Holt on April 22, 2011, 07:11:59 pm
No, that is the excuse believed only by the terminally naive.  The actual reason for child labor laws was to increase the power of government officials allied with labor union leaders.

Besides, you confuse government schools with education.  Government schools are designed and operated to turn curious children into "good citizens", which means preventing education.  Read any of the books by John Taylor Gatto--some are online.


You know what? You're clearly right. The rise of literacy and numeracy along with general knowledge from schools is all an evil scheme. You figured it all out. Bravo.
Ignorance is bliss and they seek to rob you of that bliss.

Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 07:39:39 pm
You know what? You're clearly right. The rise of literacy and numeracy along with general knowledge from schools is all an evil scheme. You figured it all out. Bravo.
Ignorance is bliss and they seek to rob you of that bliss.


If only there had been such a "rise of literacy and numeracy" as the result of the imposition of compulsory, coercively-funded government schooling in these United States.  Qualitatively and quantitatively, the effects of forcibly substituting political indoctrination for genuine education were a degradation in prevailing levels of "literacy and numeracy." 

Among the works of educator John Taylor Gatto fully available online is the complete text of his book The Underground History of American Education (see http://tinyurl.com/4zjoj).  From this source I quote:

Quote
Abundant data exist to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent, wherever such a thing mattered. Yet compulsory schooling existed nowhere.

So what accounts for your ignorance, Holt?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 07:42:30 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Outsider on April 22, 2011, 08:11:29 pm
About the Cerereans are pedophiles strategy:

Sandy could address this better than I could because its his universe, but I can think of three reasons why that might not work very well:

It's not graphic enough. Stating that something like that would be legal under some conditions (and I have no idea how the Cerereans and Belters would handle it) is not the same as showing it. Kicking a man on the ground is a strong visual display, and is what put a couple of L.A. cops behind bars for the Rodney King incident. Everyone knows what NAMBLA wants and does, but they aren't thrown in jail unless there's hard evidence.

I was assuming that the UW govt doesn't just spread the story (though that might be part of the initial campaign)  but would collect a body of dirt (video, etc) through the employment of agents recording the subculture.   There's the strong visual display that really stirs up the hoi palloi.  



Ceres has a highly limiting feature, guns at an early age. When a ten year-old has a gun and is liable to use it, pedophiles, I imagine, would think more than twice about indulging in a little forced January - June romance.

How early of an age?  I agree that trying to physically force a precocious* and armed 10-12 year old into anything is probably a losing proposition for Pedobear, but there will be some younger age at which the child is not so aware of their rights and isnt effectively armed.  Younger children are also more easily manipulated by adults, and thus physical force would probably not need to be employed anyway.  Small children, unfortunately in this case, have an innate desire to please adults, especially ones they know.



I'm not at all sure that the UW would have a good track record to compare to the Cerereans and Belters. Dictators tend to concentrate on keeping themselves in power and less on protecting the hoi polloi, and with power comes a sense of superiority; many of those who rule might well have unsavory appetites of their own.

Also true.  But (again with the but) you have to remember that their propoaganda campaign isnt being targetted at a group that has good (or any) access to unbiased factual information on the excesses of the UW government or its members.  One need not be virtuous, but just appear virtuous to the mass of the people.  

Aardvark on April 22, 2011, 08:59:17 pm
Quote
Aardvark
Ceres has a highly limiting feature, guns at an early age. When a ten year-old has a gun and is liable to use it, pedophiles, I imagine, would think more than twice about indulging in a little forced January - June romance.

Quote
How early of an age?  I agree that trying to physically force a precocious* and armed 10-12 year old into anything is probably a losing proposition for Pedobear, but there will be some younger age at which the child is not so aware of their rights and isnt effectively armed.  Younger children are also more easily manipulated by adults, and thus physical force would probably not need to be employed anyway.  Small children, unfortunately in this case, have an innate desire to please adults, especially ones they know.

Yeah, that is a concern, and I don't have an answer for it. If a three year-old child decides to pitch a fit and leave home, what's to stop him? Common sense would say that there must be some agreed on age of consent, some ruling authority, but what would that be? The ancient Romans decided that girls were adults at 14. What would it be for Ceres? 

Quote
Aardvark:
I'm not at all sure that the UW would have a good track record to compare to the Cerereans and Belters. Dictators tend to concentrate on keeping themselves in power and less on protecting the hoi polloi, and with power comes a sense of superiority; many of those who rule might well have unsavory appetites of their own.

Quote
Also true.  But (again with the but) you have to remember that their propoaganda campaign isnt being targetted at a group that has good (or any) access to unbiased factual information on the excesses of the UW government or its members.  One need not be virtuous, but just appear virtuous to the mass of the people. 

That was my first thought, as well. An advanced future dictatorship, I would have thought, would be able to clamp down on outside sources of information, feeding their subjects only what they wanted then to see and hear, but for the EFT universe, this appears not to be the case. Illegal receivers on Earth can pick up the outside world, so there are other, apparently significant voices for the peons to listen to.

sam on April 22, 2011, 11:05:31 pm
Quote
How early of an age?  I agree that trying to physically force a precocious* and armed 10-12 year old into anything is probably a losing proposition for Pedobear, but there will be some younger age at which the child is not so aware of their rights and isnt effectively armed.  Younger children are also more easily manipulated by adults, and thus physical force would probably not need to be employed anyway.  Small children, unfortunately in this case, have an innate desire to please adults, especially ones they know.

Yeah, that is a concern, and I don't have an answer for it. If a three year-old child decides to pitch a fit and leave home, what's to stop him? Common sense would say that there must be some agreed on age of consent, some ruling authority,

Not only would an anarchic society not have some agreed on age of consent, nor ruling authority, but lots of societies got on fine without any clearly defined age of consent, nor any state intervention on such matters.

Parental violence against badly behaved children generally has social support, because people assume the parent intends to do the child good, even if he is using a large stick to do it with.  Governments tend to be more interventionist than neighbors, because they think that all their subjects are children.

Throughout most of history, the rule has usually been that girl children were married off by their parents as soon as they were potentially capable of getting pregnant, while boys got married when they were able to earn a living and support children of their own - which was five to fifteen years older than the age of marriage for girls.  For the lower classes, a romantic marriage was a thirteen year old girl marrying an eighteen year old boy, and a practical marriage was a thirteen year old girl marrying a twenty four year old man.  For the aristocracy, seventeen was more typical, probably because they could afford the manpower to guard the girl's chastity, so could wait a little longer for the girl to be fully ripe.  William the Marshal married a seventeen year old heiress at the age of forty three, which seems fairly typical for the ruling elite.  A wealthy heiress was going to marry a successful warrior, someone who had personally killed lots of people with his own sword and led men in battle, and it often took a while for a successful warrior to demonstrate success.

Contraception will probably result in different rules.


Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 12:21:49 am
Quote
Not only would an anarchic society not have some agreed on age of consent, nor ruling authority, but lots of societies got on fine without any clearly defined age of consent, nor any state intervention on such matters.

Okay ... so who makes the call if sex with someone is okay or a crime? Can a girl of 6, 8, or 10 reasonably make that decision for herself? A girl isn't given a gun when she's five, so does she reach the age of responsibility when she gets her piece? What about coercion or extenuating circumstances, a statute of limitations beyond which one couldn't blow a past rapist away? If there isn't an age of consent, what is the determining factor? If NAMBLA decided to relocate to Ceres, would they have the time of their lives? These aren't pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals, these would be legitimate issues.

Tucci78 on April 23, 2011, 01:38:50 am
Okay ... so who makes the call if sex with someone is okay or a crime? Can a girl of 6, 8, or 10 reasonably make that decision for herself? A girl isn't given a gun when she's five, so does she reach the age of responsibility when she gets her piece? What about coercion or extenuating circumstances, a statute of limitations beyond which one couldn't blow a past rapist away? If there isn't an age of consent, what is the determining factor? If NAMBLA decided to relocate to Ceres, would they have the time of their lives? These aren't pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals, these would be legitimate issues.

To what extent is sex with anyone a crime?

Is mutally agreeable sexual stimulation as injurious - even potentially - as offering someone a stick of chewing gum?

There is a powerful and altogether unthinking presumption in present-day Anglophone cultures that sexual pleasure is morally, psychologically, and even physically deleterious, not only for putatively incompetent legal infants but also for adults. Why is that?

When one speaks about "a girl of 5, 8, or 10" and her ability to "reasonably make that decision [to engage in sexual activity] for herself," there seems never to be any thought given to whether or not her voluntary participation in sexual intercourse is going to cause her injury of any kind. Is such injury an inevitable or even a high-probability outcome? Fixating on the potential for adult male pudenda to lacerate, abrade, or otherwise damage immature female penetralia blanks out appreciation of the fact that in consensual interaction engaged for the mutual pleasure of the participants, the onset of any such damage would almost certainly cause pain sufficient to make the partners moderate or even end the activity.

If the physically more powerful individual overrides the protestations of the party dissenting (for whatever reason), consent is withdrawn and the contact becomes a matter of violent aggression.  That's rape, and this is true whether the participants are age-peers or not. 

As has been already considered in Escape From Terra, the injured party's right of retaliation against violent aggressors knows no temporal limitations, and to speak of one in this context makes no sense. But there must be the initiation of violent aggression involved in order to justify a person's effort "to blow a past rapist away." If a female (or male) comes the next day - or a year later - to the conclusion that she (or he) has the unarbitrated right to kill someone who took sexual advantage of the fact that "it got a little drunk out that night," the fabric of even an AnCap society isn't going to be able to sustain the strain. 

Finally, it must be understood as an inevitability that potential future members of NAMBLA would be among the first people to relocate to Ceres.  They'd be some of the earliest pioneers.  Given the persecution they suffer, can there be anyone on Earth with greater incentive to get out from under tyrannical nanny-state government?

Hell, they're been on Ceres and scattered throughout the Belt, going peaceably about their business, since before the first EFT story arc opened.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

sam on April 23, 2011, 05:28:51 am
Quote
Not only would an anarchic society not have some agreed on age of consent, nor ruling authority, but lots of societies got on fine without any clearly defined age of consent, nor any state intervention on such matters.

Okay ... so who makes the call if sex with someone is okay or a crime?

Family - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.  See the story of Abelard and Heloise.  No one else is likely to intervene.

Sandy thinks an anarchic society would be highly progressive.  I doubt this, because one's relationship with groups that applied organized violence would be mediated by the income earning members of the household, usually the husband, thus parental authority would be enforced by violence if necessary, and patriarchy would tend to be enforced.   A child that wanted to divorce his parents would need to have his own job and income first.  I predict that having sex with a dependent female without parental permission would generally be punished by death or castration or similar, regardless of the age of the female, and regardless of whether she consented or not.

Because organized violence has to be paid for, I predict that an anarchic society would be rather socially conservative, because parental authority, and patriarchal authority, would be stronger.  He who pays the piper, calls the tune.  The author of this cartoon, however, thinks otherwise.

Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 06:29:07 am
Quote
Family - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.

That's what I would think. Parents have responsibility to the children and to society to protect and raise their children well. A socialist society like the UW would control their upbringing, but on Ceres, it would be like anything else, taking personal responsibility. They would likely determine when he or she was grown enough to carry a weapon, and therefor have full rights in the society. The child, of course, if he thought his parents were taking too long, might seek arbitration, but I doubt that would happen too often.

Tucci78 on April 23, 2011, 08:08:04 am
Okay ... so who makes the call if sex with someone is okay or a crime?

Family - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.  See the story of Abelard and Heloise.  No one else is likely to intervene.

Sandy thinks an anarchic society would be highly progressive.  I doubt this, because one's relationship with groups that applied organized violence would be mediated by the income earning members of the household, usually the husband, thus parental authority would be enforced by violence if necessary, and patriarchy would tend to be enforced.   A child that wanted to divorce his parents would need to have his own job and income first.  I predict that having sex with a dependent female without parental permission would generally be punished by death or castration or similar, regardless of the age of the female, and regardless of whether she consented or not.

Because organized violence has to be paid for, I predict that an anarchic society would be rather socially conservative, because parental authority, and patriarchal authority, would be stronger.  He who pays the piper, calls the tune.  The author of this cartoon, however, thinks otherwise.

At the outset, I'd like to recommend that non-Americans bear in mind the fact that the term "progressive" has over the past century become in these United States yet another synonym for "authoritarian," and really should never be used when the intention is to characterize a political, social, or economic disposition toward maximal individual autonomy in any aspect of human action.

"Progressive" is also the term used in clinical oncology to describe a malignancy which continues to grow - and will eventually kill the patient - after surgery and chemotherapy has failed to destroy it.

That aside, it should be realized that a person seeking "to divorce his parents" and thereby secure a condition of emancipation does not "need to have his own job and income first."  Throughout human history, there have been plenty of children and adolescents who have (since the foundation of Ur, in defiance of prevailing law treating them as the property of their parents) simply removed themselves from their families of origin and made their way in society.  Whether they rely on friendly householders ("You can crash on my couch") or do the My Side of the Mountain bit, they leave, and there's damn-all that authoritarian adult family members can practically undertake to prevent them from doing so, or to bring them back and keep them under restraint when these legal infants evince their determination to get away.

Besides, just who the devil is supposed to have the lawful authority - especially in an AnCap society - to utter a determination that a self-emancipating child or adolescent has a "job and income" sufficient to validate his/her decision to divorce his/her parents, anyway?

Not that this would be much of a problem even for a healthy child in the latest year or two of the first decade of life.  Ceres and the Belt by definition comprise a labor-poor economy, where there is great demand for even the most marginally capable minds and eyes and hands.  Moreover, it is an economy functioning in microgravity, where the brute strength of an adult or late adolescent body is not necessary to undertake economically valuable work.  Without statute law to impair people from engaging the services of such youngsters (and without civil government to tax away, directly or indirectly, seven-eighths of the value created by the individual's productive efforts, as presently prevails in these United States), the resources at the personal disposal of a nine-year-old child would be sufficient for him/her to secure himself/herself an independent living, and the pretense of family ownership be damned. 

Sam, your prediction "that having sex with a dependent female without parental permission would generally be punished by death or castration or similar, regardless of the age of the female" in the Belt or any other AnCap society is simply idiotic, first because the foundation of such a society is the Zero Aggression Principle (is "having sex" with anyone necessarily aggression?), second because the issue of dependency in a highly productive labor-poor economy where children can get their own living and support themselves more effectively than even during the days of Horatio Alger is something you obstinately refuse to consider.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2011, 08:11:38 am by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

enemyofthestate on April 23, 2011, 09:58:49 am
Holt's posts have the highest concentration of psychological projection that I've ever seen.
I wondered about that too but it is more likely he is just trolling.

Holt on April 23, 2011, 12:04:48 pm
Quote
Family - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.

That's what I would think. Parents have responsibility to the children and to society to protect and raise their children well. A socialist society like the UW would control their upbringing, but on Ceres, it would be like anything else, taking personal responsibility. They would likely determine when he or she was grown enough to carry a weapon, and therefor have full rights in the society. The child, of course, if he thought his parents were taking too long, might seek arbitration, but I doubt that would happen too often.

You folks place a lot of value on weapons and having them. Suggests certain psychological disorders. Perhaps you were bullied as children?


quadibloc on April 23, 2011, 01:06:37 pm
Is such injury an inevitable or even a high-probability outcome?
The default assumption in our culture is that sex is a very emotionally intense experience, and thus females are in constant grave danger from men who would exploit them for their own gratification.

Because it's the woman who gets pregnant, women tend, more than men, to reject the view of sex as being legitimate as a mere physical pleasure, and instead see it as belonging to a context of a committed romantic relationship.

Traditionally, of course, our views derive from a situation that no longer exists to the same extent in the developed world. A peasant farmer family keeps its sons home to work on the farm; the daughters can't work as hard, so they're married off. If one loses her virginity, that becomes impossible.

While we no longer quite have the strict morality of those times, that still very much forms the basis of our society's thinking in these matters.

SandySandfort on April 23, 2011, 01:16:26 pm
Hi Sam,

In the past, I have appreciated most of your posts. Lately, however, you seem to be posting a lot more rants with a lot less thought. That may be just my perception, though.

In the instant case, I think you reasoning is based on too many unsupported assumptions. You wrote:

Family [makes the call on what is sexual permitted] - they being the ones that have to do something about it if they think it is a crime.  See the story of Abelard and Heloise.  No one else is likely to intervene.

Bad assumption. In our current society, everyone is intervening all the time. Not only via force of law, but via voluntary non-violent means. Examples are private organizations which help rehabilitate alcoholics, junkies, prostitutes, etc. There are organizations that provide shelter, aid and assistance to battered women, orphans, street people and disaster victims. Why should it be any different in the Belt?

People help and protect other people; it is our nature. I personally know of families who have taken in abused or outcast minors. I have taken in people under threat of domestic violence and even under credible threat of death. Chances are, you have too. True, most families are likely to be the first to intervene to protect a child (unless they are the abusers), but do not count out friends, neighbors or concerned strangers.

Sandy thinks an anarchic society would be highly progressive.  I doubt this, because one's relationship with groups that applied organized violence would be mediated by the income earning members of the household, usually the husband...

Bad assumption. I'm not sure what your "groups that applied organized violence" is all about, but in a free society, everyone is more likely to be able to earn their own income and thus, not be under the dictatorial control of the patriarch you seem to envision. If our society were free, I would not hesitate to hire a competent 10-year old to operate farm machinery. If that were permitted, the 10-year old would be capable of living independently.

A child that wanted to divorce his parents would need to have his own job and income first. 

Bad assumption: Do you really believe that in a free society, their wouldn't be social organizations to provide the sort of aid to such children as already exists today? I'm sure Reggie's "King's Court Unfortunates Fund" would step up to the plate. Where to Bobcat send Robyn when he dropped her off on Ceres? Anyway, once Robyn's plight was discovered she had job offers immediately.

I predict that having sex with a dependent female without parental permission would generally be punished by death or castration or similar, regardless of the age of the female, and regardless of whether she consented or not.

Well, see you in court. I wouldn't expect the killers or castrators not to face consequences. In the case of castration, the castrato could bring an action in arbitration himself. In the case of killing, actions could be brought by family, friends or whomever. In a future arc, I plan to introduce an ACLU-like organization that would have an advocate call the Speaker for the Dead, that would bring suits in arbitration in wrongful death cases.

Because organized violence has to be paid for, I predict that an anarchic society would be rather socially conservative, because parental authority, and patriarchal authority, would be stronger.  He who pays the piper, calls the tune.  The author of this cartoon, however, thinks otherwise.

Since this prediction is based on your erroneous assumption of patriarchal authority, it does not stand.

Also, I find the use of "comic" to be a bit disrespectful. I think "graphic novel" or "graphic series" is a bit pretentious, but I would appreciate at least "comic strip." It is acceptable for historic reason. Also, remember, this strip is derived from prose short stories, which you might find more informative.

http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Human-Space-Sandy-Sandfort/dp/0979987741/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1280156129&sr=8-3

J Thomas on April 23, 2011, 02:37:09 pm

If our society were free, I would not hesitate to hire a competent 10-year old to operate farm machinery. If that were permitted, the 10-year old would be capable of living independently.

I can imagine that. One thing I notice is that currently dangerous farm machinery itself tends not to be real fragile. So a farmer who gets badly injured or killed in an accident will likely still have a machine that is undamaged or can be repaired cheaply. If you hire someone to use it and he is injured but you are not considered liable, then you haven't lost very much.

I find myself imagining something different for Ceres, something which would not necessarily be so. Say it was automated farm machinery. Basicly you tell it what to do and it does what you say. This makes some sense to me -- if automation is reasonably cheap and there's a labor shortage, why pay someone to follow simple orders when a machine can follow them better?

In that case, you would not be paying a 10-year-old to operate the machinery, you would be paying him to program the machinery. He would have to know what you want and convert it into terms the machinery understood, clearing up any little bugs in the specifications that might cause bad results to the crops or to the machinery itself.

And that's something that I would tend to prefer to do for myself, though I might trust an exceptional 10-year-old to do it.

I can easily imagine that whole classes of jobs might simply not exist -- particularly things which are highly repetitive; things that don't take much judgement, things that are relatively easy to program.

At the same time, if I owned 1000 farms I wouldn't want to set them all up the same way and use the same software to automate all of them. I might prefer to give 1000 people part ownership and watch what they do. 2000 eyes checking the software is better than just 2. Lots of chances for people to make improvements. And the more they redo it their own way the less chance that some bug wipes out everybody's production at once.

Today we haven't worked out the issues of automation. By EFT time they might have solutions. I don't know how it would work. Maybe 10-year-olds would tend to have the sort of judgement that would make them valuable employees. Maybe they could run around and find problems that automated systems didn't know to look for.

I can't expect anybody to give a definitive solution today, but I can easily imagine there would be a labor shortage and that the sort of labor we had shortages of might be something that we currently don't even notice.