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