I was expounding, not explaining. Expound and explain are synonyms.
And I didn't ask you for a reply. Back to your hole. No one asked you to reply either, and yet here you are.
So moral rights don't exist, and adults have moral rights that children lack?
Aside from that little contradiction, is this a view that you hold consistently? Would you accept the revocation of your legal rights without argument?
This measure has nothing to do with dealing with neglectful parents. Its purpose is to punish and spy on children who dare to exercise their free will instead of submitting to arbitrary authority.
"It's not as bad as prison" doesn't cut it. Being robbed isn't as bad as being murdered, but that doesn't make either okay.
There is no law that says children must perform hard labor. There is a law that says they must attend school to prepare for a life as adults so they will not be a drain on "the rest of us" Way to dodge the question. Do people have rights independent of law, or not?
By becoming a worthless scumbag, they are violating my right to not have to support them They're not violating your rights. Your government is violating your rights by forcing you to support them (which includes paying for their schooling).
Why are you so concerned about the theoretical future threat of truant children when the government that allegedly exists to protect you is actively inflicting far greater damage on you right now?
or have to kill them when they try to steal from me. Until they actually attempt (or threaten) to do so, you have no claim against them.
You can not seek restitution when you are dead. Friends, family, and other acquaintances can.
First off, define "the rest of us". The rest of humanity, who are considered to have certain inalienable moral rights.
The rest of the kids are going to school. These kids are minors and do not have the right to say "I am not going to school." There is a law that says they will go to school. It may be a civil law, but it is still a law. They violated the law, they could go to juvenile detention. Instead they are begin forced to comply with the law. So do you not believe that we (minors or otherwise) have rights with transcend the decrees of the legislature? Do you find the concept of an unjust law to be incoherent? If there were a law dictating that all minors between the ages of 7 and 18 must perform hard labor for 12 hours a day, would said minors have a right to say, "I am not going to the labor camp", and to act accordingly?
Second, you speak of their "rights" but fail to mention their responsibilities. They have responsibilities to their parents and to the community at large.
I get the feeling you believe that rights exist without responsibilities, but that is just not so. Their only responsibility to "the community" is not to violate the rights of others. They may have certain responsibilities to their parents while they are provided with food/shelter/etc. Beyond these, however, what they do is none of anyone else's business.
And, about your sig, the government and it's law exist to protect people like you from people like me. "Market actors" have no authority over those who do not subscribe to said market. If said actors did have authority over non-subscribers, then they become a de-facto government. As I would not subscribe to their market, I would be free to act as my will dictates. I am not your property. I am not the government's property. If either you or the government attempt to treat me as such, I am perfectly within my rights to defend myself, and to seek restitution after the fact for any damages caused.
So you don't have a problem with the fact that kids guilty of nothing other than spending their own free time as they see fit are eligible for kiddie prison in the first place?
How many times are you going to ask variations on the same question?
How long is it going to take for you to realize that none of the people you're questioning care about imaginary property or your particular brand of legal toadyism?
It seems kind of odd to claim that last-mile internet access is a natural monopoly, considering that it's subject to "public right-of-way" regulations and fees imposed by local governments.
So you're saying that we've got more of a Brazil-style totalitarian bureaucracy than a 1984-style totalitarian bureaucracy? That isn't exactly comforting.
"Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule and both commonly succeed, and are right." --H.L. Mencken
Slashdot Mirror
Citation, not explanation. The assertion is unfounded, not unclear.
So moral rights don't exist, and adults have moral rights that children lack?
Aside from that little contradiction, is this a view that you hold consistently? Would you accept the revocation of your legal rights without argument?
So children aren't people, then?
You're moving the goal posts.
This measure has nothing to do with dealing with neglectful parents. Its purpose is to punish and spy on children who dare to exercise their free will instead of submitting to arbitrary authority.
"It's not as bad as prison" doesn't cut it. Being robbed isn't as bad as being murdered, but that doesn't make either okay.
Hey, you're the one providing the ice cream, so don't look at me.
You're begging the question. I'm attacking compulsory attendance laws. They're not self-justifying.
Why are you so concerned about the theoretical future threat of truant children when the government that allegedly exists to protect you is actively inflicting far greater damage on you right now? or have to kill them when they try to steal from me. Until they actually attempt (or threaten) to do so, you have no claim against them. You can not seek restitution when you are dead. Friends, family, and other acquaintances can.
I'm also eagerly awaiting the statistics that show that no one currently in prison was ever spanked as a child.
I get the feeling you believe that rights exist without responsibilities, but that is just not so. Their only responsibility to "the community" is not to violate the rights of others. They may have certain responsibilities to their parents while they are provided with food/shelter/etc. Beyond these, however, what they do is none of anyone else's business. And, about your sig, the government and it's law exist to protect people like you from people like me. "Market actors" have no authority over those who do not subscribe to said market. If said actors did have authority over non-subscribers, then they become a de-facto government. As I would not subscribe to their market, I would be free to act as my will dictates. I am not your property. I am not the government's property. If either you or the government attempt to treat me as such, I am perfectly within my rights to defend myself, and to seek restitution after the fact for any damages caused.
To clarify, I meant moral rights. Life, liberty, etc. Obviously they don't have the same legal rights, which are completely arbitrary.
To clarify, I meant moral rights, not legal rights.
So you don't have a problem with the fact that kids guilty of nothing other than spending their own free time as they see fit are eligible for kiddie prison in the first place?
Why is it okay to treat anyone like this, truant or not? Does the school own these kids? Do they not have the same rights as the rest of us?
Yeah, I'm gonna go with "Big Brother" on this one...
But I guess Big Brother is our buddy, right?
Laissez-faire would imply the absence of patent and copyright laws, would it not? After all, those are instances of government-dictated feasibility.
How many times are you going to ask variations on the same question?
How long is it going to take for you to realize that none of the people you're questioning care about imaginary property or your particular brand of legal toadyism?
I recommend that members of the general public simply download game ROMs from the internet, imaginary property be damned.
It seems kind of odd to claim that last-mile internet access is a natural monopoly, considering that it's subject to "public right-of-way" regulations and fees imposed by local governments.
Because proper tea is theft .
So you're saying that we've got more of a Brazil-style totalitarian bureaucracy than a 1984-style totalitarian bureaucracy? That isn't exactly comforting.
"Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule and both commonly succeed, and are right."
--H.L. Mencken
"See why I like a lot (but not all) of the ideas behind anarchy?"
What's not to like? Pretty much any objection to anarchy applies even more severely to statist societies.
It wouldn't be enforced.