Friday, January 23, 2009

Against Punishment - Even Nonviolent Punishment

I want to apologize that I misrepresented BrainPolice's position on punishment. I generally agree with his opinion in punishment. I view punishment as a "pragmatic measure to deter crimes that psychopaths plan to commit." While I do regard that the current statist society constantly misapplies punitive measures, I do believe, that even in anarchy, punishment must exist to deter certain crimes. I disagree that boycotts, as promoted by Stephen Molyneux (pages 118-119), stands as an effective measure to deter crime.

I disbelieve in the "indoctrination of children" and the "operant conditioning" pseudoscience promoted by the behaviorist school of psychology. In fact, I oppose punishment more than even the most radical detractors of corporal punishment. I differ from them because I do not only oppose corporal punishment, but I oppose all types of punishment inflicted on children (unless the child psychopathically committed a crime). I view punishment as an irrational act, and it suffers from agent-principle problems. Children can easily avoid being punished from their parents, just like how some drug dealers can avoid being kidnapped by the state.

I do not hold a Freudian view, as in Stephan Molyneux and Danny Shadar, that childhood experiences primarily determine the behaviors in adult life.

2 comments:

Brainpolice said...

Left libertarians did not invent those terms as pure propaganda. At best, you could say that for the thin/thick distinction, which Charles Johnson came up with, but it isn't propaganda, it is a valid distinction between treating libertarianism as something compatible with any set of values and treating it as axoimatic (Walter Block is the greatest example of this) vs. treating it as a more comprehensive bundle of values and as part of a bundle of values.

Left libertarians did not even exclusively invent those terms. It would be ridiculous for you to deny that there have been self-proclaimed right-libertarians and conservative-libertarians in America for decades. It is likewise absurd to deny the existance of libertarian conservative fusionism - which has been the NORM of the libertarian movement in america for decades. The problem with plumb-line libertarians is that they pretend to be neutral when they aren't, most of them fall back on distinctly conservative positions.

anarcho-mercantilist said...

"At best, you could say that for the thin/thick distinction, which Charles Johnson came up with, but it isn't propaganda, it is a valid distinction between treating libertarianism as something compatible with any set of values and treating it as axoimatic"

Actually, I would have identified myself as a "thick libertarian" if the term hasn't been contaminated by the "left"-libertarians. But the term "thick libertarian" have a strong connotational association with the "left"-libertarian ideology, as a whole. The term "thick" libertarian refers just about exclusively to "left"-libertarians, that its denotation, if used more often, "thick" libertarianism might actually mean synonymous to "left"-libertarianism.

Socialism used to refer to a diverse ideology, from free market proponents to Marxists. But because socialism changed its denotation to refer to Marxism exclusively, socialism actually denotes Marxism.

The term "thick" libertarian became increasingly associated with "left"-libertarian, just like the term "socialism" became increasingly associated with Marxism. In order to ignore the "left"-libertarian association with "thick" libertarian, I must abandon the term "thick" libertarianism.

Therefore, I would abandon the thick/thin distinction and invent a new "broad/narrow" distinction, that has no connotations to "left"-libertarianism.

"The problem with plumb-line libertarians is that they pretend to be neutral when they aren't, most of them fall back on distinctly conservative positions."

Even that I reject the political spectrum, I can still identify myself as a "non-political anarcho-capitalist," "voluntaryist," "radical revolutionary anarcho-capitalist," or "agorist." The terms are neither left nor right, does not have any Fusionist implications.