[tlj009]

Not neccessairily. Right now children are essentially viewed as property. "Society has no business telling me how to raise *my* children".

I believe that children are people... humanity begins before 18. As such, a guardian is just that, a guardian not an owner. In having responsability of a child, a parent (any guardian) is responsable to that child and to act in that child's best interest... not in their own.

When you are appointed legal guardian of an incapacitated adult, you are not empowered for the purpose of running their life as you see fit; you are taasked with acting in their best interest and in the manner you best determine they would choose to act. They are not "your old people", why should they be "your young people"?

But you oppose abortion... yet the parent is responsable.

You likely oppose forced marriage, pedophillia, maybe even child labor: but the parent is responsable.

Heck, I'd even bet that you would oppose the guardian of an incapacatated adult (say, a woman in a coma) acting in direct violatoin of her living will... but they would be responsable.

You know that owners were responsable for the actions of their slaves when they were property.

Are you really saying that our society advocates absolutely no intervention in parenting for the safety of the child? That seems to be what you are saying.

You are arguing things that I don't see anybody else even mentioning. "Society has no business telling me how to raise my children." is all well and good except when people say that what they mean is "Society should have very limited authority to tell people how to raise their children." The sad thing is that you know that is the position but somehow want to argue about it anyway. You are actually advocating total state control of our children which would tend to raise them like a bunch of machines. In other words destroy any diversity.

[JerryLove]

Are you really saying that our society advocates absolutely no intervention in parenting for the safety of the child? That seems to be what you are saying.

I'm saying that a large element of society views children as property of the parents, rather than people over whom you have been loaned guardianship.

From Bryan in post #21

as long as a parent can be held responsible for the actions of their children then society has no business telling a parent how they should be raised.

You are actually advocating total state control of our children which would tend to raise them like a bunch of machines. In other words destroy any diversity.

Now who's hacking at the straw man?

[tlj009]

I'm saying that a large element of society views children as property of the parents, rather than people over whom you have been loaned guardianship.

From Bryan in post #21

as long as a parent can be held responsible for the actions of their children then society has no business telling a parent how they should be raised.

Being responsible for someone doesn't necessarily mean that you own them. I don't really know where you are getting that.

Now who's hacking at the straw man?

I haven't even started hacking yet. So now is the time to clear it up for me. What exactly did you mean?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Being responsible for someone doesn't necessarily mean that you own them. I don't really know where you are getting that.

Among other things from the actual quote I just repeated in my last post.

I haven't even started hacking yet. So now is the time to clear it up for me. What exactly did you mean?

That children should not be property. I think I was pretty clear there.

[tlj009]

Among other things from the actual quote I just repeated in my last post.

Where is "own" used in that quote?

That children should not be property. I think I was pretty clear there.

Then explain exactly what was wrong with my original response.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Where is "own" used in that quote?

I'm really not interested in taking the bait of having to explain the minutia of reading comprehension to you; mostly because I see no reason to believe you are at all sincere in this line of questioning. If you don't understand, feel free to go to antoher thread.

Then explain exactly what was wrong with my original response.

I did in my response to your original response.

[tlj009]

I'm really not interested in taking the bait of having to explain the minutia of reading comprehension to you; mostly because I see no reason to believe you are at all sincere in this line of questioning. If you don't understand, feel free to go to antoher thread.

Fine, then I will stick with my original conclusion that you think responsible for = own.

I did in my response to your original response.

I must have missed that. All I remember is an accusation.

Now who's hacking at the straw man?

At this point I have to agree with Bryan.

ok, well when you stop being absurd and actually start interacting with what I'm saying and not hack at a straw man,

That does seem to be what you are doing.

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Anarchist Libertarian Communism.

Wouldn't having an anarchist commmunist government be like saying that you have zero apples and infinite apples at the same time?

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Wouldn't having an anarchist commmunist government be like saying that you have zero apples and infinite apples at the same time?

Not even remotely. Communism, as it was espoused by Marx, is almost entirely anarchistic. If you've never done it, I strongly recommend reading The Communist Manifesto.

[Dark Tofu]

Ha, sorry, I got communism and socialism mixed up, sorry I just woke up...

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Taxing individuals is stupid, the economy pays for it in the long-run. A tax on individuals lowers real wealth and thereby lowers spending, and is thus a tax on business.

A tax is a tax is a tax. We end up paying for it no matter what. The important issue about taxes is how they are spent. If politicians focused more on productive spending, people wouldn't ***** about taxes so much because they would be deriving benefits, presumably on par with what they actually pay.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Not even remotely. Communism, as it was espoused by Marx, is almost entirely anarchistic. If you've never done it, I strongly recommend reading The Communist Manifesto.

Read it, but understand it for the impassioned propogandist speech that it is. And, even though he was a utopian-basher, he was a utopian himself.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by "BrooksB"

A tax is a tax is a tax. We end up paying for it no matter what. The important issue about taxes is how they are spent. If politicians focused more on productive spending, people wouldn't ***** about taxes so much because they would be deriving benefits, presumably on par with what they actually pay.

I think people will always whine about taxes.

That said: I agree that a great deal of tax money is wasted because a great deal of government is corrupt. Of course, the same is true in the private world.

I suppose, from the Christian perspective, our problem is the sinful nature of man.

["BrooksB"]

Also, deriving benefits from some sort of social utility can be subjective, such that some may see the expenditure as productive while others dislike it. To each his own.

Hell, I thought the Christian perspective was "give to ceaser that which is ceasar's". Just let it go, doormat.