The uneducated blog (www.unerzogen.de) came on "No end justifies coercion" the question of the law of the jungle. Hence, the impetus of local contributors, it was almost course, that the adults determined by the child. Who makes right moral order must not find you in, then this change of government, education and schooling and thus served the purpose of Gutwerdens. This one can certainly write a whole book, I'll try again in a nutshell.
First of all I want to preface: Humans are not animals. They may reflect conscious in a far greater extent their actions and control. From this implies the "fact that parents are stronger and more powerful, no exercise of authority over children. Why should they? In most cases children are not only a consequence parental sex but also parental love. Without "making love" is at least no children. Benefit of others here and there like motifs play a role, but in most cases children are adopted for its own sake, and there is every reason that parents respect this self-consciously and unconsciously to their children. People are not angels, but the empirical studies show however, that parents are not even mostly about her ego of her child, they're ready for the new, is its own creature. This is the foundation and the parental rights, which is recognized juridical, cultural and religiously significant. Even the Constitution recognizes and codifies the parental right of education as natural. It is indeed, justified his pre-state rank it as a fundamental right as a defense right to others, especially government claims. There are only the parents who bring the requirements for basic support of their children: love, loyalty, closeness, role model, like genetic predisposition, that is simply the necessary human qualities that are so natural, because God and nature selected them to reality.
If parents live with the right to have their children grow up uneducated, so they are well aware that they can not of course prevent involuntary education, such as counterfeiting. But this is just without purpose, such as informal, here the child comes out of itself, it takes parental behavior on their own disposition, whether it be semi-conscious or not. The avoidance of arbitrary education is to Verzweckung the child actually quite natural and people-friendly. Let the limits that apply to adults are valid, just common among men, even among children and between adults and adolescents. Insofar as the legal presumption of all of a state education commission is indeed quite typical democracy, but never installed, neither legally nor morally. Basically, education is an anachronism benefit of others, unless one considers at least partial slavery as legitimate - or, as logos of the Democrats, the individual as the people ruled.
Of course, the people more than any individual, especially when the state uses violence. A right to do so can be derived in no way - and this was in the history of mankind and not only done mostly. Any more than the parents may use their children as little can there other. Not power, law and morality are the conditions of civilization, but are stronger and more powerful limited by the recognition of law. The modern monopolization of violence, including the alleged Gusto that nationals were supermen, just prevented the free course of justice, the balance between people, which is necessary, if only because people are competing for a place on which they are located. Therefore, the human recognition of property (including the individual belongs to himself) so satisfying and fundamental law. Keep your kids is the fact of human nature from the beginning, belonging, included. Power is always limited and relative, but power is short-lived, long-lasting law. Just as the man the natural laws of gravity alone could overcome the fact that it uses the natural laws of ballistics and aerodynamics, and the abuse of power should be limited only be used in the anthro-praxeological findings. People are able to offer its to organize protection, to argue, to ally themselves to fight back. And they remain just as capable, even if they renounce indiscriminate attacks, which indeed are not better in that they are performed on behalf of the people or by state police. Through the monopolization of violence inevitably arise unjust distortions, which we know from the economy to (legal) persons are privileged to monopolies. The art of a free community of people, a civilization consists, precisely, limiting state power (de Jouvenel), their own violence, especially in the age of civilizing the masses (le Bon). Otherwise, we, as this year, actually the right of might, as a state. And it does nothing to the absurd situation that parents today to say in Parliament via the party and quite democratic about it, as all (other) children are raised by the state, but not about whether - and how - their own children are educated. The right of the stronger it is not, as is readily apparent here, because everyone - except the Socialist - will readily recognize that this situation can not be a law. It is also immoral, because the evidence of this allegedly allowed child's best interest can no more be provided. Under the thumb of state power, children suffer as well as their parents. The Suggestion that they prepare for the benefit of the people is possible, moreover, not because coercion and their soft counterpart, the manipulation, just are not appropriate means. Is forced at best and, exceptionally virtuous only morally and correctly anticipated emergency. This is the bureaucrat, not on behalf of the Democrats, not in a position regularly. Neither Democrat nor bureaucrat responsible for the consequences of their enforced by state power and truly cheap humble opinion. This also has nothing to do with law and promoting legitimate irresponsibility. Parents reap the fruits of their miseducation themselves, they therefore have a vested interest even for the best possible conduct, in addition to the parental Love. Whether or more powerful, they are not they smart and in love, not their children thrive. Klug and love their children to live in the good and in life, this is the real strength to the wings of love. It is the law that limited power. Between generations and between people. And it can be a David to defeat a Goliath. There is always someone stronger. The right has nothing to do.
This article was first untutored in abridged and edited form in the Journal of the magazine Tologo-Verlag in Leipzig published.
uneducated Blog: www.unerzogen.de
uneducated blog post: No end justifies Forced
uneducated magazine: site
News Democracy Issue: No consensus on democracy - in government, education and family
Bertrand de Jouvenel: About the state power, antiquarian
Gustave le Bon: psychology of the masses
Freedom Splitter: love and freedom
Institute of values Economy: democracy analysis
0 comments:
Post a Comment