From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 94 13:30:16 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Children and the Net
In-Reply-To: <199407311826.LAA24798@netcom10.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199407312030.NAA29526@netcom2.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Timothy C. May, speaking for parents everywhere, writes:

 > This won't cut it. No outsiders can interfere with how I
 > raise my children, in terms of the views I expose them to.
 > ("Public schooling" is not the issue, as children can be
 > sent to Xtian, Buddhist, Adventist, or whatever
 > schools,...so long as minimal standards are met. There is no
 > requirement for ideological or memetic balance.)

 > I reject the notion that the state needs to intervene in
 > families in order to make sure that balanced and
 > appropriate views are provided.

This notion that the state is not permitted to interfere in the
workings of the family unit can work both ways.  It can also
suggest that no outsiders can intefere in the way you treat your
wife, or when your children get large and muscular, how they
might decide to "raise" you.  Too bad when they decide that
paying the nursing home to pamper ol' Grandpa Tim is dipping too
deeply into the family vacation budget.

Social Darwinism carried to its logical extreme is not a pretty
sight, even for one fond of viewing the misfortune of others as
"evolution in action."

 > Practically, any system such as Mike proposes above would
 > fail. Parents have control over the reading material of
 > children. Ditto for television, movies, etc.

Parents have control in the home.  Children have access in lots
of other places, like libraries, which have historically resisted
any attempt to censor any but the most egregious reading material
based solely on the age of their clients.

 > We saw this idea that "parents cannot force their children
 > ..." reach its fruition in the Branch Davidian case, where
 > the BATF had to burn the children in order to save the
 > children.

Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with
scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the
state of Texas, all the children would have been removed from the
compound prior to the raid, and only the adults would have been
toasted.

Family interference cuts both ways.

Besides, if kids were twice the size of adults and had six inch
fangs, you wouldn't hear any of this "can't interfere in the
family nonsense." Parents would demand 24 hour in-home protection
from the state and raise taxes to pay for it.  Most such rhetoric
is just an excuse for parents to impose their will on people who
cannot yet defend themselves.

-- 
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $