How would the relatve/concerned friend have standing in court?
What do you mean? How does anyone have a standing in court?
You’re having trouble because you are viewing justice as objective, rather than subjective.
Violence is not “verboten”, what matters is consent. Punching someone in the face is allowable if you’re in an agreed upon boxing match, but not if you’re in a bar.(And even if your fellow patron consents to mutual combat, the bar owner is victimized by your misusing his property)
The NAP does not ban corporeal punishment. A child does not get to decide the conditions of his own parenting, if he objects he is free to find a new guardian or become his own caretaker.
Justice(real justice) is primarily concerned with restitution. Parents’ would owe monetary compensation.
Parents.
Consent for what? Consent for getting thrown of a building? I wouldn’t risk that contract with a person of any age.
An orphan(child with no guardian) of any age is able to enter into contract, otherwise they would become a non-person. Children with parent’s are subject to their parents decisions.
Standing in court means that something is affecting you directly. Only someone affected by certain actions (read Victim) has standing in court. Someone must have standing to sue.
But parents can sue a third party on behalf of the child. Without being victims themselves.
Just because parents are advocates for their own children does not mean that anyone can be an advocate for any child. Though if parent’s neglect their children another can claim them.
Response to the OP:
-
No, violence isn’t cool, regardless. I can tell you at least from personal experience of having two nieces and a nephew (all fracking LOUD MOUTHS as well…), that spanking rarely works. Often taking away what they want (xBox, or whatever) or making them cease what they’re doing (playing with a friend…) is a better behavior modifier than a sting of pain across one’s backside. Plus, it teaches the law of causality in regards to human interactions without going all philosophical on’em.
-
As for the conditions, not even neurologists can make a hard rule as to when, but if one looks historically across the globe, the average age of majority ranges from 12 to 18. For a large part of this depends on the fact that by the ages of 12 to 14 your own brain is pretty much cemented in what it will be and what it can do. Your personality is already set in place by that time, and the capacities to abstract out your reasoning is beginning to take more of a solid shape. Aside from traditions (common law), I think it follows that it is a case-by-case situation, and that a judge (private) should gauge the child based on a number of factors (How much the child thought through their actions, if s/he knew the consequences, and if the child is economically independent of the parents (and that the parents didn’t ‘enable’ the child in the given actions)).
-
I think this question is really a subtype of #2, and I’ll direct you to consider my points on that answer there.
-
Again, another subtype of #2, redirected to my answer for that one as well.
That`s correct.
Nuclear family is fairly recent anyway. Humans used to mostly live in extended families, where much of what we are talking about here would be a moot point anyway as all sorts of mechanisms to cut down on neglect were already in place organicaly.
Love it or leave it does not even apply now. You’ll be thrown in jail for neglect or manslaughter if the child starves to death or is put in danger. Again, if you’re old and still living at home it’s a different story… but use some sense.
Earning trust with them so they don’t want to leave and will abide by boundaries takes intelligence, but that’s not the kids fault.
Of course it does. Hitting children is a clear case of child abuse. Amazing how ‘libertarian’ ‘christians’ can come up with nonsensical justifications for aggression. And aggression against the most weak members of society. Gotta love ‘cultural conservatism’.
is forcefully restraining children ‘child abuse’?
Or grounding them? Somebody explain to me how grounding a child is different from spanking it.
Anyway this “emancipate the children” current would be a little more credible if it weren`t largely convergent with the abortion crowd. What about emancipation for the unborn then? You know, the weakest and the most in need of help? Somehow hitting a brat is abuse, but severing the unborn from their food source is just dandy.
The kid doesn’t have to sleep in your house. He can be fine in a tent outside in the backyard if s/he thinks s/he is truly self-reliant. I know that seems cruel, but remember, the alternative may be worse (letting him/her doing what s/he wants on your dime or you beating him/her into submission).
Here’s a hint. There’s a political position know as libertarianism which completely disallows the use of force except in self-defense. Now, unless you’re using violence against ‘your’ children as a means to stop them from aggressing against you (self-defense), then you are, by libertarians standards, a criminal.
Please spare me the cultural conservative trash and deal with the real argument.
so you dont agree with keeping a kid on a leash whilst crossing roads…
It depends. What color is the leash ?
What a suprise. Ad Hominems from Juan. Atleast try to make them accurate.
Excellent point.
Try that on anyone else and you’re a kidnapper.
You do know what an ad-hominem is, no ? It’s a fallacy of the type : “X said Y” “X is an idiot” so it supposedly follows (not) “Y is false”…despite of the real merits of argument Y.
But I committed no such fallacy. You need to prove that aggression is not aggression when used by parents in the name of ‘parenting’. Of course you can’t.
Now, when you say “ad-hominem” you may be referring to my derogative remarks about ‘libertarians’, ‘christians’ and ‘conservatives’ who try to justify aggression in the name of tradition, or property over children or whatever. My remarks are indeed derogative. Sorry, I don’t feel inclined to be nice to people who advocate things I don’t consider nice.
Indeed. And try that on ‘your’ children and you’re a kidnapper as well. Of course, the double standard of ‘cultural conservatism’ pretends that’s not true…
so you are just gonna give up on parents dressing their kids, or giving them a bath until they are old enough not to struggle against momentary discomfort and to do those things for rational reasons…