> Cathy wrote:
> >Tad, you break my heart! You have voted for Nateman, the horrible
> >Nateman's line of reasoning! How can I change your mind?
>
> How can I change your heart, Cathy? I find it highly immoral to use
> guns to take children's minds from their parents, just because they
> don't wash themselves. It may sound weird, but that's a summary of
> what's been said here. Richard does not want "unwashed masses" to
> decide for their children. He seems to be assuming that there are
> "better" people who can make decisions for the slaves. I can sense
> this philosophy from far away and I know where it leads to. Why
> should a government have *any* power over anybody's education?
>
I thought you broke my heart over the "demolishing the public
schools" issue, but given that we are still discussing this one...
I think what is more at issue here is whether or not we should have
laws in a society. I think it might be just fine if we all decide to
do our own thing, but like in my other example, sometimes our "own
thing" may endanger others, particularly when my next door neighbor
target practices with a high powered rile. There is a time and place
for everything.
I suppose, in your instance, we put an officer of the law in a position where he is to
decide each and every court order he is asked to enforce. He would
not be a marshall very long if he tried this. "Yes, I
like the sound of this one, so I will enforce it." If I remember
correctly, there were armed National Guardsman that escorted those
black students into the school in Little Rock against the white
parents' objections. Also, a similar action was taken against
Governor Wallace for the integration of the University of Alabama.
I thought in a civilized, society one must have laws. If one does not
like the laws one may passively resist in a manner like Thoreau;
however, armed resistance is not the way to go--if so, then I know a
couple of paramilitary groups we could join. Are you game, Tad?
Also, one (in the ideal) ought to work to change the laws in a
democrat fashion--although given a Republican Congress, I will admitt
that that is very difficult to do.
It was for this reason that I made my comment about courts and one's
access to adequate defense against the government. Very often,
people such as this man and the Randy Weave's of the world, feel
that the government is a huge wheel grinding over them and their
rights (not too far off base in his case). But we must decide, will
we have laws in which the Court's mandates will carry weight or is it
every man for himself. I suppose I could survive in either
atmosphere, but I think most people would prefer a coherent system of
laws, even if they don't always work very well.
But then again, why not? The public schools don't work too well--so
let's abolish them; government doesn't always work so hot either--let
get ride of it. Then again, we did miss a lot of the thilidimide
babies which the pharmaceutical industry gave Europe because we had a
functioning FDA. People will complain about the slowness of the introduction of new
drugs, but I am glad they were slow to introduce that one here.
> >What do you want to do, like Ex-governor Dupont--want to put the
> >7-year-olds back in the factor "if their parents" agree with it?
>
> Are you suggesting that a bureaucrat should have more power over a
> child's mind than the child's parents? On what ground?
This is a very difficult one. But it reminds me that battles for
democracy, against child labor, against slavery, etc. are never over. But where is
Charles Dickens when you need the man?
It doesn't seem like in the above example the parent is too
interested in the child's mind--more interested in the proceeds of
his labor. Yes, I think sometimes society must step in to protect a
child, even from his parents. I think it should be done with great
caution; however, as, in general, the tendency for abuse lies with
the government. But I think you know, parents don't always have the
best interest of their children in mind--though the majority of
parents do. Government, likewise, does not always have the best
interest of its citizenry in mind--but sometimes it does. For this
reason I say the utmost caution must be used and, in general, society
ought to favor the parents. Chardin--she whose heart is in dire
desparate need of changing....
>
> Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
> tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159
>