No wait, who was that that thought that posting an opinion was the same as logically proving something? I HAVE DEMONSTRATED YOU ARE WRONG BY POSTING THAT YOU ARE WRONG. I think it was one of moorobot's buddies.

He was really big on emphasizing that he had DEMONSTRATED how wrong everyone else was.

So you agree with without formally written arbitrary lines that these social norms would still be enforced?

"Social norms" would probably be enforced, but they would also probably vary wildly. Indeed, one would expect them to vary more wildly than they already do in a statist society, because people would be more free to associate with people with similar norms and more free to live under whatever norms they deemed appropriate instead of being subject to the state's norms.

To continue down this line of thinking Wookie, what % chance do you think there is in Afghanistan that they enforce positive social norms regarding these boy geisha parties via law?

That's the whole point Wookie. These things are going to be enforced no matter what.

If they were not going to be enforced, guess what, it's not happening within a state apparatus anyway.

~100%, unless you're down with your group of people with your DRO or whatever marching down to 1420 Afghanistan St in AC Town and forcing your alternative norms upon them.

Man if ACland is exactly like the state can you guys not spam every other thread with paeans to how awesome ACland is?


P.S. Should there be a social norm against child prostitution?

This is where you are missing the point. THERE ARE NOT POSITIVE SOCIAL NORMS REGARDING THIS IN AFGHANISTAN. Hence the existence of Afghanistan boy geisha parties.

Care to have a crack at any of my questions for wookie or am I missing something?

I guess I misunderstood what you meant about "positive social norms." I took it to mean that there would be social norms in Afghanistan that considered boy sex parties a positive thing. This happens there now, and it would seem to be a near certainty that in ACghanistan there would be certain groups of people who would also be in favor of it.

Precisely

ACistghan = AStatistghan

All laws are codifications of existing social norms. I don't see what's remotely controversial about that. If you're arguing that laws are unnecessary or whatever:

1) Uh oh talk to pvn about that

2) Also read some MissileDog posts because that's ridiculous

3) It's not even relevant to the point, which is not about the practical enforcement methods of stopping child labor. This thread is about the ethics of child labor. Should there be a social norm against it? Why or why not?

OK. If ACism = statism, then we're done debating. We don't have to wonder what AC land will look like. We're in it.

Why aren't there positive social norms regarding this in Afghsnistan?

Maybe as of post #637.

Of course.

Not really. You asked the question how are we to prevent packs of raving people from forcing their social norms upon a populace, when currently there are raving people forcing social norms upon the populace (no matter how arbitrary or just/fair etc the social norm is in either case)? Get the difference?

This isn't the question I am asking. The question I am asking is that if laws = social norms then how can laws achieve a different end result than society based around social norms (read as an arbitrary line based around social norms). The assertion ITT is that without codification of social norms than human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, etc etc.

I am arguing that the social norms have more influence than a society's desire to codify laws, and the best way to ensure social justice would be to change norms.

Oh wow, now fly and wookie are Phone Booth parrots. The status quo IS acland because all outcomes are market outcomes.

Hey man, this is a thread about ethics as of #637, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

right, just because ACland might be the same as statism in some gray area aspects, it must be exactly like statism in all the aspects... this is really tiring

social norms


because one of the parties is a child who is being violated

i don't know

Err, society isn't a person, it doesn't have desires. And even normally sane person wouldn't have a desire to "codify laws" for the sake of "codifying laws", would they? Laws, rules and guidelines don't always align with the people that they enforced upon own social norms. Often times that's the point of laws, to oppress and exploit another bunch of peoples.

But all ACDCist believe in "codified laws" when it comes to who cannot go here or there, and who cannot use this or that, in the whole wide waldo-world and all the galaxies in the heavens. Until the end of times. And all the "codified laws", courts, police, bill collectors, cash, and associated support personal, to violently enforce these "codified laws". Until the end of times.

So it's really just a question of priority: the almighty single "axiom" of ownership rights needs and gets all the "codified laws", courts, police, bill collectors, cash, and associated support personal to ensure it's violent enforcement, to the end of times. And 10yo children get Jerry Sandusky and the same exact same "social norms" we got now, but without the fear of prison, or even any stigma of doing something technically wrong at all, to the end of times.

I mean there's families so poor they're are sending their children to work sewing soccer balls in closed rooms that will probably die before they are 25 because of the all the textiles their young lungs are clogging with, just so the family can survive --- who are we to say those parents who are so poor they are forced to abuse their own children like this just to survive shouldn't have the choice of getting paid to send their kid to JS's Football and Sodomy Camp (A legal business in ACland, amirite?). Why is limiting the options a family has of abusing their own children a good thing?

Oh yeah, that couldn't happen here in developed land, only "over there" to those less "developed" people, so it's all cool!

There is harm in this situation. You cannot assume that this assertion is true.

Is that better?

But we have been assured that ACland will have written laws, case histories, police, courts, bill collectors, all the necessary support personal, bases, and hardware to enforce their DROvernmental rulings, as well as the budget to do so. So some things in ACland the ruling elite are serious about enforcing, deadly serious.

But some things like little 10yos bung holes... well it seems that a whole lotta ACists don't think that all the written laws, case histories, police, courts, bill collectors, all the necessary support personal, bases, and hardware, and let's not forget the budget to cover all this... well, little 10yo bung holes should be handled differently... yeah, "social norms" is the ticket.

And let's talk about JSs Football and Sodomy Academy. Well let's say JS inherits a defunct old private school, "creates" jerbs by hiring some of the townsfolk to fix it up and staff, recruits all his "scholars" genuinely and directly from at risk of "much worse" sweatshop hellholes "over there", does all the "special education" in private, causes no problems to the town, actually graduates educated student-athletes, and cheerfully pays for his own DRO service like everyone else... in other words runs a perfectly legal business, and is genuinely saving at risk kids from "over there" a fate "much worse".

Can the surrounding DROverments attack the academy for being outside of their town's "social norm". How about a pack of vigilantes? What about a gang of family members from "over there"?

What if a black dude was gifted an apartment building in a racist town? Would the racist tenants still have to pay the new black landlord rent, if it is against the towns "social norm" to transact business with black people?

Regret$- Dude, the title of the thread is "The ethics of child labor". Post #1.


OK, and since freedom and liberty are good and contracts that don't harm other people should be respected, what I'm saying (in Murray Rothbard's voice) is that there's nothing wrong with Jerry Sandusky paying children for sex. You say there should be a social norm against it, and I'm asking why. It's not a violation of the NAP. There's some other principle of social justice we should be using?

No. I cannot speak for anyone else view of ACtopia, but imo, if the only way you can pay for ruining someones life is to perform manual labor for the rest of your life, then so be it.

Here's the first word of the thread:



Are we sure this thread is about ethics and not other people's ideology and how 'wtf government sucks' = 'must like the little kids'?

Re: The ethics of child labor

No, on second thought you're right, it's probably some sort of OBAMA/lizard person/the OP plot to discredit anarcho-capitalism by asking you guys incredibly simple questions you apparently can't answer. Just like a statist, always wanting to discuss the ethical basis for banning/allowing child labor in their "ethics of child labor" thread. Clever bastard, luckily you didn't fall for it.