Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> That's a tough one, Dale. On one hand, if the kid is born to psychotic
> parents (or just stupid parents) and the trait is inherited, then it's
> better for the species as a whole if they mistreat the kid and possibly
> kill him. On the other hand the mistreatment may be due to the parent's
> environment and not be an inherited trait - that it's not the kid's fault,
> just bad luck.
> or, u.s. parents
> who indoctrinate their children with fables about "god"). Perhaps Jim Bell's
> assassination politics is the answer - you can abuse your children by commisis
> (circumcizing an infant, lying to them about "god" and Santa Claus) or omission
> (denying medical care or education) but you're running the risk of the kids
> growing up and taking out a contract on you. Cool.

Good points all.  I'd add that since society and standards are
evolving, and the state's negative influences are gaining along
with the positive ones, a goal of keeping the state at bay is a
good one to pursue.  One issue that concerns me, though, is the
kids' access to their own redresses. There was the kid who "divorced"
his parents, and probably other examples where kids have brought
third parties (other than government) between them and their parents.

I think this sort of thing has merit in some cases, but would likely
be exploited by Hillary types for bad.  If kids can (or will) have
more access to grievance-intermediaries, how can that be controlled,
just enough so it doesn't get out of hand (or has letting the genie
out of the bottle already lost the case for future parents)?