Freedom = Responsibility
Many of us have made the title argument. I would treat it as an axiom at this point, yet the government and socialist do not.
I have used an argument on my children with some success. "You are a teenager. You are in between an adult and a child. One day you'll be an adult. It is ok with me if you want to behave like a child, and have me take care of thing, and you do as I say. It is also ok with me if you want to behave as an adult, take care of things yourself, and act responsibly. However, you can not have it both ways. Each day, you should consider which one you want that day, and that's the way we'll do it, but no inconsistencies."
This causes interesting looks, some self-reflection, and generally good results for a period of time, because it is not an ultimatum. It is clearly fair, and it leave them the choice.
It seems this line of discussion, treating children/teens like adults as possible, and responsibility being proportional to freedom, would resonate with even the most liberal.
Why then can they not abstract this logical position to the greater society?
Separately, if you begin a discussion in agreement on common ground, and transition to the broader, societal discussion, you have a much better chance of connecting and affecting the thought of the other party (liberal, middle of the road or yet undecided (e.g. youth)).
What does the Gulch think of the logic for teenagers, and more importantly using the concept to bring around undecided peoples tempted by altruistic socialism or other?
I have used an argument on my children with some success. "You are a teenager. You are in between an adult and a child. One day you'll be an adult. It is ok with me if you want to behave like a child, and have me take care of thing, and you do as I say. It is also ok with me if you want to behave as an adult, take care of things yourself, and act responsibly. However, you can not have it both ways. Each day, you should consider which one you want that day, and that's the way we'll do it, but no inconsistencies."
This causes interesting looks, some self-reflection, and generally good results for a period of time, because it is not an ultimatum. It is clearly fair, and it leave them the choice.
It seems this line of discussion, treating children/teens like adults as possible, and responsibility being proportional to freedom, would resonate with even the most liberal.
Why then can they not abstract this logical position to the greater society?
Separately, if you begin a discussion in agreement on common ground, and transition to the broader, societal discussion, you have a much better chance of connecting and affecting the thought of the other party (liberal, middle of the road or yet undecided (e.g. youth)).
What does the Gulch think of the logic for teenagers, and more importantly using the concept to bring around undecided peoples tempted by altruistic socialism or other?
Gov't literally will pull a gun on you, so yes. I can accept, "I was forced to pay taxes." I cannot accept, "I was forced to pay the bank a high rate of interest."
I looked up and saw my then school teacher wife not in agreement. The next day was packed up and gone by way of the lawyers office. it was'nt worth the effort or taking the chance of going to jail and that conclusion I had seen plenty of examples. Got a sheet of paper from the judge stating how much, for what and when and spent the next seven years on half pay and working for McDonalds and Arby's It could have been a lot worse I kept my retirement minus child support and insurance and she kept hers. She had to sell the paid for house and give me, through the courts half the value. Paid the Child Support in advance and haven't seen them since. Last I heard she's a Pshrink. At that point I told the helpful relative. Jenna who? Bought a Boat got a merchant marine job made a bundle and went sailing. Haven't eaten a Big Mac or a Jack Inna Crack since. Arbies yes. That's the way a lot of stories end. and some with a lot worse endings. I hired the meanest most successful lady lawyer in the area and after the judge banged the gavel handed her $2,000 and walked away with my freedom. Never lost it since. The limits had been reached and I had withdrawn my contract with that society.
Yes! I'll accept that language if someone pulls a gun on you. "I had to give him the money." People say "I had to" or "I was forced to" in cases where they really had a choice.
I don't have teenagers, but I certainly observe my younger kids being babies one hour and near-adults another.
My thought is when they are teenagers, they need to exhibit mostly adult behavior and face mostly adult consequences of their actions. If they're still acting like children at age 16, we have a big problem because they're two years away from facing adult consequences. If at that point I have to tell them what to do more than on infrequent occasion, I will consider that a brewing crisis.
Humans have a biological urge to leave their family of origin and find their own way when they're teenagers. Some people consider them children until age 18, but I reject that. They need to be mostly adults, mostly wanting to get away and do their own thing, mostly in a responsible way, flying with the last bit of runway below them if they need it.
children (who have not reached majority) cannot
properly be held responsible. For instance, they
cannot be allowed to have sex. And other such
things.--Basically, though, I think that your approach may be all right, within certain limits.
Burkini Are Not Nice: French Resort Latest To Ban Muslim Swimming Suit
by jonathanturley
200px-BurqiniNice has added its famous beaches to the list of resort areas where the burkini is banned. Like the ban on the veil, it is hard to see how such bans are not openly discriminatory towards Muslims. I fail to understand the rationale for such a ban, particularly when many people now adopt full covering (especially for child) to protect against the damaging sun rays.
Read more of this post
https://jonathanturley.org/2016/08/22...
Originally the move to International Orange as a safety ccolor came with two yellow stripes. The kid thought it meant equal and my bunnyhug disappeared (the kind with the big pocket across the front., as opposed to hoodies with a zipper.
I replaced them but Carhartts had switched to three stripes., probably due to some EPA ruling.
But the best is the best and add a pair of SFC work boots with titanium toes i was ready for the cover of Working Stiff
Thanks for the dictionary quote, and whatever else you said.
...and telling kids (and adults) freedom comes with responsibility is the correct message. Freedom without responsibility is chaos. Responsibility without freedom is a prison. Not very many words go together this well. I understand they are not mathematically equal. They don't even have the same number of letters.
Let's look at some Stuff from the American Heritage Dictionary, college edition:
SYNONYMS: obligation, responsibility, duty. These nouns refer to a course of action that is demanded of a person, as by law or conscience. Obligation usually applies to a specific constraint arising from a particular cause: “Then in the marriage union, the independence of the husband and wife will be equal, their dependence mutual, and their obligations reciprocal” (Lucretia Mott). Responsibility stresses accountability for the fulfillment of an obligation: “I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty” (John D. Rockefeller, Jr.). Duty applies especially to constraint deriving from moral or ethical considerations: “I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies” (William Tyler Page).
SYNONYMS: freedom, liberty, license. These nouns refer to the power to act, speak, or think without externally imposed restraints. Freedom is the most general term: “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free” (Abraham Lincoln). “The freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty” (George Mason). Liberty is often used interchangeably with freedom; often, however, it especially stresses the power of free choice: liberty of opinion; liberty of worship; at liberty to choose whatever occupation she wishes; “liberty, perfect liberty, to think, feel, do just as one pleases” (William Hazlitt). License sometimes denotes deliberate deviation from normally applicable rules or practices to achieve a desired effect, as in literature or art: poetic license. Frequently, though, it denotes undue freedom: “the intolerable license with which the newspapers break . . . the rules of decorum” (Edmund Burke).
Maybe you mean that being responsible means placing chosen restrictions on freedom since you want the child to morally be responsible, which means by choice. Best not to make childhood too safe. One needs little hurts and skirmishes to have evidence to learn that unrestricted freedom is no necessarily desirable. Trouble is that in today's safety conscious USA, allowing little learning events to happen just takes away from learning to be responsible for ones actions. One needs those little lessons in order to understand rights and how it is possible for someone to feel like their rights have been violated by being hurt. If one has no experience there is no lesson to learn.
That does not mean that the lesson will be interpreted in a desirable way. Hurts such as alcoholic parents or sickly parents or evil siblings, etc. can emotionally cause similar behavior in some. Basically do not smother the kid unless you want to create a long term adolescent trouble maker.
"We hold these truths to be self evident....(snip)...
with certain unalienable rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES............"
Load more comments...