Freedomain Radio

all this was well known almost 20 years ago, this aired in 1992, a John Stossel report for 20/20 on the evils of spanking

Well it seems like I'm not the only one that's up late on the east coast.

Stossel rocks.  I know, you have had skirmishes with the minarchists.

Did you notice what sort of "torment" that "3-year-old lindsey" was imposing on her little sister?

She was spanking her.

Once upon a time I took guilty pleasure in reading Richard Marcinko "Rogue Warrior" books wherein he described a military op gone awry as a "goatf#%k".  That's what this household looks like to me.  This speaks to my unresolved issues in that I find it almost comical, as opposed to horrifying.  It's the surreal nature.  I wonder how those kids are doing today.

Also, watched the video repsonse to the article on absolute truth today and thought that in addition to the longevity of the universe perhaps the density and duration of Stossel's moustache could be referenced as a standard...

Man, I felt so much anger watching those little kids get spanked, especially that one couple that were yelling and slapping their children indiscriminately and then had the utter gall to say they weren't doing it in anger.

I guess you don't always need someone else with a hidden camera to show what an an abusive asshole you are, sometimes you can sign up to reveal your assholery on national TV.  But then, only a few 'nutjobs' watching actually think you're an abusive asshole, but rather good-hearted people who, golly gee, are just tryin' to do their best so you don't turn out like those un-beaten sociopaths!  All those un-spanked hooligans causing trouble!  My god, these little monsters!  We must mold them, our creations, for maximum utility and obedience!

"My wife was forced to marry me, and I hit her for not loving me. Then I heard that not hitting your wife was better. So I tried not hitting her for a few days, but she still didn't love me, so I went back to hitting her, because not hitting her didn't work."

Go and read the comment stream on this same quote on your facebook wall.

If that doesn't make it crystal clear that the "Libertarian Community" is not at all the place where a genuinely free future will come from, then nothing will.

GregG:

If that doesn't make it crystal clear that the "Libertarian Community" is not at all the place where a genuinely free future will come from, then nothing will.

That's not to say your conclusions are wrong or anything (I personally agree that Libertarianism isn't going to be the path to peace), I just wanted to point out the style.

My only point is this:

The vast majority of the people commenting on that wall post - and indeed, the vast majority of the people I've ever met during my own time involved with Libertarian politics - say they are against the use of force, opposed to violence, but when you press them where they live, you find out that they do not at all wish to act on that claim. They are the worst possible kind of hypocrites.

At least Conservatives are openly in love with violence, and will tell you flat out, that they're happy to use it to dominate.

If we want to make a peaceful future, we need to stop trying to appeal to people who clearly, plainly, and obviously, by their actions, do not want peace.

GregG:

The vast majority of the people commenting on that wall post - and indeed, the vast majority of the people I've ever met during my own time involved with Libertarian politics - say they are against the use of force, opposed to violence, but when you press them where they live, you find out that they do not at all wish to act on that claim. They are the worst possible kind of hypocrites.

When I imagined that good people were sitting around talking about how much they hated me, that only reactivated my history with my parents, which paralyzed me since that's the effect my parents were trying to achieve with expressions of hatred. What has helped me is good people either being gentle or being gone.

That's why I've come to like Stef (and several other people at FDR) quite a bit more recently, since, with people he's trying to help, he's gentle with them and doesn't put them down (which is, if you look at it, a really accurate description of what happens); with people he's not trying to help, he's gone. He generally only condemns them if, as far as I can tell, he thinks they can never be helped and so condemning them won't trip them up or if their victims really need moral clarity, which takes precedence over the potential future healing of the abuser, of course.

I think this is partially why RTR doesn't recommend coming out swinging with the condemnations.

This is, of course, just my current idea about it. Maybe I'll change my mind later.

Stefan Molyneux:

all this was well known almost 20 years ago, this aired in 1992, a John Stossel report for 20/20 on the evils of spanking

Gawd damnit.

John Stossel should do a follow up. See where these kids are at now. See if the children who were spanked, if they have families & spank their kids aswell.

Mr. C:

I think this is partially why RTR doesn't recommend coming out swinging with the condemnations.

I'm with you, as far as the notions of taxation and public schooling, and even religion are concerned. It's abstract, heavily propagandized, and somewhat distanced from personal experience. You can talk about these things, teach these things to your kids, and even interact with them, without ever having to be conscious of the violence behind them. What's more, most of have no choice but to participate in those things. So, helping people see the evil inherent in it is a long, difficult process that takes patience.

But violating another human being directly is something else entirely. It's absolutely inexcusable, precisely because its something you can't avoid the knowledge of. If I slap my wife across the face, there is simply no way to pretend that I haven't just hurt her. With a child, it's even worse. They're completely physically at your mercy. To raise a fist, or even just a hand, to a child, would be like me taking a swing with a baseball bat at you. There is no way people who do this cannot realize it.

This is precisely why Stef recommends things like the "against me" argument. Make it personal, and make it conscious.

Yet, the people in this movement, and on that wall post, are brutalizing their children, are openly aware of it, and are bloody fucking PROUD of it. Just read the comment thread on the wall. It's sickening, and I don't see that there is anything wrong with being disgusted and horrified by them.

But these sampe people are the people we keep telling ourselves are the future of freedom. These are the people we believe are our closest allies. They populate all the libertarian, voluntarist, and anarchist groups on the web. These are the people we cheer and have the gall to call "virtuous" for waving their fists at the state.

Well screw that. I'm not cheering them, and I damn sure won't be calling them virtuous.

Because they aren't.

GregG:

My only point is this:

The vast majority of the people commenting on that wall post - and indeed, the vast majority of the people I've ever met during my own time involved with Libertarian politics - say they are against the use of force, opposed to violence, but when you press them where they live, you find out that they do not at all wish to act on that claim. They are the worst possible kind of hypocrites.

GregG:

At least Conservatives are openly in love with violence, and will tell you flat out, that they're happy to use it to dominate.

If we want to make a peaceful future, we need to stop trying to appeal to people who clearly, plainly, and obviously, by their actions, do not want peace.

James Thurber wrote in one of his short funny moral stories that, "You might as well fall flat on your face as to lean too far over backwards."  That's my view of your absolute ban on spanking.  Unfortunately, every example of spanking is generally horrific and done by a "habitual" spanker.  I raised two boys--both devotees of yours and I believe great free thinkers--and I spanked one twice and put the other in "time out" (violence against a person?) four or five times.  Let me give you an example of the need for spanking in a young child:  My younger son always brushed his teeth with Dad.  But Dad took off for a cross country flight, and would be gone for four days.  I tried to brush his teeth, but no luck.  I discussed it with him without anger.  The next night he again refused.  I again explained that he needed to brush whether Dad was here or not.  I told him that if he did not let me help him brush his teeth he would get a spanking, and I demonstrated a mild smack on his diapered butt.  Well, the next night came and, again, he would not let me brush his teeth.  So he got his spanking, and he cried.  It was a few firm swats--just enough to make a point.  And then I brushed his teeth. 

Now, the point is not teeth brushing per se.  The point--the life point--is that one cannot always do everything exactly as one wants to without consequences.  That is an important life lesson, and one which many young lost people have missed.  Unfortunately, many young people today have no ability to defer immediate gratification in order to excel at something.  Instead of leading productive lives they are a total mess--some are the product of neglect, but others result from parents who never draw lines in the sand about behavior.  A two year old is not a 20 year old and reasoning is not the same as teaching that behavior has consequences.  Oh, yes I tried taking away things, or rewarding with things...that only works some of the time, and generally at a later age.  With my older son, time out worked.  But the younger--who always has been his own man--it took maybe two or three spankings at most (I only remember this one)  to get his attention and the point that one cannot function in society without any restraint.  And this is any society--even an anarchic one.  To be successful one has to learn self control.  I'd much better teach a 12 pound 2 year old self control than be faced with a 285 pound out of control young adult male--as many parents these days are.  My goal was to raise honest, self-sufficient, responsible, thinking adults.   A few swats to get the attention of young boys is far different from a tyrannical, violent spank-as-you-go plan.   

Finally, I note you have the luxury of raising a girl.  No offense to guys who read this, but girls are genetically and psychologically different.  A girl cannot fight at a guy level, so they are programmed to be verbal.  Girls are natural nuturers and use words to get what they want--just wait till your daughter is 15--then I want to hear how you are doing!  Guys are hunter gatherers, and can be raised in a totally non-violent household but will beat up play warriors and stuffed animals with sticks.  I love my boys and wouldn't trade a minute of our lives together, but trust me, the rules are different.

Lee Hieb, MD

aka "Doctor MOM"