[firefeng]

BBC News said:

A Dutch court has put a 13-year-old girl under state care for two months, stalling her bid to become the youngest person to sail solo around the world.

The decision by three Utrecht judges means Laura Dekker's parents, who support her plans, temporarily lose the right to make decisions about her.

A child psychologist will now assess her capacity to undertake the voyage.

Miss Dekker says she is happy with the ruling, but she will try to convince the authorities to let her set sail.

Rest of the article here. Since my not-so-subtle topic title abundantly illuminates my own opinion on this matter, at what point, for you, does governmental interference in people's lives proceed past "sane" and into the territory of active harmfulness to individual development?

[Corrderio]

50 bucks says if they let her she wouldn't get halfway around the world before she either gave up or died

[1337NancYBoY]

firefeng, on 06 September 2009 - 12:48 AM, said:

at what point, for you, does governmental interference in people's lives proceed past "sane" and into the territory of active harmfulness to individual development?

'Harmful' is entirely too subjective - I'm sure Charles Manson would have become an excellent serial killer if the state hadn't interfered with his dreams.

To answer the sentiment of your question, though, I'd say right around the point in which it controls any aspect of my life beyond enforcing the constitution. Certain things need to be against the law for society to function - it's true - but anything beyond outlawing things like rape, theft and murder moves away from practicality and toward moral presumption. Taking control of a teenager's life like this because they have a dream to do something that hasn't been done before and would not hurt anyone save for potentially their own selves is a depraved act, and that those who have committed it undoubtedly believe that they are doing the right thing serves to perfectly illustrate the truth of the old saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'

Also: Fuck socialism, fuck socialists, hell - fuck all of Europe in general. There must be something in the water over there that makes people hate freedom and personal accountablity.

[treelo]

Anyone else chuckle at the father's name?

Either way, they're all dutch and probably don't care. The child agreed with the ruling despite her "unshakable" dreams of sailing around the world, she obviously isn't that concerned about the whole thing. The bigger issue here that you seem to be glossing over is how the state were able to place her in care despite nothing actually happening yet. Add to this the fact she wants to "live free" yet has no problem with the Dutch government removing all parental rights for no reason and it just kinda proves she isn't up to the task.

Besides, if the planned trip is supposed to take 2 years, she still has a year or more before she has to leave to break a record. That hardly seems to be her main concern at the moment though.

[Vigilous]

Pfft.. Fucking Dutch.

[Cruzandercerberus]

Vigilous, on 06 September 2009 - 07:14 AM, said:

Pfft.. Fucking Dutch.

Thank you skwissgar.

[Arkley]

I agree that the major concern isn't that they won't let her go, but rather that they were able to take her into care because she wanted to go on a sailing trip and her parents said okay.

As for refusing her permission to go, I actually agree with that decision. Since they're Dutch I don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other but if they were in Britain I'd approve of making her stay, since it'd be taxpayer money spent on a a pointless search for the stupid bitch when she capsizes in the middle of the Atlantic.

[pathwriter]

Arkley, on 06 September 2009 - 03:37 PM, said:

since it'd be taxpayer money spent on a a pointless search for the stupid bitch when she capsizes in the middle of the Channel.

Corrected that. We're talking about a 13-year-old girl. I don't know when was the last time any of you guys hung around a 13 y/o of either gender, but they're just about able to walk and chew gum at the same time before dissolving into a puddle of middle school idiocy.

I may have missed it, having read about this when it actually happened, but how did the government even learn of her plans?

[Twinblades]

pathwriter, on 06 September 2009 - 04:02 PM, said:

I may have missed it, having read about this when it actually happened, but how did the government even learn of her plans?

MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and whatever other social networking site she signed up for.

[Kenshiro]

That court pretty much saved her life; Plus there's the whole truancy thing. If she really wanted to do it, she would have kept it to herself and just ran away one day.

[Serataru]

1337NancYBoY, on 06 September 2009 - 02:17 AM, said:

Also: Fuck socialism, fuck socialists, hell - fuck all of Europe in general. There must be something in the water over there that makes people hate freedom and personal accountablity.

Pssh you talk big but you love me

[Sever]

Kenshiro, on 06 September 2009 - 05:47 PM, said:

That court pretty much saved her life; Plus there's the whole truancy thing. If she really wanted to do it, she would have kept it to herself and just ran away one day.

This. Especially the bolded part.

I honestly couldn't care less about letting her follow her dreams. She's 13, which immediatley brings 2 things to the forefront: she`s probably dumb as hell, and her dreams are never a priority. I'm sure she's a great sailor and all, but leaving a child alone in a potentially dangerous situation for 2 years is just stupid.

[Villainous]

Sever, on 06 September 2009 - 09:35 PM, said:

This. Especially the bolded part.

I honestly couldn't care less about letting her follow her dreams. She's 13, which immediatley brings 2 things to the forefront: she`s probably dumb as hell, and her dreams are never a priority. I'm sure she's a great sailor and all, but leaving a child alone in a potentially dangerous situation for 2 years is just stupid.

She's apparently an expert sailor. The reason she's known to authorities is because she's constantly being caught for sailing alone in the open ocean off country X or Y.
That's fabulous, but somali pirates have outboard motors, and I don't think any degree of nautical sportsmanship is going to help when they're feeling out her insides.

+1 to the gov't for smashing her dreams
-25 to the parents for ever smashing their genitals together to begin with

[Cruzandercerberus]

If she gets kidnapped by pirates or whatnot, it's not going to be anyone's priority to go and get her as she doesn't have the backing of a government or major corporation like Euna Lee and Laura Ling did (see: Amanda Lindhout to see what happens if you don't have that). If she wants to take the risk, and her parents don't disapprove, let her go.

Europe these days reminds me of the pussified society in the prophetic masterpiece Demolition Man. It's just sad to see the societies that built everything good that exists in the entire fucking world turn into a bunch of mincing cowards who are now so wracked with guilt over their past that they're letting it be given away by lazy weak fuckers who feel bad that their people invented the world and everything within it.


Pussies.

[Serataru]

Honestly I can't say I'd let MY kid do it (I'd insist that they finish HS first...) but she's THEIR kid so they get to call the shots on this one. Can't see why this should be such a big deal, considering people fuck up their kids in worse ways every minute of the day, and no one cares about those times...

[firefeng]

Sever said:

This. Especially the bolded part.

Since when is it a legal body's duty to save a sane human being from themselves? How about we set aside all of the pandering emotional bullshit for a second and you provide me with the ethical justification for the State to do so.

Treelo said:

The bigger issue here that you seem to be glossing over is how the state were able to place her in care despite nothing actually happening yet.

Not glossing over it, I just figured that it didn't need to be explicitly pointed out because it was obviously included as a distasteful element of governmental interference in individual lives. There are not two separate issues here; preventing this girl from sailing to "save her from herself" and supplanting her parents with its own authority are two sides of the same coin.

[Cruzandercerberus]

firefeng, on 07 September 2009 - 08:18 PM, said:

provide me with the ethical justification for the State to do so.

Cruzandercerberus, on 07 September 2009 - 08:30 AM, said:

bad things is bad, John Spartan.

[pathwriter]

firefeng, on 07 September 2009 - 08:18 PM, said:

Since when is it a legal body's duty to save a sane human being from themselves? How about we set aside all of the pandering emotional bullshit for a second and you provide me with the ethical justification for the State to do so.

Well, a 13-year-old is not a sane and rational human being. She's not even old enough to consent to sex under Dutch law, and they have one of the lowest ages of consent anywhere. You might want to say that it is not the state's duty to protect its children, but there is a certain logic that says, yes, it is the duty of the state to intervene when parents are not meeting certain standards of care. Abandoning a barely pubertal girl to ride the ocean waves alone for 2 years is, at the very least, highly questionable.

You seem to have forgotten who the subject of this action was. Were they preventing the parents from going out on a 2 hour year cruise, then I'd agree with you. But we're talking about a child attempting to do something that has killed adults. That's when the state gets to ethically step in and put the kibosh on her dreams.

[Cruzandercerberus]

Age of consent laws don't protect children, they punish pedophiles.

Murder laws don't protect murder victims, they punish murderers.

Sodomy laws don't prevent sodomy, they punish sodomites.

Maybe we can throw the ocean in jail.

Minors can ride ATV's, Snow ski, Play Lawn Darts, operate watercraft, enter skateboarding competitions, ride in motorcross competitions and a host of other potentially harmful activities that have killed adults with or without their parental consent. I cannot possibly see how her actions could warrant state intervention under child endangerment and neglect premises if she is in fact an expert sailor.

[pathwriter]

Cruzandercerberus, on 08 September 2009 - 02:56 PM, said:

if she is in fact an expert sailor.

Nice job putting that escape clause in there. The state intervened to assess the situation.

Moreover, though, unlike riding an ATV or skateboarding, we're talking about being alone on a boat for 2 years. I assume that she'd have to come into port regularly to restock supplies and whatnot, but it has been centuries since we considered it appropriate for a 13-year-old to go off wandering the world alone.

Personal liberty is necessarily limited for children and you know it.