Wednesday, February 25, 2009

David Semple: an arrogant, weapons-grade cock-end

This article by David Semple is absolutely disgusting in its blinkered arrogance.

I did contemplate fisking the fucker, but Bishop Hill has done such a fine job that any effort by your humble Devil seems superfluous. Here's a sample...
Collectively, as a society, we have a responsibility to our children - who are not the property of their parents and shouldn’t be treated as such.

And they are the property of "society" are they? You clearly think so. But if you took the trouble to check it out, you would find that children are legally the responsibility of parents. This is why it is not possible to sue the state when your teenagers take to drugs. Are you advocating that this should be possible? Of course not. When you say that children are the "responsibility of society" you don't mean anything of the sort. You are simply demanding a right to indoctrinate them to your personal preferences while avoiding any actual responsibility. It's the same as every other time you deal with the state—interfering busybodies get to tell you what to do but take no responsibility for the outcome. Teachers are not responsible for delivering a shitty education, child welfare officers are not responsible when children die. As soon as the state starts ruining the lives of home educated children they will not be responsible for that either.

Do go and have a read; amongst other things, His Ecclesiastical Eminence manages to link to actual evidence which David Semple—for all his wittering on about "the scientific method, skepticism [sic] and all forms of rational argument and the examination of evidence"—seems unable to cite. The cunt.


John B said...

I've never quite got the parent fetish so prevalent among right-libertarians, given that they're otherwise so keen on self-ownership.

To the extent that children aren't capable of self-ownership, why the hell (in principle) should it matter which group of adults exercise it on their behalf? Why the hell is it any better if Dave Jones indoctrinates Simon Jones with Christian rhetoric, than if the State indoctrinates Simon Jones with socialist rhetoric?

The result *in practice* is completely different, and the woeful outcomes generally seen for kids in state care probably justifies the current parenting model as the best one. But to anyone who believes in the individual, the concept of 'parental rights' beyond 'it's usually best to organise society like this' shouldn't have any meaning...

(also, the Bishop's "link to evidence" points to a blank page, which strikes me as rather dog-ate-my-homework-y)

Anonymous said...

My personal argument is that parents are more likely than the state or their staff to support the devleopment of children's self ownership and enabling autonomy in childhood whenever possible. I grant many parents don't do this but they are more likely to than the system.

This might explain a bit.
Not all parents who subscribe to this philosophy are right wing!