Whose Responsibility are Children?

[john9blue]

What sort of father would enslave his kids?

I'm a fairly benevolent slave owner though.

Is that like a gentle rapist, or a polite murderer?

If you use lube and roofies, it's very possible to be a gentle rapist.

If you say "excuse me sir, I am terribly sorry, but I must end your life now" then yes, you are a polite murderer.

your worldview isn't black and white enough!

"rape is rape", amirite?

[Maugena]

Apparently the message soared over your head, PS. -_-;

[Gillipig]

I believe the parents, but if the parents are unfit to actually raise them then they should be taken by the community ie some other parents.

That sounds like you mean the community owns the kids and lets their parents raise them if they do what the community wants. With other words they belong to the community.

[mizery24]

Funny, a woman has the right to kill HER unborn child, because it is HER child and HER rights. But the woman who delivers HER baby, nurtures HER baby, sends HER kid to school for education, all the sudden the kids is part of the "collective!" WE (the collective) are becoming communist with no sense of virtue!!!!

[Haggis_McMutton]

What sort of father would enslave his kids?

I'm a fairly benevolent slave owner though.

Is that like a gentle rapist, or a polite murderer?

If you use lube and roofies, it's very possible to be a gentle rapist.

If you say "excuse me sir, I am terribly sorry, but I must end your life now" then yes, you are a polite murderer.

your worldview isn't black and white enough!

"rape is rape", amirite?

So if he uses lube and roofies it isn't rape? Cool.

[chang50]

Funny, a woman has the right to kill HER unborn child, because it is HER child and HER rights. But the woman who delivers HER baby, nurtures HER baby, sends HER kid to school for education, all the sudden the kids is part of the "collective!" WE (the collective) are becoming communist with no sense of virtue!!!!

Firstly a fetus is not a child,secondly when people refer to 'their' children it is a figure of speech,only crazies think they actually own them,and thirdly who is this 'WE',because some fairly large parts of this world are already communist?

[Haggis_McMutton]

The thing is, the question posed in OP is just bad. When taken literally the answer is obvious (i.e. children are not "owned" by anyone). But people will generally not take it literally and relax the meaning of "own", and now we have groups of people arguing about different relaxations of the word "own" which can only lead to frustration.
This kind of bullshit question is why groups who essentially have very similar views end up thinking the other group is the spawn of the anti-christ.

I realize this will almost certainly be ignored in favour of more fevered and completely useless "debate", but let's try.

1. Do we all agree that children aren't owned, in the literal sense? Ace, for instance, makes a joke about this. But let's be clear. If you really are a slave-owner and if your kids really are obligated to work then stubborn refusal by one of them to work will have to be met with increasing levels of punishment leading up to the kid being killed as an example to the others. If you are not in fact going to kill/maim/ruin the life prospects of your kids for not listening to you then you're not really a slave owner, k ?

2. Do we all agree that the "community", or "society" or whatever has SOME stake in the life of kids? This includes aspects such as taking care of kids who don't have anyone else who can take care of them, and providing some basic services to all kids, like they provide clean water and drivable roads to the adults. If you don't agree with this, then either you are living in a cabin in the woods which you've made from logs you've chopped yourself and subsist by growing and hunting your own food, or you're a hypocrite.

So the only question being posed here is, how large of a stake society should have in kids as opposed to the parent's stake in said kids. What things should society leave to the parents and which should it try to help the parents with.

But, phrasing it like that makes much less of an impact doesn't it?

[chang50]

The thing is, the question posed in OP is just bad. When taken literally the answer is obvious (i.e. children are not "owned" by anyone). But people will generally not take it literally and relax the meaning of "own", and now we have groups of people arguing about different relaxations of the word "own" which can only lead to frustration.
This kind of bullshit question is why groups who essentially have very similar views end up thinking the other group is the spawn of the anti-christ.

I realize this will almost certainly be ignored in favour of more fevered and completely useless "debate", but let's try.

1. Do we all agree that children aren't owned, in the literal sense? Ace, for instance, makes a joke about this. But let's be clear. If you really are a slave-owner and if your kids really are obligated to work then stubborn refusal by one of them to work will have to be met with increasing levels of punishment leading up to the kid being killed as an example to the others. If you are not in fact going to kill/maim/ruin the life prospects of your kids for not listening to you then you're not really a slave owner, k ?

2. Do we all agree that the "community", or "society" or whatever has SOME stake in the life of kids? This includes aspects such as taking care of kids who don't have anyone else who can take care of them, and providing some basic services to all kids, like they provide clean water and drivable roads to the adults. If you don't agree with this, then either you are living in a cabin in the woods which you've made from logs you've chopped yourself and subsist by growing and hunting your own food, or you're a hypocrite.

So the only question being posed here is, how large of a stake society should have in kids as opposed to the parent's stake in said kids. What things should society leave to the parents and which should it try to help the parents with.

But, phrasing it like that makes much less of an impact doesn't it?

True on every count.

[thegreekdog]

McMuffin - is there a reason you're referring only to children and not to all people (apart from that it is the question posed by OP)?

My view is that it is in the best interest of a society to assist in the development of children, while also permitting parents and children to maintain some semblance of freedom.

For example, unlike most libertarians, I'm a supporter of public education because I believe it is in the best interest of our society to provide the absolute best education for children. Frankly, I think public education should be the largest expenditure of our government. Well-educated children will achieve success as adults and will be able to care for other members of society as those members retire. Additionally, I would rather add well-educated children to the workforce than the alternative (drains on society). However, I also think parents should take part in the education and put their own spin on the education to the extent able.

Note to BBS - if you want to resurrect that old public education thread, let's dew it.

[AAFitz]

I believe the parents, but if the parents are unfit to actually raise them then they should be taken by the community ie some other parents.

Isn't that a pretty tiny minority though? And, we have had orphanages and charities and adoption systems and federal programs (recently) for a few centuries now, right?

Yes and for centuries children have been saved from abuse by their parents perfectly.

Its such a small problem now, they might as well not worry about it any more.
...
And as pointed out, it is illegal to own another human being. Some humans need to be taken care of for many reasons, and age is one of the major factors.

[BigBallinStalin]

I believe the parents, but if the parents are unfit to actually raise them then they should be taken by the community ie some other parents.

That sounds like you mean the community owns the kids and lets their parents raise them if they do what the community wants. With other words they belong to the community.

Yeah, like Plato's Republic!

[crispybits]

I would have thought you'd be talking more about licensed franchises BBS, it would fit better with your posting style

[jimboston]

Themselves.

Please change options for poll.

[BigBallinStalin]

The thing is, the question posed in OP is just bad. When taken literally the answer is obvious (i.e. children are not "owned" by anyone). But people will generally not take it literally and relax the meaning of "own", and now we have groups of people arguing about different relaxations of the word "own" which can only lead to frustration.
This kind of bullshit question is why groups who essentially have very similar views end up thinking the other group is the spawn of the anti-christ.

I realize this will almost certainly be ignored in favour of more fevered and completely useless "debate", but let's try.

1. Do we all agree that children aren't owned, in the literal sense? Ace, for instance, makes a joke about this. But let's be clear. If you really are a slave-owner and if your kids really are obligated to work then stubborn refusal by one of them to work will have to be met with increasing levels of punishment leading up to the kid being killed as an example to the others. If you are not in fact going to kill/maim/ruin the life prospects of your kids for not listening to you then you're not really a slave owner, k ?

2. Do we all agree that the "community", or "society" or whatever has SOME stake in the life of kids? This includes aspects such as taking care of kids who don't have anyone else who can take care of them, and providing some basic services to all kids, like they provide clean water and drivable roads to the adults. If you don't agree with this, then either you are living in a cabin in the woods which you've made from logs you've chopped yourself and subsist by growing and hunting your own food, or you're a hypocrite.

So the only question being posed here is, how large of a stake society should have in kids as opposed to the parent's stake in said kids. What things should society leave to the parents and which should it try to help the parents with.

But, phrasing it like that makes much less of an impact doesn't it?

Yeah it does because people want a good, emotional show, and critical thinking is deemed too expensive for most people. The general contention I have with your post and the OP (that lady's) stance is that "society" is often used as a mask for "government."

So, to explain:

(1) Sure. And parents shouldn't be brutish totalitarians and are usually benevolent dictators, (hence "paternalism"). Aside from my crude descriptions, it's actually how most parent-child relationships are (based on personal observation).

(2) Kind of. To be precise, the community and--more importantly, a child's peer group (which is different from 'community')--have influence over the child.** To what extent should other adults impose their favored child-rearing policies into other families? Not sure. To what extent should other adults raise the banner of "community" or "society" in order to have the government regulate other parents' upbringing of their kids? Very, very little.

(2b) It depends on what you mean by 'stake in one's life'. I'm fine with people exchanging advice and whatever on a voluntary basis, but when it becomes involuntary, there better be extremely good reasons for intervention. Unfortunately, extremely good reasons are severely lacking, and the call for intervention is generally ceaseless, emotional, burdensome, and uninformed.

That last question ("on government regulation") is the underlying one, and in my opinion, it's how many conservatives/right-wingers* interpret that "the community owns ur kidz" statement. It's also how the liberals/left-wingers* tend to mask their appeal to state--under the banner of soft-sounding claims.

*those are obtuse descriptions with little exact meaning, but it's good enough for now.

**There's three factors: (1) parents, (2) environment/community, (3) child's peer group. "Community" is a poor word since its meaning is way too vague--another reason why I disparage the media/the lady in the OP. For the sake of space, I can provide more details about 1-3 later.

With all this in mind:

So the only question being posed here is, how large of a stake society should have in kids as opposed to the parent's stake in said kids. What things should society leave to the parents and which should it try to help the parents with.

What do you mean by 'society'?
(How much should 'society' be scaled up or descaled in particular circumstances? (e.g. the parents' friends, the neighborhood +/- parents' friends, or municipal/State/national government?).

What do you mean by 'help'?
(what are the means and what are the ends?)

[BigBallinStalin]

McMuffin - is there a reason you're referring only to children and not to all people (apart from that it is the question posed by OP)?

My view is that it is in the best interest of a society to assist in the development of children, while also permitting parents and children to maintain some semblance of freedom.

For example, unlike most libertarians, I'm a supporter of public education because I believe it is in the best interest of our society to provide the absolute best education for children. Frankly, I think public education should be the largest expenditure of our government. Well-educated children will achieve success as adults and will be able to care for other members of society as those members retire. Additionally, I would rather add well-educated children to the workforce than the alternative (drains on society). However, I also think parents should take part in the education and put their own spin on the education to the extent able.

Note to BBS - if you want to resurrect that old public education thread, let's dew it.

OH: the person in that logo is black. Just letting people like Sym know so they can erroneously accuse me of being racist.

[BigBallinStalin]

I would have thought you'd be talking more about licensed franchises BBS, it would fit better with your posting style

THOSE TOO!!


DO NOT MIX THE METALS!!! PRICES SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE FREE MARKET VIA THE GUARDIANSHIP!!!

[Haggis_McMutton]

McMuffin - is there a reason you're referring only to children and not to all people (apart from that it is the question posed by OP)?

My view is that it is in the best interest of a society to assist in the development of children, while also permitting parents and children to maintain some semblance of freedom.

For example, unlike most libertarians, I'm a supporter of public education because I believe it is in the best interest of our society to provide the absolute best education for children. Frankly, I think public education should be the largest expenditure of our government. Well-educated children will achieve success as adults and will be able to care for other members of society as those members retire. Additionally, I would rather add well-educated children to the workforce than the alternative (drains on society). However, I also think parents should take part in the education and put their own spin on the education to the extent able.

Note to BBS - if you want to resurrect that old public education thread, let's dew it.

Yeah, I agree.
There's also an argument to be made regarding education being fundamentally necessary for a democratic society to function. Basically the stupider the population the more divergent the skills needed to secure election are from those needed to actually be a good leader. I mean eventually we might end up with some ridiculous situation, like electing an austrian bodybuilder/actor.

That being said, I don't necessarily think there will always need to be a huge state apparatus to provide education. I could see education gently being transitioned out of state control, but it's probably not gonna be a short process.

Edit: fastposted by BBS. I'll respond later tonight.

[thegreekdog]

In that education thread that BBS and I started (or whatever), BBS noted distance/internet learning. I liked that idea (which would take the state education part out of it) and had not thought about that. I foresee there being great resistance to distance learning over the internet, mainly from teachers unions.

[BigBallinStalin]

In that education thread that BBS and I started (or whatever), BBS noted distance/internet learning. I liked that idea (which would take the state education part out of it) and had not thought about that. I foresee there being great resistance to distance learning over the internet, mainly from teachers unions.

Public teachers unions. IIRC even FDR was against the unionization of government employees. He at least understood that the costs don't offset the benefits of that.

[Gillipig]

I believe the parents, but if the parents are unfit to actually raise them then they should be taken by the community ie some other parents.

That sounds like you mean the community owns the kids and lets their parents raise them if they do what the community wants. With other words they belong to the community.

Yeah, like Plato's Republic!

Don't think Plato's Republic would allow parents to raise their children, and their use of eugenics is almost as disturbing as the Nazis use of it. I think it's safe to say we shouldn't listen to what people who lived several thousands of years ago thought, because quite frankly, they were retards!

[BigBallinStalin]

I believe the parents, but if the parents are unfit to actually raise them then they should be taken by the community ie some other parents.

That sounds like you mean the community owns the kids and lets their parents raise them if they do what the community wants. With other words they belong to the community.

Yeah, like Plato's Republic!

Don't think Plato's Republic would allow parents to raise their children, and their use of eugenics is almost as disturbing as the Nazis use of it. I think it's safe to say we shouldn't listen to what people who lived several thousands of years ago thought, because quite frankly, they were retards!

Yup, it wouldn't allow that---if the metals were mixed, but the Republic (herkaderp: I mean, the "community") definitely retains the ownership rights over one's kids.

IIRC, there wasn't any mention of eugenics in The Republic--at least, not in how we understand eugenics in the 20th century.

[Gillipig]

I believe the parents, but if the parents are unfit to actually raise them then they should be taken by the community ie some other parents.

That sounds like you mean the community owns the kids and lets their parents raise them if they do what the community wants. With other words they belong to the community.

Yeah, like Plato's Republic!

Don't think Plato's Republic would allow parents to raise their children, and their use of eugenics is almost as disturbing as the Nazis use of it. I think it's safe to say we shouldn't listen to what people who lived several thousands of years ago thought, because quite frankly, they were retards!

Yup, it wouldn't allow that---if the metals were mixed, but the Republic (herkaderp: I mean, the "community") definitely retains the ownership rights over one's kids.

IIRC, there wasn't any mention of eugenics in The Republic--at least, not in how we understand eugenics in the 20th century.

The community would choose (whether this was done collectively or by a ruler is uncertain) who the members were allowed to mate with, and they would base their choice on various genetic criteria such as health, child bearing potential, attractiveness. They would match people so that the next generation would have as good genes as possible, favoring the fit, attractive and strong. This is of course eugenics, and also a type of eugenics that completely removes from the individual the chance to choose his partner. So imagine this society, where you're not allowed to raise your own kids, not allowed to choose who's going to be your partner, everything is basically decided by a bunch of philosophers, what are the upsides? If you remove that from people you better be able to bring them something else in aplenty. I just don't see any upsides in Plato's Republic that could possible compensate for all that it takes away from people. The ancient Greeks really weren't all that great.

[mizery24]

Funny, a woman has the right to kill HER unborn child, because it is HER child and HER rights. But the woman who delivers HER baby, nurtures HER baby, sends HER kid to school for education, all the sudden the kids is part of the "collective!" WE (the collective) are becoming communist with no sense of virtue!!!!

Firstly a fetus is not a child,secondly when people refer to 'their' children it is a figure of speech,only crazies think they actually own them,and thirdly who is this 'WE',because some fairly large parts of this world are already communist?

A fetus is a CHILD, it has a 4 chambered heart, a spine, the same organ systems as you and I. Get you facts straight! An embryo is not a child. Secondly, a birth certificate is a legal document in which the mother and father's name is on it(well supposed to be, becoming rare to have both) this is just like a car title isn't it! Do you own your car??? Also, i sign the permission slips that the school sends home when it comes to sensitive subjects in school or field trips. I make all the responsible decisions when it comes to my child!!! As far as Communism goes, we all know that democracy is how a country should be run! Your a fool for defending communism!

[Phatscotty]

Funny, a woman has the right to kill HER unborn child, because it is HER child and HER rights. But the woman who delivers HER baby, nurtures HER baby, sends HER kid to school for education, all the sudden the kids is part of the "collective!" WE (the collective) are becoming communist with no sense of virtue!!!!

Heck of a point you got there. Would you go so far as to say it is Marxism? Or at least Progressivism?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Funny, a woman has the right to kill HER unborn child, because it is HER child and HER rights. But the woman who delivers HER baby, nurtures HER baby, sends HER kid to school for education, all the sudden the kids is part of the "collective!" WE (the collective) are becoming communist with no sense of virtue!!!!

Firstly a fetus is not a child,secondly when people refer to 'their' children it is a figure of speech,only crazies think they actually own them,and thirdly who is this 'WE',because some fairly large parts of this world are already communist?

A fetus is a CHILD, it has a 4 chambered heart, a spine, the same organ systems as you and I. Get you facts straight! An embryo is not a child. Secondly, a birth certificate is a legal document in which the mother and father's name is on it(well supposed to be, becoming rare to have both) this is just like a car title isn't it! Do you own your car??? Also, i sign the permission slips that the school sends home when it comes to sensitive subjects in school or field trips. I make all the responsible decisions when it comes to my child!!! As far as Communism goes, we all know that democracy is how a country should be run! Your a fool for defending communism!

Oh god. Too hilarious.

1. Roughly when do you think a fertilized cell becomes a "child" ?
2. You seriously think you own your kid in the same way you own your car? Fuckin' brilliant. I assume it would then be equivalent to take a baseball bat to your windshield or to your kid's head, right? I mean you own both of them, you can do whatever you want with what you own, right?
3. Do we all know democracy is the way it should be run? I must have missed that memo.
4. I suggest using more exclamation and question marks, it adds strength and credibility to your posts. Seriously, you can't have too many, just go crazy with it.
5. If you're a troll, I tip my hat. excellent job.