<< Lots of things can be argued, but the notion that children, arbitrarily
defined, are either chattel of the parents or chattel of the state, and
that the former view "would have to be the libertarian position" is
seriously troubling to me.
>>
Yep...lots of things can be argued...but it seems that they gotta be one or
the other..saying that they "own themselves"...yet are "wards of the state"
or "wards of their parents" is a bit contradictory isn't it?
Seems that's why the name "children"...when one ceases to be of that category
then one is responsible for(i.e. "owns") oneself. The boundry of that
classification being defined by culture, law etc.
My position is that it's none of my business what someone else does...with
his dog..his property...or his children...however reprehensible or noble it
may be...as long as I have no responsibility...am not damaged....then I have
no authority..and would be well advised to mind my own business.
I and society...have no moral athority to intervene. The most I can do is
disapprove....and/or disassociate myself with that person and his
activities....I think the Jews used a technique...shunning....towards similar
ends....in times past.
<<<If you have responsibility then you must have authority to enforce the
necesities of that responsibility...the two are coupled. The current
situation is de-coupled...as a result it's all screwed up>>
Any other position puts me in a position of
(superiority/authority:responsible for his actions) over that person...Slave
Owner...which I am not and don't intend to be...however much some beg to be
owned. Nor do I enjoy BEING owned...as is the current state of
affairs...hopefully the advancing technology will continue the age-old trend
of diminishing the power of the state....(slavers).relative to that of the
populance (slaves)
And I "am" saying that...now.
EvMick
Aiken South Carolina