[Someone5]

Depends on the country.

But harder drugs are much more difficult to get for an underage whith laws.

Hardly. If anything they're easier to get because of the high profitability of the black market.

[Rothbardian]

I can only find one problem with any type of anarchism.
What would happen with kids? With no laws preventing drug use in underages what will happen?
Everybody knows that "education" is not the answer. Maybe there is already an answer to the drug problem. If it is please tell me. The problem I see is that kids are not conscient of the harmfull efects of some drugs and cant use them responsibly.

When you say this is a problem with anarchism, do you mean a problem specific to anarchism? Because if you think this problem is solved by a government, I'm not sure how aware you are of the world around you.

[Suska]

Indians pilgrimage to the Ganges to swim in the waters. In the west we think that everyone uses water to get clean.

Without law, without government - that is without coercion. Parent, sibling, scientist, stranger, I don't care who you are. Life is a choice between individuals in the moment and always has been, you can't formalize anything in reality. If people want to kill each other they must. Rape, murder, what have you.

That said, I can assure you, good people are good people because it is a fathom more pleasant than the alternative. So long as people have any sense at all you don't need to control them, and in truth, the attempt has the effect of making people senseless.

They swim in the Ganges to catch life, if the going form is a disease - well do you really think you can hide forever? How insincere anyway. Anarchy is nature's rule, and in the truest sense she has never not ruled.

So, problem children... That is the crux of the problem, the ownership of children by parents is also not necessary, likewise the possessive feelings of lovers. Mutual respect and care with the dependencies of others is just being good company. Nothing worth having can be taken by force, and nothing worth knowing can be taught with words. This is why I'm an anarchist: I don't feel at all constrained or afraid of anyone, I like a certain type of life though and it requires friends and trust.

[Nunt]

I can only find one problem with any type of anarchism.
What would happen with kids? With no laws preventing drug use in underages what will happen?
Everybody knows that "education" is not the answer. Maybe there is already an answer to the drug problem. If it is please tell me. The problem I see is that kids are not conscient of the harmfull efects of some drugs and cant use them responsibly.

I haven't read the entire thread but will respond to the questions asked by the TS. Apologies if someone already said something similar.

First, let's define children as individuals who are too young to enter into voluntary contracts with others and rely on their guardians/parents to make those decisiosn for them. I'll not enter into details at what each this should be. My intuition is that different people attain the maturity to be able to enter into voluntary contracts with others at different ages. I leave it to courts and psychologists to decide if someone is still a child or not.

Second, assuming we have defined an individual as a child, will the child be allowed to consume drugs? Lets start with the extreme case: a newly born infant. Would someone be allowed to give the baby a bottle of alcohol instead of a bottle of milk? Clearly, this would not be allowed. This is just the equivalant of poisoning. You can give an adult a bottle of alcohol because the adult has voluntarly decided that he wants to poison his own body. In contrast, the child has never voluntary decided to poison his body. By definition, the child is unable to decide decide this. So the adult giving the alcohol to the child, is making the decision for the child. Thus, the adult is poisoning the child and the adult could be punished for this.

Thus in accordance with the NAP, it would be forbidden to sell drugs to children. But the children themselves would not have done anything wrong. If the law considers them too young to make those decisions, then they could not make any decision, let alone an illegal decision.

[Eran]

Nunt,
What do you do in cases where the degree to which the drug is harmful is debated?

Giving a bottle of alcohol to a newborn is out. Ok.

How about offering a glass of wine with meal to a 15-year old?

[Nunt]

Nunt,
What do you do in cases where the degree to which the drug is harmful is debated?

Giving a bottle of alcohol to a newborn is out. Ok.

How about offering a glass of wine with meal to a 15-year old?

Courts would have to decide whether 1) the 15 year old is able to make such decisions, is he a child or an adult, 2) is the drug harmful or not.

I'm afraid I can't be more specific. It is impossible to answer those questions principally. Is this particular 15 year old a child or an adult? This question can only be answered by psychologists. I guess this indivdual approach may cause much uncertainty for wine sellers, because how can they ever know whether the a person is a child or an adult. So maybe we can use a general rule such as "everyone over 18 is considered to be an adult", however younger people can ask to be declared an adult by courts/psychologists so that say a 13 year old could be an adult and be allowed to poison himself.

Is a glass of wine harmful enough? This is something that needs to be decided by doctors. Again there is no black or white solution. Take even a more unclear example such as sugar consumption. Consuming lots of sugar is definatly harmful, consuming a bit of sugar isn't really harmfull. Somewhere in between is a line. This line can only be arbitrarly defined.

[Suska]

The whole thinking that courts have to do the thinking for people, well it's counter-anarchist at the very least, and defies common sense.

Babies don't like booze, there's not a problem. Teenagers do. But the problem isn't teenagers who illegally drink any more than it is parents who resist passing their bad habits on to their children. We have the term anarchist, not for rebels against order and decency in itself, but for the counter productive coercive enforcement of order and decency.

[Rothbardian]

Courts would have to decide whether 1) the 15 year old is able to make such decisions, is he a child or an adult, 2) is the drug harmful or not.

I'm afraid I can't be more specific. It is impossible to answer those questions principally. Is this particular 15 year old a child or an adult? This question can only be answered by psychologists. I guess this indivdual approach may cause much uncertainty for wine sellers, because how can they ever know whether the a person is a child or an adult. So maybe we can use a general rule such as "everyone over 18 is considered to be an adult", however younger people can ask to be declared an adult by courts/psychologists so that say a 13 year old could be an adult and be allowed to poison himself.

Is a glass of wine harmful enough? This is something that needs to be decided by doctors. Again there is no black or white solution. Take even a more unclear example such as sugar consumption. Consuming lots of sugar is definatly harmful, consuming a bit of sugar isn't really harmfull. Somewhere in between is a line. This line can only be arbitrarly defined.

Do you think courts know better than parents what is good/harmful for their children?

[Decky]

Do you think courts know better than parents what is good/harmful for their children?

The only sensible answer is that it depends on the court and on the parent. How many millions of parent routinely slash up their children's genitals for no apparent reason?

[Nunt]

Do you think courts know better than parents what is good/harmful for their children?

I don't. At least not in general. I might have forgot to put emphasis on the role of parents and guardians. When the danger to the child is not so clear cut, then I would say that parents have the responsibility to decide what is in the best interest of their child.

The role of courts would be to solve conflicts between parents and children: When can the child make his own decisions? When is their child abuse by the guardians? For example, serving alcohol to a toddler would not be allowed (even if the toddler explicitly asks for it), serving alcohol to a teenager may be allowed. So even while parents get to decide over the grey areas, courts should still be able to enforce/forbid the black/white areas.

Another role for courts would be to solve the relation between parents and children in the absence of their parents? For example, if I am a shopkeeper am I allowed to sell heroin, alcohol, coca cola, carrots to a 12 year old without parents present? Assume the case where the parents dont want to child to drink coca cola. But the child enters the store alone, so the shopkeeper does not know this. Is he commiting a crime when he sells the coca cola? So courts have a role in legally defining what shopkeepers can sell to children without their parents permission.

[SolarCross]

Of course it is the parents duty to look out for their children and since most parents have got a strong biological interest in the wellbeing of their children that is just what they will do. There are always exceptions, however rare, and that is when the situation might need to go to some court for arbitration.

[Rothbardian]

The only sensible answer is that it depends on the court and on the parent. How many millions of parent routinely slash up their children's genitals for no apparent reason?

The rate of abuse of children is far, far higher within government systems, like CPS, than without. That goes for truly heinous forms of abuse like molestation.

I saw a news report of a CPS care taker being interviewed because a couple children died on his watch due to neglect. His reaction was literally 'so what? children die, that's just the way it is.' Guy didn't even get a slap on the wrist.

[Rothbardian]

I don't. At least not in general. I might have forgot to put emphasis on the role of parents and guardians. When the danger to the child is not so clear cut, then I would say that parents have the responsibility to decide what is in the best interest of their child.

The role of courts would be to solve conflicts between parents and children: When can the child make his own decisions? When is their child abuse by the guardians? For example, serving alcohol to a toddler would not be allowed (even if the toddler explicitly asks for it), serving alcohol to a teenager may be allowed. So even while parents get to decide over the grey areas, courts should still be able to enforce/forbid the black/white areas.

Another role for courts would be to solve the relation between parents and children in the absence of their parents? For example, if I am a shopkeeper am I allowed to sell heroin, alcohol, coca cola, carrots to a 12 year old without parents present? Assume the case where the parents dont want to child to drink coca cola. But the child enters the store alone, so the shopkeeper does not know this. Is he commiting a crime when he sells the coca cola? So courts have a role in legally defining what shopkeepers can sell to children without their parents permission.

Well we're talking about an anarchist society which means private courts.

If I'm explaining something you're already familiar with here, I apologize, but private dispute resolution would likely work similar to credit card disputes. The society signs on with a an organization, we'll call it the Politics Forum Association. Members of the PFA benefit from its services, but also have to follow its rules. The PFA has to create rules that are as acceptable as possible to the whole, because otherwise we will join a competing organization.

So if what the society wants is a rule that you cannot sell heroin to children under the age of X, any business that wants to be able to associate us has to follow that rule. Rather than throw them in jail or charge a fine, or both, they are simply no longer allowed to participate with us. Maybe there is another society that has a different opinion than we do; if so the owner is better off there.

We can apply this concept in an equal fashion to child abuse. Rather than use segregation for abusers, our organization has incentive to make sure the parents get psychological evaluations, take parenting classes, get counseling, etc. The reason for this is, having them as productive members benefits us all in a profit sense, and having them remain dysfunctional is a huge expense.

As for abandonment, well, I wouldn't want to participate in a society that didn't acknowledge the parents' obligation to take care of their children.

These are of course just examples, but the point is, there's a plethora of options beyond create an overwhelming force of oppression, and then oppress.

[Eran]

As for abandonment, well, I wouldn't want to participate in a society that didn't acknowledge the parents' obligation to take care of their children.

I am not sure what "participate in a society" means to you.

Abandonment isn't that much of a problem - abandoned children would be picked up by organisations dedicated to the charitable care of unwanted, abandoned and orphaned children.

Ideally, they would be adopted by loving parents.

[Rothbardian]

I am not sure what "participate in a society" means to you.

Abandonment isn't that much of a problem - abandoned children would be picked up by organisations dedicated to the charitable care of unwanted, abandoned and orphaned children.

Ideally, they would be adopted by loving parents.

Well, in the U.S. we used to have what were called friendly societies. These were basically fraternities where poor children could go and receive health care, education, etc. The children were trained in how to teach, so the older children could teach the younger children, which meant not only did they receive excellent educations, they learned marketable job skills. And costs were obviously kept to a minimum.

My comment about participating in a society means just that. I'd need to know organizations such as you describe are in place or some kind of support is there for children who are needy. I don't think the systems of the past would be needed, because we have such superior technology and resources now. I can't tell you exactly what I'd require because there's no market for it now, but it would be important to me that such solutions exist to my satisfaction before I'd be willing to contribute.

I'm sure 99% of the public feels the same way. That is why there are welfare laws after all, because everyone wants to help the poor. Ironically that is also how you can be sure welfare would exist in a stateless system; it would simply take a different form.

[Eran]

Excellent.

You used the phrase "acknowledge the parents' obligation". Obligation can be understood either as a moral obligation, of the kind to which members of a voluntary organisation can legitimately hold their fellow members, or as an enforceable obligation, i.e. justifying the use of force to secure.

I hope I understand you correctly to having the first meaning in mind.

[Rothbardian]

Excellent.

You used the phrase "acknowledge the parents' obligation". Obligation can be understood either as a moral obligation, of the kind to which members of a voluntary organisation can legitimately hold their fellow members, or as an enforceable obligation, i.e. justifying the use of force to secure.

I hope I understand you correctly to having the first meaning in mind.

Parents are obligated to their children because they create their children. It's the same way you're obligated to take responsibility for any of your other actions. If I throw a ball through a window I'm obligated to deal with the result of my actions. I would consider that a moral argument.

[Eran]

If I throw a ball through a window, I am liable because I have violated the property rights of the window owner. In other words, I have initiated force against them.

If I created a child but then decline to support that child, I may well be acting immorally. But since I am not violating any other person's property rights, the NAP doesn't allow other members of society to use that as an excuse to initiate force against me (though they are welcome to boycott or shun me, of course). When other members of society may do, under those circumstances, is take the child from me.

[SolarCross]

Eran - law must follow morals or there is no point in law at all. If by creating a child you will be immoral not to support it then that should be unlawful too. The parent can find someone else to look after it, but can't just let it starve.

[Eran]

No - law must not enforce morals, but rather justice.

This is an incredibly important distinction.

Law (in the normal sense) refers to those rules of behaviour that are legitimately enforceable, i.e. against the violators of which force may legitimately be applied.

This is a much narrower set than the full set of rules (from etiquette to religious observances) that apply within society.

The libertarian approach is to clearly segregate enforceable rules from non-enforceable rules. Enforceable rules are effectively restricted to the Non Aggression Principle, i.e. to the prohibition against the initiation of force. This is perfectly logical - when we want to minimize the use of force in society, we only authorise force in (proportionate) response to an initiation of force.

Force against force.

Once you adopt the attitude that non-force-initiating rule violations ought to be countered by the use of force, you set up the stage for tyranny. After all, there is an almost infinite range of moral rules that some people (or even most people) advocate. Those include, as mentioned above, rules of etiquette, religious rules, rules associated with gratitude, loyalty and friendship, etc, etc.

Libertarians do not downplay or disregard those rules. In fact, the behaviour controlled by such rules may well be far more consequential that that governed by a minor initiation of force (e.g. shoplifting). Still, we advocate a system in which only non-coercive measures are used against violations of such rules.

In the case of children, the rule that forces parents to support their children against the parent's will are particularly counter-productive. A parent who doesn't wish to support his children is likely to be a very bad parent indeed. The children are typically much better off under the support and protection of surrogate, foster or adoptive parents than under those of their biological ones.