Emancipation of young people

Discussion
1

Ron,

  If we have human rights because they are given to us by our parents,
then rights would not be inherent, and parents could theoretically
choose to never grant those rights. If people are born with certain
inalienable rights, then we have these rights as children, and parents
are merely the temporary custodians of our rights.

  Parents do not have the *right* to control their children because they
pay the room and board; they have the *obligation* to control their
children because they made the decision to have or adopt children, and
are therefore the custodians of a child's rights until he or she says
otherwise.

  I do understand where Michael is coming from with his analogy about
blacks and women. The way you say "It's about TEENAGERS!!!" seems to me
similar to the way that someone arguing against treating blacks as
human beings might have said, "It's about N-----S!!!" And let me be
absolutely clear; I'm not implying anything about your views of race,
gender, etc.

Yours in liberty,
          <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Michael;

Parents give rights to their children. They have a right to do so
they are payingfor their childs room and board. It is the right
thing to do until the child or a teenager can function on their own.
This is what this is about. We are talking about teenagers living at
home and then reaching a stage of maturity when then can function on
their own as adults.

Once again nothing in there about denying rights based on race or
gender or anything else. It's about TEENAGERS!!!

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
wrote:

You're speaking here of rights as something given to people by

other people; that's certainly not a libertarian conception.

You're wanting, if I understand you, to deny rights, like the

right to marry, to a group of people based on the demographic
characteristic of age. That seems to me formally identical to
denying rights based on race or gender. And I noted that your
justification was the same as it historically was in those cases.

From: tradergroupe [mailto:tradergroupe@y…]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:10 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed

Contributor: Jo

ining the Debate but Missing the Point

Dear Michael;

Ask any parent of a teenager what rights they give their teenagers
if they are living at home and under are 18. How does saying a
teenager under 18 living at home needs to show as Starchild
suggested they that they be fully independent and responsible for
their own affairs before being emancipated twist into race and
gender discrimination???

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael"

<acreem@o...>

wrote:

I know very few people _over_ 18 whom I regard as "fully

independent and responsible for their own affairs," and I don't
think any such judgment should be a condition of possessing

rights.

You still seem to be implying that people over 18 have rights that
people under 18, as a group, don't. That seems to me simple age
discrimination, on a par with race and gender discrimination, and
justified by the same paternalism.

From: tradergroupe [mailto:tradergroupe@y…]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:59 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed

Contributor: Jo

ining the Debate but Missing the Point

Dear Michael;

Nope, Starchild said anyone should be allowed to get married at

any

age based on being fully independent and responsible for their

own

affairs. As I pointed out how many teenagers do you know who are

in

this capacity??? I also asked everyone to consider what you were
like as a teenager and were you fully independent and

responsible

for your own affairs???

Nowhere was there any mention of blacks and women NOT being

fully

independent and responsible for their own affairs. Nowhere was

there

any mention of Blacks and Women not being human.

Where the heck did you dredge that up from???

The age restriction on teenage marriages is an equal

oppportunity

restriction and not based on race,creed,color,sex, sexual

prefernces

etc etc etc etc. And I also said exceptions could apply at

anytime.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael"

<acreem@o...>

wrote:

Ron:

You seem to be saying that people below a certain age don't

possess the same rights as those above that age, which implies

that,

as was once said of blacks and women, they're not fully human.

Am

I

understanding you correctly?

From: Ronald Getty [mailto:tradergroupe@y…]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:30 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed

Contributor: Joining the Debate but Missing the Point

Dear Starchild;

Try to define legally independent and responsible for their

own

affairs when talking to a teenager. Good Luck! While there are

some

teenagers who are very adult at a young age the majority just

plain

ain't. This is why I believe there should be some minimal age
restriction arbitrary as it is at 18. Exceptions to the rule can

be

applied for at anytime.

A question - not just for Starchild but everyone out there.

If it isn't to painful to think about - what were you like as

a

15 - 16 - 17 year old teenager? Anything approaching legally
independent and responsible for your own affairs??? Whoo
Hoo!!!

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@e...> wrote:

      Or age, I would say, as long as the individuals involved

are

legally

independent and responsible for their own affairs.

                        <<< Starchild >>>

From: "Ronald Getty" <tradergroupe@y...>

Any two people 18 years of age or older can get married. I

do

not

believe there should be any distinction or discrimination or
dissension because of sex. <

In addition, no prohibition because of number of individuals

wishing

to marry, e.g., polygamy.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

Click HereClick Here
  <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?

M=274551.4550177.5761904.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=:HM/A=2019528/rand=370

935768>

  _____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/>

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-discuss-

unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/