I've been clear that I'm interested in the behavioral and punitive aspects of this example, but I don't want to be deceitful and let you believe that this is ONLY about disciplining children. Will I ask you at some point about the application of adults? Maybe. But as stated previously I will entertain the debate of the failed analogy between children and adults if that is your position.
Well, I'm no parental expert...I have a 5 year old daughter, and a 3 year old son, and frankly, I just kinda make **** up as I go. I think my parents did a pretty bang up job with me, but I can't remember **** from when I was 5. I think that taking things away makes for a better punishment than physical pain or fear, up to a point. Physical pain is over with rather quickly, unless you're a hardcore spanker, at which point...well, we won't get into that. For me, as a kid, the worst was when I KNEW I was getting a spanking when my dad got home, and had to sit around and WAIT for it. My kids are still a bit young for that, IMO, so I take away something equally precious, their time. Time out for me is sitting in a chair facing the wall at the end of the hallway, QUIETLY. The timer doesn't start till you stop crying or yelling or screaming. Works wonders. I don't think I would be physically capable of taking away ALL of their toys. I'd have to lock them in the computer room, and even then, they might have one or two stashed. As for the other argument...punishments between the wealthy and not wealthy will NEVER be fair. They CAN'T be. Good quote from the last Batman movie...."The rich don't even go broke the same...". And that's the truth. You could take away ALL of Warren Buffets money for speeding, and the man would be perfectly fine. He has access to resources the rest of us don't, by virtue of his wealth and reputation. There's no changing that, and all progressive fines will serve to do is make our legal system even worse, more expensive, and more jammed up. Imagine a world where rich people hire lawyers to fight every single fine or citation, instead of just paying them outright?
The question is what component is fair about a time out (also use them a ton) that isn't present with toys. Why is taking away half of their toys a waste of time. To me it's the relationship of that thing of value to the kid. Both kids have the same amount of time in a day. But if you use a unit that is unequal between those two kids, is a kid that had enough insulation from the punishment really being punished the same?
Taking away half of their toys does not deprive them of toys. A kid only needs one. I mean, if you had older kids, with a xbox or whatever, would taking away HALF of his video games REALLY hurt him? Not really. Sure, he'll wine for a few minutes, but then he'll realize he's perfectly fine picking up some game he hasn't played in a while. Same with kids and toys. It doesn't....hurt them. It's just not gonna deter them from acting up, the same way taking away ALL of their toys would. And for my money, timeout is SO MUCH EASIER.
And I should clarify something - this is not about progressive fines, nor did I seek to absolutely defend progressive fines in the other thread. The bigger question to me is can something with a disparity be an effective and fair punishment. I could easily agree with you - it is pointless to try to make a fair punishment out of an arbitrary quantity of toys.
Effective, yes, as evidenced by a lack of rich people speeding around all over the place...fair? No.