Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (4608)	1/5/2001 7:01:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 13056

Agree completely. Well, except that I don't consider protection of the body a property right. But that's a quibble.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (4608)	1/5/2001 8:23:08 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Barb, I agree with your position 100%. I was going to see if I could put my views into words but decided to read the rest of the thread to see if someone else already did. Thanks, JXM

To: Mama Bear who wrote (4608)	1/5/2001 8:32:44 PM
From: diana g	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

diana g Does NOT Represent the Libertarian Party!!! ...and doesn't claim to. ---Let's let the Libertarian party speak for itself: harrybrowne.com Lots of thought-provoking stuff on their site. Well worth perusing. Hi Barb, I've appreciated your posts for a long time. Thank you for your input on SI! I think you distorted my position in your post to which this is a reply. If you would like to discuss with me here the proper role of gvrnmnt and the ways our opinions about individual rights and optimal social organization may differ, I would be pleased to do that. ---But the tone of your post seems to imply that you are already in position of 'Truth' and not interested in civil & open-minded exchange of views. I hope that's not the case. Let me try again to present my thinking. (btw, I'm often wrong about all sorts of things and welcome attempts to change my opinions.) ---you wrote: <<"It is simply unbelievable that some folks would support the violation of an individual's rights. . Each of us owns our bodies, and one of the few legitimate functions of gov't is to preserve those property rights. The position that such rights are given up to those who happen to be related is completely unsupportable by any rational line of thought. ..." The problem here, imho, is that children are, necessarily, wards of some entity. The question cannot be "Do children have rights?" or "Do children own their own bodies?" because children are not independent persons capable of making their own decisions. The question Has to be--- "Who is the entity who speaks in the best interests of the child?" or "Who should we, as a society, empower to represent a child's best interests?" My position is that the greatest good is obtained by recognizing the parents as the people most likely to have the child's best interests at heart. The vast majority of parents love their children. Rare examples of perversely abusive parents exist, of course, but forming social policy based on a desire to save the very few children in such situations is analogous to burning down a barn to get rid of the rats. ---Empowering gvrnmnt agencies to supercede parents in decision making, to seize children from their parents, etc, seems a very bad idea to me, and I believe that the results of empowering gvrnmnt in this way are clearly damaging to many many children in this society, and to the nature of the relationship between individuals and gvrnmnt. regards, diana