From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: I think I've trapped Clayton Cramer!
Keywords: blah blah
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:49:26 GMT

In article <pxtjjbh.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> First, you are unable to make your point -- this is NOT a case of two
|> consenting adults.
|> 
|> Children are not property. Dogs are property, Substitute dogs in your example
|> and it would be perfectly "do-able". You can kill your dog morally.
|> 
|> You can not kill your child morally.
|> 
|> We clearly have to accept a coercive presence for a parent [to have to] a child.

Yup. We do. And I know it. So does Ed Meese.

|> Spankings, standing in the corner, going to bed without desert, no TV,
|> whatever.
|> 
|> The price of allowing initiation of coercion to the not-yet-adults is to
|> accept a general definition of "allowable coercion to be initiated".
|> 
|> Clearly, physical punishment that does not leave bruises or breaks bones or
|> that is acceptable by 51% of 1,000 random adults is allowbale and so on.

Ah, the `mobocracy' again. I knew you'd come around to the whole `majority
rule' thing eventually, Phil. It was just a matter of time.

|> Anyway, please, make your case about AN AGREED UPON ACT BETWEEN TWO
|> CONSENTING ADULTS.

I did.

You didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I'll send you a copy if you
need to see it again.

Admittedly, it was a bizarre and pathological case on the surface, but there
is an important similarity between my case and, say, Jello Biafra's case
(wherein he was convicted of providing `harmful matter' to minors).

Read it again.

In the example, I'm not abusing *my* children. I'm contracting with another
consenting adult to provide a service my customers demand. This isn't a
question of whether my customers have the right to subject their children
to such treatments (though, I'll argue *that* with you if you're feeling
ridiculous) -- it's a question of whether, *assuming* the right of my
customers to enter into an agreement on behalf of their children is
absolute, *I* have the right to provide a service to my paying customers.

Is a parent's right to represent their children in contractual agreements
absolute? No? Why not? Is this even *remotely* simple? No.

Would you prevent me from providing this `treatment'? Would you allow me
to do exploratory surgery, or practice experimental psychiatry? Would you
demand that I be `licensed' to do those things and outright force me not
to `abuse' the children in my pathological example?

I would. But then, you and Clayton have both called me a fascist in the past
for advancing the idea that there are some kinds of agreements between
consenting adults that the state must have the power to interfere with.

Now, if you agree with me that I have fabricated a scenario wherein the
state should have the power to step in and prevent me from providing such
a nasty service to the parents of young girls, regardless of the demand
for it, *then* you and I agree on the point I outlined in the paragraph
above.

That is, if you *do* agree with me, then you and I both believe in the
propriety of using the coercive power of government to deny freedom to
others (it's just a matter of what kinds of powers we're each uncomfortable
with) and you can take your high-and-mighty moral superiority on the issue
and bugger off, because you'll invoke `pragmatism' when your principles fail
you, just like I will.

So, Phil? What kind of atrocities are you willing to let the government
ignore just because your `principles' tell you it would be wrong for the
state to use its coercive power, and why are they different from the ones
which you would call for government action if necessary to combat?


-- 
*\ James `Dr. Strychnine' Woodyatt  . ``You asked talk.bizarre to suggest
**\ bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com       . a new nickname for yourself?'' ``Yeah,
***\ Space Systems/Loral            . I thought it would be funny.'' ``You
****\ Palo Alto, CA                 . haven't any shame, do you?'' ``No.''
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey