From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 22:22:38 MDT
Peter writes
> 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.
Yes. I am aware of such stories. And for the sake of other
readers I will state that I think we are talking about non-
criminal acts here.
> 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?
Why, no. The stories (or claims) are in many cases the
same. The difference is that one can isolate oneself
from abusive adults, even spouses. But one cannot get
away from one's own children.
To be clear, I do not think that the biographies of
adults who systematically, yet legally, wreck the lives
of most people they come into prolonged contact with
are false. I wonder why you think that politicians
would be involved.
> >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.
Respect is one thing; "permitting" another. You may or may
not respect a parent that physically restrains a toddler, for
example, from various actions, and you may or may not respect
a parent who keeps a child from leaving the house under certain
conditions. That, to me, is not the point.
> Are you aware of some argument for permitting it
Here I read this as "permitting a parent to send a child
to his or her room"
> other than that the means required to prevent it are
> sometimes unethical?
I don't see that the state must adopt "unethical" means
to control the actions that adults take against their
children. But I do see such laws (i.e. means) as
deleterious to, ultimately, economic and social progress.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 22:32:54 MDT