Another problem for AC

JMAnon · #1 10-14-2006, 04:47 PM

In the theoretical AC world, who protects children from evil parents who use them as slave labor, prostitute them, rape them, abuse them, or neglect them?

hmkpoker · #2 10-14-2006, 05:22 PM

I wouldn't worry about it. Once heroin becomes legal, every single person is going to become addicted to it and too physically disabled to hit their kids.

Nielsio · #3 10-14-2006, 05:35 PM

What have you come up with so far?

WillMagic · #4 10-14-2006, 05:38 PM

Probably...

There will be enough people disgusted by this sort of thing that "charities" will be set up to find abused kids and put them in decent homes...using free hotlines and neighborhood watch and things like that.

Also, if there is a free market for children, then it is much easier for a parent who doesn't value his child all that highly to exchange him to parents who will value him.

And in the case where a kid is being abused but won't call a hotline and can't be found...well, honestly it doesn't matter if there is a state or not at that point. No such thing as utopia.

ElliotR · #5 10-14-2006, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

There will be enough people disgusted by this sort of thing that "charities" will be set up to find abused kids and put them in decent homes...using free hotlines and neighborhood watch and things like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, there. You mean that in the name of "charity" someone will trespass on others' land and simply take their children? Thus taking valuable property that could be exchanged in the "free market for children" you describe elsewhere in your post? Sounds pretty coercive to me. Almost "state-like".

That having been said, congratulations and thank you for actually answering someone's question rather than posting some useless thing like "what have you got so far" in a pathetic attempt to distract from the fact that you have no answers.

CaptainFreedom · #6 10-14-2006, 06:24 PM

You don't get it JMAnon. In this world the market costs of children will become so low due to the abuse that the market will compel these parents into not hitting their property so much. They will realise that the more they hit their kids the less they will be worth later on and will act accordingly. Think of it like a giant balance scale and you should begin to see what I'm talking about.

hmkpoker · #7 10-14-2006, 06:27 PM

Before anyone asks, I want to say that I believe parents should be entitled to partial ownership rights of their children. They practically own them already, young children pretty much have to do whatever their parents want them to do (luckily, evolution provides us with healthy incentives for our enslaved offspring.)

Children cannot own themselves. One could say that they are unowned, but where's the logic in that? Nothing and no one exerts effective control over the child's actions? The alternative is not non-ownership, but state ownership. If a few kids get raped and abused (which happens today anyway, since state's ability to govern the actions of the household are thankfully limited), I'd still happier than the alternative of telescreen parental supervision.

surftheiop · #8 10-14-2006, 07:25 PM

"There will be enough people disgusted by this sort of thing that "charities" will be set up to find abused kids and put them in decent homes...using free hotlines and neighborhood watch and things like that."

whoah, so your saying that these charities would know how to handle someone's property (hmpoker says kids are property)better than the owner of the property? isnt the whole tenant of AC is that people know whats best to do with their own property?

Also are you suggesting that these charities steal the pyscho parents property?

WillMagic · #9 10-14-2006, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There will be enough people disgusted by this sort of thing that "charities" will be set up to find abused kids and put them in decent homes...using free hotlines and neighborhood watch and things like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, there. You mean that in the name of "charity" someone will trespass on others' land and simply take their children? Thus taking valuable property that could be exchanged in the "free market for children" you describe elsewhere in your post? Sounds pretty coercive to me. Almost "state-like".

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said AC was some natural-rights utopia. Honestly given how much people despise child abuse I expect such organizations will spring up in the absence of the state. And really, if the parents are in fact abusing their children, then such organizations would be totally in the right.

However, such an organization would not be state-like, for one simple reason - it would be funded voluntarily, and it would also be liable for a civil suit. And because of that, it would have to be much more judicious in its interventions.

Borodog · #10 10-14-2006, 10:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What have you come up with so far?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an incredibly insightful question. Anyone who isn't an intellectual lazetard should attempt to answer questions like these for themselves before jumping to the default statist position that there can't possibly be any solutions and hence we must have the Government of the Gaps.