From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 17:47:10 MDT
Randall made quite a few comments in this thread, which
sounded very reasonable to me, especially in the light
that he's an admitted anarchist! (Ah, for the days
when only criminals were anarchists --- it was against
the law, you know, to be one --- and the epithet "Anarchist!"
was as wounding as "Communist!" or "racist!". But then...
in those days they threw bombs off-line as well as on-line.
But now Rafal has written
> ### Persons of disagreeable disposition (such as you assume this girl must
> be) can be asked to leave one's house. Nobody "has" to live with someone
> like that. Incarceration without crime (or maybe I should say, for the crime
> of not meeting one's parents' expectations) is simply wrong.
Okay, then at what age may one ask a child to leave one's house?
Oh, I get it! :-) Good one. You may *ask* all that
you want! It is a free country! It's just that you
cannot *tell* a child to leave. Haw haw haw!
> > Here is a true disconnect: I, as a committed non-rebel, cannot
> > grok how when there is nothing important at stake, people can
> > be so stubborn?
> >
> ### Lee, I cannot fathom the disconnect between your beliefs as a
> libertarian, that personal freedom and self-ownership are crucial,
> unassailable rights, and your willingness to condone the most egregious
> breaches of rights, if they happen to be inflicted on children. Aside from
> the infamous "I-word" debate, which was somewhat academic, you actually
> support a real-life example of sadistic oppression, comparable to the
> brain-washing of US POW's in Vietnamese camps (minus the death/bodily harm
> threat, but offset by a feeling of total abandonment, having absolutely
> nobody to turn to, that the humans at Tranquility Bay must feel).
I must via an act of imagination transport myself to these
scenes of coercion, and also suppose that I had been in on
all the information and discussions leading up to whatever
punishment the parents are dealing out.
Randall was quite right to point out how extremely bad are
many parents at raising children. I would also point out
how extremely bad some children are at behaving appropriately.
But were I to have this magical knowledge, I have no idea
what percentage of the time I would side with the children.
But for me to "side" with someone---what comes of it, anyway?
Yes, it is good to kick the memes around, and I'm all for that.
Do you think that there are any cases *whatsoever* that you
would do what these parents are doing?
As for children's "[legal] rights", we ought to try some
things and see. Randall properly retorted that history
can hardly be an infallible guide, so I am all in favor
of letting some communities enact laws against transporting
children against their wills, or against infanticide. For
all I care, they may experiment with giving children the
right to vote (locally), or giving them the same rights
to go about the house that the adults have.
Now, normally I would say the same about adults: if a
community wants to ban pornography magazines or bibles,
it should be their decision, or if they only want to let
black people vote, it's none of my business. However,
it's my belief that history has shown that modern nations
especially must---if they are to thrive and prosper---
make a written commitment to citizens, guaranteeing freedom
of speech, and the freedom to vote, and that moreover,
"citizen" must be taken to mean *all* adults.
Beyond that, by all means let the states and communities
try what they would like.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 17:57:39 MDT