Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilSteve
Children will have significant limits on their personal freedom no matter what.
As will adults. This isn't a valid argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilSteve
Either their parents will make decisions on their behalf, or the state will make decisions on their behalf, or some combination of the two.
And we can make rough estimations of which option is preferable in certain instances, and which option is more likely to cause damage or unnecessarily limit the rights of those involved, etc. The state is not, of course, making decisions on anyone's behalf, it is trying to place laws down that assist in the protection of the rights of the child. Any and all laws against abuse operate on this principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilSteve
Some forms of parental indoctrination may be harmful to them. But the same is true of state indoctrination.
At any point during a debate between one person arguing for state intervention on a certain matter and another arguing against it, the person opposing will make this mistake. Using the phrase "the state" is almost always excessively simplistic, and in cases like this basically tows the line toward being simply disingenuous.
First, the reasonable alternative to parental indoctrination is not state indoctrination, it's NO indoctrination, at least on a given issue.
Second, and more towards my earlier point, "the state" is not an entity making unilateral decisions. At its best and most effective, it is simply implementing what can be reasonably assumed to be the lessons of society. While the common argument would be that this simply does not happen, it quite frequently does. I'm very skeptical of the state when one action or the other is very clearly in its own self-interest (think taxes). I'm also skeptical of state action in situations where the intent is not to protect rights that are clearly being threatened. In situations like this one, the same arguments cannot be used.
Nanny state overreach is possible and common, frequently to protect rights that many people don't think exist (the right to attend a bar and avoid cigarette smoke, for example). But the state frequently, and justly, steps on the rights of some if the flexing of those rights is infringing upon the rights of others. When the protection of the latter rights is more important than the former (and in this case I think it clearly is), I have no issue with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilSteve
So the choice is between parental indoctrination or state indoctrination, not parental indoctrination or no indoctrination. If you think state indoctrination is preferable, fine. Obviously I disagree.
Once again, false dichotomy.