Let's hope that anarchists don't turn their attention to the family anytime soon

By -
We would get arguments like this:

"All parents are flawed. Many, many of them have been known to even murder their own children. Therefore, we must abolish parents."

"If ordinary people force a child into a car with the threat of violence, we call it kidnapping. Why do we think that this is magically different when the people are called parents?"


Comments

  1. Samson Corwell6:56 PM

    I can't see any of the paleos doing that. I can see the atheist/agnostic variety having the potential for that though. There are actually some that lean that way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous7:08 PM

    What about Stefan Molyneux? doesn't he do this already?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bobybuilder4:28 PM

    The inability of Libertarianism to handle children, or the senile, is an insurmountable problem. It's one of the reasons I am not one, despite having an individualist, minimalist approach to government. If your philosophy fails for 100% of those you apply it to ...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more