what do you think of this dilemma: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16198/who-is-the-legitimate-author-of-the-constitution

No. That is not at all what I said. In instances of self harm people can certainly intervene--even though I woudl not agree at the time!

what is that supposed to mean?

My bad. In instances of insanity/grief etc.,.

I see. But how would you standardize "insanity"?

I faced a similar question in this doctrine of mine: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16191/doctrine-of-contractual-sovereignty

I think someone may have something to say about you spamming threads honestly :)

Seriously, I would not 'standardise' insanity. People make the best decisions they can with the information in front of them. Mistakes are made. Flexible systems are able to rebalance, whereas rigid ones seem great at first but often cause unseen harms down the road due to their blinkered rigidity.

but principles need to be codified.

spamming threads — I like sushi

Well, I don't know any other way to mention/reference an article relevant to the discussion.

Absolutely? Are you suggesting if I say 'good' this has to adhere to one rigid definition to serve a codified law?

That's the purpose of this discussion. Drafting a doctrine.

You want to define an objective 'good'?

I want an objective framework for subjective undertakings.

By defining how we have to use words? I am guessing you are aware of Wittgenstein. How would you remedy the problem he poses regarding how language is a 'game'? Does that not in itself skupper your plans?

No, the terms. What would be considered "coercion", what would be considered "sound mind", etc?

Ideally yes, but if the parents are determined to not stick around, then they will not feed or look after the baby. In that case, we would probably want a safety net that feeds and looks after the baby in the absence of parents. — 83nt0n

This would invoke a literal paternalism where a societal demand is placed to care for children, either by the parents themselves or a state surrogate if the parents unavailable, but that need not be expanded to a demand that able bodied adults be cared for as if children.

Those are words. I am out

Bye

those are terms with definitions. I'm asking for definitions.

slippery slop?

This would invoke a literal paternalism where a societal demand is placed to care for children, either by the parents themselves or a state surrogate if the parents unavailable, but that need not be expanded to a demand that able bodied adults be cared for as if children. — Hanover

slippery slop — Copernicus

Slippery slop is the best slop of all.

But, no, I don’t think the staunchest of Libertarians would suggest unrestrained freedom of choice be afforded to children.

so what's your proposition?