>From: mjg223 <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Aid to children
>Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:37:25 -0400 (EDT)
>On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Bryan Moss wrote:
> > Elizabeth Childs said:
> > > Bryan, are you seriously advocating slavery here, or am I not getting
> > > joke?
> > Yes, I'm seriously advocating slavery.
> > As Phil Osborn said in his reply to Michaels reply to me, "if [a child]
> > to form a personal trust and sell shares in himself, then he would have
> > vested interest in maintaining the value of the shares, as these would
> > his ticket to acquire further investment for going to college, starting
> > business, etc." I take this further and call it "slavery" simply
> > when the child most needs investment it is not at an age to consent.
> > it's true that under such a scheme I could buy a child and have him work
> > sugar plantation for zero wage but it is also true that I could train
> > child to be a lawyer and make huge profits with minimum investment.
>It's really too bad this isn't satire - it would be the greatest thing
>since _A Modest Proposal_.
Why don't we just keep the kids utterly ignorant and subject them to viewing 30 hours or so of violence every week. Then we can teach them to be responsible by forcing them to go to a place where they have to raise their hands to go to the bathroom, and we can force them to absorb by tedious, endless, boring repetition for the next six years what they could have learned easilly and naturally three years before in a Montessori school in a couple of years. We can do that until they lose all love of learning and become corrupted little monsters that will kill on orders - or without, if need be. Then we loose them on the world. But of course this is just a fantasy - right?