Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:42:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
332 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Our budget is run democratically. It was simple to explain to my son when he
> was four that if we didn't pay the house payment we'd have to live under a
> bridge. He was thence in favor of devoting that amount to that purpose. Same
> with the utilities. When he wanted something a bit expensive me made him a
> part of the budget process so that we could figure out how to get it. We now
> have a short-hand method of handling it by just agreeing in advance that we're
> going to pay our bills and then give each member of the family a completely
> discretionary allowance.
I've been mulling this over, and something just isn't ringing true for me
about it. You claim that your home budget is run democratically, but I
don't think I can believe that.
I gather that you currently have one child, correct? But suppose you had
three instead. By your assertion of democratic budget approval, you're
saying that you would accept the decision of the majority if the three
children voted to spend 100% of the family's income each month on ice cream.
Even assuming that you successfully explain the importance of fiscal
prioritization, if the children vote against the wishes of you and your
wife, how do you handle it?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| (...) Frank's "[as an abuse]" is a perfect clarification. 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
