6 ms·

Hard disagree with utilitarian interventionism. It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and t

Hard disagree with utilitarian interventionism. It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and to raise their children with values of their choosing. Economic and social outcomes are not universal moral values. The collective has no right to impose their utilitarian best-guess on the individual. People should have a right to reject them and raise illiterate children in forest school. Free society is a liberal ecosystem, where participants are continually succeeding and failing. The authority required to mount a collective response to these inequalities is too susceptible to corruption, and represents injustice in its departure from liberalism. Not to mention that well-meaning interventions by federated authority have an abysmal track record.

flir 3y ago
Bearing in mind we're talking about bullying here, which interventions are going to trample your fundamental civil rights? Unless we're going with a reductio ad absurdum panopticon solution, I can't think of any way in which more robust interventions in bullying would be a bad thing.
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  People have the right to be and to raise bullies as long as their behaviour is nonviolent. As tasteless as it is, there is no law against socially excluding and humiliating people. Nor should there be.
  - flir 3y ago
    Why the limit on physical violence? Why's that the universal line in the sand that society should enforce?
    - thegrimmest 3y ago
      Because it's unambiguous, already a core liberal value, and because the enforcement mechanisms for violating the law are invariably physical (arrest, imprisonment). "Free" means "Free from the threat of illegitimate violence", not "Free from the possibility of having your feelings hurt". It would be unjust to impose physical consequences for non-physically-infringing actions.
      - flir 3y ago
        I think I'm going to leave it there.
      - bccdee 3y ago
        Why all these appeals to "core liberal values"? You can't justify a bad idea by saying "but it's part of liberalism." If that's true, it just means that liberalism is a bad ideology. Who says that's what "free" means? Why should we be free only from physical harm and not emotional harm? You can't claim an ideology is self-evident when it rests on arbitrary definitions of terms. Besides, your definition is flawed. Does sexual assault count as a physical or an emotional harm, if it causes no physical injuries? There are many forms of sexual assault which cause exclusively emotional trauma. Are we not entitled to be "free" from these?
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    The difference between violent and non-violent bullying can be closer than you'd think. Also, and please note I have much experience in this, physical violence was the one thing I was in permanent fear of as a child but having decades now passed by I came to understand it was the emotional violence that did by far the most damage to me and my siblings. We will not recover. Meta comment: people like you can argue on the basis of abstractions because clearly that's all you have to argue from – you obviously have no experience of child abuse. And I'm glad of that, but please be careful putting about your opinions ("...no law against socially excluding and humiliating people. Nor should there be.") with Dunning-Kruger boosted confidence.
  - imtringued 2y ago
    We have anti discrimination laws.
  - cchi_co 2y ago
    [dead]
bccdee 3y ago
> It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and to raise their children with values of their choosing. If that's "core liberal fundamentals," then maybe liberalism is, at heart, rotten. Your take on it certainly is. I don't respect a parent's "right" to neglect or mistreat their children. Society collectively is entitled (in fact, obliged) to intervene in harmful family situations. That's not what liberalism is, though. Who are you citing here? What aspect of liberal philosophy entitles parents to treat children like their property? Parents don't own their children; liberal individualist property rights cannot apply to the treatment of human beings, who have their own rights. Rather than any sort of liberalism, what you're espousing here is a form of deep pre-liberal conservatism, where children have no rights and are instead property of their patriarch, whose authority is absolute and arbitrary. How can you possibly believe that the government, with its myriad checks and balances, is too susceptible to corruption to intervene in family life, but that parents, whose power over their children should be absolutely unchecked in your view, cannot be corrupt? That they have an inalienable right to withhold education and socialization from their children; that this self-evidently corrupt and selfish desire is beyond reproach? This is a ridiculous and half-baked ideology.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  > How can you possibly believe that the government, with its myriad checks and balances, is too susceptible to corruption to intervene in family life, but that parents, whose power over their children should be absolutely unchecked in your view, cannot be corrupt? Because generally parents care a lot about their children. That has been a universal experience. There are of course some rotten outliers, but those are the exceptions which prove the rule. Whereas governments are mostly comprised of faceless bureaucrats who will generally care far less about a child. Again, there will be some great exceptions of government employees who are truly fantastic, but the general perception I have described still holds. That you cannot see this obvious fact means > This is a ridiculous and half-baked ideology. these words seem to describe your ideology. And you may not believe me, but just look at referendums or bills about parental rights and public's reaction to those. Even in a one-party state like California with progressive zealots in power, governor Newsom figured it is wiser to veto bills which encroach on a parent's rights.

flir 3y ago

Bearing in mind we're talking about bullying here, which interventions are going to trample your fundamental civil rights? Unless we're going with a reductio ad absurdum panopticon solution, I can't think of any way in which more robust interventions in bullying would be a bad thing.

thegrimmest 3y ago
People have the right to be and to raise bullies as long as their behaviour is nonviolent. As tasteless as it is, there is no law against socially excluding and humiliating people. Nor should there be.
- flir 3y ago
  Why the limit on physical violence? Why's that the universal line in the sand that society should enforce?
  - thegrimmest 3y ago
    Because it's unambiguous, already a core liberal value, and because the enforcement mechanisms for violating the law are invariably physical (arrest, imprisonment). "Free" means "Free from the threat of illegitimate violence", not "Free from the possibility of having your feelings hurt". It would be unjust to impose physical consequences for non-physically-infringing actions.
    - flir 3y ago
      I think I'm going to leave it there.
    - bccdee 3y ago
      Why all these appeals to "core liberal values"? You can't justify a bad idea by saying "but it's part of liberalism." If that's true, it just means that liberalism is a bad ideology. Who says that's what "free" means? Why should we be free only from physical harm and not emotional harm? You can't claim an ideology is self-evident when it rests on arbitrary definitions of terms. Besides, your definition is flawed. Does sexual assault count as a physical or an emotional harm, if it causes no physical injuries? There are many forms of sexual assault which cause exclusively emotional trauma. Are we not entitled to be "free" from these?
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  The difference between violent and non-violent bullying can be closer than you'd think. Also, and please note I have much experience in this, physical violence was the one thing I was in permanent fear of as a child but having decades now passed by I came to understand it was the emotional violence that did by far the most damage to me and my siblings. We will not recover. Meta comment: people like you can argue on the basis of abstractions because clearly that's all you have to argue from – you obviously have no experience of child abuse. And I'm glad of that, but please be careful putting about your opinions ("...no law against socially excluding and humiliating people. Nor should there be.") with Dunning-Kruger boosted confidence.
- imtringued 2y ago
  We have anti discrimination laws.
- cchi_co 2y ago
  [dead]

bccdee 3y ago

> It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and to raise their children with values of their choosing. If that's "core liberal fundamentals," then maybe liberalism is, at heart, rotten. Your take on it certainly is. I don't respect a parent's "right" to neglect or mistreat their children. Society collectively is entitled (in fact, obliged) to intervene in harmful family situations. That's not what liberalism is, though. Who are you citing here? What aspect of liberal philosophy entitles parents to treat children like their property? Parents don't own their children; liberal individualist property rights cannot apply to the treatment of human beings, who have their own rights. Rather than any sort of liberalism, what you're espousing here is a form of deep pre-liberal conservatism, where children have no rights and are instead property of their patriarch, whose authority is absolute and arbitrary. How can you possibly believe that the government, with its myriad checks and balances, is too susceptible to corruption to intervene in family life, but that parents, whose power over their children should be absolutely unchecked in your view, cannot be corrupt? That they have an inalienable right to withhold education and socialization from their children; that this self-evidently corrupt and selfish desire is beyond reproach? This is a ridiculous and half-baked ideology.

RestlessMind 3y ago
> How can you possibly believe that the government, with its myriad checks and balances, is too susceptible to corruption to intervene in family life, but that parents, whose power over their children should be absolutely unchecked in your view, cannot be corrupt? Because generally parents care a lot about their children. That has been a universal experience. There are of course some rotten outliers, but those are the exceptions which prove the rule. Whereas governments are mostly comprised of faceless bureaucrats who will generally care far less about a child. Again, there will be some great exceptions of government employees who are truly fantastic, but the general perception I have described still holds. That you cannot see this obvious fact means > This is a ridiculous and half-baked ideology. these words seem to describe your ideology. And you may not believe me, but just look at referendums or bills about parental rights and public's reaction to those. Even in a one-party state like California with progressive zealots in power, governor Newsom figured it is wiser to veto bills which encroach on a parent's rights.