Subsidiarity, Curfews, Minor In Possession Laws

[Winchester]

Curfews for minors and minor in possession laws are an infringement on the rights of parents and violate the principle of subsidiarity. They are inherently un-Catholic. And anyone supporting them is a puritan of the worst sort.

 

Discuss.

[Amppax]

:popcorn:

[An Historian]

Curfews for minors and minor in possession laws are an infringement on the rights of parents and violate the principle of subsidiarity. They are inherently un-Catholic. And anyone supporting them is a puritan of the worst sort.

 

Discuss.

 

Interesting.  But not quite.

 

The principle of subsidiarity states, essentially, that if something can be delt with at the smallest and local level then it should be done so.  The Catholic teaching is that the state exists to provide for the common good of society and to provide assistance to those in need.  The parents are the primary authority in making sure thatb their children are home and are not in possession of illegal substances.  But if a parent refuses to hold their children responsible, then the next competent authority must step in.  It is not an infringement on the rights of parents because these laws exist to respond to cases wherein a parent flouts their obligations.  They haven't lost their rights, the state merely supplies for where the parent has failed.

[Winchester]

Interesting.  But not quite.

 

The principle of subsidiarity states, essentially, that if something can be delt with at the smallest and local level then it should be done so.  The Catholic teaching is that the state exists to provide for the common good of society and to provide assistance to those in need.  The parents are the primary authority in making sure thatb their children are home and are not in possession of illegal substances.  But if a parent refuses to hold their children responsible, then the next competent authority must step in.  It is not an infringement on the rights of parents because these laws exist to respond to cases wherein a parent flouts their obligations.  They haven't lost their rights, the state merely supplies for where the parent has failed.

 

The OP rejects the legitimacy of these rules. That nullifies your statement, since it is based on viewing the arbitrary rules set by the State as legitimate, in the first place. You'll need to prove the magically appropriate time for curfew really exists. We'll deal with possession of alcohol by minors (something nowhere set in the Depositum Fidei) after you prove this little unicorn.

 

Do proceed. 

[An Historian]

The OP rejects the legitimacy of these rules. That nullifies your statement, since it is based on viewing the arbitrary rules set by the State as legitimate, in the first place. You'll need to prove the magically appropriate time for curfew really exists. We'll deal with possession of alcohol by minors (something nowhere set in the Depositum Fidei) after you prove this little unicorn.

 

Do proceed. 

 

The OP is wrong.  Nor is my statement nullified, it is merely disagreed with.

 

Your characterisation of curfew laws as being arbitrary is merely a piece of rhetorical fancy and does not have a basis in reality.  Now, the state DOES have a right to impose a curfew because it is an exercise law and order, which is one of the primary reasons for the state's existence (even under secularist and humanist philosophies).  Is there a national curfew in the US?  No.  Local authorities impose a curfew on minors in response to activities within the community.  Let's say there's a town in New York which has a high crime rate amongst its under 18s.  Burglaries are common, as are muggings and drug deals.  The stastics don't lie.  Some 40% of offenses in the town are committed by minors.  Most arrests are made after a certain time.  So a curfew is imposed.  This isn't arbitrary.  You can argue that it is not the best means of tackling the issues at hand, but the authorities hardly pulled it out of their backsides.  Nor are these curfews universally imposed at a certain time.

 

You ask m to prove the magically appropriate time for curfews.  What a loaded question!  You mischaraceterise the nature of curfews and you misrepresent how curfews are imposed.  There is no magically appropriate time because a curfew comes into existence as an exercise of the state's obligation to the common good and in response to any given social situation.  Was there a curfew imposed in Fergurson?  Let's say ther was, for talking sakes.  We saw the riots that were going on there.  A significant portion of those rioters and so-called protestors were/are minors.  By enforcing a curfew, a large and indeed dangerous contingent of individuals are removed from the streets, either by parental or local government initiative, thus providing for the safety of the residents of the town.

 

Would you like to take a turn on my unicorn?

[Winchester]

The OP is wrong.  Nor is my statement nullified, it is merely disagreed with.

 

Your characterisation of curfew laws as being arbitrary is merely a piece of rhetorical fancy and does not have a basis in reality.  Now, the state DOES have a right to impose a curfew because it is an exercise law and order, which is one of the primary reasons for the state's existence (even under secularist and humanist philosophies).  Is there a national curfew in the US?  No.  Local authorities impose a curfew on minors in response to activities within the community.  Let's say there's a town in New York which has a high crime rate amongst its under 18s.  Burglaries are common, as are muggings and drug deals.  The stastics don't lie.  Some 40% of offenses in the town are committed by minors.  Most arrests are made after a certain time.  So a curfew is imposed.  This isn't arbitrary.  You can argue that it is not the best means of tackling the issues at hand, but the authorities hardly pulled it out of their backsides.  Nor are these curfews universally imposed at a certain time.

 

You ask m to prove the magically appropriate time for curfews.  What a loaded question!  You mischaraceterise the nature of curfews and you misrepresent how curfews are imposed.  There is no magically appropriate time because a curfew comes into existence as an exercise of the state's obligation to the common good and in response to any given social situation.  Was there a curfew imposed in Fergurson?  Let's say ther was, for talking sakes.  We saw the riots that were going on there.  A significant portion of those rioters and so-called protestors were/are minors.  By enforcing a curfew, a large and indeed dangerous contingent of individuals are removed from the streets, either by parental or local government initiative, thus providing for the safety of the residents of the town.

 

Would you like to take a turn on my unicorn?

You're still mired in legitimacy. Try again.

 

I put a strikethrough on the area regarding curfews where you went off the reservation. We're talking about curfews imposed on minors, not curfews during riots or wars.

 

Pay attention.

[Winchester]

You've made an argument for pre-crime. That still doesn't address what I said.

[An Historian]

You're still mired in legitimacy. Try again.

 

Legitimacy is the entire point of this argument.  The OP rejects the legitimacy of the state's authority, and the OP is wrong to reject the state's legitimacy and competency in this area.  The state has a right to make laws and it has an obligation to enforce order for the common good of society.  To reject this is inherently anti-Catholic and is anarchism of the worse sorts.  So since the state has a legitimate right and authority in matters of law and order then the only question is whether curfews for minor falls under the remit of law and order, and whether creating laws to that effect servces the interests of the common good which I have argued it does.

 

Parental rights can be abrogated.  You cannot reject this principle, or you would then have to say that a state cannot terminate the rights of a father who has abused his daughter.  Either the state has the right to intervene in the discipline and care of children, or it does not.  If it does, the conversation then turns to the justness of a given application of the state's rights.

 

And I've argued that the curfew for minors is a just application of the state's authority.

[Winchester]

Legitimacy is the entire point of this argument.  The OP rejects the legitimacy of the state's authority, and the OP is wrong to reject the state's legitimacy and competency in this area.  The state has a right to make laws and it has an obligation to enforce order for the common good of society.  To reject this is inherently anti-Catholic and is anarchism of the worse sorts.  So since the state has a legitimate right and authority in matters of law and order then the only question is whether curfews for minor falls under the remit of law and order, and whether creating laws to that effect servces the interests of the common good which I have argued it does.

 

Parental rights can be abrogated.  You cannot reject this principle, or you would then have to say that a state cannot terminate the rights of a father who has abused his daughter.  Either the state has the right to intervene in the discipline and care of children, or it does not.  If it does, the conversation then turns to the justness of a given application of the state's rights.

 

And I've argued that the curfew for minors is a just application of the state's authority.

 

Neither of the actions proscribed are immoral. The state is not acting justly in employing threat of violence to prevent them.

 

They're not legitimate. Man is prior to the state. If a father says his kid can carry around a six pack, the state has no right to intervene.

 

Anyone can protect an abused child. This is not sole purview of the state. You're speaking of formal legal functions, done for convenience, not for justice.

[Winchester]

It hit me that it might help people if they stop looking at the Catholic concept of the "common good" as though it were some utilitarian proposition. You don't get to violate the rights of some people in order to increase happiness. Which is the justification used here for curfews.

[ST BERNARD]

Wow- you two are both soooooo intelligent!   I'm impressed.

 

:popcorn:

[Anomaly]

Winnie is just trolling. He fundamentally dismiss any institutional societal order or authority. As an anarchist, he views any societal institution's acts as being intrusively violent, and thus immoral. He is a fireman, so of course they dismiss the police as men in costumes acting always with preemptive violence.

It is a weird thing evolved from alpha wannabe males sucking on the taxpayer's teat.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Anomaly

[veritasluxmea]

Wow- you two are both soooooo intelligent!   I'm impressed.

 

:popcorn:

[ST BERNARD]

 

Wow- you two are both soooooo intelligent!   I'm impressed.

 

:popcorn:

 

 

 

Actually, I was being deadly serious- I guess I'm not as much of a jokester as the average poster here as I tend to say what I mean.

 

I truly admire intelligence, when it is used well. I have found that there are quite a few very intelligent and well informed people here on phatmass, and that is why I stay, despite some of the strange quirks that I just can't wrap my head around yet.

 

I found that both Winchester and An Historian were debating in an intelligent and non personal way. I don't have a problem with someone being an anarchist or a republican or capitalist or a socialist or whatever label is put upon them - as long as they make sense to me, I enjoy the discussion.