Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
58 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: The Consent of the Governed, Writ Small rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
The esteemed Mac and I got into a bit of tangential disagreement in the thread about what leftists fear about the left, and he requested we take it to a new thread. Trigger warning: while I do not intend to take us there and hope we can avoid it, I'll be unsurprised if rape or related issues arise.

Governmental force and coercion are often justified on the basis of the free agreement of those governed. It is my view that this is a fiction, and the real basis of government has more to do with necessity and simple force than is usually admitted, because we wish to claim that our rule is just and the world is basically fair. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Political Obligation includes an account of the modern state of philosophical thinking on the issue, for those inclined to read philosophy. For those truly persuaded of the justice of their own punishment and the need to apply it themselves, it is possible to read Hume's Of the Original Contract (with commentary in blue to help guide a modern reader through his verbiage), an early reaction to Locke's idea of government by tacit consent. While I don't endorse Hume's view of politics wholly, it seems basically correct in its approach of noting that observed facts accord very poorly with Lockean consent theory, and of using this, not to undermine all government, but to establish the need to acknowledge that, though consent would be wonderful as a justification were it present, another foundation is required for most actual governments.

I take these same issues to arise in the case of Home Owner's Associations (HOAs). As in the case of governments, the people governed by HOAs did not uniformly give informed, free consent to either the particular rules of the HOA nor to its general structure. For me, a corollary of the fact that government and HOAs generally govern without genuine consent is that it is desirable for regulations to be narrowly tailored to serve goals of widely acknowledged importance and to impose burdens no greater than proportional to the good thereby done.

I take Mac's position to be that no such requirement exists; because he takes being governed by an HOA to be voluntary, freedom of association (or perhaps contract) ought to suffice to justify rules of whatever nature the HOA chooses.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay. I found it and I'm going to read your post
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Cook
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
I tried Google Translate, and it was no help. Much appreciation if one of you could translate this into English.

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay, please narrow it down.

Pick a single point you want to start with and we can build up from there.

An example for format...

For each point we may agree, disagree, or refine to subpoints after a little discussion and then move on to the next point. If a particular point feels to fiddly you can propose stipulating a value for it.

For example
Must citizens agree to rules or laws?
Implied or hereditory consent
Active consent
* on community entry
* on birth
* ongoing/continuous
Procedures for change
* representatives
* town halls
Do children have equal rights and when
* variable rights
* invariable rights
* is age a reasonable basis for some rights
Can the government impose laws on citizens
* philosophical basis
* real world example/counter example?

Subpoint citizen consent discussion ended, then
HoAs...
Pink flamingos
* are pink flamingos an anethema?
* what if they are poorly maintained?
* what if they are sunbleached different colors and cracking?
House colors
Building height and styles
But seriously.. what about those flamingos?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So shall we focus on consent of the governed first?


Or pink flamingos?

Ive skimmed the first linked article.

About to into session and then watch "Father Brown" with a friend so next post here will be later this evening.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
So shall we focus on consent of the governed first?


Resolved: HOA rules may be as restrictive as the HOA allows, because those affected freely chose to submit to the HOA.

That work for you?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that these days, "the consent of the governed" really means "not having enough people getting interested enough to change the law." We do not require or solicit the active consent of our electorate at any regular intervals - the Constitution does not need to be regularly renewed. It's possible to view this as a flaw, and some do. But this results in stability that makes it possible to make iterative changes that advance our society in a direction the governed like without doing so precipitously. And we have built in protections in the form of protected rights that allow the judiciary to make further corrections on the basis of those rights.

So I think Kelsey is largely right - the consent of the governed is not something that's particularly active or engaged in any comprehensive sense. Instead, it is something we witness in democracies by seeing laws change as the views of the nation change. As a result, you do get "necessary and simple force" for the overwhelming majority of laws on the books because to most people, they're just there. We actively consent when issues bubble up to higher levels of importance (DACA is one potential area where we could see this right now). But generally speaking, consent is more something passive and inherited than it is active on any constant basis.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
So shall we focus on consent of the governed first?


Resolved: HOA rules may be as restrictive as the HOA allows, because those affected freely chose to submit to the HOA.

That work for you?


Juat have a second..

* are we going to defer children? Because thats foundational so should be touched on first.
* cases to address
1 new hoa/totally new development
2 buying into an existing hoa
3 existing hoa changes rules
4 hoa laid over existing property
5 weak to strong hoa transition.

Oh and on the "Resolved". Imho, this discussion is an exploration of the topic more than a debate.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
So shall we focus on consent of the governed first?


Resolved: HOA rules may be as restrictive as the HOA allows, because those affected freely chose to submit to the HOA.

That work for you?


Juat have a second..

* are we going to defer children? Because thats foundational so should be touched on first.
* cases to address
1 new hoa/totally new development
2 buying into an existing hoa
3 existing hoa changes rules
4 hoa laid over existing property
5 weak to strong hoa transition.

Oh and on the "Resolved". Imho, this discussion is an exploration of the topic more than a debate.


Well, let's consider children now, then. I take it to be the case that children are bound by HOA rules (for example, I'd expect rules about allowable pets and playing drums might be typical).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
EMBison wrote:
I tried Google Translate, and it was no help. Much appreciation if one of you could translate this into English.

Thanks!


I think regulations should respect freedom a lot, because many of the people affected didn't agree to them. Mac thinks people ought to be able to form associations which enforce a much broader array of possible rules, because he thinks people do agree to them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
So shall we focus on consent of the governed first?


Resolved: HOA rules may be as restrictive as the HOA allows, because those affected freely chose to submit to the HOA.

That work for you?


Juat have a second..

* are we going to defer children? Because thats foundational so should be touched on first.
* cases to address
1 new hoa/totally new development
2 buying into an existing hoa
3 existing hoa changes rules
4 hoa laid over existing property
5 weak to strong hoa transition.

Oh and on the "Resolved". Imho, this discussion is an exploration of the topic more than a debate.


Well, let's consider children now, then. I take it to be the case that children are bound by HOA rules (for example, I'd expect rules about allowable pets and playing drums might be typical).


What do you mean by child?

Is it simply a slightly younger age (16... 14) than we use now?

What rights should they have (assent to moving, equal say in family decisions, assent to behavior restrictiobs in the new community, etc.)?

Focusing on this atea for now tho... aka hoa's, or neighborhood behavuir rules in places without an hoa.

Etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
So shall we focus on consent of the governed first?


Resolved: HOA rules may be as restrictive as the HOA allows, because those affected freely chose to submit to the HOA.

That work for you?


Juat have a second..

* are we going to defer children? Because thats foundational so should be touched on first.
* cases to address
1 new hoa/totally new development
2 buying into an existing hoa
3 existing hoa changes rules
4 hoa laid over existing property
5 weak to strong hoa transition.

Oh and on the "Resolved". Imho, this discussion is an exploration of the topic more than a debate.


Well, let's consider children now, then. I take it to be the case that children are bound by HOA rules (for example, I'd expect rules about allowable pets and playing drums might be typical).


What do you mean by child?

Is it simply a slightly younger age (16... 14) than we use now?

What rights should they have (assent to moving, equal say in family decisions, assent to behavior restrictiobs in the new community, etc.)?

Focusing on this atea for now tho... aka hoa's, or neighborhood behavuir rules in places without an hoa.

Etc.


I'm happy to discuss the cases you think most salient. If you like, I can say 14-year-olds, but I'm not really clued in yet to the reason you're interested in the level of specificity you seem to be, so I'm not sure what turns on that choice in your mind.

The way I think of the issue isn't in terms of the rights of the children, but the responsibilities of those who impose the rules. In my view, when you're imposing rules on people who have either no voice in the process which generates them, or whose choices with respect to that system are substantially coerced, it is your responsibility to tread as lightly as you practically may on their autonomy while still accomplishing what's necessary.

One way to think of this would be to give rights not to be unduly interfered with to anyone who lacks free choice about the system which makes the rules. That would provide at least some mechanism for redress, but I fear it would be least effective in defending the rights of the most vulnerable, which sucks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
So shall we focus on consent of the governed first?


Resolved: HOA rules may be as restrictive as the HOA allows, because those affected freely chose to submit to the HOA.

That work for you?


Juat have a second..

* are we going to defer children? Because thats foundational so should be touched on first.
* cases to address
1 new hoa/totally new development
2 buying into an existing hoa
3 existing hoa changes rules
4 hoa laid over existing property
5 weak to strong hoa transition.

Oh and on the "Resolved". Imho, this discussion is an exploration of the topic more than a debate.


Well, let's consider children now, then. I take it to be the case that children are bound by HOA rules (for example, I'd expect rules about allowable pets and playing drums might be typical).


What do you mean by child?

Is it simply a slightly younger age (16... 14) than we use now?

What rights should they have (assent to moving, equal say in family decisions, assent to behavior restrictions in the new community, etc.)?

Focusing on this area for now tho... aka hoa's, or neighborhood behavuir rules in places without an hoa.

Etc.


I'm happy to discuss the cases you think most salient. If you like, I can say 14-year-olds, but I'm not really clued in yet to the reason you're interested in the level of specificity you seem to be, so I'm not sure what turns on that choice in your mind.

The way I think of the issue isn't in terms of the rights of the children, but the responsibilities of those who impose the rules. In my view, when you're imposing rules on people who have either no voice in the process which generates them, or whose choices with respect to that system are substantially coerced, it is your responsibility to tread as lightly as you practically may on their autonomy while still accomplishing what's necessary.

One way to think of this would be to give rights not to be unduly interfered with to anyone who lacks free choice about the system which makes the rules. That would provide at least some mechanism for redress, but I fear it would be least effective in defending the rights of the most vulnerable, which sucks.


The word child is ambiguous. Clearly you don't mean 3 year olds, right? So we are establishing exactly what you mean. For example, three year olds are not morally or legally responsible for their actions in almost all cultures.

Their mechanism for redress is to appeal to their parents who deal with the issue. But even 14 to 17 year old children are recognized to have certain rights not given to 3 year old children.

If your position for children is that humans below the age of voting/age of responsibility are coerced and have fewer* rights than adults, then we agree (even for the age of 18 years - 1 day) and we can move on.


---
*really "different" 'legal' rights. Children are granted rights adults are not granted.

In this discussion tho, I'll try to avoid a distinction between 'legal/granted' and 'natural/inalienable' rights tho.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
So shall we focus on consent of the governed first?


Resolved: HOA rules may be as restrictive as the HOA allows, because those affected freely chose to submit to the HOA.

That work for you?


Juat have a second..

* are we going to defer children? Because thats foundational so should be touched on first.
* cases to address
1 new hoa/totally new development
2 buying into an existing hoa
3 existing hoa changes rules
4 hoa laid over existing property
5 weak to strong hoa transition.

Oh and on the "Resolved". Imho, this discussion is an exploration of the topic more than a debate.


Well, let's consider children now, then. I take it to be the case that children are bound by HOA rules (for example, I'd expect rules about allowable pets and playing drums might be typical).


What do you mean by child?

Is it simply a slightly younger age (16... 14) than we use now?

What rights should they have (assent to moving, equal say in family decisions, assent to behavior restrictions in the new community, etc.)?

Focusing on this area for now tho... aka hoa's, or neighborhood behavuir rules in places without an hoa.

Etc.


I'm happy to discuss the cases you think most salient. If you like, I can say 14-year-olds, but I'm not really clued in yet to the reason you're interested in the level of specificity you seem to be, so I'm not sure what turns on that choice in your mind.

The way I think of the issue isn't in terms of the rights of the children, but the responsibilities of those who impose the rules. In my view, when you're imposing rules on people who have either no voice in the process which generates them, or whose choices with respect to that system are substantially coerced, it is your responsibility to tread as lightly as you practically may on their autonomy while still accomplishing what's necessary.

One way to think of this would be to give rights not to be unduly interfered with to anyone who lacks free choice about the system which makes the rules. That would provide at least some mechanism for redress, but I fear it would be least effective in defending the rights of the most vulnerable, which sucks.


The word child is ambiguous. Clearly you don't mean 3 year olds, right? So we are establishing exactly what you mean. For example, three year olds are not morally or legally responsible for their actions in almost all cultures.

Their mechanism for redress is to appeal to their parents who deal with the issue. But even 14 to 17 year old children are recognized to have certain rights not given to 3 year old children.

If your position for children is that humans below the age of voting/age of responsibility are coerced and have fewer* rights than adults, then we agree (even for the age of 18 years - 1 day) and we can move on.


---
*really "different" 'legal' rights. Children are granted rights adults are not granted.

In this discussion tho, I'll try to avoid a distinction between 'legal/granted' and 'natural/inalienable' rights tho.


Got it. It sounds like you don't think we have a responsibility to tread lightly on the interests of young children, because their parents will adequately defend their interests. Is that right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
So shall we focus on consent of the governed first?


Resolved: HOA rules may be as restrictive as the HOA allows, because those affected freely chose to submit to the HOA.

That work for you?


Juat have a second..

* are we going to defer children? Because thats foundational so should be touched on first.
* cases to address
1 new hoa/totally new development
2 buying into an existing hoa
3 existing hoa changes rules
4 hoa laid over existing property
5 weak to strong hoa transition.

Oh and on the "Resolved". Imho, this discussion is an exploration of the topic more than a debate.


Well, let's consider children now, then. I take it to be the case that children are bound by HOA rules (for example, I'd expect rules about allowable pets and playing drums might be typical).


What do you mean by child?

Is it simply a slightly younger age (16... 14) than we use now?

What rights should they have (assent to moving, equal say in family decisions, assent to behavior restrictions in the new community, etc.)?

Focusing on this area for now tho... aka hoa's, or neighborhood behavuir rules in places without an hoa.

Etc.


I'm happy to discuss the cases you think most salient. If you like, I can say 14-year-olds, but I'm not really clued in yet to the reason you're interested in the level of specificity you seem to be, so I'm not sure what turns on that choice in your mind.

The way I think of the issue isn't in terms of the rights of the children, but the responsibilities of those who impose the rules. In my view, when you're imposing rules on people who have either no voice in the process which generates them, or whose choices with respect to that system are substantially coerced, it is your responsibility to tread as lightly as you practically may on their autonomy while still accomplishing what's necessary.

One way to think of this would be to give rights not to be unduly interfered with to anyone who lacks free choice about the system which makes the rules. That would provide at least some mechanism for redress, but I fear it would be least effective in defending the rights of the most vulnerable, which sucks.


The word child is ambiguous. Clearly you don't mean 3 year olds, right? So we are establishing exactly what you mean. For example, three year olds are not morally or legally responsible for their actions in almost all cultures.

Their mechanism for redress is to appeal to their parents who deal with the issue. But even 14 to 17 year old children are recognized to have certain rights not given to 3 year old children.

If your position for children is that humans below the age of voting/age of responsibility are coerced and have fewer* rights than adults, then we agree (even for the age of 18 years - 1 day) and we can move on.


---
*really "different" 'legal' rights. Children are granted rights adults are not granted.

In this discussion tho, I'll try to avoid a distinction between 'legal/granted' and 'natural/inalienable' rights tho.


Got it. It sounds like you don't think we have a responsibility to tread lightly on the interests of young children, because their parents will adequately defend their interests. Is that right?


Not really, it's more "We don't give children the rights and responsibilities of adults because they are incapable of giving informed consent. They are highly manipulable and haven't developed fully mentally yet. They can be easily manipulated and can be even more self centered than adults (literally lacking the ability think outside of themselves yet). We can't hold them fully responsible for their actions so their actions are restricted until we can hold them responsible for them."

For example, if a child breaks a $300 plate glass window, we do not hold them fully responsible to make that wrong right.

For example, we don't give children the right to set their own menus because most will choose a very unhealthy diet.

For examples, studies have shown the parts of the brain responsbible for logical thought are not finished until after age 12. And the brain doesn't finish development until the early 20's. (as an aside - one reason I don't think 18 year olds should be allowed to take huge college loans that can't be forgiven).

Even if a child kills someone, we limit the degree to which they are responsible for their actions.

Since a child can't take full responsibility, or even understand what taking full responsibility means, they can't give informed consent- and I think they can't give informed affirmative consent- we can't give them full rights either.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
That all makes sense to me. I'm wondering about the next step: how do you think it sensible to account for the interests of those who cannot effectively advocate for themselves, and who lack the full rights and responsibilities of fully-functioning adults?

My claim is that we all ought to accept some responsibility for restricting their freedoms no more than necessary. This is what you've objected to, so I take it you think that we don't owe it to children to respect their autonomy directly. My assumption is that you think their parents will exercise their rights in such a way as to protect the interests of their children, and that this offers sufficient representation for those interests.

There might be a third option appealing to neither of us, decoupling children's interests from their freedoms. So perhaps we do all have a duty, independent of our expectations that parents will look out for children, to respect the interests of all children. But that duty might involve something other than respecting their freedoms--indeed, where the value of the property they stand to inherit is concerned, perhaps we owe them rules which restrict their freedoms for their longer-term good. You haven't seemed to me like you wanted to accept such a moral limit on what a HOA might do, and I have concerns about taking that principle to a governmental level, but it's an option I wanted to acknowledge.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
You guys should get a room.

Look, the "consent of the governed" is accurate. People get to vote for who is in the government -- that's where the consent comes in. If they don't vote, they have implied their consent to whatever outcome it produces. Then the Constitution kicks in, limiting the power and scope of what people in the government does, and also provides "inalienable" rights (which, admittedly, are up for interpretation by the courts). So the worry about the consent of the governed, understand the rest of the apparatus is set up to limit the range of what governors can do.

As for the rest, see my first sentence. And if you're wealthy enough to live in a gated community with an HOA, shut up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
You guys should get a room.

Look, the "consent of the governed" is accurate. People get to vote for who is in the government -- that's where the consent comes in. If they don't vote, they have implied their consent to whatever outcome it produces. Then the Constitution kicks in, limiting the power and scope of what people in the government does, and also provides "inalienable" rights (which, admittedly, are up for interpretation by the courts). So the worry about the consent of the governed, understand the rest of the apparatus is set up to limit the range of what governors can do.

As for the rest, see my first sentence. And if you're wealthy enough to live in a gated community with an HOA, shut up.


That's why Mac suggested we take this to a new thread!

You just said that voting is how people consent to be governed, and in the very next sentence, you said not voting is … also consent. You see my problem here, right?

As for the second half, what I'm saying is essentially that not only is something like a Constitution morally desireable, even those powers not barred by the constitution ought to be exercised with as much respect for liberty as the goals allow. Put another way, we should avoid collateral damage to freedom. But the motive for this principle is very similar to the motive behind having a constitution at all--the recognition that there are some legitimate goals for which we have to work to have a successful society, but that coercion and force are to be avoided to the extent possible (equivalently, that we should violate natural rights no more than necessary).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
You guys should get a room.

Look, the "consent of the governed" is accurate. People get to vote for who is in the government -- that's where the consent comes in. If they don't vote, they have implied their consent to whatever outcome it produces. Then the Constitution kicks in, limiting the power and scope of what people in the government does, and also provides "inalienable" rights (which, admittedly, are up for interpretation by the courts). So the worry about the consent of the governed, understand the rest of the apparatus is set up to limit the range of what governors can do.

As for the rest, see my first sentence. And if you're wealthy enough to live in a gated community with an HOA, shut up.


We did specifically get a room. This thread. Other people can enter it but its the room we set up for this discussion.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
That all makes sense to me. I'm wondering about the next step: how do you think it sensible to account for the interests of those who cannot effectively advocate for themselves, and who lack the full rights and responsibilities of fully-functioning adults?

My claim is that we all ought to accept some responsibility for restricting their freedoms no more than necessary. This is what you've objected to, so I take it you think that we don't owe it to children to respect their autonomy directly. My assumption is that you think their parents will exercise their rights in such a way as to protect the interests of their children, and that this offers sufficient representation for those interests.

There might be a third option appealing to neither of us, decoupling children's interests from their freedoms. So perhaps we do all have a duty, independent of our expectations that parents will look out for children, to respect the interests of all children. But that duty might involve something other than respecting their freedoms--indeed, where the value of the property they stand to inherit is concerned, perhaps we owe them rules which restrict their freedoms for their longer-term good. You haven't seemed to me like you wanted to accept such a moral limit on what a HOA might do, and I have concerns about taking that principle to a governmental level, but it's an option I wanted to acknowledge.


Could you give me some concrete examples to hang my head around?

What are they unfairly denied?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
rinelk wrote:
That all makes sense to me. I'm wondering about the next step: how do you think it sensible to account for the interests of those who cannot effectively advocate for themselves, and who lack the full rights and responsibilities of fully-functioning adults?

My claim is that we all ought to accept some responsibility for restricting their freedoms no more than necessary. This is what you've objected to, so I take it you think that we don't owe it to children to respect their autonomy directly. My assumption is that you think their parents will exercise their rights in such a way as to protect the interests of their children, and that this offers sufficient representation for those interests.

There might be a third option appealing to neither of us, decoupling children's interests from their freedoms. So perhaps we do all have a duty, independent of our expectations that parents will look out for children, to respect the interests of all children. But that duty might involve something other than respecting their freedoms--indeed, where the value of the property they stand to inherit is concerned, perhaps we owe them rules which restrict their freedoms for their longer-term good. You haven't seemed to me like you wanted to accept such a moral limit on what a HOA might do, and I have concerns about taking that principle to a governmental level, but it's an option I wanted to acknowledge.


Could you give me some concrete examples to hang my head around?

What are they unfairly denied?


Not living in an area with a HOA of any power, I don't have great examples from my own life (for me, it's town rules). My assumption, though, is that some HOAs do things like regulating tree houses, drum practice, and front yard fences. Each of these seems to create burdens which disproportionately fall on kids.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's some info on HOA's and examples of bad HOA conflicts with homeowners.

http://gawker.com/5830257/the-horror-of-homeowners-associati...

Regarding your 3 specific examples
* Having a fence (or from the link- a gate).
Yes the parents act as the proxy- contacting the HOA, lobbying the neighbors for support. Almost all children are incapable of dealing with adults to argue their case. They could be tricked, coerced, or frightened into giving affirmative so we protect them from those situations.
If the parent can't convince the HOA and their neighbors to support an exception to the rules then the child won't get a gate (or a fence).

* Drum Practice
Very specifically, everyone else has a right to peace and quiet on their property. The child's right to practice ends at other people's eardrums and home exteriors (and to a lesser extent the home's lawns.)

* Tree Houses
I agree, it seems to be a bit intrusive to ban building a treehouse in a tree growing from the child's property where it isn't visible to the street. If visible, it could be an eyesore tho- especially if it is built out of random crap, or starts to fall apart (and becomes an attractive nuisance hazard).


---

So looping back, you said "we all ought to accept some responsibility for restricting their freedoms no more than necessary."

I think our government and organizations do accept some responsibility for restricting their freedoms no more than necessary. They balance between the desires of those who want to restrict those freedoms for various reasons (property value, peace and quiet, ability to sleep) and avoiding unreasonable infringement on child freedom.

I think things like CPS demonstrate that our society does care for the interests of children independent of their parents (sometimes protecting them from their parents). So do child labor laws. Age of consent laws. And so on.

I don't think we are protecting the children's property values when we restrict their activities. I think that's mostly about the current home owners.

---
I think it is sensible to account for the interests of those who cannot effectively advocate for themselves, and who lack the full rights and responsibilities of fully-functioning adults by
* limiting what they can consent to.
* listening to their parents as their representatives.
* listening to them (keeping in mind they are children) express what they want.

I think all those happen currently.

I think a super majority of people agree with the rules of their government and their home owners association. I think the minority usually has freedom until their activities come to the awareness of the majority. Then be it child alcohol use or some other activity- outsiders get involved. (my Czeck uncle had no problem letting his 5 year old drink (not sip for taste) beer. The authorities were never informed so it never became an issue. Kid was an alcoholic at 18.)

---

So i think in most cases we do a pretty good job of balancing child rights vs an awareness of their lack of ability to make wise decisions currently. I don't see a case for doing more than slight adjustments to their current state of rights.

We can discuss this further or pop on up to home owners associations and revisit this when it is relevant to the hoa discussion. Gotta preference? Thought of other cases where we unjustly restrict freedom of children?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
maxo-texas wrote:

We did specifically get a room. This thread. Other people can enter it but its the room we set up for this discussion.


I'm just here to video....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
rinelk wrote:
You just said that voting is how people consent to be governed, and in the very next sentence, you said not voting is … also consent. You see my problem here, right?


When you ask your wife where she'd like to go have dinner, more than likely she'll say something like "Oh, I don't care" or "You pick" i.e. not voting. Now, you're still going to go eat, right? So you vote (pick a restaurant) and she has consented to your choice with her non-action. And, like in politics, she will grumble about your choice AFTER the meal arrives. Ergo, she consented by not participating.

Quote:
As for the second half, what I'm saying is essentially that not only is something like a Constitution morally desireable, even those powers not barred by the constitution ought to be exercised with as much respect for liberty as the goals allow. Put another way, we should avoid collateral damage to freedom. But the motive for this principle is very similar to the motive behind having a constitution at all--the recognition that there are some legitimate goals for which we have to work to have a successful society, but that coercion and force are to be avoided to the extent possible (equivalently, that we should violate natural rights no more than necessary).


I see your problem. You assume, like the good-hearted soul you are, that everyone is interested in politics, interested enough to be informed, and want to vote. I am truly sorry, but that's flat wrong. Barely half of registered voters cast ballots in the presidential elections. Midterms, state, local, etc. voting? Totals go down even further. And their non-participation comes at a price. Those who voted, and voted for the right candidate(s) get to set the agenda for the next two, three, four, five, or six years. The winners use the force of law, not simple brutal force, to enforce their will. The saving grace is that if those slackers get off their asses and vote, they will have the say in the agenda.

It's not designed to be perfect, because nothing is. It's not designed to everyone's views on every issue because nothing can do that. Given human nature, the experiences from previous governments, the Founding Fathers (or Anglo-Saxon Patriarchial Oppressors) came up with what we have now. In less than 250 years, the US has gone from about eight million citizens clinging to the eastern seaboard to spanning the continent and beyond, 330 million citizens, the world's biggest economy, an amazing amount of freedom for its citizens, high quality of life, and enough military might to crush any other country on the planet. That might not be your or my definition of success, but when put in the context of history, whatever the ASOPs did, worked.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
rinelk wrote:
You just said that voting is how people consent to be governed, and in the very next sentence, you said not voting is … also consent. You see my problem here, right?


When you ask your wife where she'd like to go have dinner, more than likely she'll say something like "Oh, I don't care" or "You pick" i.e. not voting. Now, you're still going to go eat, right? So you vote (pick a restaurant) and she has consented to your choice with her non-action. And, like in politics, she will grumble about your choice AFTER the meal arrives. Ergo, she consented by not participating.

How does one signal non-consent?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.