About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 11:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd like to make a challenge to anyone (including MSK):
Provide me with a situation where it is in a Person's rational self interest to force an individual to help another (especially when no one is forcing the Person to do so).

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I thought of one case. Forcing children to go to school.

M


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 6:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No no no, it is forcing the parents to force their children to go to school.

I believe such law is out there and I support it!


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 6:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How is it in my rational self-interest to force "children" to go to school? (Supposedly "children" means all children everywhere.)

How is it in my rational self-interest to force parents to force their children to go to school?

Using force in either case simply teaches those children that force is an appropriate way to deal with other people, Is that what you want them to learn? Is that any way to promote a rights respecting society?

Is a rights respecting society not in your self-interest?

Post 4

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 7:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you did force parents to force their children to learn, how do you test to see whether a parent is doing a good enough job teaching their child?

If you determined that the parent was not doing an acceptable job, how would you determine how much force to use, and what would the proper forced punishment be? Would you kill the parent if they refused the punishment?

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 8:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, it seems that lots of fair weather Objectivists are just fine with coercing people in this or that situation.

- Jason


Post 6

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ye noticed that, huh.......

An interesting book some of y'all might wish to look into is Peter Breggin's first book, The Psychology of Freedom, which deals with some of this.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 2/25, 8:29am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gentlemen,
If you can not distinguish the scenario here with the other "hypothetical" case, I don't know what to say.

I think we all agree that parents do have a duty to their children - if they abandon them in the wood or dumpster to let them die, the parents committed a crime, not the passingbys, right?

The same is here: feeding, educating and raising a child is parents' responsibility, not yours and mine. Only when the child grown up to be an uneducated moron, an alcoholic, drug-addict, or an unproductive parasite of the society, then it becomes a burden for all of us.

It is definitely in my own best interest to have a productive member of the society raised, especially when I am already paying for their education!


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,
"If you determined that the parent was not doing an acceptable job, how would you determine how much force to use, and what would the proper forced punishment be?"

No, we don't do anything to the mere incompetent parents, and we all suffer the consequence of badly raised grown-ups. That's just life.

Only in the extreme cases that law steps in - when the children are obviously physically abused or even murdered. If parents do not let their children to learn at least how to read and do simple math giving all opportunities, such intellectual starvation is almost as bad as physical starvation



Post 9

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, I'm not suggesting that you going MSK on us. But I would certainly question the idea that "children have a right to an education" and thus that their parents are obligated to provide one. There are too many different variables that come into play when the standard of what exactly constitutes an education is defined by the state.

But on this question I am open to a good argument. I've seen you post enough to know that if I don't end up supporting your position you won't label me as "someone who is opposed to educating children" in MSK fashion.

- Jason


Post 10

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Jason,
"'children have a right to an education' and thus that their parents are obligated to provide one".

No no no, this is not what I am arguing at all. Children really are not intrinsically entitled to anything except what their parents are able to give them.

I knew a parent whose daughter was skipping school and he got a note from the school official asking him to explain why his daughter is skipping school. Certainly there could be legitimate excuses.


Post 11

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,
The same is here: feeding, educating and raising a child is parents' responsibility, not yours and mine.
Agreed.
Only when the child grown up to be an uneducated moron, an alcoholic, drug-addict, or an unproductive parasite of the society, then it becomes a burden for all of us.
I only agree that a parasite of the society is a burden to society. An uneducated moron, an alcoholic, a drug-addict, and an unproductive person may all not necessarily be a burden to society.
It is definitely in my own best interest to have a productive member of the society raised, especially when I am already paying for their education!
You being forced to pay for their education does not justify using force to make sure parents educate their children.
Only in the extreme cases that law steps in - when the children are obviously physically abused or even murdered.
Agreed.
If parents do not let their children to learn at least how to read and do simple math giving all opportunities, such intellectual starvation is almost as bad as physical starvation.
Are you suggesting that the parents actually do something to prevent their children from learning? Such as teaching them a post-modern philosophy, rationalism, nihilism, or such as physically preventing them from learning, by locking them up with sensory and information depravation? I'd say that in some cases locking them up would be a crime, but teaching them a philosophy that is destructive to one's self is not a crime. I say "some cases locking them up would be a crime" because I do not consider forcing a child to go to their room or a corner after they initiated force as a crime, it is justice, it is use of retaliatory force to bring justice.

Thanks,
Dean

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 11:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

Why did you switch from "forcing the parents to force their children to go to school" to parents educating their children and parents letting their children learn?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,
I could never imagine that people would interpret what I said that way.

Education (and raising children) is what we've been talking about all along.



Post 14

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason wrote: "I've seen you post enough to know that if I don't end up supporting your position you won't label me as "someone who is opposed to educating children" in MSK fashion."

No, she will just dump you...if your answers don't come up to her standard.

Btw, hahhahaha, I was only answering Dean's query, coming up with a situation where people (children in this case) are forced, mainly by their parents, to go to school. My parents had to force me on almost a daily basis!

Michael


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Dean,

Ha, you don't have any children. Children do not learn automatically all by themselves. They need to be taught. If they were not taught by their parents, then they should go to school, which is free by all means. However, for little kids, you'll need to get them up in the morning, feed them, and get them ready for their school bus. And you'll also need to have a home environment so that they can read and do their homework. There are parents out there who are not even able to do this minimum for their kids.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 4:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

It's not a matter of interpreting what you wrote but of paying attention to the exact words that you did use.

Sloppy word choice is a major cause of disagreements.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ha, Newberry just provided a perfect example of when the use of "force" is good.

BTW, I have a thought on coercion or government laws that some of you are so dread. You know, in an ideal society that consists of only rational and reasonable people, most, if not all, laws will not be needed. But in reality, not all people are rational and reasonable. Even the most rational people sometimes can be irrational. And that's when the laws come in.


Post 18

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 4:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not all people are rational. But acting irrationally will bring negative consequences on their own... don't block them.

---Landon


Post 19

Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 4:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Conversely in a mixed economy dealing with an earlier arguement of yours... A mixed economy takes responsibility for some individuals bad choices.  There's welfare to take care of people who create children they cannot care for etc. You could make a case that there is a reason to force people to act in their own interest when others foot the bill.

But it sounds  more like an arguement against blocking the negative consequences of irrational behavior.

---Landon


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.