RE: Tranquility

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 16:46:34 MDT

  • Next message: Peter C. McCluskey: "Taking Children Seriously"

    Lee corbin wrote:

    Rafal writes:
    > ### Persons who have been wronged may apply force. Their agents may apply
    > force on their behalf. I would be willing to act on behalf of humans who
    > have been harmed, e.g. by wrongful imprisonment inflicted on them by
    persons
    > who produced these human's DNA and contributed nutrition to their fetal
    > growth (and mistakenly assume that having performed these actions entitles
    > them to ownership of the humans in question).

    In other words, you would be willing to act on behalf of children (among
    others) who have been wrongfully imprisoned by their parents. What
    constitutes imprisonment, in your view?

    ### Being prevented from leaving the private property of a person, either
    physically or by a threat of force, or in special cases by withholding of
    information.

    --------------------------------------

    > Whether I would choose to use a private protection agency or a monopolist
    > provider of security services, the state, is not relevant to the argument.
    > It is also irrelevant what kind of labels you are using to describe the
    > humans involved - whether you call some "children", or "parents" - the
    only
    > thing that matters is who was harmed and how to rectify it.

    Yes, I understand. I think. As you yourself have said that you are
    willing to act on behalf of children who have been wronged, would you
    mind if I put your name on my web site as a resource for wronged ten
    year olds? (It is a fact that many parents make incorrect decisions
    regarding the freedoms of their ten year olds.)

    ### I would refer them to the appropriate child protection agencies to which
    I am financially contributing.

    -----------------------

    I'm sure that however generous you may be with your own time, you
    would prefer the establishment of a more objective agency, perhaps
    international in scope. Quite a number of teenagers have been
    denied all the freedoms we customarily enjoy, among them freedom
    of association, free movement, and freedom of speech (the latter
    called, prejudicially, "mouthing off" by their parents). Do you
    envision a web site where the children can take their complaints,
    and a ruling board that would decide whether intervention against
    the parents will be undertaken?

    ### Yes, this would be a good idea. Children dissatisfied with their parents
    must be afforded the same freedom as e.g. employees dissatisfied with their
    employers, or adults dissatisfied with their spouses - the freedom to leave.
    Children wishing to contract for help in dealing with their oppressors must
    be able to contract for protection with agents of their choice. If they
    choose a "ruling board" (what a sinister name), more power to them. It is
    however important to note that no legal "intervention against the parents"
    can be undertaken, unless there is court-admissible evidence of battery,
    fraud, theft, embezzlement, or other common law crimes committed against the
    child. In the absence of such evidence, children, as all humans, may only
    insist on the protection of their freedom and property from encroachment by
    others, rather than retributive justice.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 13:54:44 MDT