From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 16:20:46 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> 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!
### On the contrary, since you are the owner of your house, you may demand
that others leave it, with or without a reason.
-------------------------------
>
>>> 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.
### It doesn't take much imagination to see that lying face down on the
floor for 18 months is coercion.
------------------------------
>
> 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?
>
### No, never.
------------------------
> 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.
### Yes, I know. Open season on non-adults.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 13:29:03 MDT