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.
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
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 >>>
Children:
There is a difference between saying that blacks only have the mental capacity of children, and saying the same about children.
Just because certain demographic groups have unfairly been seen as mentally inferior does not mean that it can't be true of other demographic groups.
Registered partnerships:
Don't reject the idea just because the Vermont and California implementations are unimpressive. Sweden's version only differs from marriage in name, and in adoption rights, and that restriction doesn't look like it will last much longer.
It seems very likely that once the registered partnership "foot is in the door", the rights attached to it will continuously expand until they're very close to regular marriage.
Everything now would be better, but a gradual approach is also useful.