking at our Non-Aggression Principal and definitions of hitting, assault and battery, and abuse. In no case can I find any qualifiers that would allow special privileges to parents. I can't find anything that qualifies a child as less than a "person". I find no qualifiers for good intentions, nor does "love" have a part in these definitions. I also find no qualifiers for "parenting".

Now if you want to create an unwritten amendment to these definitions, then please stop railing on the government for doing the same. In the mean-time I find it to be dangerous and authoritarian to group people as collectives (ie. children, adults, blacks, whites...etc). Once you start doing that you set a precedent. I also find it dangerous to own people as that sets a precedent. This mindset of ownership means you can do whatever you want, but obviously you can't do whatever you want with your child (kill, torture are obvious examples)...so you don't own him/her.


What is the child to its parents?

[DamianTV]

Expect more of this in Delaware.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqpc_mseJ2Q

In Deleware, you dont have the "Right" to spank your child. But Cops will gain more and more "Rights" to not only Tazer your child, but to beat them bloody, and literally to death. Cops will be graned the "Rights" to shoot your child, while parents will probably soon be denied the "Right" to even yell at their kids. How long until Parenting itself becomes a Crime?

---

There are two main things that are taught in Public Schools today. Submission, and Obedience. Neither one of them are exactly "Marketable Skills".

[tod evans]

Look Bud, the "tad off" seems to fit you to a "t".

If I ever catch you near my child I can assure you you'll wear many lumps, and not on your backside.




well then you are a sexually repressed, anal-retentive lol.

are you seriously going to deny the parallels?





well see "my child" is an idea- ass-cheeks turning pink is a sense-impression. The mind is aroused by sense impressions and ideas alike. And I didn't even mention the parent being aroused anyway- I asked about the obvious sexual parallels, and how you imagine this might affect the child's sexual development. Haha, you brought that into the conversation man.



see again you are assigning this concept to the behavior- I am not talking about the concept of discipline, I am talking about the act of dispassionately telling someone to bend over, and then, without any anger(?!) spanking them. Just the act itself...is weird. Say it out loud and see how it affects your heart rate. I bet it makes you uncomfortable to even speak, even alone. That's because it's creepy.



ok so to clariy- when you say that you spank them, but not when you are angry: can you like, tell me what that means? Haha is their ass bare? I actually meant that, for the record, as I mentioned old spanking as done in schools or in the victorian era or some shit. Crazy white people stuff.



nope, wasn't talking about getting off. I was only saying that the imagery and actions and speech involved are most definitely sexual impressions, and question how effective this is as a child-rearing technique.



I know that if my father or mother practiced this strange form of spanking, I'd have some of you motherfuckers in jars in my closet. I can't see how that doesn't warp the psyche. It probably manifests though as Conservative voting behavior, support for war, and homophobia.

[DamianTV]

Lets do something different.

I wont spank anyone elses child other than my own. I wont call the cops on anyone if I see them spanking their child. I wont call the cops if the child is very misbehaved and they dont spank their child. I would hope than everyone show me the same respect.

[tod evans]

Thank you!

Drats, outta rep..


Lets do something different.

I wont spank anyone elses child other than my own. I wont call the cops on anyone if I see them spanking their child. I wont call the cops if the child is very misbehaved and they dont spank their child. I would hope than everyone show me the same respect.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Nineteen pages, and no one questions if Delaware actually did this? The only sites mentioning a ban on this being passed in that state are fringe sites like LifeSiteNews and WorldNetDaily, etc.; sites that are known to stretch the truth. If a state became the first in the nation to pass a real spanking ban, it'd be big news and all over the place, which makes me think Delaware didn't actually specifically ban it.

[king_nothing_]

Thats an opinion. Your opinion. One that is flawed. Equating spanking as physical assault is just plain twisting things around to push an agenda. There has been a powerful movement to strip parents of thier ability to properly disipline their children, surrendering that responsibility to the state.

Sure there are cases of abuse, but banning all forms of spanking is not the answer. It would be like banning alcohol because some people abuse it. It is not the answer. Personal responsibility....
Equating spanking to physical assault is not twisting anything, it is applying the term honestly and logically. It is you who is twisting the meaning.

How do you think "physical assault" is defined? I would assume you at least used to know the real answer to this, but at some point you unconsciously started to tinker with its definition in order to keep hold of your belief in corporal punishment without suffering from cognitive dissonance. Just to be clear, "love", "caring", or "parent" have no relevance whatsoever when determining whether or not physical assault has taken place. Due to that, every argument here asserting that it is not assault due to the presence of one or more of those three things in the situation is completely bunk.

I can't decide whether the argument "your rights as a parent are being taken away from you" is hilarious, sad, scary, or a combination all three. You obviously should not have the right to do whatever under the sun you wish. There are limits to what you have the right to do. You don't have the right to murder, assault, steal, vandalize, or defraud. So, your first and really only task is to logically prove that corporal punishment is not assault. None of you have done that, nor can you. All you're doing is jumping straight to asserting "it's not assault, that's ridiculous", which is backed by nothing more than a massive appeal to tradition fallacy (this is the way it's always been!). There's no logical reasoning there at all.


Lets do something different.

I wont spank anyone elses child other than my own. I wont call the cops on anyone if I see them spanking their child. I wont call the cops if the child is very misbehaved and they dont spank their child. I would hope than everyone show me the same respect.
I do not respect your "right" to hit people in a non-defensive situation. I never will.

[AlexAmore]

What is the child to its parents?

Well I'll tell you what the parent is. A steward, basically a manager. The parent manages the financial affairs of the child, keeps him out of trouble and fed...etc.

[DamianTV]

...

I do not respect your "right" to hit people in a non-defensive situation. I never will.

Not your kid. Not your call.

For the record, Punishment should NEVER be used to take out ones frustrations on another. I think it destroys the very concept of what Punishment is supposed to be, which is intended to correct an unwanted behavior. If my kid were to come home with bad grades, I think the appropriate "Punishment" would be to help them to understand the subject matter they were having difficulty with. A spanking in that situation would not cause any positive results because the form of punishment fails to address the problem itself. But for another parent, I wont tell them how to raise their child.

I also dont believe that Spanking should ever be intended to cause physical injury. Tapping a kitten on the nose as a corrective measure can be mildly unpleasant, but isnt so forceful as to break the cats skull. The desired response can be achieved with minimal force, and sometimes, that force is necessary.

I do support a Parents Right to spank their child, as I described above as a corrective measure. Hand swat when reaching for the stove. A smack on the bottom to correct unruly behavior. And there are appropriate times and uses for it, and inappropriate times and uses for it. But just as I support others Rights to spank their children, I also support your Right to decide to not spank your child. It is beyond my ability to decide what is right for other people, and beyond my Soverign Authority over myself to decide for someone else what choices are right and wrong for them. What I would try to do is to come up with creative constructive alternatives, when they are requested of me, but I do not ever want to try to force my opinion on someone else, mostly because I dont want other people to try to force their opinions on me. I do not believe in god, and have zero intention of raising my child to be religious. And there are plenty of parents, nay, people, who would like to see me suffer for all eternity for choosing to express my athiest beliefs to my child, even if I respect the child enough to allow them the freedom to choose for themselves.

We all need to be careful of which doors we open and close.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Not your kid. Not your call.

For the record, Punishment should NEVER be used to take out ones frustrations on another. I think it destroys the very concept of what Punishment is supposed to be, which is intended to correct an unwanted behavior. If my kid were to come home with bad grades, I think the appropriate "Punishment" would be to help them to understand the subject matter they were having difficulty with. A spanking in that situation would not cause any positive results because the form of punishment fails to address the problem itself. But for another parent, I wont tell them how to raise their child.

I also dont believe that Spanking should ever be intended to cause physical injury. Tapping a kitten on the nose as a corrective measure can be mildly unpleasant, but isnt so forceful as to break the cats skull. The desired response can be achieved with minimal force, and sometimes, that force is necessary.

I do support a Parents Right to spank their child, as I described above as a corrective measure. Hand swat when reaching for the stove. A smack on the bottom to correct unruly behavior. And there are appropriate times and uses for it, and inappropriate times and uses for it. But just as I support others Rights to spank their children, I also support your Right to decide to not spank your child. It is beyond my ability to decide what is right for other people, and beyond my Soverign Authority over myself to decide for someone else what choices are right and wrong for them. What I would try to do is to come up with creative constructive alternatives, when they are requested of me, but I do not ever want to try to force my opinion on someone else, mostly because I dont want other people to try to force their opinions on me. I do not believe in god, and have zero intention of raising my child to be religious. And there are plenty of parents, nay, people, who would like to see me suffer for all eternity for choosing to express my athiest beliefs to my child, even if I respect the child enough to allow them the freedom to choose for themselves.

We all need to be careful of which doors we open and close.

The whole point to libertarianism is to do exactly the opposite of what you preach; Nihilism. Libertarianism sets strict and universal principles to what set of actions an individual cannot do. Perhaps you should go to a Nitzchean or a Max Stirner site, because you would be a lot more compatible there.

Unlike you, I absolutely have the right nay responsibility, to make moral statements about what actions are acceptable and ones that aren't. I'll condemn chattel slavery, just as much as battery, murder, thievery, or laws that infringe on contract rights. Period. Any individual who violates these principles will be told they are wrong, and that they should be held accountable for their injustice. If you don't like that, then you don't like liberty, because liberty is an exercise in precisely telling society writ large what those individuals can and cannot do.

No one has a right to put their hands on another human being unless expressly given consent to, and/or your rights have been violated, or are under immediate threat thereof. Period. End of Story. No exceptions. I could care less if you are a 'parent', the 'Government', or Blackwater.

[TheTexan]

because liberty is an exercise in precisely telling society writ large what those individuals can and cannot do.

No I'm pretty sure that's statism.


Any individual who violates these principles will be told they are wrong, and that they should be held accountable for their injustice.

"Held accountable?" Meaning violence? You think you're fighting some noble cause by threatening violence upon people who beat their kids, but I hate to break it to you, you're not. You can't beat parents into submission and make everything better. It doesn't work that way.

If the child reaches out to you for help, offer him food and shelter, if you really want to help. But it would have to be the child's decision.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No I'm pretty sure that's statism.

Actually, no it's not. So you think me telling every other individual in society that they can't steal, can't murder, can't defraud, can't violate another persons rights in any way, is Statism. You're deluded.




"Held accountable?" Meaning violence? You think you're fighting some noble cause by threatening violence upon people who beat their kids, but I hate to break it to you, you're not. You can't beat parents into submission and make everything better. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, held accountable. Ideally, through restitution, but as long as there is going to be a monopoly service it should at least recognize violations of our rights. Do you think murder should be legalized? What about theft? What about battery?


If the child reaches out to you for help, offer him food and shelter, if you really want to help. But it would have to be the child's decision.

In a world where children are slaves, then yes, I'd have to offer him charity instead of a job, but, I don't think I ever said it wasn't the child's decision whether or not to pursue charges. Of course it is, and I've never said anything to the contrary.

Any violation of our rights is an injustice. Period. Sure, there are different degrees, but all are injustices.

[cjm]

No one has a right to put their hands on another human being unless expressly given consent to, and/or your rights have been violated, or are under immediate threat thereof. Period. End of Story. No exceptions. I could care less if you are a 'parent', the 'Government', or Blackwater.

So I can spank the child that is biting me, right?

[king_nothing_]

But just as I support others Rights to spank their children, I also support your Right to decide to not spank your child. It is beyond my ability to decide what is right for other people, and beyond my Soverign Authority over myself to decide for someone else what choices are right and wrong for them. What I would try to do is to come up with creative constructive alternatives, when they are requested of me, but I do not ever want to try to force my opinion on someone else, mostly because I dont want other people to try to force their opinions on me.
Sorry, but that's not good enough. Imagine if someone two centuries ago said "although I support the right for people to own slaves, I also support your right to not own slaves. I do not ever want to force my opinion on someone else. I would appreciate it if you would afford me the same respect, and not involve yourself with the goings-on of my slave plantation." Obviously we see this as a ridiculous, bad argument. How is the argument you're putting forth for corporal punishment any different? And just to be clear, I'm not saying that corporal punishment is comparable morally, at all, to slavery. It's just an analogy I thought was useful to get a point across.

There are things which you should be prevented from doing. I listed some previously. Third parties should intervene if they become privy to such things. I know you believe in this basic premise, as does nearly everyone on Earth; you believe there are situations in which a third, non-involved party should intervene. Murder, assault, theft, etc. Does it make any difference to you or I if a murderer says he respects our right to not murder people, so we should afford him the same respect if and when he chooses to murder someone? Would you afford him that respect, promising not to intervene in any way? Of course not. Are you starting to get why the line of reasoning you put forth is ridiculous?

[ClydeCoulter]

While I usually snicker at the whole concept of the non-aggression principle, I find it especially hilarious to apply it to dealing with toddlers. Those little demons will eat you alive.

There are only two ways to persuade people. Logic and force. 2 year olds don't comprehend logic.

BULLSHIT, spend time with them from their birth, get to know them. I've never had to spank, only communicate. They don't always do what I want them to do, but as long as they are not hurting themselves or others to any degree, I'm not offended by them thinking I'm stupid. And they come around, they come around. Huh, KerriAnn?

edit: My daughter did some stupid shit, but so did I. But I can tell you that I am so proud of her that I could not ask for more.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So I can spank the child that is biting me, right?

Yes, I never said otherwise. It has to be proportional though.

[cjm]

Yes, I never said otherwise. It has to be proportional though.

My only point is that spanking shouldn't be outlawed. Some people here are citing the NAP as an excuse to outlaw spanking even when there are examples where spanking is NAP-approved.

[TheTexan]

Actually, no it's not. So you think me telling every other individual in society that they can't steal, can't murder, can't rob, can't violate another persons rights in any way, is Statism. You're deluded.

That's precisely what I'm saying. You aren't judge, jury, and executioner. You don't always know what is right. Rarely are things so black & white. You can say "don't spank your kids" but once you go beyond that point, and say "don't spank your kids or I'm going to use violence against you" it means that you believe your understanding of moral philosophy and natural rights and the non-aggression principle is absolute, perfect, and infallible. Which is a statist mindset.

Only if it directly affects you does your philosophic opinion come into play, and you can then use violence to protect your own interests.

You have an opinion that using violence against kids is wrong. And its a noble opinion that I happen to agree with. But to force that opinion on everyone through violence is equally wrong.

Furthermore, it simply wouldn't work.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

My only point is that spanking shouldn't be outlawed. Some people here are citing the NAP as an excuse to outlaw spanking even when there are examples where spanking is NAP-approved.

So take that up with them. They have a flawed argument - show them where they went wrong. The fact is, spanking should be a crime, just like murder is, but killing isn't per se murder, right? Spanking isn't per se battery. That's the entire point of criminal investigations. My argument is simple - spanking should fall under common law battery and the child should have the legal right to pursue charges for violations of their rights. Period.

[ClydeCoulter]

That's precisely what I'm saying. You aren't judge, jury, and executioner. You don't always know what is right. Rarely are things so black & white. You can say "don't spank your kids" but once you go beyond that point, and say "don't spank your kids or I'm going to use violence against you" it means that you believe your understanding of moral philosophy and natural rights and the non-aggression principle is absolute, perfect, and infallible. Which is a statist mindset.

Only if it directly affects you does your philosophic opinion come into play, and you can then use violence to protect your own interests.

You have an opinion that using violence against kids is wrong. And its a noble opinion that I happen to agree with. But to force that opinion on everyone through violence is equally wrong.

Furthermore, it simply wouldn't work.

Yep, lead by example.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's precisely what I'm saying. You aren't judge, jury, and executioner. You don't always know what is right. Rarely are things so black & white. You can say "don't spank your kids" but once you go beyond that point, and say "don't spank your kids or I'm going to use violence against you" it means that you believe your understanding of moral philosophy and natural rights and the non-aggression principle is absolute, perfect, and infallible. Which is a statist mindset.

Only if it directly affects you does your philosophic opinion come into play, and you can then use violence to protect your own interests.

You have an opinion that using violence against kids is wrong. And its a noble opinion that I happen to agree with. But to force that opinion on everyone through violence is equally wrong.

Furthermore, it simply wouldn't work.

The initiation of violence is wrong, not violence per se. I'm not a pacifist, which is a perfectly valid opinion, but I do not share it, nor does the NAP or libertarianism.

I am absolutely the judge of whether rights have been violated and what rights are. If not me, whom and what institution? All individuals have this right to judge - it's pretty fundamental in western culture and I see juries as completely compatible with liberty even though the courts, monopoly law, etc. isn't.

Sorry, but I disagree vehemently with your assertion that my opinion is only valid if it affects me personally. What kind of bullshit statement is that? If I take the Paine view, then all violations of rights affect me because all violations of rights will eventually reach unto me. Just because I passed the child development stage of my life doesn't mean that I can't speak out against the daily violence and enslavement of children almost everywhere. Or any other injustice for that matter.

[jmdrake]

Lets do something different.

I wont spank anyone elses child other than my own. I wont call the cops on anyone if I see them spanking their child. I wont call the cops if the child is very misbehaved and they dont spank their child. I would hope than everyone show me the same respect.

+rep

[jmdrake]

Thank you!

Drats, outta rep..

Gotcha covered

[jmdrake]

Your "solution" is the equivalent of someone saying "I'm against slavery, so my solution is to kill all slaves".


Sorry, but that's not good enough. Imagine if someone two centuries ago said "although I support the right for people to own slaves, I also support your right to not own slaves. I do not ever want to force my opinion on someone else. I would appreciate it if you would afford me the same respect, and not involve yourself with the goings-on of my slave plantation." Obviously we see this as a ridiculous, bad argument. How is the argument you're putting forth for corporal punishment any different? And just to be clear, I'm not saying that corporal punishment is comparable morally, at all, to slavery. It's just an analogy I thought was useful to get a point across.

There are things which you should be prevented from doing. I listed some previously. Third parties should intervene if they become privy to such things. I know you believe in this basic premise, as does nearly everyone on Earth; you believe there are situations in which a third, non-involved party should intervene. Murder, assault, theft, etc. Does it make any difference to you or I if a murderer says he respects our right to not murder people, so we should afford him the same respect if and when he chooses to murder someone? Would you afford him that respect, promising not to intervene in any way? Of course not. Are you starting to get why the line of reasoning you put forth is ridiculous?

[asurfaholic]

Well I'll tell you what the parent is. A steward, basically a manager. The parent manages the financial affairs of the child, keeps him out of trouble and fed...etc.

No. Wrong.

You need to understand that the primary role of the parents are to raise the child to be able to make sound decisions when he/she becomes old enough. Sound enough of decisions so that he/she can properly fend for themselves when they reach that point in their lives. A steward, a manager? Are you on crack? Jesus, no. Maybe that is part of the job, and the rest of the stuff too, yes you are listing some of the many jobs a parent has.

But the PRIMARY job of the parent is to raise the child to be able to survive and fend for themselves in the crazy world they were brought into. That includes a long list of things that they must do. Yes feed them, yes manage the finances. Yes keep them out of trouble.

How about loving the child? Thats important. Show them that they are special and important. Build the self esteem and confidence.

How about being a good role model. This means living a moral life, not being a leech off someone else.

How about being involved in the child's life? Spending time at home getting to know the child and communicating and connecting.

How about being responsible parents? Being consistant and slow to anger are valuable tools, and go a long way in the household.

These are way more involved than your assertion that parents are simply the stewards, or managers of a child. That is why there is so much bullshit in this world. People like you have neglected the primary role of parenting, and just assumed a "it is what it is" position towards their kid's behavior and never looked back.

The most important thing a parent can do to ensure their child is going to grow up with a GOOD head on their shoulder is DISIPLINE the child. No, I won't spank my child for not eating all her wheaties. But if she curses her mother, or whatever, there will be consequences. I am responsible and cool enough to know she deserves a fair warning. She was told not to bite, but she thought it was a game, an went in for a harder bite. Then she learned that NO means NO!

By being consistant in disispline, while maintaining a good role model status, and showing her love and respect, and showing her mother love and respect, I believe that my child will grow up wanting to do the right things for the right reasons. Integrity is hard to find these days, but it starts at home. And YOU sir, have no business telling me how to do it.

[TheTexan]

I am absolutely the judge of whether rights have been violated and what rights are. If not me, whom and what institution?

The courts that person has subscribed to.

If the parent in question hasn't subscribed to any courts, and is under no jurisdiction but his own, and is simply in his own home, spanking his kid, you have zero right or authority, from a moral position or otherwise, to go in there and intervene. If the child is being held there against his will, you can help him, but if the child is voluntarily associating himself with that family, then it's not your place to do anything about it.


All individuals have this right to judge - it's pretty fundamental in western culture and I see juries as completely compatible with liberty even though the courts, monopoly law, etc. isn't.

All individuals have a right to judge. But they do not have a right to act on that judgement.


Sorry, but I disagree vehemently with your assertion that my opinion is only valid if it affects me personally. What kind of bullshit statement is that? If I take the Paine view, then all violations of rights affect me because all violations of rights will eventually reach unto me. Just because I passed the child development stage of my life doesn't mean that I can't speak out against the daily violence and enslavement of children almost everywhere. Or any other injustice for that matter.

"Don't police the world" applies to far more than just the interactions of nation-states. It applies to the individual, and your community.

If everyone everywhere did what they thought was right even though it was none of their business, we'd end up... well, where we are today. The simple unfortunate fact is that for anarchy to work, people are going to have to be allowed to make mistakes. You are going to have to turn a blind eye to things you disapprove of.

That doesn't mean you have to accept violence in your own jurisdiction. If people voluntarily decide to belong to that jurisdiction/court-system, and you see violence happening in front of you that the person on the receiving end clearly objects to, then go ahead, go save the day, beat the shit out of that guy.

If, on the other hand, you're sitting near a communist police-state jurisdiction that is adjacent to your community, and on their side of the border you see a cop beating the shit out of a poor woman, it's unfortunately none of your business. That woman decided to live in that community, and getting the shit beat out of you sometimes is part of that arrangement. As much as it might pain you, the moral decision would be not to intervene, unless her life was in danger.

[tod evans]

I'll tell ya' what, bring your happy ass out to the sticks and find the smallest, meekest woman spanking her misbehaving child and spout this load of hooey.

I'm sure you'll pick your NAP self up off the floor if she's in a good mood. If not you'll wake up much later lesson learned.

Keep on living in your bubble..........


The initiation of violence is wrong, not violence per se. I'm not a pacifist, which is a perfectly valid opinion, but I do not share it, nor does the NAP or libertarianism.

I am absolutely the judge of whether rights have been violated and what rights are. If not me, whom and what institution? All individuals have this right to judge - it's pretty fundamental in western culture and I see juries as completely compatible with liberty even though the courts, monopoly law, etc. isn't.

Sorry, but I disagree vehemently with your assertion that my opinion is only valid if it affects me personally. What kind of bullshit statement is that? If I take the Paine view, then all violations of rights affect me because all violations of rights will eventually reach unto me. Just because I passed the child development stage of my life doesn't mean that I can't speak out against the daily violence and enslavement of children almost everywhere. Or any other injustice for that matter.

[king_nothing_]

Only if it directly affects you does your philosophic opinion come into play, and you can then use violence to protect your own interests.
This is not right, at all. If I witness a stranger beating another stranger senseless for no reason (he's guilty of nothing), is it immoral for me to intervene with force to subdue the attacker to prevent him from further harming the man, since it has nothing to do with my own interests and involves me acting on my own subjective moral beliefs?

[AGRP]

CPS loves this.

[TheTexan]

This is not right, at all. If I witness a stranger beating another stranger senseless for no reason (he's guilty of nothing), is it immoral for me to intervene with force to subdue the attacker to prevent him from further harming the man, since it has nothing to do with my own interests and involves me acting on my own subjective moral beliefs?

If it's in your jurisdiction, and either stranger voluntarily belongs to your jurisdiction, it is your business, and you can choose or not choose to get involved.

Otherwise, if its not your jurisdiction, you should be expected to follow the rules and customs of the jurisdiction you're in. If for whatever reason beating someone for no reason was socially accepted in that community, then you shouldn't intervene. (Or, well, you could, if you want, because random beatings are socially accepted, so go beat him if you like, I guess)

[cjm]

This is not right, at all. If I witness a stranger beating another stranger senseless for no reason (he's guilty of nothing), is it immoral for me to intervene with force to subdue the attacker to prevent him from further harming the man, since it has nothing to do with my own interests and involves me acting on my own subjective moral beliefs?

If you intervene when you see a stranger beating another stranger for no reason, you will probably get Tasered.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'll tell ya' what, bring your happy ass out to the sticks and find the smallest, meekest woman spanking her misbehaving child and spout this load of hooey.

I'm sure you'll pick your NAP self up off the floor if she's in a good mood. If not you'll wake up much later lesson learned.

Keep on living in your bubble..........

Keep on advocating tyranny. I am sure you are feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

[TheTexan]

Keep on advocating tyranny. I am sure you are feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

Your constant desire to use force to fix what many others don't consider broken is a contributing cause of tyranny.

Look out for you and yours, and anyone voluntarily under your protection (this can include your community). Otherwise, it's none of your damn business

[AGRP]

I don't advocate abuse, but Michael Jackson would have been another nobody in Indiana without his father. He would have been abducted if he would have lived in Delaware.

[AlexAmore]

No. Wrong.

You need to understand that the primary role of the parents are to raise the child to be able to make sound decisions when he/she becomes old enough.

That post was a quick 5 second job responding to a quick question. Yes, raising the child properly is part of it. My main argument was that you're not an owner, you're a steward of the child. A steward can still love, raise, role model..etc.

The lack of ownership of the child means liberties have to be respected.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Your constant desire to use force to fix what many others don't consider broken is a contributing cause of tyranny.

Look out for you and yours, and anyone voluntarily under your protection (this can include your community). Otherwise, it's none of your damn business

Reductio ad absurdum - you wouldn't agitate to end slavery just because it was on the plantation owners property and you falsely believe that 'it's none of your business'?

Again, you can't make the distinction that the use of force per se isn't wrong, or tyrannical, only the initiation thereof is. As long as you keep getting this wrong you'll keep putting forth horribly wrong argumentation.

[Mr. Perfidy]

Look Bud, the "tad off" seems to fit you to a "t".

If I ever catch you near my child I can assure you you'll wear many lumps, and not on your backside.

hahahaha this thread is such a gem!

I think that you as the dispassionate spanker in the thread about extending legal protection to children who are hit by parents should answer my very legitimate curiosity about this subject.

see again you are assigning this concept to the behavior- I am not talking about the concept of discipline, I am talking about the act of dispassionately telling someone to bend over, and then, without any anger(?!) spanking them. Just the act itself...is weird. Say it out loud and see how it affects your heart rate. I bet it makes you uncomfortable to even speak, even alone. That's because it's creepy.

[Origanalist]

This is not right, at all. If I witness a stranger beating another stranger senseless for no reason (he's guilty of nothing), is it immoral for me to intervene with force to subdue the attacker to prevent him from further harming the man, since it has nothing to do with my own interests and involves me acting on my own subjective moral beliefs?

What the hell does beating somebody senseless have to do with giving your toddler a swat on their pampers padded rear? Or did I miss something?

[TheTexan]

Reductio ad absurdum - you wouldn't agitate to end slavery just because it was on the plantation owners property and you falsely believe that 'it's none of your business'?

Again, you can't make the distinction that the use of force per se isn't wrong, or tyrannical, only the initiation thereof is. As long as you keep getting this wrong you'll keep putting forth horribly wrong argumentation.

If the slaves weren't being held against their will, and they could realistically and safely get to a jurisdiction where they would not be slaves, I would absolutely say it's none of my business.

100%.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If the slaves weren't being held against their will, and they could realistically and safely get to a jurisdiction where they would not be slaves, I would absolutely say it's none of my business.

100%.

Dude...the very definition of slavery begets being against their will. I would likewise say that someone who decides to consent to 'slave-like conditions' and who could leave at any point wouldn't be any of my business either - precisely because no violations of liberty occurred. Stop putting forth convoluted and contrived statements.

From this 'debate' it seems to me like you understand nothing of property rights, justice, or liberty.

[Origanalist]

Reductio ad absurdum - you wouldn't agitate to end slavery just because it was on the plantation owners property and you falsely believe that 'it's none of your business'?

Again, you can't make the distinction that the use of force per se isn't wrong, or tyrannical, only the initiation thereof is. As long as you keep getting this wrong you'll keep putting forth horribly wrong argumentation.

So let me get this straight, you are actually comparing swatting your infants behind to slavery? Please tell me you are joking, I really would like to take you seriously.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So let me get this straight, you are actually comparing swatting your infants behind to slavery? Please tell me you are joking, I really would like to take you seriously.

Follow the conversation, otherwise you are just interjecting yourself into something you have no idea what you are talking about. Your question will be answered if you read the last few pages.

[TheTexan]

Dude...the very definition of slavery begets being against their will.

Then you're comparing apples and oranges, and your analogy has zero relevance to this discussion

[Origanalist]

Follow the conversation, otherwise you are just interjecting yourself into something you have no idea what you are talking about. Your question will be answered if you read the last few pages.

I followed it back two pages, do I need to go further? I doubt it.

[silverhandorder]

So let me get this straight, you are actually comparing swatting your infants behind to slavery? Please tell me you are joking, I really would like to take you seriously.

You are like a liberal or necon who does the same shit about taxes or any other libertarian subject.

"So let me get this straight, you are actually comparing taxes/mandates/regulations to slavery? Please tell me you are joking, I really would like to take you seriously. "

[jmdrake]

You are like a liberal or necon who does the same shit about taxes or any other libertarian subject.

"So let me get this straight, you are actually comparing taxes/mandates/regulations to slavery? Please tell me you are joking, I really would like to take you seriously. "

Except in this case the "libertarians" are pushing for more taxes/mandates/regulation. What is a "libertarian" that pushes a solution that means more government? A "libertardian".

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Except in this case the "libertarians" are pushing for more taxes/mandates/regulation. What is a "libertarian" that pushes a solution that means more government? A "libertardian".

Ah, so you advocate repealing all laws, then? No libertarian does that, because even in voluntaryist society we want justice and we believe in rights that cannot be violated no matter what. Just because the Government has a monopoly on this service doesn't mean we shouldn't want that monopoly to at least do what would be done in a voluntaryist society (administer justice). You're a blathering idiot.

[Origanalist]

You are like a liberal or necon who does the same shit about taxes or any other libertarian subject.

"So let me get this straight, you are actually comparing taxes/mandates/regulations to slavery? Please tell me you are joking, I really would like to take you seriously. "

Taxes/mandates/regulations are only libertarian concerns? You give yourself way too much credit.

[AGRP]

Except in this case the "libertarians" are pushing for more taxes/mandates/regulation. What is a "libertarian" that pushes a solution that means more government? A "libertardian".

lol...The only reason why this is considered is because people are too chicken shit to confront parents who may be abusing their children. "Gee it looks like the Smiths are abusing their children. Do I confront them or call CPS and have them abducted? Hmm...Ill call CPS!"

[Origanalist]

lol...The only reason why this is considered is because people are too chicken shit to confront parents who may be abusing their children. "Gee it looks like the Smiths are abusing their children. Do I confront them or call CPS and have them abducted? Hmm...Ill call CPS!"

Define abuse, oh all knowing one.

[Origanalist]

Ah, so you advocate repealing all laws, then? No libertarian does that, because even in voluntaryist society we want justice and we believe in rights that cannot be violated no matter what. Just because the Government has a monopoly on this service doesn't mean we shouldn't want that monopoly to at least do what would be done in a voluntaryist society (administer justice). You're a blathering idiot.

And you're evil jm, and you lie, did I mention you lie?

Good grief, Roy L is back, wearing another shirt.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And you're evil jm, and you lie, did I mention you lie?

Good grief, Roy L is back, wearing another shirt.

I've been here way longer than you have, or Roy for that matter, and if you were around since I have been you'd know how stupid you sound right now. Slink back to Washington, or try and justify more violations of individual rights. I'll be here to call you all out whenever you do so.

[asurfaholic]

That post was a quick 5 second job responding to a quick question. Yes, raising the child properly is part of it. My main argument was that you're not an owner, you're a steward of the child. A steward can still love, raise, role model..etc.

The lack of ownership of the child means liberties have to be respected.

I get that. You are assuming that I think I own my child? I have never considered that to be the case. No, family to me is deeper than ownership. Nobody owns another person, except maybe through contracts between people. If you and I agree that you will cut my grass 3 times a week, and you only do it 2 times, I could sue you. But I couldn't beat you, so honestly, Im not seeing why you even bring it up like that. I would still have to respect the civil liberties, even if I was in a contract with another person. I say contract, because I would assume for the duration of the contract, you could consider that an "ownership" of types.

A child does not have the right to do whatever they please. They can not eat whatever they want. They can not go wherever they want, whenever they want. They are to act only under the supervision and permissions of their parent/guardian. They are not free, because they are not considered legally to be capable of making good choises for themselves without parential guidance. Read your states laws, you will see it, as I have spent a ton of time studying on NC's laws. A child is not free. Do you understand that?

[AGRP]

Define abuse, oh all knowing one.

If I cared, I would be friendly with them to the point they wouldn't want to go through the hassle of constantly explaining why their kids are in constant pain or have bruises. This world would be better if all of us would consider talking to our neighbors rather than turning on eachother.

[TheTexan]

I've been here way longer than you have, or Roy for that matter, and if you were around since I have been you'd know how stupid you sound right now. Slink back to Washington, or try and justify more violations of individual rights. I'll be here to call you all out whenever you do so.

You sound just like Gunny when he said he'd happily put a bullet in someone's brain to protect author's rights to IP

(no offense intended Gunny)

[asurfaholic]

lol...The only reason why this is considered is because people are too chicken shit to confront parents who may be abusing their children. "Gee it looks like the Smiths are abusing their children. Do I confront them or call CPS and have them abducted? Hmm...Ill call CPS!"

There are already laws on the books against abuse, and interestingly in NC, if you witness a child being abused, you are OBLIGATED to report it. Look it up, its true. Then the govt gets involved and determines if abuse is taking place. Spankings don't qualify, there are a host of other qualifications, and the DSS will investigate to actually determine if its abuse that is taking place. Pretty cool huh?!

Now what really boggles my mind are the so called "libertarians" who can't seem to mind their own business. They want to define something that is controversial, then enforce it on everyone. You wouldn't agree that we should ban all alcohol, eh? Its controversial, and can kill you - but personal responsibility is the key word here. A true libertarian, if against spanking, would understand that spanking is not the way he chooses to run his family, but if another family chooses to utilize it, then thats their choice...

Calling it physical abuse, is to me like our government calling veterans "potential terrorists" and is equally broad and dangerous. What some people have actually done here is made the case that I have assaulted my child. Really really scary if you think about it.

[ClydeCoulter]

Hold the fucking boat.
What is the non-agresssion principle? Do you force people to learn? Will someone get hurt if you don't intervene? How bad? Worse than what you are proposing? Wife beats husband who beats chilren who hate their parents? Where does it start? Where does it stop? Is my nose too long?

[AGRP]

Hold the fucking boat.
What is the non-agresssion principle? Do you force people to learn? Will someone get hurt if you don't intervene? How bad? Worse than what you are proposing? Wife beats husband who beats chilren who hate their parents? Where does it start? Where does it stop? Is my nose too long?


Intervene how? On a personal and peaceful basis or having a the state intervene?

[ClydeCoulter]

Children want to please their care takers. That's a fact. They come into this world with nothing. They look to them. If they get spanked that won't kill them, but it's not good, but..take their parents away and you just killed them. Teach your parents well...

edit: I got my ass beat, my back whipped with a bundle of switches, many times, I survived.

edit: We are all getting our ass beat, no? everyday, Fed, Gov, assholes. SURVIVE!

[Origanalist]

If I cared, I would be friendly with them to the point they wouldn't want to go through the hassle of constantly explaining why their kids are in constant pain or have bruises. This world would be better if all of us would consider talking to our neighbors rather than turning on eachother.

If you cared? Who is talking about kids in constant pain? Oprah much? And as far as bruises, any active kid is going to have bruises. Another excuse for the busybodies of the world to justify their "concerns".

[Origanalist]

I've been here way longer than you have, or Roy for that matter, and if you were around since I have been you'd know how stupid you sound right now. Slink back to Washington, or try and justify more violations of individual rights. I'll be here to call you all out whenever you do so.

I'm not slinking anywhere Junior. Your opinion of yourself is way out of touch with reality.

[jmdrake]

Ah, so you advocate repealing all laws, then?

I didn't say that. But I certainly don't advocating adding more and I especially don't advocating adding a new law just to keep someone from getting paddled.

Edit: And with your logic I bet you support the Gary Johnson "Let's invade Uganda for humanitarian purposes". It's basically the same idea on a larger scale. After all, no "libertarian" is against all war right? So if war is justifiable in some circumstance, it must be justifiable to go after some warlord that hasn't been seen in three years regardless of the potential negative consequences.

In this case, we have nothing but your ridiculous assertion that infants are "independent" (yeah, let's see one change a diaper) and silly doctor Spock style psychobabble to justify the idea spanking should be a crime and that if a 3 year old can't "contract" herself out as a prostitute she is being kept in slavery/indentured servitude. (Yeah, I didn't forget your lunacy on that angle either). So empower the same government you complain about for beating/tasing/shooting people and the same CPS that's been caught molesting kids to arrest more parents and beat more kids and put more kids into sex slavery in order to fit your warped view on NAP. I tell you what. When you find evidence of Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell supporting anti spanking laws, let the rest of us know okay?



No libertarian does that, because even in voluntaryist society we want justice and we believe in rights that cannot be violated no matter what.


:rolleyes: You just jumped the shark with that stupidity.



Just because the Government has a monopoly on this service doesn't mean we shouldn't want that monopoly to at least do what would be done in a voluntaryist society (administer justice). You're a blathering idiot.

A blathering idiot is a genius compared to you.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-DG3ahQGEVA#!

This circle-fest is going nowhere. I propose laughs.

[ClydeCoulter]

My wife works in Title I for the elementary school here. Some of the kids have lice all the time. There is controversy over whether to send them home (supposed to according to protocol). The parents are below par (IQ) and don't know how to handle lice. My wife loves the youger one, she works with him in Title I (where struggling kids get help). It's a local thing. No laws required, just some local help.

[AGRP]

Calling it physical abuse, is to me like our government calling veterans "potential terrorists" and is equally broad and dangerous. What some people have actually done here is made the case that I have assaulted my child. Really really scary if you think about it.

I might have misworded on abuse verses spanking. If I hear a child cry from a spanking, I feel bad but I realize some children need it and Im not the one to judge. Whats the alternative to a child who will not listen to life saving rules such as not darting into traffic? Whatever the debate is, it is disappointing to see that some self proclaimed libertarians wish to solve their problems with the state.

[ClydeCoulter]

Do ya'll even have kids?

[Origanalist]

Do ya'll even have kids?

Affirmative, 3 kids, 2 step kids, 4 grandkids.


Baaaaaa!!!!

[Philhelm]

Do ya'll even have kids?

I had a kid once, but then I spanked it to death.

[Origanalist]

I had a kid once, but then I spanked it to death.

Thread winner!

[cjm]

Do ya'll even have kids?

I wondered the same thing. The poll is over here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?392177-Delaware-spanking-poll