Comment: Calm down there trick dawg.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: So, not hitting children (see in situ)

Calm down there trick dawg.

All I'm saying (and I've said this multiple times in this discussion) is that the NAP, or any other "force is wrong" arguments aren't the best way to argue against spanking. So many people on here want to extend the libertarian theme to every single aspect of life and it just doesn't work that way. There are plenty of arguments against spanking that are perfectly valid, but the one where you treat a child like it is an adult capable of entering into a voluntary contract for purposes of giving it rights under the non-aggression principle, well that just isn't valid. Babies, toddlers, and little kids cannot exist as regular adults. They can't be treated as individuals who are free from being ruled by another adult.
That doesn't mean you have to spank them, but it does mean that the non-aggression principle just isn't a good argument against spanking.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).