Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Nuclear Family Message-ID: <1577@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 12:51:13 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1577 Posted: Sat Aug 24 12:51:13 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 03:11:40 EDT References: <3555@decwrl.UUCP> <628@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1490@pyuxd.UUCP> <886@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 50 > Somehow, Rich Rosen thinks I support > > Sanctification of an > > institution that puts itself above the law (the "nuclear family") where one > > member can abuse other members of the household without fear of reprisal? > > That's what they had in Ancient Rome, Mr. Rosen. The head of the family > was called the "paterfamilias," and he had life or death power over all > members of the family, children and adults. That was Roman law, so it was > all LEGAL, see? [ROSENBLATT] Rich Rosen also thinks you think "legal" = "right", since that has been the basis of a number of your arguments. More importantly, when you said that our morality represents a "bare minimum", you are in effect supporting such things (which exist ipso facto today in many cases). > But it raises some interesting hypothetical questions: > 1. What if the paterfamilias decided to exercise his power of death over > a grown son who had offended him, say, by refusing to move out of the > father's building? And suppose the grown son were bigger and stronger > than the father, so he couldn't just throttle the fellow. Now, if the > father were a rich man, he could hire a few thugs to rub the son out. > But what about a poor paterfamilias? He's a "civis Romanus" too -- why > should he have fewer rights over his family than the rich paterfamilias? > Don't the Senate and People of Rome OWE IT TO HIM to send a couple of > armed centurions over to dispatch whichever family members he no longer > wants to live? I really fail to see any relevance in this argument. The government wouldn't "owe" him any such thing, because the family would thus be a legal entity unto itself, and interference in family affairs would be frowned upon either way. The way the police treat "family discord" at less than murder level today. > 2. Suppose there is no such Government aid to nuclear family tyrants. > The father who goes to kill his grown son is taking a risk. Maybe the > son will fight back. Maybe the son knows how to use a sword, or a > ballista, or whatever ridiculous weapon they had for tearing and crushing > human flesh humanely before the mean old warmongers at the Ballistic > Research Lab invented un-humane artillery shells. In any event, the > paterfamilias could be wounded, or even killed! Surely Romans wouldn't > want fathers to face the risk of injury or death just because they want > to kill their sons. If the paterfamilias system is to work at all, > it's gotta be made SAFE as well as LEGAL. But why should it exist at all? You make a hell of a lot of bizarre assumptions about what's "needed" here, Matt. Why? -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr