Response to #70
"Parents that strike their children are depraving them of their rights. Not giving dinner to a child is not a rights violation, as a right can never trample the rights of anyone else. "
Really? Preventing a human being to nourish themselves is not a violation of their rights? So if I prevent you from having dinner, I'm not violating your rights?
As for hitting children, I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about physically remove them from a situation that they wish to be into. This does not necessitate to hit them. That doesn't change that it's a violation to their right of body autonomy: they wish to be somewhere doing something, and you prevent them from doing so.
Of course a right can be in conflict with other rights, that's the whole point of rules, if all rights could be fulfilled without conflict with other rights, then we wouldn't need any rules to live together...
"Regardless of which parenting body (even though a random group of people claiming to rule over an arbitrary area have no business at all telling other people how to live their lives, and thus should not be considered parenting bodies) we are talking about, violence is never okay. Never."
So for example, there's a child who's hurting other children, or themselves, and their parent wants to prevent that.
Parents do that all the time, would you necessarily call parents violent in their behavior, or would you grant that they can do so without the use of violence?
"First of all, the government is a random group of people ruling over an arbitrary area. They have no business acting as the parents of anyone, so stop comparing them to parents. "
Just like you didn't choose to be born in a society with government X, you didn't choose to be born in a family with parents X, the justification for their authority over you is just as arbitrary, it's just as random, no matter who your parents are you're going to be subject to their authority, those are just rules that other humans chose for you, and that new people who come into the world are obligated to follow at least for a time until they're independent enough to choose if they want to leave their society or family, or to act inside those communities to change the rules.
"You did not adress my point about the constitution at all. A random document cannot arrest people. A random document cannot execute people. The constitution is just a framework on which the government operates. The government needs to get the power to enforce the constitution from somewhere. It gets that power through the threat of violence"
I addressed it: your objection is just an objection to any set of rules, any set of rules needs humans to make them respected, without humans to make them respected they cannot be used.
And you're not against all rules, you said that you agree to rules if they don't come from a government, the critic you're making which is essentially "laws need people to be enforced" can be used against any version of any society which has any set of rules, it's not specific to our current societies with governments and laws.
Either you accept that rules can be used, which implies that some humans will have to enforce them, or you don't accept any kind of rules, as far as I understood you accept some kinds of rules, so you accept that there will be some humans to enforce them. If you don't, then explain how you plan for these rules to be enforced without humans to do so.
"I did not say anything about not relying on the use of force. I said that you cannot rely on the use of violence. That in itself is an oversimplification since you have a right to self defense. How do you enforce a contract? If someone breaks a rule, stop enforcing your side of the contract. If they owe you money, take the money by force. This is okay, since it is your money."
Ok, so you agree to the use of force to enforce rules then.
When you say that you would take the money, are you saying that you would make justice yourself? Are you saying that you would like a society where people would make justice themselves? Or did I misunderstand you?
If you have rules established in the community your live in, who gets to enforce them? Who makes the investigation, who makes the trial, who decides the sentence? Can you do justice yourself? Or would it be like in our current societies where we rely on some people specialized in enforcing the rules?