Тег: Children

Hi! Please tell me, how can I explain libertarianism to children? :) If possible, simple “on-the-fingers” examples would be super.

анонимный вопрос

The task is indeed quite non-trivial, and here is why.

Capitalism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are commodity-money relations. Anarcho-capitalism makes the boundary conditions stricter, specifying that the dominant commodity-money relations must also be voluntary.

Communism is a social system in which the dominant relations between people are gift relations, and reputation takes the place of money.

It is easy to see that family is communism, and usually, there is no scent of anarcho-capitalism there. Meanwhile, the task is to tell the children in the family about the values of ancap, and make it so that these values appear attractive to them.

The problem is not even just in telling them, but in the fact that in childhood, the instructions that are reinforced by personal example and are applicable to real life here and now are absorbed best.

It is worth starting with the most basic things.

Property. Indicate that this thing belongs to mom, this to dad, this to the child, and these are in the joint property of the whole family (just don’t use that terrible communist word “common”)

Exchange. Exchanging values is a quite exciting activity for children, and here it is important not only to instill a taste for exchange in the child, but also to explain that exchange must be only voluntary, and that exchange is always unequal: everyone values what they give away less than what they acquire. So if one exchanged something and then changed their mind, the second is not obliged to agree to a reverse exchange.

Contract. Get them used to, if not writing down, at least clearly articulating the terms of exchange; do not hesitate to refer to old contracts, and do not dare to go back on your own word.

Court. If you cannot reach an agreement with the child, look for someone who can arbitrate for you, provided the child also agrees to the adjudication. Let them get used to defending their position before an independent party, and then executing the verdict.

Money. The sooner a child gets their own money, the better. Do not hesitate to hire them for any work you want to get from them. But if they refuse the work, do not dare to compel them. Let them get used to saying the phrase “and what will I get out of this?”

Reputation. Avoid inducing shame in the child; it is far more important to make them understand that their reputation in such-and-such a field looks poor, and now they are not trusted in this, but in this other area, they can be fully trusted.

Compensation for costs. Again, instead of shaming, suggest they think about how they could compensate for the damage. It is useful to haggle, not agreeing to the very first offer. If you yourself have somehow betrayed their trust, also boldly offer compensation, and let them decide whether to accept the offer.

Self-defense. Everyone has the right to self-defense. Here, you may have to conflict with other adults who maintain the view that a child fundamentally has no right to fight, and can at most complain to adults. Do not hesitate to arrange a full judicial proceeding following such incidents, naturally, on a voluntary basis. If the court then decides that your child did indeed cause unlawful damage to someone, you must ensure that they pay compensation.

In general, try to start treating the child as an equal subject as early as possible. They may lack knowledge or skills, but this does not deprive them of their rights. Knowledge and skills are things that can be acquired.

A mediocre example of a contract: the service provided is not defined, and there are no termination conditions. But even such a contract is far better than its absence.

And how will it be with selling heroin to children under ancap? It won’t be possible to ban it. As I understand it, it’s the reputation institute. An asshole sells heroin to children, fewer and fewer people will turn to him, and in the end, he will have to change his trading policy or close down. Do I understand correctly?

anonymous question

It’s even more interesting. Not only will it be impossible to ban it, but the institution of reputation will also fail to work.

Judge for yourself: you have two businesses, both bring in money, but those who find out that you have one business refuse to do business with you in your second business for some of their own ethical reasons. For example, you have a vegan restaurant and a steakhouse, and the vegans have stopped liking you, accusing you of hypocrisy. The meat-eaters generally don’t care what you sell to the vegans. What do you do? You simply hide the existence of the steakhouse and remain a respectable owner of a vegan restaurant in the eyes of society. And the steakhouse is owned by a “front man.”

The exact same thing happens with selling drugs to children and adults. If one business interferes with another, it is simply separated so that you are not associated with it. Moreover, if it turns out that parents forbid children from buying your heroin with their pocket money, you can always switch to the “dead drop” scheme, which works perfectly today under conditions of a total government ban on the circulation of psychoactive substances.

In other words: the stick method does not work, no matter how you try to optimize it.

We cannot predict in detail what the structure of supply and demand will be in a free market, but if a certain product, despite all its positive qualities, has a lot of various unpleasant side effects, then a demand arises for the same thing, but without the side effects. Once the desired substance can be obtained at a comparable price, the old one will have to leave the market. I think this is precisely the fate that awaits heroin in the end, and after that, it will no longer matter whether what replaces it is sold to children or adults — it will be something as socially acceptable as, for example, ice cream.

But for market forces to work successfully in the desired direction, they must not be hindered by various absurd bans. Because right now, in the field of psychoactive substances, not only distribution but also research is illegal.

And finally, I would like to note that with full deregulation of the industry, the problem of the spread of harmful habits among vulnerable categories of the population will be completely insignificant, even without any significant innovations. I suggest looking at Portugal’s experience with the decriminalization of drugs. It had many positive consequences, including a sharp decline in adolescent drug addiction that continues to this day. So, I appreciate your concern for children, but really, there would be nothing to worry about in this case.

decriminalization of ice cream

You wrote that in the event that a child is subjected to domestic violence, a third party can only explain the child’s rights to them. But isn’t such treatment of children aggression? Why, in this case, are the actions of the parent/guardian not a violation of the NAP?

anonymous question

I wrote that an outsider can use the rich arsenal of peaceful resolution techniques with impunity, but applying violence or the threat of violence is at their own risk. If you see a fight, it would be appropriate to inquire whether it is a private fight before intervening. Similarly, upon seeing violence against a child, it is appropriate to ask the child if they need help. If there is no opportunity or desire to clarify this important point, the consequences may be unpredictable.

Yes, the guardian is using violence against the child and thereby violating the principle of non-aggression toward them. However, by manifesting aggression against the child’s guardian without the child’s sanction, you also violate the principle of non-aggression toward the child. And it is the child who will be the first one asked after this incident who exactly caused them harm. And you could very well turn out to be the one who caused that harm.

Your evidence regarding the extent of the violence against the child must be damn convincing for an arbitrator, whose jurisdiction both you and the child’s guardian recognize, to rule that guardianship rights should indeed transfer from the current guardian to another party wishing to obtain them, in a situation where the child does not demonstrate a desire to change guardians.

How, under ancap, will the protection of children from parental violence, and specifically from psychological violence, be implemented?

anonymous question

The principle of self-ownership means that every person belongs to themselves. A child, however, is a person who, due to the finite speed of development of the human organism, is not yet perceived by other people as fully legal-capable. Therefore, while they do own themselves, they do not actually exercise full disposal of themselves—the right to dispose of the child is partially usurped by one adult or another (a fully legal-capable person), with the consent of other adults.

And then a situation arises where the way this adult exercises this usurped right ceases to satisfy the child. It does not matter whether it is a case of direct physical violence, psychological violence (regardless of what adult behavior is called such), or simply a clash of tastes. What matters is that at any moment, the child can both declare their full legal capacity and delegate the right of partial disposal of themselves to any other adult—that is, offer them to assume the rights of a guardian—provided, of course, they can come to an agreement with the candidate for guardianship. In this case, it is simple. The adult who, in the child’s opinion, performed their guardianship duties in bad faith, is deprived of the corresponding rights, and now nothing protects them in the event of violence against the child.

But what if the child does not insist on stripping the adult of their guardianship rights (being too young, too intimidated, or, most likely, generally satisfied with the situation), yet from the point of view of an outside adult, the guardianship duties are being performed unsatisfactorily? All that an outsider can do without penalty is to express their judgment on the matter, share this judgment with other adults, try to explain the child’s rights to them—in short, apply all the rich tools accumulated by humanity for the peaceful resolution of misunderstandings.

If for some reason they consider such measures insufficient, they may, of course, decide to use violence, thereby turning the conflict into a war, but as a fully legal-capable person, they must realize that they are fully responsible for the consequences of this decision, and that these consequences may not be what they expected.

How to handle age ratings in the media/internet and shock content? Young foals may stumble upon gore, and in the opinion of many people, this may traumatize their psyche.

anonymous question

The person who provides a content hosting service has every right to impose restrictions on it. The person who provides a content consumption service also has every right to restrict that same content. Thus, if a child uses their guardian’s computer, phone, or television, the guardian may restrict the content according to their own ideas of what is appropriate. If a child finds their own ways to obtain information independently, they have every right to use them. For example, they might go behind the garages, and there people are fighting (fucking, shooting up, you name it). Private shock content; if you don’t want to see it, don’t look.

shock content