Subject:
|
Re: Elian Gonzales
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:20:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
707 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
I'm taking this opportunity to post contrary to Larry since it only happens
once in a blue moon :-)
> 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.
>
> 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.
I'm with you so far...
> 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.
>
> 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.
Not to me. (And to others apparently.) When the relatives took the boy, and
sought asylum, they were acting as the only and most reasonable guardians.
That's fine and appropriate. Enter the father. He is the most appropriate
guardian unless he has acted in such a way that he clearly isn't fit as a
parent. Now, I suppose this is where you say that wanting your kid to risk the
50% guillotine is a demonstration of unfitness. First, I disagree. And
second, I think that the degree to which we can look askance at that decision
is less than the degree to which we should honor the rights of parents.
There are lots of examples that we tolerate where parents risk their kids'
welfare and we don't get rabid about it. Frankly, I'd rather kids be raised in
an idyllic environment with a 50% mortality than in many inner-city low SES
homes where the kids only have a 5% chance of dying, but a similarly low chance
of making anything useful of themselves. What about Westward pioneers 150
years ago in this nation? Weren't they risking their kids? What about
Christian Scientists who don't seek medical attention for thier kids? We have
all this precident for parents having near ownership over their kids and I
think that while it sounds bad, put that way, it is superior to the
alternative. The only alternative that I can see to parents owning their kids,
is the government owning the kids. And that is just unacceptable.
> My moral code allows me to pass judgement on other moral
> codes (that is, I reject moral relatavism)
Good. I agree and approve. Mine too.
> and therefore if the father really
> wants to go back, he's broken.
Without knowing more about the society you have made up, I can't judge that.
There may me benefits that outweigh the cost of losing 50% of ten year olds.
Probably not to the me that I am having grown up here, but I could see making a
case for it. What if the fifty percent are being sacrificed to the elder gods
in exchange for a pretty sweet situation for the remainder? Is it fair to the
losers? No. Is it wrong to our sensibilities? Yes. Is it ultimately? I
dunno.
I'd be more likely to agree that someone who wants to live under Castro is
broken.
> Hence unfit anyway.
And unfit.
> 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.
I agree. But I still think that the parents have priority.
And if not. IF we decide that the human rights situation in Cuba is so bad
that we just can let people (kids in particular) go back to that, then we
should saddle up, ride in there, and gun down the crooked sherif like the dog
that he is. We need strong stances, not child abductions.
Now in the case of Elian, rather than this hypothetical, I think it's Bruce who
I largely agree with. We should have taken him earlier. Lazaro and company
should be in jail. Elian should be with his father under a very liberal house
arrest while awaiting Elian's asylum hearing. There was nothing at all wrong
with the Raid on Little Havana except that that AP photographer should be
hanged for obstructing justice by warning them. (OK, the last part is just
macho flash :-) Elian will get over the trauma of the Miami relatives' (I
refuse to call them family) brainwashing, and he'll get over the trauma of his
federal abduction.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) Too bad because I've decided to recant. (mark your calendars people, this doesn't happen that often) Rereading what I said, I think I may have gone just a teeny little bit too far and built myself a house of cards that I can't support in the (...) (25 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
