Subject:
|
Re: Elian Gonzales
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Apr 2000 17:36:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
705 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In a different subthread Bruce said I was ignoring a post of his. I think THIS
> is the one he refers to... sorry about that.
>
> OK.
>
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > So a foreign state can keep my son from me because they feel they have moral
> > superiority? I disagree. Communist police state, theocracy, monarchy,
> > whatever. I don't like 'em all. But if that is *home* to someone and they
> > want to live there, that's the individual's call (and in line with • Libertarian
> > thought).
>
> I think this is the key point in the post that needs responding to.
>
> Let's posit a theoretical example. Suppose there were a state in which at the
> age of 10, one half of all the children would be put to death and eaten, based
> on the flip of a coin, for no reason other than it were whim of the ruler.
Can't we just stick to the actual events? :-)
>
> Now, is it a libertarian America's duty to fix this evil? Arguably, no. Not
> unless it is in danger of spreading to our shores. Individual citizens
> certainly would be welcome to volunteer their arms and their armaments to • fight
> against it but not under government aegis.
>
> Now, posit that through some accident of fate, a 6 year old happens to wash
> ashore on the beaches of this libertarian state, and relatives of his took him
> in.
Elian was at sea, was rescued, and brought here. Oh alright, I'm nit-picking
on that one.
>
> The definition of a refugee is that there must be a well founded fear of
> persecution in the home country. The definition of asylum is for a state to
> grant a shield from that persecution by giving sanctuary.
I don't think persecution was why they left.
>
> So, if the relatives then petition for asylum, and the father appears,
> demanding that the boy be returned to the child eating state, it seems clear
> to me in this contrived example that the petition for asylum takes precendence
> and the father is unfit.
The child would be placed in imminent danger, which I don't see happening in
this case.
BUT, instead of some hypothetical case, let's try something a little more
tangible. Let's say Elian was from Cambodia during the reign of the Khymer
Rouge. We have replaced the hypothetical child-eating state with a REAL one.
No ducking it - this place was the lowest pit of hell. If any parent decided
they were going there with their child (doesn't have to be Elian, it could be
your neighbor and his son), the government would say, please don't do it,
realize you are on your own, and other than that, have a nice flight.
Being able to leave the country for where you want, even if it is dumb, is what
makes us different from Cuba. That your child is not state property is what
makes us different fom Cuba. Let me set this off with its own paragraph
because I think this is a very important point.
What about taking a child to England during WWII? That's a dangerous situation
and arguably reckless endangerment? Iran? China? Any war zone? A girl into
any Muslim country? How do we stop Elian's father if he applies for asylum,
becomes a citizen, flies to France and then to Cuba? How do we stop you from
doing the exact same thing if you wanted to?
> My moral code allows me to pass judgement on other moral
> codes (that is, I reject moral relatavism) and therefore if the father really
> wants to go back, he's broken. Hence unfit anyway.
But this is a governmental (collective) decision, not an individual one.
>
> This is a contrived example but the difference is in degree, not kind. Cuba IS
> a child eating state, it's just fortunately less than 1 in 2.
Cuba is just another petty dictorship. If you want to define them all as
child-eating states, I understand (but don't necessarily agree). However, it
hardly compares to the real thing (Nazi Germany, Khymer Rouge and the like).
>
> Now, not every person that passes through should be snatched. Only those that
> want asylum of their own free will, or that are too young to decide for
> themselves. America IS morally superior to Cuba. We could be better still if
> we'd just get rid of venal killers like Reno but even now we have a decisive
> edge.
>
> ++Lar
I see messages about this already, so I'll read through those rather than be
perpetually one step behind the state of the discussion.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) Of course not. If Larry did, then he wouldn't be able to confuse you with his standard irrelevant hypotheticals. (...) Positing about an accident makes your argument irrelevant to this specific case, since Elian *didn't* wash up here (...) (25 years ago, 28-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| In a different subthread Bruce said I was ignoring a post of his. I think THIS is the one he refers to... sorry about that. OK. (...) I think this is the key point in the post that needs responding to. Let's posit a theoretical example. Suppose (...) (25 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
44 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
|
|
|
|
