From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 13:38:58 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970319085818.007cf9a0@smtp1.abraxis.com>
Message-ID: <s8VT4D2w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


camcc@abraxis.com (Alec) writes:

> *|>Parents most certainly are not the only ones to determine the welfare of
> *|>their children; society has assumed a significant role and typically moves
> *|>to protect the child from the parents or from the _beliefs_ of the
> *|>parents.
> 
> *|Just because the government subverts the RIGHTS of the parents does not
> *|mean that the parents do not have those rights.
> *|
> *|A parent is the sole person who has a *RIGHT* to determine the welfair of
> *|their childern. You do not have that right, I do not have that right, the
> *|government does not have that right. To beleive that the government should
> *|"protect" a child from the beliefs of its parents is truly
> *|FASISTS/COMMUNIST/STATIST (pick you flavor they are all the same <G>).
> *|
> *|I as a parent have the sole right to determine what religon to teach my
> *|children, how to rase my children, how to teach my children, how to reward
> *|my children and how to punish my children PERIOD.
> *|
> *|Perhaps you should take your STATIST tendicies over to alt.hitler.fanclub
> *|as they are quite out of place here.
> *|
> *|"When the wants of society override the rights of the individule that
> *|society must die" -- whgiii
> 
> Dear whgiii,
> 
> Children are, also, possessors of certain inalienable rights. 
> 
> Parents have certain _privileges_ in regard to their children which others do
> not have; if the parents abuse the _rights_ which their children possess
> solely by  virtue of being humans and citizens, the state is obligated to
> intervene on behalf of the child--a citizen. In just the same way that if I
> were to threaten or batter you (or visa versa) the state would interpose
> itself to protect me.
> 
> _With reservations_ I grant you parents have _great_ leeway in the areas of
> religious training, education, medical care, general child rearing
> (punishment/reward). When parents overstep either by action or neglect,
> society intervenes.
> 
> I _understand_ your point that in an ideal society the government would not
> intervene. At this point, though, we don't seem to be there.
> 
> Alec

Out in the hobbsian wild, if the parents abuse their offsprings (kill them,
fail to train them), then the offsprings won't reproduce and the parent's
genes won't perpetuate.  Do we really need a more coersive system of
punishing "child abuse"?

> 
> What's the point of the following? Discourse is healthy in an open system.
> Why the exclusion?
> 
> *|Perhaps you should take your STATIST tendicies over to alt.hitler.fanclub
> *|as they are quite out of place here.
> 

I'm not sure how crypto-relevant this thread is, but I'm reading it 
with great interest.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps