I hope you’re right that people will look to today as “the good ole days” and not “the destruction of the good times.”

Surely someone has thought this one through a bit more than Gil and I have?

Not quite as clear as the First Amendment, unless “responsible for the abuse” has no legal responsibility. Thanks for forcing me to clarify.

But custody over someone does not equate to being able to being able to use that person in slave labor of any type–nor is it a full-scale license to abuse or murder that person.

The question isn’t one of parental authority, which Scalia assumes existed, but whether the state has the right to impose an automatic preference that infringes on the rights of the child subject only to a parental veto.

I think the point Thomas was making is one of analytic [philosophically speaking] distinction; namely that a child is by definition without rights, being the property of the parents.

I have always, in some sense, intuited this to be true from the existence of an age of majority. The thing that would complete the legal picture would be strict liability/culpability for the parents due to acts of the child.

The real question for Justice Thomas is whether he favors the extension of this doctrine to the point of sanctioning the ancient threat of parents – “I brought you into this world, and BY GOD I’ll take you out of it!”

Frankly, I don’t mind his comments here. His position is understandably unsettling to some libertarians. But he’s not speaking to libertarians. He’s speaking to statist liberals, who believe that children are owned by the state. I don’t mind him making the argument that they’re not — that they’re “owned” by their parents. Maybe Gil (above) would say that I’m not a card-carrying libertarian, but if I had to put the “ownership” of children in someone’s hands, it would be in their parents’.

Now, the irony is that, while I believe that Thomas is indeed trying to make the case that children are owned by their parents, his argument here actually implies that children should be cut off from commerce, and looked after by the state. So I think he’s definitely confused. But that said, I don’t mind anyone ever standing up to statists, which I think he is doing.

Cultural norms, like everything else, compete on the open market. Good practices remain intact and bad ones are eventually eliminated from the system. The length of time a norm is practiced has little bearing on whether it’s a good idea or not, and long-period traditions are more a sign of government intrusion than being a solid norm.

Also consider that people yearning for the “good old days” has little to do with those days being a good time to live and more with a much older individual recalling a day in his personal history when he didn’t have all the unpleasant effects of aging. It’s called cultural nostalgia where an older time is heavily romanticized. It’s currently popular to romanticize the 1950s, for instance, despite the major cultural violence that went on at the time (see the heyday of the KKK).

People think older practices are better in a combination of confusing good personal health with a strong, positive culture and general confusion from change. There will be a time when people look back to today as an example of the good old days when everything was perfect and wonder how society became so messed up, despite the world likely being a better place.

Are you saying that doesn’t happen now? Everybody has their own interpretation of the Constitution. The difference comes in how far some people are willing to go in forcing their interpretation onto others.

Justice Thomas is free to surrender as much of his liberty to the state as he wishes. A problem only seems to arise when others don’t wish to make the same surrender and he feels compelled to force them to surrender.

“‘Why is it wrong to ban selling violent games to minors?’ Aside from the reverence to Freedom of Speech that is widespread in America, the more important reason is that this actually has nothing to do with speech. Like most laws, it has everything to do with money. As long as I can remember, money grubbers have been trying to dip their hand into the large pool of money that video games create. Direct suing hasn’t worked. So another approach was launching legislation. California, which is a state whose financial situation resembles Greece, is desperate for money. This law was passed with the full expectation that no one would follow it. The fine was $1000 each time from retailers. This is free money for the state government.

Don’t get caught up in the ‘arguments’. This is nothing about children or violence or parents. This is everything to do with money. Money, money, money!”

And as for the example you cite — can a parent forbid a child from accepting candy from a stranger — again, I think Justice Scalia had this right. The question isn’t one of parental authority, which Scalia assumes existed, but whether the state has the right to impose an automatic preference that infringes on the rights of the child subject only to a parental veto.

To some extent, every generation will interpret the law to their tastes by simple virtue of the fact that old people die and young people grow old. It is difficult to represent your position from the grave. That adherence to “traditional mores” provides a benchmark is not an argument supportive of adherence. Ignoring the debate over the value of picking a subjective set of beliefs as an objective reference, any set of mores will serve as a benchmark.