• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Most free states run by Republicans. Least free states run by Democrats.

Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Right. A position based on actual liberty would be to acknowledge that parents are stewards of their children, not their owners, and:

- acknowledge the parents' right to make decisions for minors only to the extent that the minor doesn't have the capacity to decide for themselves.

- acknowledge that the parents' rights as stewards are predicated on the idea that they have the best interests of the child at heart (and are revocable if this assumption proves false).

It's been interesting here to hear anti-vax parents absolutely lose their mind at the idea that kids can consent to medical care for themselves as soon as they can understand what they're consenting to.

This has meant that health units have been able to set up vaccine clinics at high schools and vaccinate (consenting) kids without parental permission.

All the anti-vaxxers who think they own their kids are livid.
Click to expand...
It's long past time for parents to accept they don't own their kids.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
It means that if we don't live as hermits then we must inherently forfeit some freedoms in order to live in an organized society. We must also consider conflicting interests in deciding who has freedom and who's will be curtailed. Ideally these are balanced to maximize the liberties of all by applying the most utilitarian approaches for maximizing freedom while not letting things be so free that the rights of others are infringed upon.
Click to expand...
You leftis are making some bad presumptions.
I'm not advocating any "total liberty". It's not eve possible.
The thread is about measuring liberty, & ranking states.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Revoltingest said:
You leftis are making some bad presumptions.
I'm not advocating any "total liberty". It's not eve possible.
The thread is about measuring liberty, & ranking states.
Click to expand...
I'm going back to the starting point, the most basic of questions and issues when it comes to exploring the ideas of freedom and liberty.
 
amorphous_constellation

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
The homeschooling and private school criteria the Cato Institute used are something I find especially interesting.

They've decided that requiring homeschoolers and private schools to neet curriculum guidelines - or even for them to be required to maintain records - represents a diminishment of freedom.

I think of people who were the products of the educational standards the Cato Institute would impose (i.e. no standards at all) and I see a lot of lack of freedom. For instance:



Ex-student of ultra-orthodox Jewish school system in Quebec wants compensation for poor education

The Cato Institute sure doesn't seem to concerned with the liberty of people like Yonanan Lowen... or the many others who weren't able to get out, and are now trapped in a religion they may no longer accept, but aren't free to leave.
Click to expand...

I think you're asking the wrong person about schooling, as my public school experience was a bit of flop. But I can see how homeschooling might go wrong too, maybe one's parents are just naturally poor teachers. Someone who was home-schooled and is a modern philosopher I like, is a man called Daniel Schmachtenberger, he's smart as hell
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Ella S. said:
I don't think this is a huge surprise. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are AuthRight, but the Democrats tend to be more authoritarian and the Republicans tend to be more capitalist.

In reality, they're both figureheads for megacorporations so both of their policies push for more corporate control. Whether it's giving more power to the government or giving more power to the corporations, the end result seems essentially the same to me since the government is essentially a shell for big business, anyway.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
You leftis are making some bad presumptions.
I'm not advocating any "total liberty". It's not eve possible.
The thread is about measuring liberty, & ranking states.
Click to expand...
No, this thread is about measuring government regulation, not liberty.

And even then, it's not always clear what they're measuring. For instance, take this factor:

Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants: 0.3%

If a state allows illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses, does this mean they get a higher or lower "liberty" score?
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Right. A position based on actual liberty would be to acknowledge that parents are stewards of their children, not their owners, and:

- acknowledge the parents' right to make decisions for minors only to the extent that the minor doesn't have the capacity to decide for themselves.

- acknowledge that the parents' rights as stewards are predicated on the idea that they have the best interests of the child at heart (and are revocable if this assumption proves false).

It's been interesting here to hear anti-vax parents absolutely lose their mind at the idea that kids can consent to medical care for themselves as soon as they can understand what they're consenting to.

This has meant that health units have been able to set up vaccine clinics at high schools and vaccinate (consenting) kids without parental permission.

All the anti-vaxxers who think they own their kids are livid.
Click to expand...

Letting kids make their own medical/health decisions/choices is a big step. What else should kids be allowed to choose for theirself?
 
Last edited:
amorphous_constellation

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Twilight Hue said:
If the left had their way, they would require a permit or licensing for that.

How Leftists Are Building The Framework For 'Parenting Licenses'
Click to expand...

Without reading the article, I have to come out in favor of some form of regulation for parenting. Coincidentally in relation to this post, I happen to be reading a book about a career nomad, who spends a significant part of his book outlining a disgustingly unfair childhood, and I don't know if society ought to perpetually tolerate such standards. Indeed, such reading material has made me rather depressed this week, it is a punch in the soul or brain just reading it

And really, if you're a typical right-winger, you actually should consider regulation of parenting alongside left-wing counterparts, in a way: those who argue against abortion often argue that the people 'shouldn't be parents in the first place.' So there is some bipartisan area to work with, in all this

That's not to say that I'm against abortion, since I am actually pro-choice, even arguably pro-abortion. But the antecedent of that view, which I can envision someone on the 'right' sharing, would be regulation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top