(This post is completely pointless in that the decision I discuss does not need to be made.)
What is the smallest unit that the government should be concerned with?
If I say a family, that affirms the notion that an Englishman's home is his castle. He chooses how to live his life, decides what is best for his family etc. If I say an individual, well, individual rights and all that.
Now let's get specific. What about suicide? An individualist should have no problem with it. Someone who proclaims a family to be atomic will, because a suicidal person has obligations to her family and disrupts the family it by her actions. What's a libertarian to think? Individual right to suicide versus foisting a destitute family on the state.
Spousal abuse may be covered under the castle doctrine, or it could be an abridgement of the spouse's right.
What about children? People generally have limited rights until they reach the age of majority. How much say should the government have in the way you raise your children? Say you spank your child. Cruelty or discipline? Should there be a law against it? Okay, take it up a notch. Should you be allowed to smoke at home if you have children? You aren't allowed to smoke at work. Do your own children deserve less? And the extreme case, what about parental incest? Maybe that's how you want to raise your child. Social Services may take a different view.
I could think up dozens of situations where I think the choice should be made one way, and dozens more for the other. Thankfully, I realized that making that choice case-by-case is perfectly fine by me. The only reason I'm posting this pointlessness is that I wasted an afternoon thinking about it.
Fini.
Posted at 12:18 AM. (link) | Comments (0)