No Teen Adventurers in the Netherlands

This, from the UK Times, just makes me sad:

Mike Perham sailed into the record books yesterday as the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe single-handedly but his entry is under threat from a 13-year-old Dutch girl, Laura Dekker, who wants to make her own round-the-world voyage. Today she will find out whether the Dutch courts will let her do it.

Laura's parents have agreed to her plans, but the Dutch Council for Child Protection is so concerned about the potential dangers of the trip that it has asked Utrecht District Court to grant it temporary custody of her so that it can keep her on dry land.

I'm reminded of the choice made by Cherryl Taggart in Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

[Link via Rational Review]

Comments

[skr]

I think I would just play along with the government and say, "OK, I'm not going to sail around the world. I'm just going out for a half day little pleasure cruise." Once in either international waters or the waters of another country turn around and say, "So long suckers," and start my voyage.

[Seward]

Presumably they would of course take her from her parents' home. How long would that go on exactly?

[EJM]

Just in case, the full Google News story cluster is here.

[Meta4]

Thank god he didn't take the subway.

BTW the kid in the subway link is riddled with server squirrels. It will not let me post. So, with your permission, I will post it here as it is marginally tangental:

When I was six-years-old, just about two weeks after moving to a new city and state, my older brothers (11 and 12) took me to see a movie at a theater about a mile and a half from our new home.

When the movie let out, they said the streets going north/south are numbered and the ones going east/west are in alphabetical order, so you'll need to go 12 blocks north and 4 blocks west to get home. They then took off, leaving me to get home on my own. I was successful.

True, it was a bit scary at first being just six and in a strange place, but I followed their instructions and made it home. I don't recall my brothers being punished for it.

I've been pretty independent ever since.

[anarch]

the Dutch Council for Child Protection is so concerned about the potential dangers of the trip

After all, she might alight at the Ibuprofen Isles and devour one of the natives.

[Seward]

More here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6813281.ece

Apparently her parents are divorced.

[Paul]

Little brats... always ruining it for the grownups.

[Seward]

Her website: http://www.lauradekker.nl/

The English version is still under construction. I wish I read Dutch.

[Jay]

you can't do flips off diving boards most places anymore either.

[Hazel Meade]

When I was six-years-old, just about two weeks after moving to a new city and state, my older brothers (11 and 12) took me to see a movie at a theater about a mile and a half from our new home.

When the movie let out, they said the streets going north/south are numbered and the ones going east/west are in alphabetical order, so you'll need to go 12 blocks north and 4 blocks west to get home. They then took off, leaving me to get home on my own. I was successful.

True, it was a bit scary at first being just six and in a strange place, but I followed their instructions and made it home. I don't recall my brothers being punished for it.

I've been pretty independent ever since.

I had very similar experiences growing up.
I was taking crosscountry greyhound trips by myself to visit friends by the time I was 12.

[Sparky]

I'm reminded of the choice made by Cheryl Taggart

Helluva non sequitur, Brian.

[Brian Doherty]

If you say so, Sparky. You wanna live a life were social workers, not you, decide what you can achieve?

[Fist of Etiquette]

But don't they still need spices from Asia?

[Sparky]

I get your point, Brian, but she's only 13. I doubt she's having the soul-crushing experience that drove Cheryl Taggart to suicide.

[Brian Doherty]

Having your ability to achieve something no one else has ever achieved at age 13 ruined by arbitrary bureaucratic busybodies not soul-crushing? Jeez, at 13 not having the boy/girl you like like you back can be soul-crushing. I don't know her, but I can't think of anything much more soul-crushing to an adventurous individualist, which she seems to be, than what's happening to her, much less a 13 year old.

[Falafel Friday]

Prep Time: 15 minutes
Cook Time: 1 hours, 45 minutes
Ingredients:
1 cup dried chickpeas or 16 oz. can of chickpeas or garbanzo beans.
1 large onion, chopped
2 cloves of garlic, chopped
3 tablespoons of fresh parsley, chopped
1 teaspoon coriander
1 teaspoon cumin
2 tablespoons flour
Salt
Pepper
Oil for frying
Preparation:
Place dried chickpeas in a bowl, covering with cold water. Allow to soak overnight. Omit this step if using canned beans.

Drain chickpeas, and place in pan with fresh water, and bring to a boil.

Allow to boil for 5 minutes, then let simmer on low for about an hour.

Drain and allow to cool for 15 minutes.

Combine chickpeas, garlic, onion, coriander, cumin, salt and pepper (to taste) in medium bowl. Add flour.

Mash chickpeas, ensuring to mix ingredients together. You can also combine ingredients in a food processor. You want the result to be a thick paste.

Form the mixture into small balls, about the size of a ping pong ball. Slightly flatten.

Fry in 2 inches of oil at 350 degrees until golden brown (5-7 minutes).

Serve hot.

Serving Suggestion
Falafel can be served as an appetizer with hummus and tahini, or as a main course. Stuff pita bread with falafel, lettuce, tomatoes, tahini, salt and pepper. As an alternative, falafel can be formed into patties and served like a burger.

[dbcooper]

Having your ability to achieve something no one else has ever achieved at age 13

To quibble, is that actually an achievement? I mean, it ain't going to matter shit by the time you're 21, let alone 30.

Have the parents arranged insurance and offered to reimburse rescue costs etc?

[Hazel Meade]

Falafel Friday:

Bitch! And here I was just thinking of eating a nice juicy fat burger and french fries. Now my pleasure centers are all conflicted.

[Brian Doherty]

DB, you and me and most of the human race must have very different senses of personal pride and worth. Things I accomplished with great effort at great odds and uniquely (not that I've done anything as excessive as sail around the world solo) continue to mean a whole lot to me even 7 years later....and I think that's true of most people.

Also, she's living this right now. If she's philosophical/souldead enough to just say, whatevs, I won't even care when I'm 21 then, well...good for her. I guess.

[ev]

Not an achievement?

How is sailing across the world NOT badass? I don't care how old you are or how many times you've done it, that's a hell of an adventure.

Hell, Magellan didn't even make it all the way around. His crew...

[Mad Max]

It's too bad pro-life Catholics like me never criticize divorce, otherwise I would be able to have some fun with the following:

'Richard Bakker, a spokesman for the Council for Child Protection, said: "Laura has divorced parents and it is very normal for a child of this age to be very local to the parent [he or she] is living with.

'"How much does she identify herself with her father, who is a good sailor?"'

? If I wasn't so indifferent to divorce, I might mention this link between divorce and statism. But I'm too indifferent, so I'll ignore it. ?

[Sparky]

"ruined by arbitrary bureaucratic busybodies"

Arbitrary? Maybe not. She wants to sail 'round the world solo. Not exactly a trip to the market. This is akin to government interference in family medical choices. Intervene when a family's religious beliefs forbid blood transfusions? Surgery? Even when such beliefs will surely end in death, without intervention? Society has to deal with such things.

[Aresen]

I don't like the court and the social workers getting involved in the case, but I am a little concerned about someone that young going around the world solo. This is many orders of magnitude greater risk than taking the subway.

On balance, I guess I'd say to the kid "Go", because that sort of adventure is what living is really all about. Wish I'd had her guts when I was 13.

[Brian Doherty]

Well, the state CHOSE to create a link between divorce and statism in this case. I don't have anything more to say, really, to people who have no problem with what the Dutch are thinking of doing here. Different "senses of life" I guess.

[JB]

I hope she says "You know what? I was going to sail around the world, but now that Dutch bureaucrats won't let me, I think I have a new plan: I'm going to kill as many Dutch bureaucrats as I can."

Now THAT would impress me.

[Mad Max]

JB,

Maybe she should sell the movie rights to Quentin Tarantino.

[Mad Max]

Or Joss Whedon.

[MP]

C'mon Doherty. At 13, not being able to get Madden '10 is soul crushing. Cut the hyperbole back a notch.

This is simply a slippery slope issue about encroachment of the state into parenting. I agree that the Dutch have slipped too far down the slope here, but I don't find this as shockingly absurd as you apparently do.

[Episiarch]

I absolutely agree that the girl should be able to go, but they should have held off announcing that she was doing it until she was underway. Then, problem solved.

Not that it's right that they should have to think "uh oh, better not tell anyone about her adventure because government bureaucrats will try and stop us", but...it's the world we live in.

[Brian Lockwood]

Maybe she should sell the movie rights to Quentin Tarantino.

Damn it Max, you stole the thought right out of my head.

[Clich? Bandit]

I agree with Brian. Parents are the best judges of their children's ability. She is obviously an accomplished sailor(ette?) and both of her parents are on the same page. It is not as if Dad isn't around or doesn't care.

And maybe the movie for "Teen Burecrat Skull Crusher" should be given to Michael Bay? Ehhh?

HOLY CRAP I AM KIDDING ABOUT MICHAEL BAY

[The Angry Optimist]

So...how is this different from the time when most of y'all were yammering on about how we have to cram chemo down Parker Jensen's throat again?

[Warren]

Brian,
What if it was her parents instead of the government? Same same soul crushing right? I agree that this is overreach. However, when it comes to applying rights and freedom to children, it's always rough hewn and wet.

[Speaking of Old People]

", at 13 not having the boy/girl you like like you back can be soul-crushing."

Even in ones 50's...

[ransom147]

Sawyer & Finn turned out ok.

[Speaking of Old People]

"Falafel Friday"

I was taught by a middle eastern friend to use large lima beans. It's much better than with chick peas. The only downside is that after the beans are soaked, the skins have to be removed.

Best. Falafel. Ever.

[R C Dean]

This is akin to government interference in family medical choices. Intervene when a family's religious beliefs forbid blood transfusions? Surgery? Even when such beliefs will surely end in death, without intervention? Society has to deal with such things.

No, it doesn't. The family has to deal with such things. Remember Iron Law Number 5.

4. You aren't free unless you are free to be wrong.

The outer limit on this is, of course, abuse. While you can make a case that denying medical care is abuse (one I personally don't find terribly persuasive), I don't see any way in the world that you can say letting your daughter go sailing is abuse.

[R C Dean]

What if it was her parents instead of the government? Same same soul crushing right?

Parents, the State, same diff? Really, you want to argue that one?

[Warren]

I agree with Brian. Parents are the best judges of their children's ability.

Are you sure. I've known an awful lot of parents that are delusional about their children's abilities. As well as divorced parents that indulge their children.

[Sparky]

4. You aren't free unless you are free to be wrong.

The outer limit on this is, of course, abuse.

So you do place a limit on parents' "freedom" to imperil their children, R C? That's nice.
Civilized cultures have legal definitions of "childhood" and "adulthood" for a reason.

[Speaking of Old People]

"Are you sure. I've known an awful lot of parents that are delusional about their children's abilities. As well as divorced parents that indulge their children."

That's what I was thinking. I recall a case years ago where a 14-year-old girl (maybe even younger) was attempting to set the record as the youngest person ever to fly solo across the US. She crashed the plane and died.

It struck me as odd that she was old enough permitted to pilot a plane solo across America, but not yet old enough to drive to the airport.

[WWJGD]

I need a list of these Iron Laws...

[Speaking of Old People]

to be permitted.

[nigger Jim]

What about me you bloody racist!?

[WWJGD]

"That's what I was thinking. I recall a case years ago where a 14-year-old girl (maybe even younger) was attempting to set the record as the youngest person ever to fly solo across the US. She crashed the plane and died."

It could have been worse. She could have grown up and lived a long life full of the idea that if it's dangerous it shouldn't be done and pursuit of one's desires is verboten if there is a risk of danger.

[The Angry Optimist]

So you do place a limit on parents' "freedom" to imperil their children, R C? That's nice.
Civilized cultures have legal definitions of "childhood" and "adulthood" for a reason.

Whereas unpleasant glibertarians invoke "OMG TEH CHIDLRENS" whenever some unpleasant fact potentially offends their delicate sensibilities.

[Warren]

R C Dean | August 28, 2009, 3:30pm | #
What if it was her parents instead of the government? Same same soul crushing right?

Parents, the State, same diff? Really, you want to argue that one?

The argument being put forward was that it is an unpardonable violation of the kid's autonomy. If the parents said no, it would be the same violation. Of course there's a difference, a fundamental difference even. And the fact that parents have the legitimate authority to restrict liberty means that inalienable rights and autonomy don't reside in children. I don't know enough about this kid and her parents to know absolutely for sure what I think is right. I'm inclined to agree that the Dutch have gone where they have no business going. However, I don't categorically deny the states authority to protect the safety of children. For instance, if the child wanted to immolate herself to protest global warming, and the parents said "yes, we're very proud of how she's willing to sacrifice for what she believes in", I would want to state to intervene.

[Episiarch]

I was taught by a middle eastern friend to use large lima beans. It's much better than with chick peas.

I was under the impression that it was fava beans one was supposed to use.

[The Angry Optimist]

Cute, RC, but what if the child wanted to crucify himself to death because that's what Jesus did?

[Warren]

"That's what I was thinking. I recall a case years ago where a 14-year-old girl (maybe even younger) was attempting to set the record as the youngest person ever to fly solo across the US. She crashed the plane and died."

It could have been worse. She could have grown up and lived a long life full of the idea that if it's dangerous it shouldn't be done and pursuit of one's desires is verboten if there is a risk of danger.

Right, because those are the only two options.

[Sam Clemens]

Sorry Jim, you're too dangerous for young minds, I fear the adventure story may be the next to be banned.

[The Angry Optimist]

Well, do you have a third option, Warren?

[Clich? Bandit]

Warren,

Absolutly the parents are better judges of thier children. The choice given in this argument is parents vs. state. Now if anyone here thinks the state has a better bead on how children perform them by all means please let me get out of your way (we could always start with standardized testing). Choices parents make regarding their children are just as important as ones affecting themselves. Yes, sometimes parents are stupid. Sometimes drug users OD, or get behind the wheel of a car while ploughed, or legislate that black people are 3/5ths of a person. Pain, suffering, and bad decisions are unavoidable. Keeping the ability to mitigate those things in the individuals court is essence of freedom.

But when making a decision about the role of state I try to error on the side of less.

Give a mouse a piece of cheese and he will ask for a fork

p.s. of course if a mouse asked me for a fork I would say "HOLY CRAP, A TALKING MOUSE!"

[JB]

after the beans are soaked, the skins have to be removed

Let's not give the circumcision people any more ideas.

[ransom147]

We're sorry Susie. You can't have a bike because the government says it's too dangerous.

Sorry Jimmy, you can't go hunting cause it's too dangerous.

[Clich? Bandit]

And the fact that parents have the legitimate authority to restrict liberty means that inalienable rights and autonomy don't reside in children. I don't know enough about this kid and her parents to know absolutely for sure what I think is right.

I couldn't disagree more. Rights are inherent (seems once a month I need to make this point). Children have a fundamental right to life. Period. Where the difference comes in is in responsibility. Children do not always understand the consequences of their actions therefor society restricts their ability to exercise certain rights until such a time as they are deemed responsible. 14 for driving in MT, 18 to smoke or serve in the military, 21 to drink, 30 to be a senator. The ages are a political quesiton. The rights, however, are fundamental.

A pound of lead or a pound of feahters, still a pound

[Warren]

Well, do you have a third option, Warren?

Third, fourth, and fifth. There are many ways liberty can be restricted without being extinguished. Age requirements for instance, there's all manner of things we tell children, grown-ups can do but they are forbidden. Many people avail themselves of those activities when the reach the legal age, apparently failing to have been indoctrinated with a fear of all risk and danger. Very little in life is an all or nothing situation. That's just an Objectivist affectation.

[Clich? Bandit]

Ultimately the parents/guardians are the most informed and they are the party holding the childs responsibility.

running out of things to put here

[Craig]

Sailing solo around the world seems to be the latest teen fad. A 17-year-old boy from SoCal did it last month, and a younger 17-year-old broke the record just last week. Maybe the Dutch are just letting the 16, 15, and 14 year olds have a shot first.

I agree with the others here, though -- it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. Just take off, and tell people when you're done.

Still, if it were my daughter or son, I would withhold permission. It's not letting them sail alone for 25,000 miles that would scare me, it's a teenager being alone in random cities around the world.

[The Angry Optimist]

Riiight - like your "all or nothing" position on copyright...I assume that's a remnant of reverse-Objectivism or something?

Her parents know more than "we" do about her.

She knows more about herself than "we" do.

"We" have no right to interfere.

[Craig]

....society restricts their ability to exercise certain rights until such a time as they are deemed responsible. 14 for driving in MT, 18 to smoke or serve in the military, 21 to drink, 30 to be a senator.

I would make that 15 for driving, 16 for smoking, 18 to drink, 30 to serve in the military, and 150 to be a senator.

[Warren]

Clich? Bandit,

You cite the right to life, and that's probably the only one that actually applies (and the pro-life people would even deny that). A parent can deny to his child the right to free speech and free press. He can imprison his child. He can take the child's property without compensation. He can impose religion on the child. In short a parent has all (save one) of the authority of a tyrant over their child.

[Clich? Bandit]

As I said, a political question. I am open to those.

[ransom147]

Clich?:

Thank you.

This is so god damned offensive it makes my blood boil. Screw the human spirit right? Screw adventure and individualism in the name of society. Hod forbid some little twerp arts off a trend that threatens the tax base!

God damn biddies are running the world.

[Clich? Bandit]

Yes but only in the restriction of what you have conceded is a right. It is impossible to take a right away (a semantic argument for sure but annoying to my delicate sensibilities). However, some parents let their children write letters to the editor at age 10 and others do not. Some parents allow their children to travel by horseback between states (myself being one) with their younger third cousin and stay out for two days in the wilderness. Some parents send their 12 year old to a wilderness so deep that it is a three day hike to get to a phone. Some 25 year olds can't be trusted with a paper weight. The whole point is that PARENTS are the only legitimate (guardians etc.) authority over children. Not the state.

[robc]

Society has to deal with such things.

Society != Government.

Let her neighbors shame her parents.

[ransom147]

Stupid sure type.

[Warren]

Still, if it were my daughter or son, I would withhold permission. It's not letting them sail alone for 25,000 miles that would scare me, it's a teenager being alone in random cities around the world.

I'm guessing you've never been at sea in rough weather. Sailing around the world is serious business. Seasoned seamen with good equipment have perished alone at sea. Hell even larger vestals have broken in rough waters. Frankly I wouldn't think it anywhere near the capabilities of a 13 year old. But I've heard Mozart from 13 year old I wouldn't have thought possible either. There are some exceptional kids out there. And it would take a very exceptional one to pull this off.

[Warren]

The whole point is that PARENTS are the only legitimate (guardians etc.) authority over children. Not the state.

Really? There's nothing, absolutely nothing (crucifixion? self immolation?) that we wouldn't prohibit a child from doing even if the parents would allow it?

(and my point was parents DO have authority over children, and therefore it clearly IS possible to take away a right)

[The Libertarian Guy]

http://www.examiner.com/x-8274-San-Diego-Christian-Examiner~y2009m8d27-Court-forces-homeschooled-girl-to-attend-public-school

[robc]

Warren,

What happens to parents whose child commits suicide? Are they jailed?

I think the limit, as someone said above, is "abuse". But in the worst cases of self-abuse, we* do nothing to the parents.

*the state

[R C Dean]

I need a list of these Iron Laws...

Your wish is my command:

1. You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.
2. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
3. The less you know about something, the easier it is.
4. You aren't free unless you are free to be wrong.
5. Any power used for you today will be used against you tomorrow.
6. Money and power will always find each other.

[ransom147]

There are some exceptional kids out there

Yeah, and there are those who would stifle exceptionalism in the name of society.

[R C Dean]

We have one more in gestation:

7. Anyone who thinks they have the answer to all the world's problems, is part of the problem.

Still too wordy, though.

[robc]

7. Anyone who thinks they have the answer to all the world's problems, is part of the problem.

Still too wordy, though.

If you arent part of the solution, you are the precipitate.

[Warren]

Warren,

What happens to parents whose child commits suicide? Are they jailed?

Of course not. Where did sanctioning the parents come into it? If a parent is beating his child that's one thing. What I'm talking about is the parents obligation to ensure the safety of the child. I too believe parents are the best judge... almost always. But not always. It's possible for parents to be irresponsible, to be grossly negligent.

[robc]

It's possible for parents to be irresponsible, to be grossly negligent.

What do we do in that case? Wouldnt this have to involve "sanctioning the parents"?

[Warren]

6. Money and power will always find each other.

Find each other? Hell, they're inseparable.

[Clich? Bandit]

I never said there was never a time for the state to intervene. Only that the parents are the better judges. And no, it is impossible to take a right away. Just because I am not capable of communicating does not mean I don't have a right to. Slaves had the right to be free, they just couldn't exercise it. This is the nature of rights; they are inherent. An inherent quality of lead is that it is heavy. You can't take the heavy from lead.

[Rabbi Shlomo]

"This is so god damned offensive it makes my blood boil. Screw the human spirit right? Screw adventure and individualism in the name of society. Hod forbid some little twerp arts off a trend that threatens the tax base!"

So you think it was wrong of the state not to let the 14-year-old girl drive to the airport? Perhaps in addition to being a pilot, she was a huge NASCAR fan.

[robc]

Rabbi Shlomo,

Perhaps in addition to being a pilot, she was a huge NASCAR fan.

14 year olds commonly race. Especially go carts, but by that age some higher level categories too.

[Rabbi Shlomo]

"14 year olds commonly race. Especially go carts, but by that age some higher level categories too."

But the poor thing isn't allowed to race to the airport.

[Warren]

robc | August 28, 2009, 4:33pm | #
It's possible for parents to be irresponsible, to be grossly negligent.

What do we do in that case? Wouldnt this have to involve "sanctioning the parents"?

Possibly, but not necessarily. At least no more that overriding their wishes. For instance, some misguided parents might impose a diet on a child, with the best of intentions, that doesn't meet their nutritional needs. I would have no problem with a court ordering the parents to provide the kid with a glass of milk every day (I'm not a doctor, this might be a stupid example). Sanctions might follow. Neglectful parents might be required to attend classes, or in some cases might loose custody. But that's not the heart of my conundrum. Which is this; despite the fact I find the idea of the state intervening between a parent and child abhorrent, I can't rule it out absolutely.

[ransom147]

Rabbi:

Yes I do believe it was wrong. I also believe the road should have been privately owned and that the owner of the road abould be the one to set the guidelines as to how it was used.

[robc]

I can't rule it out absolutely.

Well, considering abuse has been brought up multiple times, I dont think anyone is ruling it out absolutely.

Of course, that leads to defining abuse. A tricky issue and one that varies with age. Allowing a 6 year old to circumnavigate the globe is more likely to qualify than a 13 year old.

[Warren]

Clich? Bandit,

I can't follow your semantics. Does a child have property rights? Does the parent have the authority to take the child's property? What the fuck does it mean to have a right that someone else has the authority to take away?

I mean I have property rights and the government has the ability to take my property in violation of those rights. The government claims it is acting within it's authority, but I claim it has no such authority. But you seem to granting the right and the authority to deny that right at the same time. So what the fuck is a right then?

[robc]

I dont think anyone is ruling it out absolutely.

Except the anarchists, of course.

[WWJGD]

We have one more in gestation:

7. Anyone who thinks they have the answer to all the world's problems, is part of the problem.

Still too wordy, though.

I'll suggest a version I just whipped up.
"Anyone who claims to have a panacea bears the
plague instead."

May sound archaic but I like the foreboding feel to it.

[Clich? Bandit]

A right:
The ultimate personal authority to perform some act.

ultimate - no other higher
personal - yours alone

A state has NO rights only privileges granted by citizens. Only individuals have rights.

States can legitimately bar you from exercising your rights when you have been shown to not grasp nor care about the responsibility associated with that right. I.E. putting you in jail if you kill someone.

The state has no right to put you in jail (only a privilege granted by the citizens in society) and you still maintain the right to be free but since you cannot exercise the responsibility then you shall be restricted in exercising your right to freedom.

By your logic slaves had no right be free. People have no right to their wages. Death row inmates have no right to life. The fundamental flaw is that your definition of a "right" is not correct.

[The Angry Optimist]

7. Anyone who thinks they have the answer to all the world's problems, is part of the problem.

This one is dumb - I suggest dropping it.

[Warren]

The fundamental flaw is that your definition of a "right" is not correct.

Ahhh yes I see now. I had forgotten we appointed you ultimate arbitrator over the language.

[Clich? Bandit]

Yikes!!! Taking this a little to personally?

No, I am not the ultimate arbitrator of language. That particular definition comes from a long study in (the most annoying of libertarian pastimes) philosophy. Once it is understood that "rights" are inherent and that only individuals can posses them then from there can a legitimate state be constructed. If rights are mutable then collectivism has an argument. I reject collectivism on its face.

But back to the minor discussion, children and other segments of the population have their rights "reserved" until such time as society (usually in the form of the state but not always) deems that they grasp the responsibility of exercising such rights. No right is without responsibility.

Seriously, this is old hat libertarian stuff. I thought most people here would have heard this line of thought before.

Do you think they are the miners?
Ohh sure they are like six or seven.
NOT minors, MINERS!
You lost me.

[The Angry Optimist]

Ahhh yes I see now. I had forgotten we appointed you ultimate arbitrator over the language.

Ohh, I see, it's like, all relative man. Saying someone is wrong is like, so bourgeoisie of you.

Warren, if he tells you you're wrong, and you say "no, I'm right", well then who the hell appointed you "arbiter" over language?

This is a dumb talking point - it is each person's individual responsibility to judge the rightness and wrongness of things.

[hmm]

He's not the ultimate arbitrator. He's just smarter than you. As crass as it is to say that when it comes to this subject he has made it more than clear he understands this and you don't. Picking out silly shit like his criticizing your misunderstanding makes all this pretty clear.

[db]

C'mon Doherty. At 13, not being able to get Madden '10 is soul crushing. Cut the hyperbole back a notch.

I must have been a considerably better-adjusted 13-year-old than you were.

[Warren]

I was asking what his definition of a right is. So he tells me (and frankly I think he's got the Jeffersonian version subtly wrong) but then throws in the kicker that my definition is "not correct". As if there is one correct definition.

[Clich? Bandit]

No, soul crushing is watching you 65 to 3 lead in the division playoffs of your undefeated season disappear in the third quarter to a cheating, despicable, poorly designed, ugly, mean spirited game that has it out for me by raising my blood pressure and causing me to buy a new controller every three weeks.

I haven't touched Madden in 6 years and I am damn proud of that fact.

breathe in, breath out

[hmm]

It isn't hard to understand how a child can have a right that is usurped by a guardian. It happens with property in trusts all the time with children and adults. The property is still yours, your right to ultimately control it is still yours (in many situations), yet you relinquish the decisions to another. Children not being able to understand the other side of a right, the responsibility, are therefore subject to having that right held in check by the parent. The right never went away. It's still there and it's still the child's. The ability to act on that right is what was taken because the responsibility of the action may not be understood. The interpersonal nature of this "taking" is something that government could never accomplish or understand. As Bandit said the nature of this relationship(parent/child) like rights, is an individual thing. Government by its very nature does not deal with the individual well. There is always a society side with government.

[hmm]

I forgot.

FUCK YA GO LIL' GIRL. I've always been one to think that allowing children to push themselves is one of the best things possible for a child.

[hmm]

You can call it the bob hope version of a right. It is what it is. Hell lets call it the happyhappyjoyjoyrightright. The idea is still the exact same. You don't agree with the philosophy. Which is fine. You can be wrong. It's okay.

The bandit guy is a lil' more tactful in stating this than I am.

[R C Dean]

7. Anyone who thinks they have the answer to all the world's problems, is part of the problem.

This one is dumb - I suggest dropping it.

Its still under review. There's a pretty high bar for Iron Laws.

[The Angry Optimist]

As if there is one correct definition.

Ah, so now who is playing language arbiter? If he dares to say you're wrong, you say he's wrong for saying you're wrong.

So, again, who appointed you language arbiter and how are you qualified to say HE'S wrong?

[Clich? Bandit]

R.C. I like the old trial lawyers addage:

First rule of cross examination

NEVER ask a question you do not know the answer to.

That is pretty iron, maybe molybdenum...could even be bismuth.

[anarch-y]

On balance, I guess I'd say to the kid "Go", because that sort of adventure is what living is really all about

[anarch]

parents : government :: children : parents

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

The young lady reputedly has considerable sailing experience included a solo trip on the north Atlantic, and plans to lay up to avoid bad weather during the Southern crossings.

It sounds like she's reasonably well equipped to understand the risks, and has plans to mitigate them.

It sure as hell doesn't mean there is no risk---the southern ocean kills more experience sailors than her every few years---but she doesn't seem to be asking to embark upon a suicide mission.

But I am not horrified that the government might want to check that the facts above are true: sending an inexperienced, under-equipped, or rash youngster into the southern ocean alone looks a lot like dereliction of duty to me.

OTOH I would be pissed off if, having verified the above, that both parents agree, and that the young lady can articulate her reasons for wanting to attempt this crazy thing without her parents hovering over her the government tried to stop her.

[The Angry Optimist]

Escaped - once you've accepted the idea that the government should "verify" whether she's allowed to leave under some set of standards, why is it somehow then repugnant to you if they decide "no amount of experience will qualify you"?

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

Escaped - once you've accepted the idea that the government should "verify" whether she's allowed to leave under some set of standards, why is it somehow then repugnant to you if they decide "no amount of experience will qualify you"?

Damn good question.

I'd like to take it in two parts

1) How can I---an alleged libertarian---support the government intervening at all?

It is like with any other situation involving possible neglect: I know for certain that I'd want someone to do something if it become known the John Doe was letting little Johnny Jr. starve to death in the basement.

But I don't want social services coming around and bitching (much less threatening to take the kid) when the little brat goes to bead without dinner or desert and gets his plate full of lima beans for breakfast.

Somewhere there has to be limits on the decisions that parents can make for their kids.

2) Why do I think that the government would be wrong to absolutely forbid a thing like this?

This is similar to the recent discussion we had concerning a 13 year old cancer patient who apparently wanted to make a damn fool treatment decision. I think that 13 year olds can be (but not always are) sufficiently cognisant of death and danger to weigh in on their own fate.

I am aware that they are also even more vulnerable than an adult to being manipulated by people they trust, which is where by desired for the kid to explain his or her reasoning to a magistrate without the parents being around comes from.

If the parents and the kid both know the risks and can say why they want this, then who are we to say no?

But aren't you being inconsistent?

Probably.

There is certainly an aspect of "I know it when I see it" to my reasoning.

That's the best I can do for you.

[hmm]

There is certainly an aspect of "I know it when I see it" to my reasoning.

Doesn't that in and of itself justify government not being any part of such a decision process? Government, being a based on committee decision, can't know something when it sees it. I can't think of a better reason for government not to be involved than it can't know it when it sees it. Government by its very nature is designed to deal with society and not the individual. Such an intimate decision cannot be made by an entity that does not have a means to process the information at a personal level. Government cannot do this.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

hmm,

Fair enough.

How do you recommend handling the limits on what decisions a parent can make for their kids?

That is where I always get stuck when I try to envision a world without a Department of Child Welfare (or whatever you want to call it).

In a small enough community you could try to rely on consensus and a vigilante mob (hopefully not a violent one). But that leaves with little protection for minorities, and doesn't scale up well at all.

I am at a loss.

[The Angry Optimist]

I would say there are not perfect 'solutions' to things like this, but step one would be to stop increasingly infantilizing the populace and raising the age limits on things.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

I would say there are not perfect 'solutions' to things like this, but step one would be to stop increasingly infantilizing the populace and raising the age limits on things.

No shit. I am so with you on that.

[*]

hmm | August 28, 2009, 5:33pm | #
You can call it the bob hope version of a right. It is what it is. Hell lets call it the happyhappyjoyjoyrightright. The idea is still the exact same. You don't agree with the philosophy. Which is fine. You can be wrong. It's okay.

This is why comments should be closed after the first 20.

[Mad Max]

The Libertarian Guy,

Whoa, dude, the homeschooling article you cite also involves the state intervening into the life of a child of divorced parents. It's almost as if you were *trying* to discredit divorce from a libertarian perspective:

'A recent OneNewsNow article, covered a story that took place in New Hampshire, surrounding a court's decision to force a young girl to attend public school after the separation of her parents.

'Apparently, Mom had homeschooled the girl for a while and was supposedly doing quite well. However, Dad wanted his daughter to attend public school.'

[hmm]

How do you recommend handling the limits on what decisions a parent can make for their kids?

As mentioned above what limits are needed. Killing your child the only one that I can come up with that the parent can't usurp. That is already covered as homicide.

When you get into the range of dereliction and neglect it gets pretty iffy. Is an 8 year old child who doesn't have shoes neglected? What if they are an Appalachian family that doesn't have the means? Are gay parents unsuitable for parenthood? How about children that aren't learning? Should the state take them from their parents for not enforcing education?

The parent has the power and tools to deal with these things the best. If they do not then they are shitty parents. But the state stepping in seems to almost always make things worse. The solution may be based more in helping the parent not be a shitstain than just dealing with the child. I'm sure there are extreme cases that require intervention, but I prefer to error on the side of less government/child and more government/adult. The other thing is the larger the government or more removed it is from the individual, fed v. state v. county v. city, the farther removed the interpersonal relationship is.

That said after working as a mentor for the local county family court for some time now I can tell you some parents should be shot. This is actually a tough subject for me. Because as an individual I would gladly dispense justice upon people who mistreat their children or do not act in the child's best interest. Which would lead me to wanting the ultimate authority to do this for me, the state. But the outcome of the state or government intervention seems to always be lacking at an epic level. I would love to see a larger role from community, religious, corporate, or hell any other entity that has a stake in society. While this has its moral hazards as does government I just haven't seen government succeed and I witness its failure in this area all to often.

For the record there are many people operating within government like judges, officers of the court, case workers, even the occasional officer(this is rare, most take a totalitarian approach with children and have an atrocious attitude towards juvenile offenders) that want nothing but the best for the child. But operating in the bureaucracy that they do they are ineffectual, and many know this, and it drives them mad.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

How do you recommend handling the limits on what decisions a parent can make for their kids?

As mentioned above what limits are needed. Killing your child the only one that I can come up with that the parent can't usurp. That is already covered as homicide.

When you get into the range of dereliction and neglect it gets pretty iffy. Is an 8 year old child who doesn't have shoes neglected? What if they are an Appalachian family that doesn't have the means? Are gay parents unsuitable for parenthood? How about children that aren't learning? Should the state take them from their parents for not enforcing education?

You do know that turning the hard ones around is dirty pool, don't you?

I will try to answer.

No shoes is not, per se neglect, though it certainly is sub optimal. No shoes because mom decided to pay the cable bill instead is another matter, at least most of time (I knew that kid later in life).

Judging must be on a case-by-case basis, and with an awareness of the local conditions, and the limits of the families resources. Just the sort of thing that a bureaucracy is rotten at doing.

Education is likewise tough. Deep ignorance is a terrible handicap in the society we have around us, but that doesn't make the state well equipped to say what everyone should learn: the Amish do pretty well with a very old fashioned education. I tend toward insisting that kids get some education, but not looking too closely exactly what the parents choose. Shitty approach, but the other suck worse.

Gay is a non-issue for me: I'm a sensitive, caring, agnostic, twenty-first century, cardigan wearing type of guy. The only time gay people bother me is when they are in the closet but sending off ferocious gaydar reflections. 'Cause I really want to say "Ya know, you'd be happier if you just came out...".

The solution may be based more in helping the parent not be a shitstain than just dealing with the child. I'm sure there are extreme cases that require intervention, but I prefer to error on the side of less government/child and more government/adult.

I don't think we're too far apart on this. Can we agree to almost agree and turn our collective attention to the ones who want to helicopter for all of us? We can always thrash out the details when Libertoptia is on the horizon.

[The Libertarian Guy]

MMax, I realize there's particulars in that story that don't quite mesh with this thread, but IMO there are similarities - overbearing government forcing one or both parents to bow to its wishes being the most glaring offense.

[The Angry Optimist]

Mad Max - please, no one cares about your hobbyhorse of the week in re: divorce. Stop mucking up every thread with it.

[Fluffy]

Warren, you dumbass, the state has absolutely zero authority on what the child does outside of the borders of the Netherlands.

That's a major part of what makes this all so very absurd.

The social workers here feel entitled to declare what this kid can and cannot do IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN.

God, I hope some angry Muslim blows up the building these motherfuckers work in. Please please angry Muslims, can't you find these bitches and smoke them?

[anarch]

14 year olds commonly race.

Common racist!

[anarch\'s Ministry of Educatio]

How about children that aren't isn't learning?

[John C. Randolph]

A legitimate government's duty is to secure their citizen's freedom. The Dutch government has overstepped their prerogative, and the girl they did this to has no moral obligation to obey them.

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

. Please please angry Muslims

The "angry Muslims" of whom you speak aren't noted for supporting the freedom of girls.

-jcr

[Ratdog]

Now how can we possibly expect adults to accept their status as property of the state if as children their parents were allowed to give the children the mistaken impression that choices were up to the parents and not the sole authority of the government who owns the them.

On the other hand, not far distanced from the old country, had the state known what was going on in my family, kids drinking alcohol, watching themselves while parents worked, operating dangerous machinery, and on, and on, they most certainly would have intervened. No good could have come from such intervention, and anyone who thinks they can hold me without a fight is kidding themselves. As it worked out, they never caught on, we all grew up and became productive citizens, two of my sisters and one of my brothers is providing the medical care so many of you believe is so crucial, something of a family tradition. And with no one the wiser I can't help but believe the state intervention into families is purely serving it's own interests, not those of children or families.

It's not the business of any of us to sit around judging how others raise their families no matter how much you disagree with how they are doing it. It's not your blood, it's theirs. It may well be they just as much disapprove of you and how you are raising your family. So it becomes what? A democratic process where the government is a tool used by any mob Oprah Winfrey or some other "do-gooder" organizes, to do their bidding. Well, this is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic with strict limits on government powers that can only be altered through clearly outlined procedure.

What a bunch of suckers we all are, thinking we can just take this person or that person's rights for granted, trample them a bit, or crush them, and somehow it just won't come back to haunt us. Well, it just doesn't work that way.

Psst..want to hear a little secret? Freedom is dangerous, there's no way to make it safe. To have freedom means the danger someone will misuse heir's and harm another. But there is something far more dangerous than freedom, it's the only way to make freedom safe, and that's to take it away.

[prurient-minded state-nanny]

watching themselves while parents worked

I don't like the sound of that at all, at all.

[Kant feel Pietzsche]

How about:

7. The man with all the answers is the problem.

[just a thought]

If theres a limit on how young one can be to attempt the record for Youngest Person to (insert activty>, then the record doesnt really have any meaning does it?