From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Wed Jul 16 2003 - 10:12:19 MDT
lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>Peter writes
>> 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.
This seems mostly false. Parents have substantial ability to get away
from their children by sending them to boarding schools, camps, etc.
Or are you claiming (as I suspect Hal would) that the parents have
an obligation to allow the kids to remain at home? (I'm not sure what
to make of such a claim, but I suspect parents still can mostly avoid
the kids by not being home as much as they can avoid an abusive adult
who requires some care for medical reasons).
>> 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
>
>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.
I'm puzzled by the claim that laws against coercion would deter progress.
Let me make an analogy to laws against slavery. Did they interfere with
progress? Or are you arguing that there's some difference in the coercions
involved that should motivate us to classify them differently? I can see
differences in degree, but my default is to presume any coercion is wrong
unless there's a clear argument that it's needed.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 : Wed Jul 16 2003 - 10:21:39 MDT