promethea.incorporated

brave and steely-eyed and morally pure and a bit terrifying… /testimonials /evil /leet .ask? .ask_long?


dagny-hashtaggart:

shlevy:

While you live in my house, you’ll follow my rules!

I won’t let you choose another place to live, even if the people who own it are willing. My house, my rules!

I’ll strictly control what skills you develop and resources you amass that are relevant to being able to live on your own. My house, my rules!

I’ll deny permissions legally required to get a license or a job that I don’t want you to get. My house, my rules!

If you manage to get out of the house anyway, I’ll call on the government to force you to come back. My house, my rules!

I was thinking about this idea while reading Wisconsin v. Yoder, and specifically William Douglas’ dissent. Yoder is a classic free exercise case: it concerned a law mandating education (public or private) through high school, pitting the interest of the state in seeing to it that its citizens were educated against the right of Amish parents to not violate their traditions and beliefs. The Supreme Court sided with the Amish.

Justice Douglas’ dissent centered on the argument that there were three parties whose interests in this dispute were relevant, not two. Basically, “has anyone thought to ask the kids what they think?”

To be specific, there’s one party whose interests in this dispute are relevant. Both of the other interests are basically bullshit.

(via ilzolende)

1 week ago · tagged #youth rights · 151 notes · source: shlevy · .permalink

  1. ozylikes reblogged this from ilzolende
  2. raginrayguns said: Finally read this post after seeing only the top line a while ago. I’d assumed it was going to be venting about your mother in law leaving the sponge in the sink, and got progressively more confused as I read
  3. almostcoralchaos reblogged this from shlevy
  4. socialjusticemunchkin reblogged this from shlevy and added:
    I mean “it resembles” in the way that it seems to have something similar; not that it’s actually that much about the...
  5. randomizedred reblogged this from artisticmanga
  6. shlevy reblogged this from socialjusticemunchkin and added:
    … I mean if you’re going to go with negative vs positive rights at all then you’ve basically abolished the entire...
  7. witandmirth reblogged this from socialjusticemunchkin
  8. metagorgon said: this is about the caretaker’s interests in the child’s decision, not the caretaker’s own interests.
  9. artisticmanga reblogged this from bookchins-revenge
  10. supersonichistrionic reblogged this from bookchins-revenge
  11. bookchins-revenge reblogged this from socialjusticemunchkin
  12. ilzolende reblogged this from socialjusticemunchkin and added:
    OTOH, the party whose interests are most relevant is also typically significantly cognitively impaired, has atypically...
  13. shacklesburst reblogged this from ilzolende
  14. isaacfhtagn reblogged this from shlevy
  15. cyborgbutterflies reblogged this from earthboundricochet
  16. crowmeme reblogged this from vulpineangel
  17. vulpineangel reblogged this from dagothcares