WHAT IS THE LIMIT OF PARENTAL DISCRETION?
—“In the movie The Children Act, Eric Danelaw, [spoiler alert: plot line follows] Jehovah’s Witness parents sought to prevent the hospital from performing a blood transfusion needed to save their child’s life. The judge read the law to say the state had a compelling interest to act in loco parentis and intercede with force to save the life of the child by ordering the blood transfusion to proceed. Children in the West are not strictly property, apparently, and yet in the question of whether the biological parents or the state has the right to make a life and death medical treatment decision for all practical intents and purposes children are property inasmuch as their fate is decided externally by others. The part I am still confused about is whether or not P would deem that most appropriately the parents rights or the states rights should take precedence in a decision to end or save the life of a child needing a blood transfusion?”— Aloha Steven
Eric Danelaw In P-Law:
DEFINITION
– The problem of any conscious creature’s demand for infallibility (decidability) in the choice of action, given the continuous consumption of time, and resources in the face of ignorance and scarcity, offset by the unsubstitutable returns on cooperation.
– The Law contains a definition of man, of reciprocity, and the terms for cooperation for man, under reciprocity, and the demand for ir-reciprocity in exchange for ir-reciprocity existential or threatened.
– The State is merely an inventory of a collection of assets produced by demonstrated interests.
– The Military creates a monopoly of control over the assets.
– The Judiciary resolves disputes over assets (capital).
– The Government, whatever its constitution, produces commons with those assets (capital).
– The People Produce, Maintain, Defend, and Consume resources, goods services and information.
– The People organize into groups to cooperate to multiply the returns on their efforts.
– The Organizations of People compete to preserve the Military, State (assets), Judiciary, Government, and Organizations by producing, maintaining, and defending commons.
– The Organizations of people produce hierarchies by pareto distributions, and rewards by nash equilibriums.
– The Leadership of any polity consists of the balance of influences between organizations, thereby producing the ‘iron law of oligarchy’.
– These organizations will specialize in the three possible means of human coercion i) force defense, ii) bribery trade, iii) advocating undermining, and combinations thereof.
– The Oligarchy will most often produce its own figurehead (general, judge, leader, priest).
– Optimum Oligarchy and Leadership is Genetic (family, clan, tribe, nation, race) that we call aristocracy: Rule of law by a Professional Judiciary, Monarchy(judge of last resort, military), Nobility (governance, commons), Priesthood (education, family), with Commerce continually rotating with demand, and consumer credit provided at no interests by the state treasury, limiting finance to investment in production and prohibited from rent seeking.
– At the expense of limiting reproduction of to those who contribute to commons rather than consume them.
DECISION
Answering the question: the difference in matters of parenting between:
1. Material and restitutable, (non-reversible, non-restitutable, physical deed)
2. Truthful(scientific) vs lying, and reciprocal vs ir-reciprocal (Restitutable Fraudulent Word)
3. Strategic, Normative, utilitarian, Preferential (reversible, restitutable, word and deed)
Ergo, the parents violated 1. and 2. in a matter not open to restitution (reversal).
The parents insure the child from the polity, and the polity from the child. Conversely the polity insures the marriage, insures the child from the parents and the polity. Otherwise the parents cannot make a property (demonstrated interest) claim on the child whatsoever, only use violence to enforce their will, assuming their possession of the child.
The parents were advancing an un-testifiable, non-restitutable decision and claiming a (3) strategic, normative, utilitarian, preferential decision was superior to a (2) truthful and reciprocal decision.
This is a much clearer means of judicial decidability, and a much clearer explanation of it.