[ExI] Social right to have a living

[Kelly Anderson]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 July 2011 19:05, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ancient Rome was far from a libertarian (o anarco-capitalist?) regime,
>>> yet the pater familias had a jus vitae ac necis on its children.
>>> Remarkably nothing similar existed in other neighbouring, and
>>> sometimes more "primitive", societies/legal systems.
>>
>> The surely Romans had a unique view of the rights of society over the
>> individual. It was no accident that Hitler called his little regime
>> the third reich.... meaning the third instantiation of Rome... because
>> I think he would have gone back to public executions and other
>> barbaric (by our modern reckoning) Roman practices if he had won.
>
> Same as in the US executions, you mean? :-)

US executions have not been public for many decades. Also, it is an
entirely different thing for a public system to take a life after many
second chances, and a father taking the life of his child just because
he can. I would suspect that fathers in the Roman system who took
advantage of this system and killed their children were often sorry
later. You need checks and balances and time to reconsider before
doing something as serious as taking a life.

Capital punishment and nuclear power in the US have one important
thing in common. They are both too expensive and take too long because
of lawyers. For either to be effective, they have to be somewhat
streamlined. Of course, it is easy to take that too far in both cases,
as extreme caution is necessary when wielding that kind of power.

> A frightening prospective indeed.

I think we are all glad we won. :-)

>> Are you saying you liked the Roman system?
>
> My implication is simply that children can be abused or not
> irrespective of whether the regime is authoritarian or libertarian or
> anarchist, and depending on the contrary on the concept of "abuse"
> which is dominant in one's society.

And on that point, I concur 100%. It's all about the zeitgeist, and
that changes. I would not be surprised, for example, if sex with some
children is legal in 50 years. It seems to be the direction society is
headed. I don't think it is a good thing, it just seems possible.

> Thus, governments do not guarantee children per se, and the lack or
> weakness thereof does not imply that they are especially threatened
> under any definition of "threatened" (involving perhaps
> computer-graphic "exploitment"?).

I don't think I'm following you here. Could you try again please?

>> What the authorities go after you for is less important than the fact
>> that they have the power to go after you. After having dealt with DCFS
>> for the last three years, I can tell you for a fact that America is a
>> less free society than most people think. Until you've been through
>> the reeducation system, you think America is free, and that you are
>> free within her.
>
> I have no fantasies about the real "freedom" of US citizens, even
> though I suspect that it may be better to have a First or the Fifth
> Amendment in one's constitution rather than not (see for instance what
> their non-existence implies for the UK - or the western puppet regime
> of Afghanistan, for that matter).

I am grateful for the entire Bill of Rights. I just don't think it is
being interpreted in ways the founding fathers would recognize. Of
course, they also knew things would evolve.

-Kelly