> but how far does that go? for instance, should there be a justice system? sure. my personal take on government and economics closely aligns with the jefferson school of thought. so for your example.. > for instance here a child was in a very adult situation that most people irl would not allow.. if a child is meeting with a stranger or someone they otherwise shouldn't be interacting with in real life, unless it is patently and clearly obvious that this is the case (e.g. some fat, smelly, greasy spic luring a child away from the park to his v&) then how would the average passer-by know? the best countermeasure to a situation of stranger danger always has been the participation of the parent. children who get nabbed or otherwise predated on 99% of the time are either predated on by family members or are predated on because of negligence on part of the family. in this example it would be negligence by letting your kid wander around unsupervised, which is the closest equivalent to what happens when you let a 12 year old child unsupervised onto the internet. so using this real-life equivalent to the same scenario, should a stasi be assigned to every family unit to ensure a child is being well-cared for, and to follow that child around everywhere in the event they are unsupervised? who will hold the stasi accountable if that stasi is himself, a predator? (in a virtual equivalent; this is what the canadian anon you were speaking with was trying to bring up. a virtual agent handling and monitoring online activity could and would be easily compromised. in america for example we have child protective services, who often fail spectacularly at their jobs because of corruption in the organization) > then would it be okay if a parent gave a child endless alcohol? this is a ridiculous argument but i'll humor you: a parent tacitly abusing their child is committing a crime. the justice system, at least in america, is already equipped to handle it. (cont'd)
United States