From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:07:18 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
In-Reply-To: <332FAF09.CD3@gte.net>
Message-ID: <FiLT4D1w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:

> William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >    Alec <camcc@abraxis.com> said:
> > >Not in every case do the parents have the right to determine what
> > >treatment shall be performed or whether it shall occur at all. More often
> > >than not the courts have allowed medical treatment for the child who is
> > >not able to consent to such treatment for himself.
> 
> > 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>).
> 
> As a person who was once a child in a very unhappy home (5 kids,
> nobody talks to anyone else), I can testify that I would have been
> willing at several points to take a chance with the State.
> 
> Would it have helped or hurt more?  I believe that would have depended
> on knowing how much worse things would have gotten at home (some
> homes get worse, some get better, some stay the same), and just how
> bad it would have been under the State.  I think those are the issues,
> but how are you gonna predict which is worse, unless you have some
> real incriminating evidence against the parents?
> 
> On a related note, there's a valid point about the State raising
> kids being not only unnatural, but leading to bad things preparing
> the kids for a future statist society.  Just another factor as far
> as I'm concerned, when the life and safety of a defenseless child
> is in question.
> 

That's a tough one, Dale. On one hand, if the kid is born to psychotic
parents (or just stupid parents) and the trait is inherited, then it's
better for the species as a whole if they mistreat the kid and possibly
kill him. On the other hand the mistreatment may be due to the parent's
environment and not be an inherited trait - that it's not the kid's fault,
just bad luck. I'm not at all arguing that having the state make choices
for children too young to make choices is better than having parents make
choices. There are plenty of examples of parents mistreating children in
ways that the state finds objections (e.g. having sex with one's children
used to be widely accepted in miswestern U.S. but is now frowned on) and
examples of state permitting what I consider severe abuse (e.g. in 18 and 19
century Italy many parents castrated their male children if they showed any
musical/singing talent - hoping they'd become male sopranos; or, u.s. parents
who indoctrinate their children with fables about "god"). Perhaps Jim Bell's
assassination politics is the answer - you can abuse your children by commisis
(circumcizing an infant, lying to them about "god" and Santa Claus) or omission
(denying medical care or education) but you're running the risk of the kids
growing up and taking out a contract on you. Cool.

---

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