So once again, I have managed to get so pissed off that I will actually take the time to post more articles on here and will also refute even more illogical and unethical retardation that the vast majority of people (even the vast majority so-called anarchists, libertarians, and voluntaryists) won't even attempt to do due to the social consequences (and their cowardice) that they will face if they do so. This time I will be addressing and intellectually destroying the thing that is probably the number one issue that is plaguing the so-called ''libertarian'' or ''anarchist'' community, authoritarian parenting in general and more specifically the fact that a lot, if not most, people in the imagined ''libertarian/anarchist'' movement have absolutely no fucking clue on how to apply logical/critical thought and true libertarian ethics onto the parent-child relationship.
A MASSIVE WARNING TO THE FRAIL EMOTIONAL CLOWNS AND A RANT
Before I start going over and thoroughly refuting each individual argument or ''argument'', I'm going to write this as a warning to the people who are generally emotionally fragile and who lose all ability to reason whenever someone has a hostile or angry delivery style, but more specifically to the people who view parents with a huge positive emotional bias in place, people who will make every single fucking excuse for their bad behavior, people who will be completely unable to analyze and judge their actions in any logical, objective, consistent manner, and people will allow their positve emotional bias to override any logical judgement that they or another person may hold. I'm not taking the time to write this just to have a bunch of fucking retards dismiss it all by appealing to their emotional clownery or to have them dismiss it all just because they think parents are so fucking special and perfect that they can never do anything wrong with their children.
This doesn't mean you have to turn into a robot and not feel any emotion (because I certainly fucking will and have), It means to not let your emotion override your rational/logical functions and judgments to the point where you are just spewing out emotional nonsense that is completely devoid of any rationality. Before the shit storm begins and I start browbeating and shit talking, I would like to remind some of the smart asses out there that simply calling someone a name or personally attacking them isn't an ad hominem fallacy, unless the attack is being used as an argument or in the place of an argument. I shouldn't have to write that but a lot of clowns will try to pull a ''gotcha'' moment if I don't expose their nonsense first. Personally, I am to the point of hatred when it comes to the absolute fucking pieces of filth that are running around calling themselves ''libertarian'', ''anarchists'', or even ''voluntaryists'' in some cases. I may be even more enraged at the fact that the rest of the ''movement'' is too fucking cowardly or passive to thoroughly expose these shit stains and their absolutely absurd (and easy to refute) positions on ''parenting''.
Yes, I am aware of the peaceful parenting community, but these people are so passive and care so much about the pathetic feelings of these clowns that they don't even fully address or refute their absurd and highly unethical bullshit. Also, a lot, if not most of their arguments are very weak and are also highly based on emotion with certain fallacies accompanying them at times. As far as I can see, I am literally the first person to address this in an aggressive manner and will also be the first person to take a hardcore logical approach to this as well. Anyway, I will save the rest of my long ranting about the ''movement'' for another post. Let the real fun begin.
''CHILDREN ARE PROPERTY''
The fact that this is even an argument, especially from supposed libertarians, is beyond pathetic. This is easily reduced to absurdity via ad reductio absurdum by first, understanding what property actually is and then understanding what actions the property owner is allowed to take towards their property. If something is truly your property, no one can tell you what you can or cannot do to that thing. You have complete dominion and authority over that thing and you can literally do anything you want with it. If children are truly their parent's property, then any action that the parents choose to enact on their child, is completely justified, amoral, and cannot be legitimately forced to cease by anyone else. If the parents want and if the child is legitimate property, they can brutally sodomize their child with a steel pipe without any legitimate repercussions. The same thing goes for any other action, literally.
So yeah, that is obviously an absurd position to hold and is obviously easy to refute. I don't have much hope for anyone that actually holds this position, especially if they really believe they are a libertarian. I just hope someone who is actually a genuine libertarian catches these sacks of shit initiating unjustified and brutal force on their child so they can be morally justified in killing their sorry asses.
APPEAL TO THE PARENT AKA BEGGING THE QUESTION/CIRCULAR ARGUMENT
This is definitely the most common argument parents deploy when they are trying to justify their actions, whether their actions are justified or not. I'm sure many people who engage these idiots to call them out on their bad behavior have heard or seen the justification and ''argument'' that is ''parenting'' or ''parent''. Ultimately, all of these rebuttals are circular arguments or the begging the question fallacy. This is because of the fact that when a mother or father performs any action towards their child (or pertaining to their child) and engages with them somehow, they are automatically ''parenting'' since the obvious definition of ''parenting'' is to act as a mother or father. This means that trying to justify the way you act towards your child as a parent by using the argument of ''parenting'' or ''parent'' is ultimately going in circles since acting towards your child in the first place is already parenting or acting as a parent.
This position is also easily reduced to absurdity because you can literally and obviously justify any action with the aforesaid position since any act towards a child or pertaining to a child as a parent is ''parenting''. When you are trying to justify or make an actual argument for an action you take as a parent you need to give a specific argument for the specific action you are talking about.
APPEALS TO THE ''SPECIAL'' RELATIONSHIP
This is somewhat similar to the last and kind of seems circular but is actually a different fallacy known as the special pleading fallacy. The argument is basically appealing to the parent-child relationship itself and trying to make it seem ''special'' in the sense that specific actions (or all in the most retarded cases) can be justified and ''context-locked'' (a term I coined) by appealing to the relationship itself or it's status. '' This is a special relationship so X action is justified'', I have this idiocy spewed out by a so-called libertarian and it was even worse in real time since the retard said that violence is justified instead of some unspecified action. First, calling a relationship ''special'' isn't an argument and could be said for any relationship if someone feels that way about it. You could also justify any action you wanted in any relationship by calling it special, so that is reduced to absurdity.
Going back to the parent-child relationship, if someone is going to try and justify an action by appealing to this particular relationship (and only that) they obviously need to specify the component of the relationship that justifies that action, which will be very hard (or impossible) to do without creating a circular argument, a non-sequitur, or a position that can easily be reduced to absurdity via ad reductio absurdum. For example, trying to justify ''spanking'' or hitting by appealing to the parent-child relationship status itself, saying it's ''special'' in the sense that non-consensual spanking is only logically justified and appropriate in the parent-child context, or saying that it's justified due to the unique component of the parent-child relationship, which is that the relationship is non-consensual, therefore non-consensual acts are justified (easily reduced to absurdity by pointing out that this position can be used to justify rape), are examples of special pleading and an argument that is able to be reduced to absurdity.
A position such as ''spanking is justified because a small child can't reason'' is where people will try to ''context-lock'' this action so they won't have to deal with a little thing called logical consistency, which means they would have to extend that same logic to older people who can't reason like mentally retarded/impaired people (who aren't ever hit as procedure and aren't without major social consequences). Instead, they will say that it doesn't apply to any other context because of the aforesaid refuted arguments and because they think having the label ''parent'' gives them a safe space to do whatever the fuck they want to their children, basically. Is there a non-absurd and non-fallacious for hitting children? (in short, no) That's a separate issue that I'll write about sometime but the above arguments obviously do not justify that act or any other act.
ITS MY JOB THO
Any actual anarchists or voluntaryists that read this should be familiar with this argument since it's commonly used by the cops or military to try and justify their actions as well. The funny thing is that it actually makes more sense for them to use it since they are actually doing an actual job where they are getting paid. Parenting obviously isn't an actual job but just like with the cops and military, trying to justify your actions with this argument doesn't hold up and is easily reduced to absurdity by understanding that you can justify any violent action (or otherwise) you want with this position, just like the cops do after they throw someone in a cage for committing a victimless ''crime''. No, parents aren't some special creatures that are above this, regardless of what they think or what the people around them say.
FALSE OBLIGATIONS AND MORE ABSURDITY
''I provide food, shelter, and essentially survival, therefore, my children have an obligation to do whatever I tell them or obey me.'' The people who say this like to skip over the fact that THEY are the ones with the huge obligation and that doing those aforesaid things is in fact, that obligation due to the fact that THEY are the ones that brought their children into this world and put them in a helpless state where they are completely dependent on their parents for survival. Stating that the children OWE YOU something because you fulfilled your obvious and life dependent obligation, just shows the sheer retardation and cluelessness you people possess. Do you consistently apply this logic to other situations where someone fulfills a huge obligation for someone else? I highly doubt it and if you do you obviously hold an absurd position. The last part of the above argument can be used to make your children do ANYTHING you want them to as well.
PROTECTION ARGUMENT
This one is going to tie into my age of consent posts (highly suggested reading) and pertain the restriction of freedom and the trampling/ignoring of young but able people's consent. Just to clarify, I'm going to be mainly referring to teenagers or slightly younger people in this post, not small children who don't have the mental/emotional capacity to consent to anything they want. Anyway, this argument is just about retarded and immoral parents not letting their children make any choice they want (assuming that choice doesn't violate the NAP or objectively harm anyone else) even though they are old enough and developed enough mentally/emotionally to make them. These choices can obviously be very harmful to their health and overall well being, but as soon as someone reaches a stage where they can comprehend the choices and the consequences of the choices they make (doesn't mean they will care about them or that they will think through them rationally) they should be free to make those choices without anyone physically stopping them or coercing them.
This includes the two people who are probably complete immoral retards and the two people who will probably make some of the same absurd arguments I've already been over in order to try and justify taking the freedom away from people who have agency and autonomy to make their own choices. Unless someone is objectively harming someone else or unless the person clearly doesn't possess the mental capacity to make their own choices (small children, retarded people, extremely drunk people) NO ONE is justified in stopping that person from making their own choices. Also, in order to be logically consistent, you will also have to apply the above logic to every other context where someone of able mind is making bad choices for their own health and well being, which means the majority of people can have their freedom taken away just because they are making bad choices for their own health like smoking cigarettes and/or drinking alcohol. This is where mommy and daddy try and deploy the other absurd arguments from earlier in this post; they are shit out of luck.
MY HOUSE MY RULES AND FALSE CONSENT
This is a very common position for authoritarian parents and is backed up by another fallacious argument that happens to be the same one ''government'' supporters deploy to try and justify their laws and their enforcement upon innocent non- consenting individuals. This is the position that states that someone ''consents'' or is at least obligated to follow the rules or laws of a certain area (or household) by being born in that location and remaining in it. Obviously, this isn't legitimate consent since the person isn't even asked if they wish to agree to certain rules. Someone can also use this logic to justify forcing someone to follow whatever rules he/she wishes, which means extreme violence non-consensual violence could be justified with this position. Parents who use this argument will try to further justify it by deploying the ''non-consensual relationship'' argument, which I refuted in part 1 by exposing the fact that that argument could be used to justify any non-consensual action, specifically rape.
PRIVATE PROPERTY JUSTIFICATION
This kind of extends from the last argument and is commonly used to try and justify the ''My House My Rules'' position by special pleading for private property and pulling away from having to be logically consistent by accepting that the aforesaid position would justify the governmental position of non-consensual application and enforcement of their laws. However, this is easily reduced to absurdity by exposing the fact that the deployer of this argument is essentially arguing for making their children into slaves or is at very least holding a position that could be used to make them into just that. Regardless of the location, someone being born into a certain location doesn't automatically mean that the individual legitmately consents to the rules or that they have any obligation to do so. The only obligation (a negative one) someone has is to not damage another human being or their property against their will; this is something no one has to consent to and the defense of oneself or their property can be acted upon regardless of whether or not the aggressor has consented.