Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!yale!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: ACLU and Parent's Rights (in re
Message-ID: <7800504@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 00:03:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800504
Posted: Thu Oct 10 00:03:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 06:30:51 EDT
References: <1207@lumiere.UUCP>
Lines: 58
Nf-ID: #R:lumiere:-120700:inmet:7800504:000:2979
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Oct 10 00:03:00 1985


> [Rick Lindsley : richl at lumiere]
> For instance, turn this case around. A 15 year  old  US  boy  de-
> cides,  during  his  parent's  trip to Russia, that Russia is the
> better country, and Russia says "Look, he wants to stay! It's his
> own  choice!". Are his parents going to stand still for that? Now
> ignore any political differences between the  countries.  Say  we
> are in England. Is there really any difference? I think not.
> On that basis alone, I would (reluctantly) tell the 15 year old that if his
> parents immigrate he is welcome, but otherwise he must go home.

Now suppose the parents are taking the boy not  to  England,  nor
Russia, but Jonestown.  Still the same verdict ?

> I am purposely leaving the politics out of this, because I am considering
> this from the viewpoint of a parent/child relationship, which I consider
> to be more important than the pervasive struggle between communism,
> socialism, and democracy.

Well, it works for democracy, socialism, monarchy, what not -
not for communism. At least not Soviet variety. Yugoslavia,
in this case, would be different. The point is that the
parents are taking the child into a situation which is not
only bad for him, but from which *neither he nor they can
extricate him*. Would you recognize their right to sell
the child to slavery - into a country whose laws permit
it ? The Polovchak case is milder than this, but the
same principle applies.

> But we have to start somewhere, and since we  have  already  laid
> down  ground rules for ambassadors and diplomatic immunity, let's
> next start with parent/child relationships.

Aye, there is the rub : we are on a slippery slope. Playing  this
diplomatic game would do little harm if we always remembered that
it is a pure formality.  E.g., we "recognize" some tyrannical re-
gime.  O.K., we want to deal with them - why not follow protocol.
But the words "recognize", "legitimacy", "sovereignty" etc.  have
other  - moral - connotations - which should be resolutely denied
here. These regimes do not represent the consent of the  governed
- at least not free consent, no matter how "popular" they are, if
the governed are denied information and  freedom  of  discussion.
All  we "recognize" here is brute force. There is no *moral* rea-
son, for example,  why  we  should  not  forcibly  overthrow  the
government  of,  say, Albania.   It  would be inexpedient, that's
all.

So let us not "start somewhere", but rather stop right here.  Or,
better  still,  break diplomatic relations with the USSR. All the
useful negotiations can be conducted via satellite. The diplomat-
ic  staff  normally  serves for contact with various circles of 
society, parties, factions etc.  And, of course, for intelligence
gathering.   In  this  case  all  this is *completely* one-sided.
And, given the *almost* zero-sum game, their gains are our losses.
So,  for  both  principled  *and*  pragmatic  reasons, derecognize 
the Soviets !

		Jan Wasilewsky