Hey, it's me, so I had a debate yesterday with someone, we call him Bob about peaceful parenting,

and Bob said that, he said, Steph, look, you're saying that the parent of the child have the same moral status or stature which most political

philosophy particularly libertarianism wouldn't accept because the child is of a lower status morally than the parent, right?

And the child can't sign their own contracts, can't live alone, can't act independently,

can't have their own control of currency and so on,

like when they're very little.

So the child is of a lower moral status to the parent and therefore saying that children should be treated like adults is invalid.

And I said, I don't believe that children should be treated like adults,

and my argument is not that children are lower moral status than adults or the same.

But the children are higher moral status, that they require higher moral considerations.

I said, look, I don't have to feed everyone, but I have to feed my own children.

They are deserving of higher moral considerations and greater, they have greater moral requirements and

should be treated with greater moral consideration so I don't accept that then

he said so are you saying that if I spank my child that you would approve of me or want me thrown in jail.

Now I was dealing with people who were not exactly pro status.

So I said, look, jail is a status concept, right?

So the question of whether you would deal with parents who hit their children with jail

is saying, well, the only answer to a moral problem that involves

coercion is jail and that's sort of a status concept right and he said well no there

would be jails in a free market society and so on and I said yeah that certainly could be the case

but it wouldn't apply in particular to a parent who hit his child and he's like well why not

I said if I come and hit you I go to jail. Why wouldn't I go to jail if I had a child?

...