From: Edgar W Swank (edgarswank@juno.com)
Date: Tue Sep 07 1999 - 11:52:19 MDT
GBurch1@aol.com wrote on Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:30:23 EDT
In a message dated 99-08-31 16:25:24 EDT,
lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net(none)
(Lee Daniel Crocker) wrote:
> (1) Children's rights.
>
> It is intellectually consistent, and even rationally defensible in
> some ways, to believe that children have no rights at all and are
> entirely subject to the whim of parents on whom they are dependent.
I, for one, disagree that this is an intellectually consistent
or rationally defensible point of view. I refer to the long
post I made a week ago or so regarding "Mind abuse" for a more
complete discussion of my own "morality of mind", in which I
propose that an information processing system as complex and
full of potential as a human child has significant rights
vis-a-vis adults (including her parents). A slightly different
take on similar ethical issues arising from interaction between
entities with disparate mental abilities is discussed in my
essay "Extropian Ethics and the Extrosattva" at
http://users.aol.com/gburch3/extrostv.html.
The referenced passage seems to be
How do these ideas and values translate into the transhuman and
posthuman world? First, we will continue to live our lives
somewhere along a spectrum of capability, i.e. in at least
some aspects of our lives -- no matter how long or augmented --
our individual power, wealth and knowledge will be greater than
that of some individuals and less than others. We will need to
cooperate -- trade -- with moral entities both more and less
powerful than ourselves, and we will need to do so on an
ongoing basis. In fact, as immortalists, we expect that we
will do so on an indefinitely extended basis. It will be a
very long game, indeed. And throughout this game, our moral
reputations will be just as important as the specifics of any
isolated trade within any such hierarchy of capabilities.
But an infant has nothing to trade and and obligations can't be
enforced against a child. So I agree with Crocker except that the
child has one right, to run away. This, I think, was also Murray
Rothbard's view, although I can't quote a source.
The current situation, which I call a "cult of the child," where
children have all the "rights" and the parents have none, is just
slavery of the productive parents to the unproductive child and I
have a hard time justifying that!
I think the problem of enforcing contracts made by/with children
can be solved if a court (of a government or defense agency)
approves it in advance, possibily with the advice of a lawyer or
advocate appointed to represent the child's interests. If the
court doesn't approve the contract, then the court won't enforce
it.
Children have the right to run away, and fend for themselves.
This works fairly well right now in many 3rd world countries.
c.f. "street children." Another possibility is a "Kiddy Pound"
where parents can bring unwanted children or children can run
away to. Hopefully, an acceptable parent can be found for every
child brought in. But if not, then the child can be put back on
the street. Or, perhaps, if stray children become a pest, an
unwanted child can be "put to sleep" as we now do to unwanted
pets. I don't see how "society" has any motivation to protect a
child which NONE of its citizens wants.
Edgar W. Swank <EdgarSwank@Juno.com>
(preferred)
Edgar W. Swank <cryoprez@jps.net>
(for files/msgs >50K)
Home Page: http://uproar.fortunecity.com/picture/613/
FAX: 810-277-7274
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:04 MST