From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 15:47:19 MDT
lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>I agree. I am sure of this: there are SOME situations in
>which our "enlightened" abstract notions of freedom and
>worship of individuality are inappropriate. There *have*
>to be hell-stories of teenagers bent not only on destroying
>their own lives, but the lives of everyone they will come
>into contact with.
There are also stories of adults bent on destroying their own lives
and the lives of people they come in contact with. How do the stories
about the teenagers differ? Is it that the stories about adults are
often invented as an excuse for politicians to exert control, but the
stories about teenagers are always told by truthful Bayesians?
>Now [is it evil for me to anticipate objections?], some will
>say that the parents are in no place to judge these intractable
>questions about how the life of their kid is turning out or
>will turn out. But I have two answers. One is that if not
>them, then who?
The kids, as long as they aren't doing things that ought to be considered
crimes.
> And if they can't exert control over kids at
>age 16 then why permit them to send a kid to his room (depriving
>him of freedom) and restricting his friends and when he can see
>them (denying him freedom of association)?
I can't think of a good reason why we should respect any parent who
imprisons kids for actions that the government shouldn't treat as crimes.
Are you aware of some argument for permitting it other than that the
means required to prevent it are sometimes unethical?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | "To announce that there must be no criticism of http://www.rahul.net/pcm | the President, or that we are to stand by the | President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic | and servile, but morally treasonable to the | American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 15:57:53 MDT