[ExI] Social right to have a living

[Stefano Vaj]

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? :-)

A frightening prospective indeed.

> 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.

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"?).

> 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).

-- 
Stefano Vaj