Delaware spanking poll

[cjm]

With the activity on the other thread, I was just curious.

EDIT:

Here's the other thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391275-Delaware-becomes-1st-state-to-officially-outlaw-spanking

Here's the original news link: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/delaware-1st-state-to-jail-for-parents-who-use-spanking-to-discipline

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Did they actually outlaw it? Or is this one of those hysterical stretches being made?

[cjm]

Did they actually outlaw it? Or is this one of those hysterical stretches being made?

I just took the news story at face value (which I'll add to the OP). I have no idea how the law will be enforced or judged by the courts.

[specsaregood]

lol @ the results

[cjm]

lol @ the results

Indeed. It seemed from that other thread that several folks were in support of the law. I guess the discussion helped change some minds?

[mport1]

Spanking a child is assault and a violation of the non-aggression principle, plain and simple.

[Origanalist]

Spanking a child is assault and a violation of the non-aggression principle, plain and simple.

So there.

[mad cow]

Spanking a child is assault and a violation of the non-aggression principle, plain and simple.

By that reasoning,sending a child to his bedroom against his will,with or without his dessert or his ipad,is kidnapping,plain and simple

[belian78]

Spanking a child is assault and a violation of the non-aggression principle, plain and simple.
Oh cheese n rice....:rolleyes:

[The Free Hornet]

Spanking a child is assault and a violation of the non-aggression principle, plain and simple.

What if they punch you in the nads first?

[Origanalist]

What if they punch you in the nads first?

Put a cup on, that will put a stop to it quick.:p

[angelatc]

Spanking a child is assault and a violation of the non-aggression principle, plain and simple.

Fuck the non-aggression principle. You can't reason with a bully or a toddler.

[nobody's_hero]

It's really none of my business. But, I suppose that puts me in the default position of opposing this law? Eh. I have no kids of my own.

I'll say that I have been spanked before, and I'm a survivor! You hear me breast-cancer survivors? I know exactly how you feel.

[angelatc]

It's really none of my business. But, I suppose that puts me in the default position of opposing this law? Eh. I have no kids of my own.

I'll say that I have been spanked before, and I'm a survivor! You hear me breast-cancer survivors? I know exactly how you feel.

Heh. I was a liberal once, then I had kids.

[shane77m]

We should get rid of prisons. I consider locking someone up an act of aggression. No one should be held accountable for their actions and there should be no punishments. /sarc

[cjm]

Spanking a child is assault and a violation of the non-aggression principle, plain and simple.

The point was made on the other thread that if a child is in the act of biting an adult, a swat on the bottom would be in self-defense and perfectly in line with the NAP. If you agree with this, then your statement is not as "plain and simple" as you claim. Some instances of spanking could be in accordance with the NAP while others might not be.

The NAP says that one shouldn't initiate force or violence. Small children bite adults, push other children, and destroy property. The level of aggression that can be used in response to these actions can be debated since the NAP isn't a force continuum, but the NAP permits the use of force and violence in response to the child's aggression.

To disallow the use of force and violence in the face of force and violence is called pacifism, not the non-aggression principle.

[asurfaholic]

The point was made on the other thread that if a child is in the act of biting an adult, a swat on the bottom would be in self-defense and perfectly in line with the NAP. If you agree with this, then your statement is not as "plain and simple" as you claim. Some instances of spanking could be in accordance with the NAP while others might not be.

The NAP says that one shouldn't initiate force or violence. Small children bite adults, push other children, and destroy property. The level of aggression that can be used in response to these actions can be debated since the NAP isn't a force continuum, but the NAP permits the use of force and violence in response to the child's aggression.

To disallow the use of force and violence in the face of force and violence is called pacifism, not the non-aggression principle.

I didnt say i did it in self defense. I did it because she needed to learn that biting is wrong. Try reasoning with a 13 month old. Or should i wait and let her keep biting me, her momma, other kids, until shes old enough to know right from wrong?

She hasnt bit since.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't support Statutory law, but if it was under common law Battery, I'd support it. Your poll is far too simple imho and misses other nuanced viewpoints. The plain fact is; spanking is battery, unless done after your person was violated by your child and even then the principle of proportional force comes into effect. I still view hitting your child as abhorrent - just as much as Child Labor Laws or all the other litany of laws that have turned children into serfs and slaves.

[fr33]

Spanking a child is assault and a violation of the non-aggression principle, plain and simple.And holding their hand while they cross the street?

[cjm]

I didnt say i did it in self defense. I did it because she needed to learn that biting is wrong. Try reasoning with a 13 month old. Or should i wait and let her keep biting me, her momma, other kids, until shes old enough to know right from wrong?

She hasnt bit since.

I took your anecdote and created a hypothetical to show that spanking could be considered self-defense in some cases. This was for those that consider spanking unconditionally wrong.

But even your case could be considered self-defense in my opinion. If an adult hits me, am I prohibited from hitting back since his first punch has already been completed? Do I have to wait for another strike to be launched before I react and am I only allowed to react while that punch is in progress? That's silly. A spank after a bite is just as much self-defense as a return hit after being hit yourself.

My point is that the NAP is being misinterpreted as a pacifist doctrine when it really isn't.

[cjm]

Your poll is far too simple imho and misses other nuanced viewpoints.

My poll was designed to satisfy my own curiosity about parents' and non-parents' support for the Delaware law. It was neither too simple nor too complex.

[asurfaholic]

I took your anecdote and created a hypothetical to show that spanking could be considered self-defense in some cases. This was for those that consider spanking unconditionally wrong.

But even your case could be considered self-defense in my opinion. If an adult hits me, am I prohibited from hitting back since his first punch has already been completed? Do I have to wait for another strike to be launched before I react and am I only allowed to react while that punch is in progress? That's silly. A spank after a bite is just as much self-defense as a return hit after being hit yourself.

My point is that the NAP is being misinterpreted as a pacifist doctrine when it really isn't.

I see. I agree.

[silverhandorder]

I voted for support but I am not sure. I do think spanking is wrong and should be opposed but I don't think government law is the way to do it.

[pahs1994]

My parents hit me in the ass with a belt if I did something wrong and I learned not to do the wrong things at that young age or get hit and sit on the couch. I feel that when I reached my teen years I was more responsible and a better person for it, I really think there is a difference between being disciplined and a parent who beats a child. My parents never beat me. In my opinion, for some kids, they will never get the difference between right and wrong unless there is a negative consequence.

[RonPaulMania]

Naming your child can be cruel and unusual punishment
Forcing them to clean their hands before a meal is aggression
Forcing them to take a bath is torture and waterboarding
Stopping them throwing food in the house is a form of psychological aggression of intimidation
Forcing them to go with you to the supermarket is kidnapping, violence, and potentially torture.

The idiocy on here is amazing.

Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility. Maybe I'm on the wrong board, and trust me, I know the 30 year old "I live in my mother's basement" crowd will happily see me go, but honestly I think I've had enough here. I can see why Ayn Rand didn't like it but I tried believing it wasn't true.

[fr33]

Naming your child can be cruel and unusual punishment
Forcing them to clean their hands before a meal is aggression
Forcing them to take a bath is torture and waterboarding
Stopping them throwing food in the house is a form of psychological aggression of intimidation
Forcing them to go with you to the supermarket is kidnapping, violence, and potentially torture.

The idiocy on here is amazing.

Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility. Maybe I'm on the wrong board, and trust me, I know the 30 year old "I live in my mother's basement" crowd will happily see me go, but honestly I think I've had enough here. I can see why Ayn Rand didn't like it but I tried believing it wasn't true.Rawr! Nevermind that the overwhelming majority on this thread agree with you on subject being discussed.

[asurfaholic]

Naming your child can be cruel and unusual punishment
Forcing them to clean their hands before a meal is aggression
Forcing them to take a bath is torture and waterboarding
Stopping them throwing food in the house is a form of psychological aggression of intimidation
Forcing them to go with you to the supermarket is kidnapping, violence, and potentially torture.

The idiocy on here is amazing.

Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility. Maybe I'm on the wrong board, and trust me, I know the 30 year old "I live in my mother's basement" crowd will happily see me go, but honestly I think I've had enough here. I can see why Ayn Rand didn't like it but I tried believing it wasn't true.

Its not all of us, actually the type of people you described are a small minority. Check out the OP poll - 56 oppose the DE law, and only 8 approve. Shows that there is a string of common sense here.

Libertarians should focus less on how other people run their lives... Or else they become authoritarians liberals.

[jmdrake]

I don't support Statutory law, but if it was under common law Battery, I'd support it. Your poll is far too simple imho and misses other nuanced viewpoints. The plain fact is; spanking is battery, unless done after your person was violated by your child and even then the principle of proportional force comes into effect. I still view hitting your child as abhorrent - just as much as Child Labor Laws or all the other litany of laws that have turned children into serfs and slaves.

I can't tell from your post if you for or against child labor laws. I can't think of any logical argument how banning anyone from labor makes that person a serf, since serfs, by definition, have to work. I do think child labor laws are wrong as they are a violation of the family's right of self governance. I say the same thing for spanking laws. Anyone who thinks government should willy nilly be able to violate the sanctity of the home just because some child psychologist says so isn't following limited government principles IMO.

[cjm]

Naming your child can be cruel and unusual punishment
Forcing them to clean their hands before a meal is aggression
Forcing them to take a bath is torture and waterboarding
Stopping them throwing food in the house is a form of psychological aggression of intimidation
Forcing them to go with you to the supermarket is kidnapping, violence, and potentially torture.

The idiocy on here is amazing.

Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility. Maybe I'm on the wrong board, and trust me, I know the 30 year old "I live in my mother's basement" crowd will happily see me go, but honestly I think I've had enough here. I can see why Ayn Rand didn't like it but I tried believing it wasn't true.

Most libertarian philosophy that I've read deals with interactions between rational adults. Trying to apply those principles to adult-child relationships, or more specifically parent-offspring relationships, is usually a mistake. Applying them to parent-toddler relationships is ridiculous. Is it really libertarianism that makes people illogical and immoral? or do illogical or immoral people distort libertarianism?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Its not all of us, actually the type of people you described are a small minority. Check out the OP poll - 56 oppose the DE law, and only 8 approve. Shows that there is a string of common sense here.

Libertarians should focus less on how other people run their lives... Or else they become authoritarians liberals.

The whole point of libertarianism is to tell people what are acceptable actions and what aren't. It doesn't say what you should do, only what you can't do. Perhaps you guys are on the wrong board after-all, because Nihilism is >>>> that way.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I can't tell from your post if you for or against child labor laws. I can't think of any logical argument how banning anyone from labor makes that person a serf, since serfs, by definition, have to work. I do think child labor laws are wrong as they are a violation of the family's right of self governance. I say the same thing for spanking laws. Anyone who thinks government should willy nilly be able to violate the sanctity of the home just because some child psychologist says so isn't following limited government principles IMO.

Families do not have rights, individuals do. I am staunchly opposed to child labor laws, and any laws interfering in the contractual rights of consenting parties. As to how it makes them serfs and slaves...how about we take your ability to be independent from you, and make you entirely dependent on the charity and assistance of others whether family or otherwise. You call people dependent on Government - serfs and slaves, I call people dependent on anyone else to such an extent that they are forcefully stricken from providing for themselves about as close as you can get to complete serfdom.

Your inability to see this causal-reality is ... unfortunate. Also, your characteristic because some 'psychologist' said so, is a complete red-herring. I base my beliefs on a simple guiding principle - that self-propriety is inviolable. That is it. Just because you give birth to a new life doesn't mean you own that person. No, he or she owns themselves. As far as Government is concerned, I'd rather they not exist at all, but as long as they are going to have a monopoly on law, justice, security, etc. you'd damn well better believe they should at least recognize actual violations of self-propriety. The child should absolutely have the right to take their case to the police if that is their choice. Taking this choice away from them strips them of further rights and ingratiates a system of legalized-battery. I am opposed. Simple as. Take your bullshit red-herrings and non-sequiturs elsewhere.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Most libertarian philosophy that I've read deals with interactions between rational adults. Trying to apply those principles to adult-child relationships, or more specifically parent-offspring relationships, is usually a mistake. Applying them to parent-toddler relationships is ridiculous. Is it really libertarianism that makes people illogical and immoral? or do illogical or immoral people distort libertarianism?

So only 'rational adults' have rights in your opinion? Perhaps you've not read any libertarian literature at all.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I don't support Statutory law, but if it was under common law Battery, I'd support it. Your poll is far too simple imho and misses other nuanced viewpoints. The plain fact is; spanking is battery, unless done after your person was violated by your child and even then the principle of proportional force comes into effect. I still view hitting your child as abhorrent - just as much as Child Labor Laws or all the other litany of laws that have turned children into serfs and slaves.


Yeah, kinda.



My poll was designed to satisfy my own curiosity about parents' and non-parents' support for the Delaware law. It was neither too simple nor too complex.


It was one, the other, both, or neither depending on who was reading and their reading comprehension level. How fucked up is that?

I don't support Delaware making new arbitrary laws they can decide to enforce or not.

[Mr. Perfidy]

.


Honestly, I can say that I'm starting to hate libertarianism. It makes people into nonsensical, illogical, immoral people who justify their beliefs without any understanding of history, morals, or civility.

oh this board is just getting good lately. We are dissecting the nature and scope of coercion at a level that we can actually affect, in our own lives. That you of course turn to a string of harsh condemnations of the side advocating reason and tolerant compassion indicates to me that you were in fact hit, and are just not ready to confront that terrible barrier stone that yet blocks all men from free thought, the idea that your parents fucked up and didn't know shit, maybe even didn't like you.

One day though you will be able to examine that and move past it.

[Anti-Neocon]

Option 3, cause children shouldn't be spanked. There's ways of raising children that avoid physical abuse.

[specsaregood]

So only 'rational adults' have rights in your opinion? Perhaps you've not read any libertarian literature at all.

I'm so glad I'm not a libertarian. It sounds exhausting.

[Mr. Perfidy]

It is remarkable to me that anyone who is even remotely sympathetic to Libertarianism still confuses force-conditioning with "instilling morals" or whatever. If we took Caligula's hand and burned the fuck out of it everytime he reached for a boy to screw, pretty soon, when he saw fresh little cherub asses, instead of getting an erection, he would cradle his hand in terror. That does not mean he has discipline or morality now.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm so glad I'm not a libertarian. It sounds exhausting.

Yeah, I've noticed people don't want to be free - many even here on these boards, love control and authority. They can't stand the thought of free people as long as it fits their narrow personal values. The Paine's, Rothbard's, and Bastiat's of the world are rare.

[Mr. Perfidy]

fuckin Tea Party

[specsaregood]

Yeah, I've noticed people don't want to be free - many even here on these boards, love control and authority. They can't stand the thought of free people as long as it fits their narrow personal values. The Paine's, Rothbard's, and Bastiat's of the world are rare.

Meh, I try to live my life by the golden rule, its pretty freeing and I don't need a bunch of people to tell me what it means.

[Mr. Perfidy]

I think it's actually a very confusing rule and subject to much interpretation.

What is it exactly again:
do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

because I rationally expect to get fucked up by people if I am an asshole, so consequently, I reserve the right to fuck up asshole people. But Golden Rulers act like this is wrong of me.

[jmdrake]

Families do not have rights, individuals do.

And individuals are members of families. By ignoring the individuals right to form a cohesive group that keeps outsiders at bay except for a really good reason, you are in effect pushing for absolute tyranny of the state, even if you lack the ability to see the "causal reality" as you so rudely put that later.



I am staunchly opposed to child labor laws, and any laws interfering in the contractual rights of consenting parties.


And a three year old is able to contract how exactly? :rolleyes: Don't get me wrong. I'm against child labor laws as well. But that's because I have the good sense to understand the concept of concentric levels of government.



As to how it makes them serfs and slaves...how about we take your ability to be independent from you, and make you entirely dependent on the charity and assistance of others whether family or otherwise.


A three year old is dependent on somebody whether they want to be or not. There is no "ability to be independent" to take.



Your inability to see this causal-reality is ... unfortunate. Also, your characteristic because some 'psychologist' said so, is a complete red-herring. I base my beliefs on a simple guiding principle - that self-propriety is inviolable.


So a three year old can contract sex services and be independent. Got it. :rolleyes:



That is it. Just because you give birth to a new life doesn't mean you own that person. No, he or she owns themselves.


Right. The minute a toddler is born he/she "owns herself" and is independent. I'm not sure what planet you're living on, but on planet earth infants are dependent on adults. That adult has responsibility for that infant. It doesn't mean the infant is "owned". It does mean that responsibility gives parents the right to make certain decisions.



As far as Government is concerned, I'd rather they not exist at all, but as long as they are going to have a monopoly on law, justice, security, etc. you'd damn well better believe they should at least recognize actual violations of self-propriety.


So you don't want the government to exist, but you want to give it more power, and you think that makes you "consistent". :rolleyes:

[specsaregood]

I think it's actually a very confusing rule and subject to much interpretation.

Thats the point, its very nature is up to personal interpretation. It is freeing because what it means is ultimately up to you.



What is it exactly again:
do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

sounds right



because I rationally expect to get fucked up by people if I am an asshole, so consequently, I reserve the right to fuck up asshole people.
And see, I think that is a perfectly valid interpretation.



But Golden Rulers act like this is wrong of me.
Thats because they wouldn't want somebody to do that to them. "as you would have them do unto you "

[Mr. Perfidy]

so its a worthless rule then, because there are people who would have others stuff their mouths with dildos and electrify their nutsacks while they struggle.

[cjm]

Yeah, I've noticed people don't want to be free - many even here on these boards, love control and authority. They can't stand the thought of free people as long as it fits their narrow personal values. The Paine's, Rothbard's, and Bastiat's of the world are rare.

Paine and Rothbard are at odds with regard to land rights. Paine was a precursor to Henry George and all of that stuff.

Rothbard wrote a lot of great stuff but he was wrong with the anti-spanking and allowing parents to starve their children.

You are reading some good stuff, but don't take it all as gospel. Great thinkers can be wrong on issues. Rothbard apparently misunderstood the unique relationship between parents and their offspring.

[GunnyFreedom]

I should be the poster-boy for the anti-spanking set as I was only spanked once as a child, and that once I absolutely did not deserve it. However I know I was an uncommon child, and I know that some violent children need physical correction lest their cycle of violence escalates into something evil or self-destructive.

Spanking should be so rare as to be nearly unheard of. But illegal? No way. That doesn't even get into the freedom of religion "spare the rod and spoil the child" stuff. And just because (some of) you think Christianity is a joke doesn't mean you have the right to throw people into fkng prison for keeping it.

A big part of why we (as a nation) have become such mindless 'do whatever feels good' zombies electing Barack 'smooth' Obama and Mitt 'hair' Romney is because of this undisciplined mindset that has manifested itself in feral children that see no problem with gathering in flash-mobs to beat the hell out of random people.

SMH

[Mr. Perfidy]

Actually most of the flash-mob kids get their asses beat at home.

[GunnyFreedom]

Actually most of the flash-mob kids get their asses beat at home.

First I have to wonder how you know this, and second I surmise that if this is true they are probably getting beat for failing to fetch a beer quickly enough.

[Mr. Perfidy]

I have a work history in various customer-service/clerk positions in poor and shitty neighborhoods/minority sections, and live in these areas, and hang out with the parents of these kinds of kids and assuredly, they are terrible and violent and negligent asshole parents. You think that kids who are taught and respected and instructed get a text "Let's fuck shit up!" and then think, "Exactly! Who is going to punish me with physical harm?!"

that's the opposite of what is happening in their psychology.

[jmdrake]

I should be the poster-boy for the anti-spanking set as I was only spanked once as a child, and that once I absolutely did not deserve it. However I know I was an uncommon child, and I know that some violent children need physical correction lest their cycle of violence escalates into something evil or self-destructive.

Spanking should be so rare as to be nearly unheard of. But illegal? No way. That doesn't even get into the freedom of religion "spare the rod and spoil the child" stuff. And just because (some of) you think Christianity is a joke doesn't mean you have the right to throw people into fkng prison for keeping it.

A big part of why we (as a nation) have become such mindless 'do whatever feels good' zombies electing Barack 'smooth' Obama and Mitt 'hair' Romney is because of this undisciplined mindset that has manifested itself in feral children that see no problem with gathering in flash-mobs to beat the hell out of random people.

SMH

I couldn't agree more! Giving a government that kicks in people's doors that the suspect have marijuana the power to arrest people for spanking their kids makes about as much sense as giving Mitt Romney or Barack Obama the power to do extrajudicial killings. Schools already call the cops when toddlers have temper tantrums. I suppose parents will eventually have to do the same. Who knows. In a few years putting jr. in time out, or raising your voice at him will be seen as an "assault on his individualism" are require statist intervention.


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

[angelatc]

I didnt say i did it in self defense. I did it because she needed to learn that biting is wrong. Try reasoning with a 13 month old. Or should i wait and let her keep biting me, her momma, other kids, until shes old enough to know right from wrong?

She hasnt bit since.

My single-parent aunt was either anti-spanking or anti-discipline....when we were kids, playtime at my house was always a nightmare for my Mom because he was so wild. Until the day he came after me with scissors. My Dad picked him up and spanked him hard.

He was much better behaved when his Mom wasn't around after that.

[alucard13mmfmj]

ive been spanked and i turned out fa fa fa fa fa fa fine =).

im chinese.. so there are a lot of spanking.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

ive been spanked and i turned out fa fa fa fa fa fa fine =).

im chinese.. so there are a lot of spanking.

When will you call the police, and request them to arrest your parents for the violent assault on your individual self? :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

I should be the poster-boy for the anti-spanking set as I was only spanked once as a child, and that once I absolutely did not deserve it. However I know I was an uncommon child, and I know that some violent children need physical correction lest their cycle of violence escalates into something evil or self-destructive.



It doesn't have to be violent to be self-destructive. My friend morphed into a spanker when her daughter thought it was funny to unbuckle herself and stand up on the backseat going down the freeway. (Yes, I grew up that way too, but this is a different time and the parent had drawn the line.) Mom pulls over, scolds her, puts her back in...guess what? Mom repeats this again....guess what happens? Mom gives one final warning - if you don't stay in that seat, I am going to spank you!

After the spanking, the child stayed safely in her seat.

My other friend had a toddler that was a runner. He'd be playing, and all of a sudden he'd just bolt off to where he wanted to go. We were at a neighbor's party, and all of a sudden he decided he wanted to go home - across the street. I sprinted down the drive and literally grabbed his collar just before he got hit, and his Mom was right behind me, palm open/

Neither of those instances were violent, but spankings were deserved.

[DeMintConservative]

Libertarians should focus less on how other people run their lives... Or else they become authoritarians liberals.

Fully agreed.

Very good and needed advice.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It doesn't have to be violent to be self-destructive. My friend morphed into a spanker when her daughter thought it was funny to unbuckle herself and stand up on the backseat going down the freeway. (Yes, I grew up that way too, but this is a different time and the parent had drawn the line.) Mom pulls over, scolds her, puts her back in...guess what? Mom repeats this again....guess what happens? Mom gives one final warning - if you don't stay in that seat, I am going to spank you!

After the spanking, the child stayed safely in her seat.

My other friend had a toddler that was a runner. He'd be playing, and all of a sudden he'd just bolt off to where he wanted to go. We were at a neighbor's party, and all of a sudden he decided he wanted to go home - across the street. I sprinted down the drive and literally grabbed his collar just before he got hit, and his Mom was right behind me, palm open/

Neither of those instances were violent, but spankings were deserved.

Not singling you out, just using this because it's the best worded example of a spanking advocate in this thread.

If anyone wonders why we have a subservient culture that bends over and takes whatever the government gives us, here's a good reason why.

[mczerone]

Spanking a child is assault and a violation of the non-aggression principle, plain and simple.

Says you.

What qualifies as assault or aggression is entirely Subjective. Is bumping someone an a subway battery? Is shouting in another's ear? What about shining someone with a laser pointer? What about a consenting boxer who is hit below the belt, which is against the rules?

All of these thing are arguably aggression. The problem is enforcement.

This Delaware Law is meta-aggression. It for forcefully defines to everyone what levels of force are tolerable, which are not, and what should be done about it, using money and systems forcefully taken from the people.

In a private/competitive legal system, I think that some anti-corporal punishment laws would be found to be worth thier while to enforce, while others would be too costly and too burdensome. Whether this specific law is within this subjective and ever changing line is unknowable without a free market in law.

So while I would like to see less spanking, I don't know whether this law is constructive of destructive, and if the law uses less (subjective) aggression than does the behavior it claims to outlaw.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Says you.

What qualifies as assault or aggression is entirely Subjective. Is bumping someone an a subway battery? Is shouting in another's ear? What about shining someone with a laser pointer? What about a consenting boxer who is hit below the belt, which is against the rules?

All of these thing are arguably aggression. The problem is enforcement.

This Delaware Law is meta-aggression. It for forcefully defines to everyone what levels of force are tolerable, which are not, and what should be done about it, using money and systems forcefully taken from the people.

In a private/competitive legal system, I think that some anti-corporal punishment laws would be found to be worth thier while to enforce, while others would be too costly and too burdensome. Whether this specific law is within this subjective and ever changing line is unknowable without a free market in law.

So while I would like to see less spanking, I don't know whether this law is constructive of destructive, and if the law uses less (subjective) aggression than does the behavior it claims to outlaw.

This has been missed in the discussion. Spanking is bad, and curtailing it is good, but passing laws to do so is as bad or worse than stopping spanking. Under private law perhaps it'd work, but there's no way to square the circle of state aggression stopping individual aggression.

[angelatc]

This has been missed in the discussion. Spanking is bad, and curtailing it is good, but passing laws to do so is as bad or worse than stopping spanking. Under private law perhaps it'd work, but there's no way to square the circle of state aggression stopping individual aggression.

Spanking is not bad, though. Spanking is an effective form of discipline. Anybody who says otherwise likely had no children, or spoiled precious wonders that are beating the crap out of the other kids.

If spanking is violence, and violence begets violence, it's the silly non-aggression advocates who are advocating for making people weak and thus allowing the government to run rough-shod over them.

[nobody's_hero]

Not trying to change the subject, but I've just recently come around to the libertarian position on abortion which is to say that whether or not you agree with abortion, the issue won't be solved with government laws.

Then come to find out that many of the libertarians who showed me the light on how government laws won't necessarily change behaviors we deem undesirable, to support a law of the state to shape behavior of parents.

It's like scenery from Dr. Seuss books around here, sometimes,

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Not trying to change the subject, but I've just recently come around to the libertarian position on abortion which is to say that whether or not you agree with abortion, the issue won't be solved with government laws.

Then come to find out that many of the libertarians who showed me the light on how government laws won't necessarily change behaviors we deem undesirable, to support a law of the state to shape behavior of parents.

It's like scenery from Dr. Seuss books around here, sometimes,

Laws aren't mean to 'solve' behaviors, only enforce justice. That was your first mistake, secondly, the libertarian position on abortion is all over the place. There absolutely should be laws to ensure justice is administered for injustices. I happen to prefer it be voluntary and market-based, but I am in favor of these things regardless if they are monopolized or not. For instance, I wouldn't say repealing laws against murder, rape, theft, vandalism, etc. is right because it doesn't 'fix the behavior', would you? What sort of argument is that?

[familydog]

Hitting an adult without consent is considered assault.

Hitting a child without consent is considered parenting.

:confused:

[cjm]

Then come to find out that many of the libertarians who showed me the light on how government laws won't necessarily change behaviors we deem undesirable, to support a law of the state to shape behavior of parents.

ahem....it's for the children?

[nobody's_hero]

Laws aren't mean to 'solve' behaviors, only enforce justice. That was your first mistake, secondly, the libertarian position on abortion is all over the place. There absolutely should be laws to ensure justice is administered for injustices. I happen to prefer it be voluntary and market-based, but I am in favor of these things regardless if they are monopolized or not. For instance, I wouldn't say repealing laws against murder, rape, theft, vandalism, etc. is right because it doesn't 'fix the behavior', would you? What sort of argument is that?

That's exactly what I mean. I *used* to think that laws fixed behavior. [that banning abortion would somehow make it go away]. I agree that they're more for compensation or justice at least after the fact (because government can't save us from everything).

So, does a law banning spanking actually make spanking occur less? Does it simply advance the power of the state (which, incidentally, will eventually screw our kids over worse than spanking by indoctrinating them in public schools)?

A few parents here and there spanking their kids is a travesty, but giving the gov't power to dictate how parents shall raise their children is broad abuse waiting to happen. The next law down the pipes will be that parents *must* spank their children because 'we have such troubled youth in our country'. You gave them the power to ban it, suppose someone else uses the power to make it mandatory. The wisest path, perhaps, was to leave the state out of it.

It wasn't meant to be a 'gotcha' comment. I'm just wondering now if it is indeed possible to hold so strongly a view on any position that hypocrisy eventually rears its head. We're all guilty of that at times, I think.

[DrHendricks]

One of the few times I was spanked as a child was when I was in first grade and had B grades. I've had only one B since and I am now in medical school. At the time, I just wanted to avoid more punishment while understanding they just wanted the best for me, but now I have a real drive for learning that I doubt I would have acquired had my parents not instilled in me that I had to always push myself in school. I fully support parents to parent however they see fit. I definitely plan on using spanking when I do become a parent.

[qh4dotcom]

Hitting an adult without consent is considered assault.

Hitting a child without consent is considered parenting.

:confused:

Exactly...and where do you draw the line? At what age does spanking becomes assault?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's exactly what I mean. I *used* to think that laws fixed behavior. [that banning abortion would somehow make it go away]. I agree that they're more for compensation or justice at least after the fact (because government can't save us from everything).

So, does a law banning spanking actually make spanking occur less? Does it simply advance the power of the state (which, incidentally, will eventually screw our kids over worse than spanking by indoctrinating them in public schools)?

A few parents here and there spanking their kids is a travesty, but giving the gov't power to dictate how parents shall raise their children is broad abuse waiting to happen. The next law down the pipes will be that parents *must* spank their children because we have such troubled youth in our country. You gave them the power to ban it, suppose someone else uses the power to make it mandatory. The wisest path, perhaps, was to leave the state out of it.

It wasn't meant to be a 'gotcha' comment. I'm just wondering now if it is indeed possible to hold so strongly a view on any position that hypocrisy eventually rears its head. We're all guilty of that at times, I think.

Again, you never answered the question - are you for repealing laws against murder, thievery, rape, etc.? You said laws aren't meant to solve behaviors, then in your next sentence said they are. I could care less if an action occurs less frequently, or more frequently. I care about the administration of justice. Sure, I'd like to see these things reduced to next to nothing, but they're a part of human nature whether you like it or not. As long as they exist, some sort of administration of justice for these things should likewise exist. At present, we don't have a voluntary society, so while I advocate for such, it isn't hypocritical of me to say to the State that they should administer justice for these injustices because they're a monopoly institution and I am FOR the administration of these justices even in a voluntary society. So, while it is wrong for the State to tax, to monopolize, etc. I don't see anything wrong as long as they exist to have laws against violations of our rights.

If we leave the State out of it, then the injustice will go unabated. It is a monopoly institution unfortunately. I like roads, doesn't mean that I want the State to road-build, it just means I'd rather have roads than no roads. Capiche?

[mad cow]

Suppose someone pulls up in his windowless van with Free Candy painted on the side and offers 4 to 8 year old girls candy bars in exchange for oral sex.Not only does he demand written contracts,he video records the whole thing to prove it was a voluntary transaction and for later enjoyment and possibly to sell.

He has more valuable items such as Justin Bieber CD's and My Little Pony lunch boxes that he offers for 10% of the girl's lifetime earnings,all with signed,videoed and thumb printed proof of the validity of the contract.Are you suggesting that free individuals can't enter into voluntary contracts?

Y'all got a problem with that?A 25 year old can enter into contracts all day long,why can't a 5 year old in this libertarian utopia you advocate?

Or maybe,just maybe,a child doesn't possess all the natural rights that an adult possesses and has to rely on their parents judgement until they have the wisdom God gave a goose.

[nobody's_hero]

So, while it is wrong for the State to tax, to monopolize, etc. I don't see anything wrong as long as they exist to have laws against violations of our rights.



Okay. This is the pitfall that you're falling into. What you deem to be a violation of someone's rights is another person's method of raising children. You can't just take a minority opinion and make it law, regardless of how strongly you feel about the issue, without inadvertently denying the people their right to self-govern. There are plenty of laws on the books where some nanny stater thought he/she was 'protecting someone's rights' and well, the road to hell is paved (. . . ).

Spanking is a controversial issue (though, maybe not so much according to the poll). With controversial issues, as a rule of thumb, I don't elevate the decision-making to a higher authority. I stopped doing this with abortion, even though I find it to be abhorrent. There are some problems that government won't solve. Then I turn around and libertarians are advocating doing the same thing for the spanking issue. Hell, I might as well go back to advocating a federal ban on abortion, if these are the rules you want to play by.

If 80% of the American people believed that rape, murder, or theft were somehow morally acceptable behavior, it wouldn't do a damn bit of good to advocate for laws against such crimes.

Now look at the poll results and tell me if the government intervention in this issue is only going to make things worse.

[cjm]

Then I turn around and libertarians are advocating doing the same thing for the spanking issue.

A neoconservative is not a conservative. A neolibertarian is not a libertarian.

[Anti-Neocon]

Let me ask you spanking lovers: is it possible to teach kids to behave without spanking? Sure it may be a little more difficult, but yes it is. I was never spanked, and neither are many people who turn out to be fine who are never spanked.

I'm surprised that so many here are rushing to a defend a fear-based potentially traumatic system of teaching children how to get in line. Rewards-based parenting is possible, and teaches children a more critical thought process and appreciation for what their parents provide for them, teaching them how to be much more self-reliant.

As supporters of personal liberty, do we really want our society conditioned through fear to obey authority without question? It's definitely something worth thinking about.

[DamianTV]

Just because spanking isnt outlawed means that parents are going to rush out and beat their children to bloody messes. Its no different than legalizing every drug on the planet. Just because it may have been made legal doesnt mean people rush right out and abuse it. There are going to be abuses, but those abuses are going to happen regardless of whether there are laws against it or not. The only purpose the law is there is to hold the person accountable for excessive abuses. Laws should NEVER be passed solely on the idea that someone might abuse their freedoms.

[AlexAmore]

If spanking is violence, and violence begets violence, it's the silly non-aggression advocates who are advocating for making people weak and thus allowing the government to run rough-shod over them.

In 1968, 94% of the adult population believed it was sometimes necessary to spank. Before that date it was probably more. I don't think the problems of the world today can be attributed to an extremely small minority of kids who were not spanked.

I also don't know how bending over and slapping children in the ass teaches one to stand up to authority. Seems like it's in the same spirit of our public school system and that doesn't teach kids to stand up to authority. I think it's people who feel entitled are the ones who stand up to authority, however you seem to be very against that. Yes, entitlement is a double edged sword, but that's ok.

I was never spanked. I am someone who feels extremely entitled, and that I deserve the best. Guess what? I'm out there actively getting what my spoiled entitled ass wants and that's liberty! I don't settle for mediocrity. I don't stop my behavior just because the government spanks me (figuratively speaking) to stop.

[Anti-Neocon]

Just because spanking isnt outlawed means that parents are going to rush out and beat their children to bloody messes. Its no different than legalizing every drug on the planet....
You lost me there. Anti-spanking laws don't aim to protect one from oneself, so comparing the two is a huge false equivalency.

[DamianTV]

What about driving under the influence then?

[Origanalist]

http://ts3.explicit.bing.net/th?id=i.5005196711362682&pid=15.1

[Dr.3D]

Exactly...and where do you draw the line? At what age does spanking becomes assault?


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

Was the woman in this video assaulted?

[Anti-Neocon]

What about driving under the influence then?
I'm personally of the opinion that it should be a crime. If you believe otherwise, then we agree to disagree.

[AGRP]

Who are the 11 members floating around that believe children are the property of the state?

[Anti-Neocon]

Who are the 11 members floating around that believe children are the property of the state?
Haha, you're funny. Now if you'd actually like to debate the points I made, then please go for it without being a dick.

[AGRP]

Haha, you're funny. Now if you'd actually like to debate the points I made, then please go for it without being a dick.

Well, it is kind of funny to believe that children belong to the state. Your points have been refuted in previous posts by other people.

[Anti-Neocon]

Well, it is kind of funny to believe that children belong to the state. Your points have been refuted in previous posts by other people.
I asked you kindly not to be a dick, and you just decided to be a dick some more. If you really honestly believe my position is equivalent to believing "children belong to the state", then you need your head examined.

Also nobody "refuted" my points. Nobody even rebutted them, except to make a false equivalency.

[cjm]

Let me ask you spanking lovers: is it possible to teach kids to behave without spanking? Sure it may be a little more difficult, but yes it is. I was never spanked, and neither are many people who turn out to be fine who are never spanked.

Spanking lovers? Seriously? Do you hope to get a reasoned response from the thread by using that characterization? Or are you here to just stir up more drama? I think feeding fast-food to children is very questionable, but I wouldn't jump into a thread where people defended that act and address them as obesity lovers, especially if I wanted to have any chance at persuading them to stop.


I'm surprised that so many here are rushing to a defend a fear-based potentially traumatic system of teaching children how to get in line. Rewards-based parenting is possible, and teaches children a more critical thought process and appreciation for what their parents provide for them, teaching them how to be much more self-reliant.

As supporters of personal liberty, do we really want our society conditioned through fear to obey authority without question? It's definitely something worth thinking about.

Sending a kid to time-out is also reinforcement of obedience to authority, so you can't avoid that by eliminating spanking. If the child refuses to go to time-out and darts out of the house, do you propose that the parent respect his freedom of association and right to travel? Or would a parent be justified in retrieving the child and holding it in time-out? I personally don't see restricting an upset child by holding in place as any less traumatic than a quick swat on the bottom. In fact, it might even be more traumatic.

The trauma can be avoided by not sending the child to time-out in the first place I suppose, but time-outs don't occur in a vacuum. The child did something that broke the house rules. Sure, those rules were imposed on the child without consent in some cases, but no-one can seriously advocate that 4 year olds have any standing to dictate the rules of the house.

For the record, I don't consider myself a spanking lover. We had very few spanking-penalty rules in my house. Even siblings hitting each other violently just got a time-out. Refusing to go to time out, however, got you a swat on the bottom and then a longer time-out. Now that my kids are over five, I don't spank any more. I think spanking teenagers and pre-teens is ridiculous, and think it should be reserved for small kids before they reach the age of reason -- generally toddlers and preschoolers. Consistent rules and consequences worked for us. Unlike the Molyneux video where corporal punishment was defined by spanking at least 3 times a week, my kids were spanked maybe 3 times a year before the age of 5 or so, and not since. If you correct unacceptable behaviors early enough, you won't have chronic unruliness. And the trauma of those spanking events is lost in the sea of falling off bicycles, getting pushed into a fence by your "best friend", not getting invited to a birthday party, etc.

But the above is just my opinion. I don't think that parents should go to jail because they draw different lines on when spanking should be used or not. If that makes me a spanking lover, child-hitter (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391275-Delaware-becomes-1st-state-to-officially-outlaw-spanking&p=4682869&viewfull=1#post4682869), or Nazi (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391275-Delaware-becomes-1st-state-to-officially-outlaw-spanking&p=4682861&viewfull=1#post4682861) in anyone's eyes, feel free to do the "libertarian" thing and send in the state.

[AGRP]

I asked you kindly not to be a dick, and you just decided to be a dick some more. If you really honestly believe my position is equivalent to believing "children belong to the state", then you need your head examined.

From what I understand CPS is an arm of the state. I could be wrong. I have to go now. Thanks for the lively debate.

[DamianTV]

From what I understand CPS is an arm of the state. I could be wrong. I have to go now. Thanks for the lively debate.

To say that something has an Arm kinda sorta implies that the entity who which the Arm belongs to only has two arms. I know its merely a matter of semantics, but it could be better be described as a Tentacle or some other sort of Noodly Appendage.