Re: Children and Cypherpunks

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Tim May writes:
>This won't cut it. No outsiders can interfere with how I raise my
>children, in terms of the views I expose them to...
>...I'm getting involved here in this political discussion because some
>Cyherpunks think it's OK to forcibly butt into how others raise their
>children, that this is somehow consistent with a Cypherpunk attitude
>about information and liberty. It's not.

I think the issue is far from clear.  While I agree that the liberty of
parents must of course be protected, I believe that the liberty of
children is an equally important issue.  While I can understand the strong
historical, social, and even biological roots of the desire to maintain
absolute control over one's children, I believe that children do have
inalienable rights as unique and individual persons.

How are we to clearly distinguish between the parent who confines his
child to an attic room 24 hours a day from the parent who puts up similar
informational walls that block his access to knowledge of the world?

Granted, at its extreme, this idea flies in the face of almost all
previous human history.  Nonetheless, the information era brings with it
never before encountered possibilities for new relationships between
children and society at large. Hence, the attitude of child "ownership" by
parents may call for serious re-examination.

I would predict that the rights of pre-adults will become one of the most
important civil rights issues of the next century.

Doug
___________________________________________________________________
Doug Cutrell                    General Partner
doug@OpenMind.com               Open Mind, Santa Cruz
===================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBLjwc74ocgYlDu3UBAQEUjgP/fT8Ww6SK0bHVnh2Qm9p57nEn4ZZ4kHH9
sHBs3Q41tHb5ta7N1NRFeHO2KPQCFxpuxPvEW7XRWyZ11hzEgZVMDUv/yIpvIJoQ
G6dijp7MRDaoQ/4bEVHW8XxdRJro1GptgRaW18v68z0rBja/nuLfaq7FybQThY1p
ndmqgQpwvJ4=
=m7t0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

___________________________________________________________________
Doug Cutrell                    General Partner
doug@OpenMind.com               Open Mind, Santa Cruz
===================================================================

Doug Cutrell says:
> I think the issue is far from clear.  While I agree that the liberty of
> parents must of course be protected, I believe that the liberty of
> children is an equally important issue.  While I can understand the strong
> historical, social, and even biological roots of the desire to maintain
> absolute control over one's children, I believe that children do have
> inalienable rights as unique and individual persons.

That may be so. However, I agree with Tim that I don't think society
is equiped to make decisions on when a child should be taken from
parents simply because they have odd views. Unless a child is being
physically tortured I am not sure that mechanisms can be designed that
will not, for the most part, be abused and used largely to attack
non-conformists, of which I am one.

> How are we to clearly distinguish between the parent who confines his
> child to an attic room 24 hours a day from the parent who puts up similar
> informational walls that block his access to knowledge of the world?

I see no reason to attempt to distinguish the cases. I know parents
that do not provide their children with television sets -- perhaps the
new-fangled crime of "information deprivation" would be used to attack
them. I know of Amish families, and I have no interest in tearing
children away from them, either. Leave people alone, I say.

> Hence, the attitude of child "ownership" by parents may call for
> serious re-examination.

I'm an extremist in this regard -- I believe all children "own"
themselves. Thats not the point. I also don't want the state
monitoring people's child rearing. The child abuse industry is already
far out of proportion. Under some of the proposals mentioned here,
Amish people would be considered criminals. Why? Who have they hurt? I
have no fascination with or desire to aid other people's children. I
want them to leave me alone, and leave my children alone, and anything
that weakens that in the name of "the common good" is going to end up
hurting ME in the end, given that I'm a strong nonconformist.

Perry