Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:04:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
378 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> Sorry if I've been a little more rambly than usual, I'm home from work with a
> stomach flu and I've slept about 90% of the past 20 hours. I just reread my
> note and while I accept that lots of people write better than me, this one was
> a bit much.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> >
> > > Basically, I think that to deny access to our rights as citizens based on the
> > > age of the citizen (which I assert kids are) is exactly the moral equivalent
> > > of denying rights based on skin tone or gender. (Which is to say, an
> > > abomination.)
> >
> > Okay, but would you hold a profoundly retarded person equally culpable for
> > his actions as a fully-functioning, mentally healthy adult? To do so would
> > be, in my view, unforgiveably cruel and unfair. By the same token, if a
> > child is developmentally unable to make certain decisions or to handle
> > certain situations, is it acceptable to hold that child responsible for the
> > repercussions of those decisions, even if the child was forced into making
> > the decision?
>
> No. I agree. People should be shamed for tricking the unwise that way.
>
> > I confess, your model is impressive but seems inconsistent with what is
> > currently the case.
>
> I don't follow.
>
> > > I'm not exactly opposed to paying kids for the chores, just the coercion part.
> > > The kid should be as free to enter a contract for labour as an adult. I do
> > > find it repugnant for the parents to withhold reasonable spending power in
> > > order to defacto coerce their kids.
> >
> > Well, if the kid doesn't want to do the chore, should the child still be
> > given reasonable spending power?
>
> Yes. One of the things that parents owe their kids is as much
> self-determination as possible. And spending power is a part of that. A
> family that has no spare cash, however does not owe as much to the kids as a
> family that is wealthy. I mean, it would be nice to see a more even playing
> field, but in our reality, that's the only way I can see it being.
>
> > Do you advocate child employment along the
> > lines of early 20th century sweatshops? Clearly these would spring up in a
> > hurry if children were free to enter into employment contracts under their
> > own counsel.
>
> A contract entered into under duress or by parties incapable of understanding
> the ramifications isn't valid. In general, I think that we as a society and we
> as parents owe it to our kids to not make child sweatshops the best choice.
> Under certain financial situations, it may be the best choice, and it should be
> allowed. I think.
>
> > I guess I don't understand your point; should children be given a wage
> > even if they aren't doing work?
>
> I think the child should be given some money. It's only wages when in exchange
> for work, I think.
>
> > Is the parent free to set the wage?
>
> Either the currency should be changed to man-hours and everyone should get one
> per, or all employers and employees should be free to negotiate their wages.
>
> > If the
> > child rejects the wage, is he free to seek employment elsewhere?
>
> Sure.
>
> > Can the
> > parent charge the child for room and board and affection?
>
> No, it is owed. The parents made the choice to bring a human into the world.
> They must fulfill their obligations to the best of their ability.
When does the obligation end?
I'm inclined to think the obligation ends at adulthood (whatever that is
defined to be - I think the law does have to have a way to draw a line
as to who is competent to be an "adult" and who is not).
> > Can a parent terminate his contract with his child?
>
> I'm not sure what the contract is, but presumably you are wondering if a child
> can be disowned..? I would say that only in extreme cases is that reasonable.
>
> > Can a parent sue his child for
> > breach of contract? What manner of reparations are suitable?
>
> There's no contract to breach...unless I'm not getting something.
I haven't explored everything yet, but I feel there is an implicit
contract. Perhaps that's just because I see it easier to not special
case offspring. If an implicit contract is entered upon birth (or
earlier), then we can hold the parents to that contract just like any
other contract. I would think the conditions for the parents terminating
the contract would be pretty limited (to the same extreme cases you are
talking about). I think children would have somewhat more leeway to
terminate the contract (however they would have to do one of two things
to do so: convince the parents/courts that they have the required
understanding to enter/terminate contracts, convince the courts that
their parents are unfit [and thus the court would assign a replacement
guardian, who would then request termination of the contract]).
> > > Keep in mind that ab-use is a synonym for mis-use. I think it a misuse of a
> > > human to enslave them.
> >
> > I think you need to refocus that premiss. By some measure, all employment
> > is enslavement.
>
> How do you figure? It's only enslavement if you're forced. I'm not, and thus
> I'm not enslaved.
>
> > > I think that there is no contract in place between an unborn
> > > child and the prospective parents that give the parents special privelege in
> > > forcing compliance with rules. _All_ of the responsibility for giving is on
> > > the shoulders of those who had a choice. Parents incur a great responsibility,
> > > much more so than most people understand when first making that choice -- and
> > > usually ever, in my estimation.
> >
> > But it seems that, in your estimation, the child is (from the age of four)
> > able to make reasoned choices based on abstract societal issues. Surely
> > such a child could be made to understand the implications of a social
> > contract and the tacit endorsement of that contract by continuing to sleep
> > in a bed under his parents' roof?
>
> If the only way for the family to survive is for every member to work the farm,
> then that's what has to happen. But for 99% of Americans, tha's not how it is,
> and to hold their membership in the family hostage in exchange for work is
> negligent and evil.
>
> > I grant you, prior to the development of
> > mature reasoning skills a child cannot be held to the same liabilities as a
> > full-grown adult, but you seem happy to ascribe mature responsibility to
> > children at a much earlier age than I am willing to accept.
>
> Not exactly. I think I must have communicated poorly. I think that right now,
> most parents just decide what their kids can handle in the way of
> responsibility. I think kids should have penultimate say in such things. The
> law would work to protect them from obligations beyond the scope of their
> understanding. And the ability of people to understand what they're getting
> themselves into is a spectrum anyway. Our law suggests that prior to 18 (most
> places) people are completely clueless and after that time, they are completely
> clueful. That's absurd. Look that the trouble that college students get into
> with credit.
I definitely agree that the line we have drawn seems wrong. But somehow
the law does need to be able to determine when people should have the
understanding, and what to do when people don't have the understanding
(I think the law can treat a "normal" 4 year old differently than a 30
year old with the mind of a 4 year old).
> I'm not sure what I would have done if he hadn't thought that keeping our house
> was important. I know a man who is roughly 20 years older than me who gave his
> kids the option of not going to school at a time and place where homeschooling
> wasn't an option. He explained that they'd have to flee to the woods and give
> up lots of their suburban comfort. They chose that and he did it (or claims to
> have). The kids chose to go back to their old life a few months later. It
> sounded like a pretty expensive shift, but he was happy and confident that he
> did the right thing.
>
> I don't think I'm willing to go that far. Kids should have freedom over their
> lives, not over mine.
But how does that mesh with the obligation you owe? It seems to me the
obligation is contingent on some things. As to the example above, I
would guess that more consistently using your parenting style from the
beginning might have made the kids less likely to say "well let's do
it." On the other hand, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to
decide to go off and live in the woods. Certainly one would give up a
lot, but there's quite a large world population that is living the same
way, and I assume many of them live reasonably happy lives.
> > If he is so able to reason, you need to bring him to the
> > attention of child psychologists; your methods of parenting must be
> > revolutionary.
> > My tone, as I reread that bit, is admittedly a bit sarcastic, and I
> > apologize for unintended sharpness. Nevertheless, if you're asserting your
> > child to have abstract reasoning skills vastly in an excess of those I've
> > ever witnessed in any other children,
>
> What exact behavior did I describe that seems so out of the ordinary? There
> are other people who report the same experiences.
>
> > I have to question:
> >
> > A: Are you deliberately misrepresenting the data for some end?
>
> No. But maybe I left something important out?
>
> > B: Are you simply overestimating your child's reasoning skills?
>
> I didn't mean to suggest that he's extraordinary. He isn't. He's a little
> brighter than average, but not weirdly so.
>
> > C: Is your child a wunderkind with unprecedented formal reasoning skills?
>
> No.
>
> > D: Are you using selective reasoning, due to parental affection?
>
> Dunno. I don't think so. Can you suggest how that might be?
>
> > E: Is your child simply feigning comprehension, and are you too quick to
> > believe that he comprehends?
>
> Comprehends what? All I told him was that if we didn't pay this amount (about
> $400 at the time) then the bank would make us move and we didn't have anywhere
> to move that would be cheaper. It just doesn't seem like the rocket-science
I don't find it at all unusual for a 4 year old to be able to understand
this to a sufficient extent to agree that it's a good idea to keep
paying the mortgage. Now a teenage kid might understand more, and be
able to counter by pointing out other options. I'd expect a teenage kid
to also have a better understanding of the value of $400.
> > F: Does your child not understand, although you nonetheless perceive him
> > to have comprehended the situation?
> > G: Are you undertaking any or all of the above?
> >
> > I've read enough of your views to believe implicitly that you wouldn't
> > deliberately falsify information to make a point, but I do believe that you
> > might be selective in your perceptions, much as we all are selective.
>
> Perhaps, but I'm still unlear on what you think is so extraordinary. I'm not
> offended by the suggestion and would be happy to pursue it.
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| (...) Never. At least that's the quick answer. As I see it, reproducing is in some ways akin to playing Roulette. There's always a chance that you'll end up with a psychotic or a retard as a kid who will need care forever. You owe them that. If you (...) (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| Sorry if I've been a little more rambly than usual, I'm home from work with a stomach flu and I've slept about 90% of the past 20 hours. I just reread my note and while I accept that lots of people write better than me, this one was a bit much. (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
