September 16, 2006
|Posted: Post subject: laissez faire
|I think that to apply scientific research to a collective of individuals discounts the individual. What about declaring all people free-born and letting them do as they show the ability to do (laissez faire). If at the age of 12 a young woman can drive, she ought to be able to do so. If a young man finds an occupation that he can live on at 14, society is that much better off having one mature minded and responsible at an early age. The yern for independence is natural, healthy and should be encouraged.
lark2 wrote: I think that scientific research into child development and human growth and development should be the guide when determining the answer to something like this rather than just the random opinions of libertarians.
I think that 11yrs is very young for anyone to have to survive independently, now I know that there are examples internationally of child soldiers who have killed 3 or 4 people by that age but I wouldnt believe that is the sort of society that libertarians aspire to creating.
The capacity of anyone to live happy self-contained and self-reliant lives at any age is dictated by their fortune or misfortune in parents, wider family, community resources and social integration I think, its just possible that you could have great parents or live in a great community but if you dont it could leave you with all sorts of dysfunctional baggage.
June 10, 2008
|Posted: Post subject: Strange, I was just thinking about this one earlier today.
|"If at the age of 12 a young woman can drive, she ought to be able to do so. If a young man finds an occupation that he can live on at 14, society is that much better off having one mature minded and responsible at an early age."
Why does something so obvious seem so controversial when it's written? Of course the state agrees with you, but only from the other perspective. Government is only flexible to the hard rule of maturity occurring, all at once, on a birthday when it concerns criminal culpability.
You gotta wonder if some legislative hack was watching Kids Say the Darndest Things and came away feeling intellectually threatened.
My personal take on the broader question of this thread is that, as painful as it might be, humans are capable of flying the nest before being evicted. True belief in free will doesn't just mean respecting it. We take for granted the ability to even recognize it. When it manifests in someone else, even your own child, it can't be mistaken for anything else. That, in my opinion, is the time to let go and listen (George Bush, can you hear me?). It doesn't mean push or pull, or demanding ultimatums. It just means recognizing your own center, and being willing to reconsider that theirs has moved.
The benefit of living this belief will have, however, borne itself out long before a kid is in the position to consider the option of striking out on their own. The responsibility that comes with this understanding is painfully demystifying.
How does the contrarianism of adolescence respond to a parent who lives according to free will? If a kid can't exploit a parent's fear of disposession, they have little objective reference from which to bluff. If they aren't bluffing, then they are expressing something valid.
True free will is a precondition for true love. If a parent sticks to this, then no external science, social influence or law can compete. That doesn't guarantee perfect, or good, decisions, but even a parent's own shortcomings can't compete with this.
I will not deprive any kid I bring into this world of this understanding.
So, because this is what I believe, I can't deprive other parents the freedom to self-organize and enforce their own templates for ownership
of their kids. Laws can be competitive just like business. The minarchist perspective of our own federal constitution or Articles of Confederation pre-supposes the freedom to choose laws by way of travel. Anymore, this doesn't even have to mean covenants confined to geographic sovereign states (though in most applications it still would).
Whether those states can continue to leave one another alone is another matter, but it speaks to options for preference within this topic.
(I gotta give Trotsky credit for refining his view of the world as attainable only in all-or-nothing terms. In doing this, he defined the difference between free will and everything else.)
P.S. I think it would be hilarious to see a National Geographic type documentary on human maturation made from the perspective of the federal government.