Jon: Juan: I was not talking about infants - but children. Now, people living under totalitarian states are forced to do lots of things. Subjects complain, but ultimately they prefer to live instead of being shot. I guess they are free after all. Not analogous. No one suggested shooting children.
Juan: I was not talking about infants - but children. Now, people living under totalitarian states are forced to do lots of things. Subjects complain, but ultimately they prefer to live instead of being shot. I guess they are free after all.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
JonBostwick:but person who the strongest claim is allowed to determine the care he receives. If that person chooses not to care for them, then we can consider the person to be unclaimed and any charitable person can take over that duty. If no takers are found, he will die.
banned:What justifies the parents having a monopoly on the raising of a child?
Unless nobody else steps up to the plate on the child's behalf, there really can not be a better situation for the child.
JonBostwick:Imagine a woman has a child and then abandons it. The child is adopted by a couple who raise it, but a year later the woman decides she wants it back. Who gets the baby? The homesteading principle says the adoptive parents do, atleast until the child is able to determine for himself who he wants to live with.
JonBostwick:Then what prevents conflict between two people claiming the same baby?
JonBostwick:Clearly there must be a system to determine who is the legitimate parent, thus we can say that one has a property right over the baby.
Now I want to revisist these questions:
Len Budney:is precisely what grounds justify the parents doing anything.
Len Budney:And as a consequence of that justification, what the limits are.
Charles Anthony: JonBostwick:but person who the strongest claim is allowed to determine the care he receives. If that person chooses not to care for them, then we can consider the person to be unclaimed and any charitable person can take over that duty. If no takers are found, he will die. I think that sums everything up as a good general rule for all ward - guardian relationships.
Agreed: that's the general idea. Parents don't homestead "ownership" of the child, but rather homestead "guardian rights," such as the right to feed, clothe and shelter the infant. The mother has the strongest claim, having provided nourishment and shleter for nine months already. She cannot give away or sell "the baby," but she can give away or sell guardian rights.
Charles Anthony: banned:What justifies the parents having a monopoly on the raising of a child? Simple: that monopoly was created naturally. Unless nobody else steps up to the plate on the child's behalf, there really can not be a better situation for the child.
Yup. The state's attempt to do "better" usually puts children in worse situations than they were supposedly "rescued" from.
Charles Anthony: JonBostwick:Clearly there must be a system to determine who is the legitimate parent, thus we can say that one has a property right over the baby. Personally, I believe that the biological parent (and the mother is first) is an objective starting point unless that parent wants to give up the child.
Absolutely.
Charles Anthony: Len Budney:And as a consequence of that justification, what the limits are. I do not think there are many limits. The limits may be determined by:1) the child himself; in other words, physically leaving his parents2) the threat of an outsider willing to do battle and physically wrestle the child away from his home
I think this needs fleshed out more. You're starting to go into the realm of how an outsider can "rescue" an abused child, say. That's a tricky problem as pertains to force. Non-aggressive means, like shunning, turning off electricity phone and water, revoking road-use rights, etc., are a no-brainer. People who care about children will also use free-association and free trade to shut out abusers.
--Len
Juan:Let's see. Forcing children to attend church may be, perhaps, an example of humanism at work ?
I assume this is that "sarcasm" of which you spoke?
A parent forcing a child to go to church is no different than a parent forcing a child to go to school. A parent has every right to bring their child up in the way they want. Me, I think the church is the worst thing that ever happened to the human race. But comparing it to mental abuse is just nuts.
Are you seriously debating that, since children are persons and not property, I have no right to force my child to go to school if they wake up on a Monday morning and want to stay home? That they should only go to school when they want to? With ideas like that we'll end up with nothing but trolls on the Mises forums in a few generations. Or they will all have died in their teens from cardiac problems, since all they will eat is candy and soda since I can't make them eat their vegetables.
Again, you have to look at the benefits versus the possible damage done. My parents forced me to go to church for years, and I credit that with my current love of science and scepticism of all things "spiritual". Circumcision has been shown to significantly decrease the possibility of infection, since it is much easier to keep the organ clean. The only downside is if the procedure is done incorrectly...which is possible with ANY medical procedure.
Parents can circumcise their child so long as the child does not object after he is grown.
I don't completely agree with the "after the fact" theory...that I can be held to account if my child, once they have become a free agent, suddenly decides that I shouldn't have done something. What if my grown child suddenly decides "Hey, I didn't want you to take out my appendix. I would rather have died!"
This is very different from the police example. If the police wrongly arrest a person, they have aggressed them and should be held criminally liable. You cannot agress a child, unless you violate their basic innate human rights against self preservation.
Juan:Perfectly analogous. It's more than analogous - it's the same situation. I'm not saying that parents shoot their children - that's stupid. I'm saying that parents do arbitrary things with their children all the time. It's the same political power the state has and it's abused in the same way all political power is abused.
No, its not analogous. You are confusing arbitrary (political) authority with legitimate (social) authority.
Children are free to reject their parent's authority. What you are advocating is for children to be able to selectively reject their authority, but that ignores the rights of parents. The parent-child relationship, just like the employee-employer relationship, must be mutually voluntary. Clearly you can't believe that employers are beyond their rights in demanding a drug test, or that employees are in their rights to refuse the test but still expect a job.
Juan: Children being indoctrinated by their parents in matters of religion, for instance, should be especially disgusting to libertarians
I don't see why, its not a violation of the NAP. Maybe it offends your cultural sensibilities, but it is not a necessary part of libertarianism.
Peace
Jonas: Parents can circumcise their child so long as the child does not object after he is grown. I don't completely agree with the "after the fact" theory...that I can be held to account if my child, once they have become a free agent, suddenly decides that I shouldn't have done something. What if my grown child suddenly decides "Hey, I didn't want you to take out my appendix. I would rather have died!" This is very different from the police example. If the police wrongly arrest a person, they have aggressed them and should be held criminally liable. You cannot agress a child, unless you violate their basic innate human rights against self preservation.
I'd say this system provides the best method to determine what violates their basic human rights.
Declaring that libetarianism is universally against body modification is cultural imperialism and a sure way to create new conflict.
Jonas:What if my grown child suddenly decides "Hey, I didn't want you to take out my appendix. I would rather have died!"
I'm not sure what standing he would have. I don't see how that action in the past diminishes his self ownership in the present. If he wants to die, he can kill himself.
Jon: No, its not analogous. You are confusing arbitrary (political) authority with legitimate (social) authority.
Jon: What you are advocating is for children to be able to selectively reject their authority, but that ignores the rights of parents.
Jon: I don't see why, its not a violation of the NAP. Maybe it offends your cultural sensibilities, but it is not a necessary part of libertarianism.
Juan: Social authority ? What's that
Any voluntary relationship where one conceedes authority to another. Employment, schooling, religion, membership to an organization.
Juan:The rights to indoctrinate and mutilate, for instance ?
The right to have a say in the terms of their relationships.
Juan: I see. Brainwashing children doesn't conflict with the idea that persons have natural rights. Conservatism is an 'interesting' 'philosophy'...
Tell me how telling someone something violates the NAP.
JonBostwick: Jonas:What if my grown child suddenly decides "Hey, I didn't want you to take out my appendix. I would rather have died!" I'm not sure what standing he would have. I don't see how that action in the past diminishes his self ownership in the present. If he wants to die, he can kill himself.
That's a good point...I hadn't thought of that. They need to have some claim of loss of ownership. Interesting.
I do fear that ideas like this cause a trend towards inaction. People become so afraid of agressing against current or future ownership that they choose not to act. But I guess that, if as a parent you can make a good case that you were doing what you thought was in the "best interest of your child", you would have very little chance of being punished in the future.
Jon: The right to have a say in the terms of their relationships.
Juan:So, the parent asks - Do you want part of your 'penis' cut off ? The child answers : No way! That's the end of it, as far as libertarians are concerned, I hope ?
The parent asks - Do you want to go to church today? The child answers: No way! That's the end of it?
The parent asks - Do you want to go to school today? The child answers: No way! That's the end of it?
The parent asks - Are you sure you want to jump off the roof? The child answers: Sure! That's the end of it?
If you answer yes to any of those, there is no point in debating further.
Juan:Do you think it's OK to tell children things that are patently false, i. e., lies ?
Unfortunately, in most cases the people telling children these things don't believe they are false or lies. In fact, technically you can't PROVE that they are lies or false. That might be your belief...as it is mine. But you cannot prove fraud, let alone compare it to physical, sexual, or mental abuse.
Jonas: If you answer yes to any of those, there is no point in debating further.
Or they will all have died in their teens from cardiac problems, since all they will eat is candy
Juan: Jon: The right to have a say in the terms of their relationships. So, the parent asks - Do you want part of your 'penis' cut off ? The child answers : No way! That's the end of it, as far as libertarians are concerned, I hope ?
The parent says: "Any child of mine will be circumcised."
The child can then choose to be circumcised or he can choose to emancipate himself.
This appears to be a moral dilemma but in reality is not. This situation is no different than the situation where the factory owner saying, "Sleep with me or you'll lose your job" that is often used to advocate against private property. Its a baseless objection in both case.
Juan: Tell me how telling someone something violates the NAP. Do you like to be lied to ? Do you think that lying is consistent with libertarian principles ? Do you realize that the content of most(if not all) revealed religions is gross superstitions ? Do you think it's OK to tell children things that are patently false, i. e., lies ? Are lies, deceit and fraud physical aggression ? No. Are they consistent with libertarianism ? You tell me.
Fraud is physical aggression if it separates someone from their property. Is religion inline with libertarianism? Yes, definitely. People are free to convince people to subscribe to their ideas, you are not allowed to interfere with their free association.
Do you think an atheist crusade is in line with libertarianism, or even liberalism?
Juan: Jonas: If you answer yes to any of those, there is no point in debating further. In case you didn't notice, I stopped replying to your messages. I realized it was a waste of time...
What a hoot--the troll ignoring the one person still bothering to talk to him.
Jonas: Unfortunately, in most cases the people telling children these things don't believe they are false or lies.
Juan:In case you didn't notice, I stopped replying to your messages.
[:'(]
That means I win.
Juan:Believers know their beliefs can't be proved.
Actually, that's not true. Many "believers" feel that there is proof that their "faith" is real. They look at "miracles", or scripture, or even nature, and count them as proof that what they believe is real.
They believe that it is us, the sceptics, that are lying to themselves and others...and in some cases they would consider us the agressors because we are trying to stop people from gaining eternal salvation.
So you are against people forcing their children to go to church, the school, and the hospital. That's great. Have fun in your little fantasy world.
The parent says "Any child of mine will be circumcised." The child can then choose to be circumcised or he can choose to emancipate himself.
This situation is no different than the situation where the factory owner saying, "Sleep with me or you'll lose your job" that is often used to advocate against private property.
Jonas: So you are against people forcing their children to go to church, the school, and the hospital.
Juan:Actually, it's not an argument at all, just an unfounded assertion. As I said, despite being a subject of the US gov't you can do whatever you please, or rather whatever you manage to, before your masters shoot you. Isn't libertarianism great ?
I find it hard to believe you can't draw the distinction.
Scenario A: "Give me $100 or I'll shoot you"
Scenario B: "Give me $100 or I'll kick you out of this apartment"
See any dissimilarities?
And how would you're system improve upon voluntary relationships? I guess everyone would get together and determine how all the children will be raised....hmmm...what does that remind me of?
Juan: Do you think an atheist crusade is in line with libertarianism, or even liberalism? Uh ??
Ugg..
Juan: As to opposition to forced education, both religious and secular, it is pretty consistent with libertarianism.
If children don't want to go to school, they can get a job. What you are advocating is that children can live off their parents without having any obligations to their parents. Nonsense.
Jon: And how would you're system improve upon voluntary relationships? I guess everyone would get together and determine how all the children will be raised....hmmm...what does that remind me of?
What you are advocating is that children can live off their parents without having any obligations to their parents. Nonsense.
Juan: Children being indoctrinated by their parents in matters of religion, for instance, should be especially disgusting to libertarians. Instead of a repudiation of such acts what I'm hearing is silly excuses. Fine. No wonder libertarianism is going nowhere.
Children being indoctrinated by their parents in matters of religion, for instance, should be especially disgusting to libertarians. Instead of a repudiation of such acts what I'm hearing is silly excuses. Fine. No wonder libertarianism is going nowhere.
It's not at all that simple, Juan. Philosophically, there's no difference between my teaching my kids that freedom is the highest human aspiration and the neighbor teaching their kids that serving others is the supreme goal. If one indoctrination is evil, they both are.
If I teach my children that Christianity is a family tradition and they should follow it, I cannot complain if the neighbors teach their children that Islam is the faith they should follow, or agnosticism, or atheism. If you have the freedom to choose, you have that freedom - if you don't, then your freedom is subjugated to whomever can make the decision about what your children will be taught about religion.
If one cannot teach one's own children, who can? Would you allow parents to teach moral values, such as "murder is wrong" and "property rights must be respected"? How do you differentiate between those and "You must attend church services every week"?
So, you may say, parents should only have the freedom to teach verifiable fact to their children. This isn't so simple, either. You may think that Marxism has been successfully refuted, but there are still plenty of avid Marxists around. Austrian economists point out the errors made by the Chicago economists, the Chicago economists think that the Austrian economists are making an error by declining to factor in something that can't be avoided - government. Keynesian economists dispute both of them. Would such disagreement make teaching my children economics evil in your eyes? Would it be more or less evil, depending on which school I taught them?
I hold such indoctrination to be much less harmful than the circumcision or other body modifications that Len pretends he has an answer for. I was raised Catholic, and left that church in early adulthood. As an adult, anyone can (and very likely will) change their minds about what they were taught as children - or at least examine those teachings for validity. Body modification is, however, not easily reversible - I can't take a simple medical procedure and have the benefits of a foreskin.
For what it's worth, my religion has been a positive thing in my life. Having walked away from the religion I was raised in, I have not insisted that my children follow any religion - they've been allowed to sit out of any celebration they wished to, and I've gotten them the best information I could about other religions they wanted to know more about. As far as I can tell, they're agnostics so far, though they still opt to participate in religious celebrations when they have the opportunity. This is, in my view, better than the "our way is the only way" indoctrination that I got as a child, and better than the "all religion is wrong" indoctrination that my son's friend gets from his Atheist parents. But it's not something you're ever going to have wide social agreement upon, unless you reduce people's right to choose - and I'm not ready to believe that you really want to do that.
Danno
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
I get what your saying: parents shouldn't parent. But thats not really addressing the legal issue.
Are parent's not in their rights to withhold television privileges to modify their children's behavior?
Juan:Children signed NO contract so they have NO obligations except the natural obligation to do-no-harm.
Arguably so--but they also have no rights to be fed, clothed or sheltered. You're contributing nothing useful to this discussion, except the (ahem) interesting idea that it's OK to take children to bed, but not to take them to school.
Jon: I get what your saying: parents shouldn't parent. But thats not really addressing the legal issue.
Juan:But what I'm pointing out is that if children complain about something it is because something is wrong. And if children want to naturally do 'A', 'B', or 'C' it is because those things are good for them. To cite children wanting to jump off rooftops as counterexample is just ridiculous diversion.
Not any children I've ever known - and I've known quite a few. The toddler's wanting to stay up long after they're obviously sleepy is axiomatic. The child's aversion to vegetables is also stereotypical (though almost all of the children I've known actually like vegetables). As a pre-adolescent, I did jump off the roof - there was a rope swing, so I survived, but to contemplate the danger I cheerfully ignored at the time gives me great pause today.
Rousseau was wrong - children are savages until they're civilized. But to contend that children only want to do what is in their own long-term self-interest is to display very little understanding of childhood.
Len: Juan: Children signed NO contract so they have NO obligations except the natural obligation to do-no-harm. Arguably so--but they also have no rights to be fed, clothed or sheltered.
Juan: Children signed NO contract so they have NO obligations except the natural obligation to do-no-harm.
Juan: Len: Juan: Children signed NO contract so they have NO obligations except the natural obligation to do-no-harm. Arguably so--but they also have no rights to be fed, clothed or sheltered. So ?
So food, clothing and shelter come with strings. Back under your bridge.
Juan:You on the other hand believe that children would 'naturally' die at fifteen because they would 'naturally' eat too much candy...You think just like the socialists. How can society work if government doesn't regulate it ? Who will build the roads ?
I don't think like a socialist...I think like a parent. Why do you think childhood obesity is so rampant in the United States? Is it because there is a lack of government regulation? No, it is because parent's are not enforcing good eating habits in their children. They are not forcing them to eat their vegetables. Their children whine and cry and ask for candy and soda, and the parent's just give in.
I am not the most healthy person, so I encouraged my daughter from an early age to eat fruits and vegetables along with her steak. She now loves her salad, and is quite happy having a tomato as a snack instead of a cupcake...although she eats her share of sweets! ;) Daddy can't be that draconian!
But the trend in childhood obesity makes my point...children will not be healthy if left to their own devices. This is not because they are stupid. It is not because I enjoy imposing my will. It is because they do not...they CANNOT...know any better. This is not their fault, it is because they are inexperienced and do not have all the information they need to make a rational decision.
You CANNOT make the analogy between this and any political system. The government telling me how to think is NOT like me telling my daughter she needs to get to bed. I am an adult...a free agent...with a mind that is developed enough to make consentual decisions based on examination of variables. My daughter does not. She will, and one day she can become a free agent of her own and I will cease to make decisions on her behalf. But for now she goes to bed when I tell her.
Philosophically, there's no difference between my teaching my kids that freedom is the highest human aspiration and the neighbor teaching their kids that serving others is the supreme goal. If one indoctrination is evil, they both are.
The toddler's wanting to stay up long after they're obviously sleepy is axiomatic. The child's aversion to vegetables is also stereotypical (though almost all of the children I've known actually like vegetables). As a pre-adolescent, I did jump off the roof - there was a rope swing, so I survived, but to contemplate the danger I cheerfully ignored at the time gives me great pause today.
Rousseau was wrong - children are savages until they're civilized.
Jonas: I don't think like a socialist...I think like a parent.
Why do you think childhood obesity is so rampant in the United States?
Juan:The cops & the military - why ?
Because if people cling to the "state" for fear of being unprotected it's completely different. If the parent is not forcing the child under their parantage, the fact that the child might prefer being under the parent than being an orphan is a matter of voluntary preference.
Juan: Jon: I get what your saying: parents shouldn't parent. But thats not really addressing the legal issue. No, you don't get what I'm saying. And I'm not addressing any legal issue - there may be some misunderstanding there. Are parent's not in their rights to withhold television privileges to modify their children's behavior? Rights have nothing to do with the problem.
Libertarianism is a legal framework, its not a lifestyle or a culture. What else is there to talk about?
Juan:Can't you see that the idea of 'modifying' people's behaviour is flawed ? Why is parent 'P' so sure that, say, reading the bible is better than watching TV ? Can't P leave people alone ?
No. People actively seek out others to instruct them in better ways of doing things. The market succeeds because it provides positive reinforcement for moral behavior.
Teaching children about voluntary relationships and exchange is an important life lesson. Adults do not have the privilege of doing whatever pleases them.
Juan: I'm not saying that parents should be forcefully prevented from indoctrinating 'their' children, but I do point out that such an indoctrination is not a good thing.
Sorry - I fear I've been unclear. What I've been trying to say is that such indoctrination is almost inevitable - and I would view a total lack of indoctrination as being neglect. Whether it's a good thing or not would depend a lot on what they were being indoctrinated with, wouldn't it? One of the toughest, most stringent bits of indoctrination that children go through is "urination and defacation should be done here, rather than in your pants or on the floor" - and I'll be very surprised if you don't see the value of that, to the children themselves and society as a whole.
The idea that children must follow the religion of their parents, because it is the will of the parents that they do so, is very far from being a libertarian idea. As a matter of fact it is wholly conservative.
Libertarian shares some with Conservative, and some with Left-wing. From my understanding, Libertarian ideals hit a very solid grey area in this - indoctrination of the children is not ideal, but anyone preventing the parents from doing so is even worse. When dealing with religion, it's even worse - many Libertarians fairly froth at the mouth (as do I) at the abuses of Church Rule in history and today, but even worse is the idea of any authority making a particular faith mandatory or prohibited. Various paths are better or worse than others, but there is no clear "this way is best" that you'll get a majority to agree with, much less a consensus.
Oh, since a child was born in a 'christian' house he's supposed to become a 'christian' or else he can move out. Fine. Are we living in a really free society where children actually can change parents as they please ? Or is this you-are-free-to-opt-out-thing just a bluff on the part of parents ?
In anything resembling a free society, the children are free to opt out at adulthood - with their feet. In any society, some families are more effective at this - others, less. My understanding of the Libertarian ideal is that no outsider may interfere with a family unless harm is being done that is not easily reversible.
Philosophically, there's no difference between my teaching my kids that freedom is the highest human aspiration and the neighbor teaching their kids that serving others is the supreme goal. If one indoctrination is evil, they both are. I wouldn't say that teaching true things is the same as teaching any arbitrary belief. But even if what you teach is true and your children don't want to listen, then, tough luck. 'Trades' of the kind : if you don't read Ayn Rand or the bible you can't watch TV are silly.
Most "true" things are arbitrary beliefs, once you're away from science and mathematics. You may be convinced, you may (or may not) convince your children - but there is no objective proof. I KNOW that individual liberty is more to be desired than a society in which the individuals exist only to serve the state - but any Marxist thinks I'm insane, and I'm very unlikely to be able to convince them otherwise.
To force a viewpoint, philosophy, or faith upon a child who resists it is worse than futile - such things are accepted freely, or not at all. If you can't convince your child that improving their education is a wise choice, or that it's a bad idea to rot their brain with television, then you need to learn how to talk with your children - mostly, they do accept reason when it's presented clearly. (My kids don't watch TV, voluntarily - Ayn Rand would bore them to tears, but other stuff is available, and I've been able to pull enough examples out of current events to convince them that economics is worth knowing, even if there are other things to do that are more fun.)
To a degree, I agree with what's been said here - my children, living under my roof, must at least examine what I wish to show them. In a spirit of justice, I must acknowledge their right to disagree with me (even the 2-yo, about bedtime) - and, to raise effective, free adults, I must allow them the freedom of their convictions when they've shown enough understanding of the consequences, and are willing to live with the consequences of their actions. This is where I parted company with Len - he may allow them to follow their own convictions, because if their convictions differ from his, they've been brainwashed, and he can step in to stop it. Even the idea that they may choose an option he disagrees with enrages him so much he refuses to admit it can be possible.
Libertarianism is not the easy path, nor is it always clear. Few paths of parenting that I respect are.
The toddler's wanting to stay up long after they're obviously sleepy is axiomatic. The child's aversion to vegetables is also stereotypical (though almost all of the children I've known actually like vegetables). As a pre-adolescent, I did jump off the roof - there was a rope swing, so I survived, but to contemplate the danger I cheerfully ignored at the time gives me great pause today. Children want to stay up late. What's wrong with that ? Staying up late is a mortal danger ?
No - but it is unwise, particularly if they have school to attend. Letting children stay up late occasionally does no harm - at least, it hasn't done any notable damage to my kids. I grudgingly let my daughter stay up later than I think is wise - she can't sleep earlier, and I recognize that this can happen - she's unlikely to lie to me. I urge naps, to keep her from getting too sleep-deprived, and she takes them. Not ideal, but workable. However, I've done volunteer work at her school - and the kids who stay up until 2am, arrive at school late, and nap through their first two classes are common. This isn't mortal danger, but it's certainly not good.
You've argued that sex is not 'dangerous' even for small children - but other people seem to strongly disagree. What about eating vegetables ?
Nonconsensual sex is always psychologically dangerous, at any age. The sex acts that children are likely to agree to and enjoy are also remarkably unlikely to do them any damage - they're far more likely to drive sex-repressed people into conniptions - and their reactions often do, indeed, harm the children.
Very few people have been harmed by eating too many vegetables. A strict vegetarian diet, however, I'd object to, and monitor closely - usable protein is remarkably important in the developing years.
Is eating too much candy a mortal danger ?
No, though large doses of sugar are remarkably bad for both brain development and general health. For that matter, circumcision (even the female sort) isn't a mortal danger - but I'd object strenuously. Dangers come in degrees, as do freedoms. Not all dangers to be avoided are mortal dangers. (Juan - you've been watching Len argue too much - I hope the overstatement thing isn't rubbing off.)
Frankly these issues don't really sound like a big deal do they ?
There are, frankly, very few "big deals" in parenting - it's the dozens of little deals, day in and day out, that are required to do the job you volunteer for when you agree to bring a human into this world. (But we'll talk about the parent-child contract another time).
Rousseau was wrong - children are savages until they're civilized. Actually Rousseau said that savages are nice people and civilization corrupts them.
Yes, you're right - he romanticized savages, and never understood that they behave savagely. One can only wish that he could walk down the wrong street of any modern city and meet some of those "noble savages" for an education.
What I am saying is that children are way more sensible than their parents want to admit. And even in cases where they seem to be wrong, the parents don't really know better.
It has seemed that way to me on occasion, too - after all, I rose above my upbringing, and the horrid, stupid things I've seen parents do to their children have given me nightmares. The situation is certainly not ideal.
On the other hand, very few situations are ideal - and the only thing I can think of that would be worse than the stupid things people do to their children would be someone else thinking they had the right to interfere. I draw my line at physical harm - at that, the child has a right to be rescued, if they so desire, at terms they agree to. If they want to be rescued because Dad won't pop for a hotel suite for Prom night, or the parents insist they get a part-time job, they're welcome to any sympathetic ear they can find, but they'll be on their own as soon as they want to be - until then, they should just deal.
(For those of you who think it's absurd of me to consider circumcision 'physical harm' - is there any other piece of the body that it's okay to cut off without an illness making the removal important to health? Why this one exception? If this exception is okay, why not others?)
JonBostwick: Libertarianism is a legal framework, its not a lifestyle or a culture. What else is there to talk about?
I most strenuously disagree. It may be a philosophy upon which a legal framework could be based, but I'm unaware of that legal framework being in use anywhere. It does, however, remain a philosophy.
Now, adherence to a philosophy has a lot of effect upon one's lifestyle and culture. A libertarian is much more likely to be a fan of _Firefly_ - a Statist, Star Trek: TNG. A statist isn't going to read _Atlas Shrugged_ for the fun of it, or _Stranger in a Strange World_. A statist will trust their kids' history text, trusting it to be accurate - a libertarian is much more likely to read it and find other sources to present a balanced view.
I can generally tell, just from watching someone read a newspaper, whether they they believe a statist or libertarian philosophy. It's so much more than a legal framework - and I cheerfully acknowledge how important a legal framework can be.
Danno, feeling fervent
Danno: JonBostwick:Libertarianism is a legal framework, its not a lifestyle or a culture. What else is there to talk about? I most strenuously disagree. It may be a philosophy upon which a legal framework could be based, but I'm unaware of that legal framework being in use anywhere. It does, however, remain a philosophy.
JonBostwick:Libertarianism is a legal framework, its not a lifestyle or a culture. What else is there to talk about?
It ain't a subject for debate. Libertarianism is a legal philosophy, where the non-aggression principle is the beginning and end of all just laws. It is not a moral philosophy, because non-aggression, though moral, is not the whole of morality--there are also matters of honesty, fidelity and altruism that are distinctly moral, but not legal, principles. I.e., dishonesty is immoral, but honesty cannot be enforced.
You might extend non-aggression to include overcoming aggressive impulses in your psyche, so that you do not even desire to make others obey you. You might apply it to business, and empower all your employees to vote on all decisions. You could even attempt to structure a community on that principle, forming some sort of voluntarist commune. And you might see those things as aspects of your devotion to libertarian philosophy--but they're not. Exactly as Jon said, libertarianism is a legal philosophy, not a lifestyle or culture. And it's not a psychological or religious philosophy either, nor a theory of business management or anything else.
Now, adherence to a philosophy has a lot of effect upon one's lifestyle and culture. A libertarian is much more likely to be a fan of _Firefly_ - a Statist, Star Trek: TNG.
So what? That doesn't incorporate Firefily into libertarianism itself. You're a bit confused.
Juan: Jonas: I don't think like a socialist...I think like a parent. Heh. The irony of it seems to be lost somehow... Why do you think childhood obesity is so rampant in the United States? I don't know, just like you (provided it really is - I doubt it) But...have you seen this ? http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder-joshua/snyder-joshua14.html "The ubiquitous high fructose corn syrup replaced sugar and became the sine qua non of the modern American diet, leading to today's "obesity epidemic," "
The cause of the obesity epidemic is the government's backing of low-fat (thus high-carb) diets as healthy (even for diabetics, which is the height of ridiculousness). This has caused the average number of calories consumed to shoot up over the last 3 decades (after being stable the previous century) by about 400 per person per day. The mechanism is that increased carb intake results in increased insulin levels results in stronger hunger pangs throughout the day.
I followed a low-fat diet for 18 years, which works but hunger is your constant companion. I've followed a low-carb diet for the last 3 years, and I'm never hungry because copious amounts of protein and fat are so filling that you naturally reduce your caloric intake.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Danno:Very few people have been harmed by eating too many vegetables. A strict vegetarian diet, however, I'd object to, and monitor closely
A strict vegetarian diet is fatal (essential vitamin B12 is found only in meat, vegetarians must supplement or die). It's a completely unnatural diet for human beings, who are pretty obviously carnivores with the ability to eat other stuff if necessary.
Danno:usable protein is remarkably important in the developing years.
It's remarkably important for adults too, who are generally quite protein deficient (particularly since the nutritional modern wisdom is to eat a lot of carbs, which never come with protein, unlike fats which often do). Every person on this board would see a marked improvement in their health simply by drinking a protein shake every morning (they make them remarkably delicious now, 20 years ago they tasted like mud, if you could find them at all).