What if your child signs up with a government that considers her capable of giving her own consent, and thus able to make her own decisions about swimming out to sea?
Okay, morally I agree with you on retrieving the child from the ocean. Am I right in thinking that you retrieve her even if she’s kicking and screaming?
If so, can you explain to me why that does not constitute coercion?
Daniel
Yes, absolutely.
Because it is in defense of her life. Coercion is initial force or deception only. Defensive force (to keep them alive and well) and retaliatory force (to reasonably punish them) are not coercive. It’s no different than the general principle. You may not coerce your neighbor, but if he threatens your life you may use defensive force to defend yourself. Or if he steals your car, you may use retaliatory force to get it back. With children, you are acting on their behalf because they don’t yet have the ability to form meaningful consent (derived from volitional freedom). In other words, you are your child’s rights agent as it were.
What if your child runs away to the Sudan and becomes a sex slave?
My question was reasonable and directed at someone who I thought would have an answer. Instead, I get this empty dodge.
Just consider the variety of age cutoffs that exist in the world today. There’s no reason to think all governments in Libertaria would agree on who can give consent and who can’t. In a free market of governments, I’d expect at least one of them to treat young people more optimistically than they’re treated today.
My question was reasonable and directed at someone who I thought would have an answer. Instead, I get this empty dodge.
Ages of consent vary anyway, from state to state in the US. Like I said, if you get to thump on hypothetical horror stories, I get to thump on real ones. If I’m dodging, then so are you.
Then the law allow you to attempt to retrieve him.
Let’s use a plausible example. I believe that children below the age of eighteen should not use ecstasy, because it’s harmful to them. I punish my fourteen year old when I discover that she’s been taking X at parties. Some friends tell her about a government that allows anyone over the age of twelve to make their own drug use decisions, and decides that she wants to join it. May she? If she does, does she sever my responsibilities toward her?
Daniel
I try, not always successfully, to stay out of these libertarian threads, but I wanted to comment on this, because it goes to what you would call “doomsday scenarios”, and why they always seem to be brought up in threads like this, and I think it reflects an underlying problem with communication that causes most of the bad feelings that come up in these threads.
I think a lot of people, when they read the Lbertaria threads (and I know I do), ask, “what are the actual advantages and disadvantages of living in Libertaria”…you know, how would Libertaria be better than the society we have now?
So when people bring up things like child abuse, poverty, lighthouses and the free rider problem, public goods, giant squid, or whatever, they recognize that our society isn’t perfect regarding these issues (except the giant squid. We have that under control) They’re asking if a libertarian society will be better able to solve these problems than the society we have now.
What causes the disconnect is (and I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding your stance…please correct me if I am) that you primarily want Libertaria to come into being not because of the benefits a libertarian society would provide, but because you think that the current society is coercive and non-voluntary, and you think that that’s morally wrong.
Why would I have an answer? We’re talking about Libertaria, not Kubrickstan. 
Yes, and we have federal laws to deal with the issues that causes. It’s illegal to travel across state lines in order to have sex with a minor, for example. If your kid runs away across state lines, she doesn’t automatically become emancipated. I am wondering what analogous measures, if any, exist in Libertaria.
If you’re saying minors in this hypothetical land can immediately emancipate themselves by signing up with a government that recognizes them as full-fledged citizens, then fine. I may even wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But I’ll wait for confirmation first.
Left Hand of Dorkness’s example is exactly the kind of thing I’m thinking of - not anything extreme like beatings or races to the middle of the ocean, but common parental judgment. If your kid wants to rent an explicit movie, use recreational drugs, go to a college party, or hang out at the park instead of going to school, what (if anything) can you do if he finds another government that considers your attempts at prevention or punishment to be coercive?
Same here. In fact, you must retrieve him. (And your government will assist you in this if necessary.)
No, she may not. Not until you and/or your government has declared her to be an adult. Recall that she is not even a consenting party to the contract with you, and so she has no severability. (Incidentally, these same principles apply to people who are in any way mentally incapable of giving meaningful consent, such as someone who is severely retarded, for example.) The question then naturally arises: what happens if you refuse to acknowledge her adulthood even when she is clearly grown up? And the answer is that at any time, she may appeal to arbitration to determine whether she can override your decision. If arbitration recognizes her adulthood, then you are released from your obligations toward her. (Though, of course, as a parent, you will always wish the best for her.)
Neither am I compelled to answer you. I am a volunteer here. It is suspicious, to say the least, that your inquiry came upon the heels of a specific request to put aside that sort of ridiculousness for the sake of a possible meaningful discussion.
At this point, until you and I have an understanding, you will need to look to my answers to him for whatever information it is that you allegedly have an interest in.
Ok, then I am glad I read the above before I posted.
I was thinking of a society where parents had some sort of right/duty to coerce their children into doing things (or not doing things) because it was in the best interests of the children. “Clean your room”, “eat your vegetables”, “do your homework” - even, “no, you can’t buy a car”. I do not mean stuff like whipping them bloody or stuff like that - as I mentioned earlier, maybe we disagree what constitutes child abuse but that does not invalidate the principle that child abuse is a bad thing.
Maybe I am still not understanding you, based on your “drowning child” example. Are there circumstances where you can act in a way that looks coercive if there is something less than life or death at stake? Or when you are not acting to preserve the child from other coercion?
I aqree with this.
The standard for Libertaria should be how it deals with its problems, as well as how well it works for the ordinary challenges of life. And you can find extreme examples to invalidate anything.
And it seems to me that this idea of whether or not you can go to a different sub-government in Libertaria is sort of a red herring as well.
I realize it has been stated in the past that Libertaria has no borders. Thus it seems legitimate to me to assume that Larry and Linda (remember them?) are citizens of Libertaria in the sense that they are dedicated to the principle on which Libertaria is founded. They can always skip town and enroll as citizens in Authoritarianland, the country next door. But all the sub-governments/voluntary associations in their immediate vicinity, and all the ones they are willing to join, are equally committed to the non-coercion principle, let’s say. Yes, Libertaria always had the option of skipping town and starting over somewhere less enlightened as an escape valve. But then Larry and Linda are not dealing with life in Libertaria, and that is the interesting issue.
Right. The problem of “foreign relations”, where Libertaria as a whole society deals with its non-libertarian neighbors, and also “what happens if someone decides to cut and run to get away from his obligations” is different still. You can do that just as easily as you can run to a desert island to escape a messy divorce in the US - and just as implausibly. It strikes me as too extreme a reaction for the average divorcing Libertarian citizen.
So, if possible, can we pretend that Larry and Linda would rather stay put?
And when I am speaking of Libertaria, I am speaking of all those committed to making a society work that is founded on non-coercion. Thus all their contracts with all the organizations in their lives are going to belong to Libertaria in that sense. Pretend, in other words, that any “government” that Larry wanted to contract with to get away from his divorce situation would refuse to do business with him until the situation was resolved.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, the question that arose first for me is: what makes your government think they can tell other governments who to accept as citizen-customers?
No more suspicious that the fact that these insinuations of yours are coming upon the heels of a question you didn’t want to answer.
The issue of youth rights is close to my heart, as my posting history should make clear, and I’m disappointed that you think my serious, honest question was ridiculous. I can only hope Left Hand will pursue my line of questioning until you take your fingers out of your ears.
Remember that not all force or deception is coercive. Only initial is bad. As I told Left Hand of Dorkness, reasonable use of force to save your child’s life is defensive, and reasonable use of force to train her behavior is retaliatory (in response to, say, writing on the walls with lipstick.) You are doing for her what she cannot do for herself. Just as a reminder, the principle is that coercion is initial — intitial — force or deception. Responsive force is not coercive.
Well, hold on a minute. 
As I see it, they are citizens of Libertaria in the sense that they consented and paid to be governed. Whatever they might be dedicated to is interesting, but not necessary for contracting with Libertaria. And they can’t just skip out on a whim anymore than they can breach any other contract. They can opt out if and when it expires, of course.
Sure. The government doesn’t own their land anyway, and has no authority over it other than what they have given it.
I’ll give you leeway then, in the hopes that we can work this out. I’ve had no problem with you in the past, at least that I can recall. So, I’ll begin by apologizing. Unfortunately, your timing was rotten.
It isn’t a matter of your government telling another government anything. Libertarian government (as I said earlier) doesn’t even engage with negotiation or trade with other governments. It is a matter of securing your rights. Libertaria is not concerned about Authoritaria; it is concerned about Mr2001.
Children enjoy a wonderful station in Libertaria. They have all the rights with none of the responsibilities. They are nonconsenting parties to a unary contract with their parents. They did not consent to be born, but they were born with a right to give consent. Unfortunately, they were not born with the ability to do so. Just as they are born with the right to life, but if left to their own devices at birth, they would surely die. That is why I so often stress the seriousness of the parental obligation in Libertaria. It isn’t just a matter of producing a baby to be a burden on everyone else. The decision to have a child is the most serious and sober one possible. You are your child’s agent before your government, and she is entitled to every last ounce of your commitment to her every need. It is up to you to make responsible decisions and take responsible actions on her behalf, and it is up to your government to assist you in protecting her from coercion when needed. If she runs off to a roque state that will not give her up, and you are incapable of getting her back, then your government must do whatever is necessary to get her back for you. Yes, even if it means war. Your government is an agent on your behalf, just as you are an agent on hers.
Thank you, and I’m sorry for the poor timing.
I don’t see how that can be a meaningful statement if they aren’t free to make the same choices as adults. What good is a right if you aren’t allowed to exercise it yourself–if someone else exercises it on your behalf in a way that may be at odds with your own wishes?
And just as her newfound government is also an agent on her behalf. In their eyes, this child is an independent person capable of giving consent on her own, a refugee from a rogue state that doesn’t recognize her independence. Do you agree that they are equally justified in going to war to defend her?
It seems to me the end result is a war breaks out each time a child has a dispute with her parents, until the criteria for determining who can consent are eventually standardized through force by whichever side has a bigger army.
I have to call it a night (no matter how bright it is outside), but I’ll look forward to your response later today.
OK, I think I get it.
I can coerce my child to do her homework in retaliation for her not doing it. Or does there have to be an initial contract that she makes on her own behalf with the school, or with you, or something similar? Or are you just talking about instances where she interferes with my rights not to have lipstick on my walls, for instance?
Myabe I don’t get it. Could I force her to eat her vegetables? This:
makes it sound like I could.
It sounds to me sort of like the Montessori principle writ large for children in general.
Maybe I am not asking the question right. In situations where it doesn’t hurt me or interfere with my rights, like not eating your vegetables, is my forcing her to eat them initial coercion?
I don’t believe we are disagreeing. Larry and Linda have a valid contract with Libertaria, it has no expiration clause, and they don’t want to move anyway. Therefore, they stay put and we can explore their options.
Regards,
Shodan
That would, of course, be the next natural question; you’ve got me there :).
If I understand, when she appeals to arbitration, it’s necessarily going to be the arbitration of one of the voluntary governments. Since she’s a member of the same voluntary government that I’m a member of (if I understand correctly), would she be forced to appeal to an arbiter from this government?
Of course you can see the problem with this. I may belong to a strict religious government that believes boys achieve majority on turning 13, and girls achieve majority on marrying a boy who’s a member of my government, and the marriage is subject to my approval. I voluntarily entered a contract to join this government, and on her birth I signed her up for the government so as to ensure the protection of her rights. If she must seek arbitration from this government, the case will amost certainly go against her.
Is there some sort of meta-arbiter to whom she can appeal?
Daniel
Great. Here we go then!
There is nothing to prevent you as a parent from allowing your child to make choices. If, in your view and experience, it is safe for her to swim in the ocean, then so long as no harm comes to her, it is nobody’s business. I did not mean to tell Left Hand of Dorkness that he couldn’t allow his daughter to swim. The impression I got from his question was that she darted into the water unmindful of her safety and that she was in danger. He did, after all, ask about rescuing her. There is no need to rescue someone who is not having a problem.
I believe that the question is irrelevant — (please don’t misinterpret that to mean that I believe you are asking irrelevant questions, but that the question in terms of the context is not relevant) — and here’s why: my commitment is to my daughter, and not to her alleged government. To put it another way, I don’t give a rat’s ass what they think is justified. Surely, you agree. If your daughter went to the Sudan, then I don’t believe you would be satisfied if you were told, “Well, they feel like they’re justified in keeping her.” At least, I hope not. I rather think you’d wish that Bush would send the Navy SEALs to get her out.
Does it? It doesn’t to me. You’ve tossed aside quite many contingent issues in order to make an assertion that I consider to be gratuitous. In fact, the entire scenario does that, which makes for convenience on your part, but not on mine. So in the spirit of our newfound mutual respect, perhaps you’ll now indulge me a few questions:
How did your daughter get away, and why weren’t you watching her? Did she suddenly decide that she wants to do drugs and without discussing it with you at all, left in the dead of night? How could you have been so out of touch with her that you had no inkling of what she might do? If you knew she was taking drugs, why shouldn’t you be prosecuted for child abuse? And if you did not know, why shouldn’t you be prosecuted for child neglect?
Now, with respect to wherever she fled to:
What possible advantage did her new government see in assisting you to break your contract with both her and your government? How did she pay for their services? How did her brain, at twelve years old, have the emotional maturity to consider the consequences of her actions? Where, for example, will she stay? How will she pay rent? Why is it that the new governers will toss away all common sense, and agree to protect a renegage street child who stands to be abused and raped in a society as permissive as you describe? Wouldn’t that government, in order to fulfill its contract with her, have to basically put an armed guard with her to follow her around? What advantage does she bring to them, that they would consider a war with Libertaria in order to bear the expense of contracting with her?
Now, it is possible that you will answer all these questions with items of convenience. She’s extremely mature for a twelve-year-old. Or there are people who have been wooing her to come there and will give her shelter. Or she has decided to work as a prostitute to pay her way, and conveniently, the new family will allow her to do so. Or a generous benefactor is tending to her every need.
If that is the route this is headed, then I’m not going to participate because, no matter what answer I give you, you will presume the right to stipulate something new. You keep me tied up answering questions that become more and more absurd while I could be addressing more realistic scenarios. Not gonna happen. If you get to stipulate that every circumstance of fortune has gone her way, then I get to stipulate the opposite. A flood killed her during her escape. The new government wouldn’t even hear her case. She knew no one there and had never done drugs. In fact, she awoke and the whole thing was a dream.
If you have questions about libertarian theory, I’ll be happy to answer them. And I’ve answered your questions that you’ve asked, but I said I didn’t want to do these hypotheticals for a reason, a reason which I spelled out. I will assume honesty on your part, that you merely mistimed your inquiry, and that you indeed are sorry that it happened. Feel free to ask me what ifs, but do not follow them up with yeah buts. You can call me nonresponsive if you like, but if that is your desire, rather than discussion, then you should just state your rant and be done with it.
And I yours tomorrow.
You really should stop using force and coercion as synonyms, unless you want to discuss something besides libertarianism. 
Um, she can’t make contracts. Contracts require consent, and she is incapable of giving meaningful consent. (How could you have forgotten this just-mentioned thing?) Even your contract with her is unary. She did not consent to it. That obligates you to waive whatever rights you might have had had she not been born (such as partying all day and night) and tend to hers.
I suppose you could allow her to lipstick your wall if you want to, but you must teach her that she always needs the permission of the wall owner whenever she does so. Otherwise, she might think that she can go to Ms. Smith’s house and lipstick her walls too. It isn’t a matter of interference with your rights, but of you teaching her right behavior. You are the first judge of what that is. If you yourself are not capable of making such judgments, then you should have elected to have a child.
Yes, of course you may. Her nutrition is vital for her life.
The relevant principle is noncoercion.
Depends. Are you forcing them to eat because otherwise they’d be malnourished? Or are you forcing them to eat when they are already full and you just want to be mean?
Well, okay. Unfortunately, there’s only one of me and several of you. I don’t know how much more time I can allocate to this, but all of you are pulling in different directions, and it is taking me quite some time for each response. (Honestly, it would help if I didn’t have to repeat things two and three times. The thing about the child making contracts, for instance. You should have known that from information already given. Or the thing about using coercion when you meant force. I had to correct it for the record, lest someone infer that I agreed with your assessment.) This is already Friday, and I have a heavy work schedule next week. As well, I am giving my Essence thread less attention than I would like, and it is my first preference. So if there’s a point or something, we’d best get to it.