Doug Henwood wrote:
> > The current practice of
> > running down the father for child support before affording children
>> access to (too meager) public support is sexist and regressive and we
>> should oppose it. All children (and indeed all people) ought to have
>> basic rights to food, shelter, education, healthcare so that no one's
>> well-being hinges on the good will or sense of responsibility of this or
> > that or the next male.
Ian Murray wrote:
>This just anonymizes the structuring of obligations in the society and anonymizing
>obligations leads precisely to the culture of mutual indifference many claim to abhor.
No, it socialises responsibility for providing basic rights. Providing universal access to basic necessities, especially to children, hardly represents a "culture of mutual indifference".
>I'm not disagreeing with what you write by any means, but a paradox is showing in
>demanding a libertarian-individualist approach to bodies and their dispositions and
>intentionalities
Huh? What was that all about? I couldn't discern any meaning from that combination of words.
> yet calling for the State to coerce others to refrain from using the
>State to coerce us while respecting the obligations we call for. I for one don't know
>how to overcome the paradoxes-aporias of how we go about constructing a socially
>stable public-private distinction.
Nope, you've completely lost me now. Could you re-phrase that.
> In that sense we're in the same situations as some
>Christians who refuse to pay taxes to the State because they are against war and
>militarism.
This is intriguing. Obviously I can't comment on (or even fully grasp) the conclusion without being able to follow the reasoning that seemed to lead up to it, do you reckon you could state the reasoning a little bit more plainly for me?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas