The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.

[Euler]

Alex from NJ was wrong to open the joint back account with "Jeff".  Jeff's mom is definitely a bad parent.  However, Alex should not be involving himself in the internal affairs of another family.  Abuse is an exception.  I am also surprised that a bank would allow a minor to open a bank account with an adult who is not at least a family member.  If Jeff's mom is that bad, Alex should step up to the plate and petition the court for guardianship of Jeff.  In an anarcho-cap. society things would be different but we don't live in such a society. An alternative solution that would have been for the grandparents to open up an account in their name and give Jeff an ATM card for access.

[Njal]

Alex from NJ was wrong to open the joint back account with "Jeff".  Jeff's mom is definitely a bad parent.  However, Alex should not be involving himself in the internal affairs of another family.  Abuse is an exception.  I am also surprised that a bank would allow a minor to open a bank account with an adult who is not at least a family member.  If Jeff's mom is that bad, Alex should step up to the plate and petition the court for guardianship of Jeff.  In an anarcho-cap. society things would be different but we don't live in such a society. An alternative solution that would have been for the grandparents to open up an account in their name and give Jeff an ATM card for access.

How is this "... not be involving himself in the internal affairs of another family."?

[Euler]

An alternative solution that would have been for the grandparents to open up an account in their name and give Jeff an ATM card for access.

How is this "... not be involving himself in the internal affairs of another family."?

Because the grandparents are part of the family.

[voodoo]

I took a Greyhound bus to Chicago, once.  I think it cost $30.

I suppose I could have gotten there on foot eventually, but I probably wouldn't have made the trip.  I was too weak and lazy.

I don't think Greyhound did me wrong.

[MacFall]

A family is a voluntary association, and there is nothing magical about it that creates a moral obligation against other people interfering in the affairs of its individual members. The government's interference in the institution does nothing to change that fact.

What if Jeff's mother were physically abusing him? Would you say that Alex had no right to interfere then because the government says he hasn't that right? If not, then what is the moral difference between that and the non-physical (yet still quite coercive, and every bit in violation of the NAP) abuse that his mother actually has perpetrated?

[The Muslim Agorist]

Alex has described Jeff as "shaking with fear" in the presence of his mother. Maybe it's not physical, but it's abuse. Whether we live in a free society or a statist society does not change whether or not an individual interaction is virtuous. Petitioning for guardianship may be morally preferable, but it's not morally obligatory, so I wouldn't say "should." It's a voluntary act. Just like opening the account was a voluntary act. I think his involvement shows great courage, and some foolish optimism. It's a principled act and I don't think we should be discouraging any principled act.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Alex has described Jeff as "shaking with fear" in the presence of his mother. Maybe it's not physical, but it's abuse. Whether we live in a free society or a statist society does not change whether or not an individual interaction is virtuous. Petitioning for guardianship may be morally preferable, but it's not morally obligatory, so I wouldn't say "should." It's a voluntary act. Just like opening the account was a voluntary act. I think his involvement shows great courage, and some foolish optimism. It's a principled act and I don't think we should be discouraging any principled act.

I don't know the details but you as a somewhat devout member of an Abrahamic faith should know the Ten Commandments better than most, "Respect thy mother and thy father".  A child should be shaking with fear in the presence of his mother IF he did something immoral or wrong.  If she just beats up on him (which I really doubt for a male old enough to have a bank account), then sure that's abuse, but come on, don't pull this Stephan Molyneux cult shit as fact.

[Euler]

A family is a voluntary association, and there is nothing magical about it that creates a moral obligation against other people interfering in the affairs of its individual members. The government's interference in the institution does nothing to change that fact.

What if Jeff's mother were physically abusing him? Would you say that Alex had no right to interfere then because the government says he hasn't that right? If not, then what is the moral difference between that and the non-physical (yet still quite coercive, and every bit in violation of the NAP) abuse that his mother actually has perpetrated?

I did say that abuse was an exception in my OP.  I think it would become problematic if we apply the NAP across the board to parent-child relationships.  That would mean that a parent couldn't "force" a religion on their child, withhold food until they did their HW, etc.  Parents are prison wardens.  Some are great, some are evil and the rest are good.  Since we live in a statist society, a child or a child's advocate only have the State as a legal recourse.  I'm sure things would be different in a voluntaryist society.

I reject the analogy by some that a child is to a parent as an individual is to the State.  The family is a bulwark against tyranny.  This is why it is always under attack by the State and under attack culturally by its minions.  Unfortunately, some libertarians unknowingly get sucked into the latter group.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Euler, you have to prove that the family unit is this magical construct for liberty. Saying it so doesn't make it so.

[Andy]

The family is a bulwark against tyranny.

How's that work exactly?

[The Muslim Agorist]

Alex has described Jeff as "shaking with fear" in the presence of his mother. Maybe it's not physical, but it's abuse. Whether we live in a free society or a statist society does not change whether or not an individual interaction is virtuous. Petitioning for guardianship may be morally preferable, but it's not morally obligatory, so I wouldn't say "should." It's a voluntary act. Just like opening the account was a voluntary act. I think his involvement shows great courage, and some foolish optimism. It's a principled act and I don't think we should be discouraging any principled act.

I don't know the details but you as a somewhat devout member of an Abrahamic faith should know the Ten Commandments better than most, "Respect thy mother and thy father".  A child should be shaking with fear in the presence of his mother IF he did something immoral or wrong.  If she just beats up on him (which I really doubt for a male old enough to have a bank account), then sure that's abuse, but come on, don't pull this Stephan Molyneux cult shit as fact.

Thank you, that was such a delicious paradox. First with the Abrahamic faith stuff, which is a perfect Stefan cult response, followed by an attack on the Stefan cult stuff itself... brilliant one two ad hominem punch! (btw, didn't realize I was quoting the Stefan cult, I was actually worry someone would catch me quoting Spock, so feel free to wage an ad hominem attack against Star Trek, third time's the charm.)

So, how about we put Stefan aside and just look at the argument. I'm making a few claims:

1) "shaking with fear" equals emotional abuse. I would have taken this as given, but if you think the existence of Abrahamic faiths is a counter argument... despite no one in this situation being part of an Abrahamic faith as far as I know... ok. I don't want to get into a theological debate but my understanding of Abrahamic faiths is that puberty is generally the adult/child dividing line, therefor Jeff is absolutely an adult, therefore "Thou Shalt not Steal" incumbent on the mother should trump "Honor thy mother and father" incumbent on the child. Second, Jeff hasn't done anything immoral or wrong, so shaking with fear can't be an indication of his conscience. And, it is absolutely the case that adult males who grew up physically abused by their mother do often lack the will to stop it when they are physically large enough to stop it. But hey, I'll let this one go if you wish to continue in the belief that children should shake in fear of their parents. It's not relevant to the argument from property rights.

2) Society can not change whether an act is virtuous. This is absolutely the subject of this thread, whether what Alex did was right or wrong. It's as simple as "good people disobey bad laws." The people on this board are here because they have recognized the non aggression principle as virtuous, even though society does not (Generalizations I know, but at the very least Alex and I are in the NAP camp). So that's the principle I think we're using to determine right action. Our society would allow Jeff's mother to steal his property. Property rights tell us this would be an immoral act. Law doesn't change that.

3) Petitioning for guardianship is morally preferable, but not morally obligatory. Opening the account is morally preferable, but not morally obligatory. Ok, now I'm quoting Spock. But I stand by it. Jeff is an adult in a literal sense, but not in a statutory sense. This disparity of definitions would allow him to be stolen from, which would be a legal act, but not a moral act. Alex, being neither to victim or the perpetrator of the theft is morally neutral. He has no moral obligation to be involved. However, because he is an adult in a statutory sense he has the ability bring legal protections to Jeff's property thus preventing an immoral act, which is morally preferable.

4) I don't think we should be discouraging any principled act. Well this is stated as more of an opinion than a claim. But the LAP camp envisions a more moral society. And despite our subtle differences we are up against great odds. Therefore, I don't think we should be discouraging eachother's efforts. Alex is morally in the right. Moral people should support any move toward a more moral society, regardless of law.


[/quote]I don't know the details but you as a somewhat devout member of an Abrahamic faith should know the Ten Commandments better than most, "Respect thy mother and thy father".  A child should be shaking with fear in the presence of his mother IF he did something immoral or wrong.  If she just beats up on him (which I really doubt for a male old enough to have a bank account), then sure that's abuse, but come on, don't pull this Stephan Molyneux cult shit as fact.

[Euler]

The family is a bulwark against tyranny.

How's that work exactly?

One example I can give you is that parents can homeschool their children.  And as everyone on the board knows, state education is one of the primary reasons our society is so pro-government at this point.  There are people out there who actually believe that homeschooling is a form of child abuse and would like nothing more than for the State to step in to "protect" the children.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

That doesn't prove your case, Euler. In fact, it could be easily argued that the family unit is what starts the whole State ball rolling with the threat of violence coming from mommy and daddy, then being transposed onto perfect strangers later down the line (via the assumption that family leads to tribe, and tribe leads to nation). So, you have to prove the case, Euler. Now go do it. Or I might have to use a catch phrase from my favorite TV character.

[MacFall]

I did say that abuse was an exception in my OP.

Well good, then this is settled. Because Jeff's mother was stealing from him. That's abuse.

I think it would become problematic if we apply the NAP across the board to parent-child relationships.

Then you haven't thought it through well enough. In order for a principle to be true, it must ALWAYS be true, or it is self-contradictory and therefore objectively false. So either you believe in the NAP, or you don't. Pick one.

That would mean that a parent couldn't "force" a religion on their child

Well of course they can't. They are free to share their religion, to persuade and incentivize, but not to force.

withhold food until they did their HW

Why on earth should they be permitted to do that?!

Parents are prison wardens.

No they are not. That suggests that they own the children, but they do not. They are only the custodians of a child's rights until the child grows into his full rational capacity and thereby develops the ability to exercise his rights on his own - in which case, he is an adult. And in the vast majority of cases, that happens long before the so-called "age of majority".

Since we live in a statist society, a child or a child's advocate only have the State as a legal recourse.  I'm sure things would be different in a voluntaryist society.

What does that have to do with whether a parent is allowed to abuse their children or not?

The family is a bulwark against tyranny.

Ideally. But tyranny can occur within familial relationships just as easily as within any other social context.

This is why it is always under attack by the State and under attack culturally by its minions.

No, it is attacked by the state and its minions because it competes with the state as a form of social influence. Certainly, it is preferable to the state in that role, but that absolutely doesn't mean it has carte blanche to act like the state.

Once again: the family is a voluntary organization. A person has the right to leave it. But since the state violates that right by compelling familial unions on people, it is perfectly legitimate for a person to go to other, exterior sources for help in the cases of abuse. In Jeff's case, he is being robbed by his mother. The state compels him to remain in her household, so he has enlisted the help of Alex to alleviate the aggression from which he cannot legally separate himself. That is perfectly legitimate and moral.

[Euler]

As a matter of disclosure, I am a voluntaryist.  And I am sorry for answering this way but I don't know how to answer each quote.

When I was about 8, I found a wad of cash in a parking lot.  My Mom took it.  Did she violate my rights?  What if a child is going to touch a hot stove and the parent smacks their hand away, is that battery?

You say that you support the NAP but then later in the post say that parents are custodians of the child's rights.  What does that mean?  You could qualify the NAP to apply to adults of any age and not violate any principle.

I put force in quotes.  Strictly speaking, no one can compel a person to believe anything.  My point was that parents can make their children go to Christian school or Hebrew school or whatever.  I couldn't make you go to a particular church.  Are you saying that parents should be prohibited from bringing up their children in a religion that the child disagrees with?

You never heard of a parent tell a kid that they don't get dinner until they do such and such.  Do you think a parent should be prohibited from doing that?

I wouldn't use to term tyranny to describe bad familial relationships.  Tyranny has a politcal connotation.  And I don't consider the family to be a politcal unit.

Alex isn't really alleviating much of the aggression with the exception of helping Jeff keep his money.  Jeff is 16, I think.  Why doesn't he emancipate himself and go live with his grandparents?