• How to deal with child abuse: Part 1

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

In a comment on my post titled Should children be taken into state custody at birth? Patrick Starr pointed out that I haven’t offered any alternative suggestions for dealing with child abuse. I have been remiss in not doing so and am grateful for the reminder.

Here’s the plan: in Part 1 I will briefly look at two important concepts, then in Part 2 I will look at the how part of dealing with child abuse. You may or may not find Part 1 radical, but Part 2 is likely to melt some of your wiring.

Without further ado, let’s look at two important concepts:

1. Who has an abusive parent committed a crime against?
2. Two views of social order

1) Who has an abusive parent committed a crime against?

If you’re walking down the street and I come up to you and punch you on the nose, who have I committed a crime against? 10/10 – I’ve committed a crime against you[1][2]. This is a private matter between you and I: why then does the state punish me for assaulting you? It is truly bizarre that I have committed a crime against you, yet I am prosecuted and punished by the state as if I had committed a crime against the state.

If a parent assaults a child, who has the parent committed a crime against? That’s right, the parent has committed a crime against the child[2]. Why should the state punish an abusive parent when the parent has committed no crime against the state? The answer lies in…

2) Two views of social order

Both the Left and the Right view society as a system riven with conflict, which the state must stop for the protection of all. To put it another way, both Left and Right believe that social cooperation can only be had if the state oversees the relationships between individuals, and deny the ability of individuals to bring about social cooperation without an overarching authority[3].

That is why the state punishes me when I assault you on the street and punishes a parent who abuses a child: the state believes that it is its duty and its right to resolve these conflicts.

This is much like those parents who are forever resolving conflicts when their children fight over toys: the parents believe that the children cannot resolve the conflict themselves. Well, of course they can’t if they never get an opportunity to practise conflict resolution, and people today cannot imagine solving conflict without state interference because the state has never allowed them to do so (e.g. ACC laws taking away the right to sue).

The Left and the Right fear that catastrophe will result if they do not resolve conflict – much as parents fear bloodshed if they do not resolve conflict between siblings – so they try and impose their version of Utopia upon society and use resolution of conflict as a justification for doing so.

Classical libertarians believe that the conflicts within society are better solved without state interference, and more on that will be found in Part 2.

What do you think about the points that I have made here?

Click here for Part 2

Some would say that making a kid wear a hat like this is child abuse

**********

[1] In classical libertarian terms I have violated the non-aggression axiom: “It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property.”

[2] As a christian I also believe that the assaulter has sinned against God, but even if you do not share that belief my argument still holds water

[3]If I’m being charitable I say that the Left and Right are sincerely deluded in this belief: if I’m being cynical I say that they use this belief to justify their control of individuals. I believe that both are true.

~~~~~~~~~~