matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/22/85)
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? 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? 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. -- Matt Rosenblatt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/24/85)
> 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