I was pondering age restrictions on drugs and at first thought I was against them. However, I began to think more about the relationship between parents and their children. It is largely agreed amongst us Austrians that the parent does not OWN the child, but has laid claim to a right to homestead it. They have taken up the responsibility of caring for and preserving the child’s health and well-being. They have agreed to take responsibility for the body that the child will own once he or she has matured. So, since we know that vices such as drugs and alcohol are detrimental and (at the very least) manipulative to the mind and body, would that mean that a parent who allows ‘their’ child to consume such substances is violating their ‘contract’ with the child and lose their right to homesteading him or her? These aren’t the same as age restrictions, per se, but they are closely related. Have I made an error? If not, how would it be enforced? Is it enforceable without causing injustice to others?
Or does the parent only have what is on their property and what it is used for. A parent has a right to force drugs off his or her property, like any other property owner. And if a child used drugs anyway while off their parents’ property it would still be a violation of property because the child is using the bedrooms and is consuming the food the parent has allowed the child to use for free (as a sort of investment the parents makes, hoping to get paid off by the well-being and happiness of the child). If both parties are fine with one, the other, or both using vices, is it a fair agreement? To what extent is the child able to partake in such agreements?
If you say that the “contract” a parent has with their child can be broken as soon as they “do something bad for the child’s health” than that could get extremely messy and almost anything the parent does could have their right’s taken away.
But I suppose there is a line somewhere, since a parent can not actually aggress against a child. If giving drugs is accepteble, is perhaps just a smudge of rat poison acceptable as well? When are we violating the babies rights (let’s assume the child is a baby)? I suppose that would be up to a neutral arbitor to decide whether they were actually poisoning a child. You obviously can’t give a baby 2 gallons of vodka, because you’d kill it.
Relevance? None. Because the OP was not talking about medicine, was it? No. So why’d you bring that up? Wanted to use a red herring? Wanted to drop a strawman?
The degree to which unhealthy acts are allowed to be performed will be decided by the self organizing self governing groups of human beings that form. The “correctness” of the placement of what constitutes a danger to the child’s health and what does not will be decided on the grand scale. Whoever produces the best children will be dominant. I kinda cringe on the word dominant because I envision physical dominance, but that isn’t what I meant. A requirement to survive is the element of objectivity that every human must seek. This rules out the initiation of physical dominance.
The state should have no role in policing parent/child relationships unless it has become blatantly obvious that the parent is encouraging so called “negative activities” at which point, it might become necessary to intervene. Otherwise, I don’t think the state should play a role.
I think a life without drugs and alcohol is detrimental. I think life is detrimental. I think drugs and alcohol are necessary to get through the detriment of life.
nhaag not really. There is black, white, and gray areas in ethics. For example, self defense is right, murder is wrong, but whether a specific act was self defense or murder is kind of a murky gray area. Surely there will be clear areas, but just as surely there will be gray ones. So when it comes to is a general act x child abuse or is it not, well can you not see certain cases where that is a gray area? My solution to the problem of gray areas is allowing human beings to group with other human beings who discern in a similar manner. If there is an easier way I would like to clear up my thinking on the issue.
my guess is that there would be a pretty big demand for stopping things like that (Justice for Children Alliance or something I am sure could get a lot of donation money). Lawyers could stand to make a lot of money by helping the children take their parents to court and getting a % of the damages awarded.
Me personally? I would not accept beating of children in my community. But you can see the gray area creeping in right? We can say that beatings are wrong, what about spankings? What about slaps on the wrist? Maybe you could say that the NAP says no physical force against a child, but there are always situations like when the child is going to grab a hot pan on the stove. So for physical violence against children I would say there are clear cases for not using physical force, cases for using physical force, and some cases where its hard to say.
my guess is that force necessary to stop a child from hurting another child or person would be appropriate.
to the extent that additional ‘punishment’ one feels necessary to convince a child that damaging things or hurting others is wrong i guess is where the grey area comes into play.
if one child put a hot iron on another - is it appropriate to put a hot iron on that child so as to learn by example?