I wouldn't give gov'ts a blank check on this but conceptually it isn't that bad
Isaac Send a noteboard - 01/02/2013 04:59:28 PM
This particular case seems pretty absurd, to me, but on the other hand I don't think there should be no restraints on naming.
If a parent decides to name their kid "Fuck", "Broken Condom Smith", "Abortion Should Be Free McCloud" or even something very incompatible but non-abusive like πr² or "31January 2013 Smith" because they were born yesterday I don't think it is unreasonable for the state to approach the judiciary about whether that child is being subject to abuse, let alone if the name should simply be required to be changed. Your name is a big deal, and its sort of the nature of the beast that by the time you could self-name, as is certainly your right trumping your parents, it's pretty throughly attached to you. It's also not some random sequence, names have impact the way height and appearance do, so one can't make a case it is meaningless.
Now, that said, I would consider the government's power on this very limited. Laws permitting only cultural names, that is just wrong at several levels, but a law requiring the legal spelling be in the de facto or de jure language(s) of a nation using that alphabet and only that alphabet don't strike me as over-reaching, and I'm not going to throw out the Tyranny Card if some place bans obscene words or non-names. If an adult wants to change their name to "Transmission" it is one thing, if your Mom is a car junkie and decided to name you that it is another, and frankly I don't care if there is an amusing anecdote justifying it like "Well the transmission in the car broke and they couldn't get a tow truck out for over an hour and it was cold... so... well, that was the night you were conceived."
Anyway this doesn't seem to unreasonable and I think the 'slippery slope' potential is pretty far removed, I don't see a big problem. This particular case though is a bit of a stretch, 'Breeze' doesn't seem a weird girl's name to me, alternatively it isn't my language and I would think it abusive of me to name my son 'Princess' or my daughter 'John'. I don't know how awkward it is, and that's as a perspective of a freshly given name by a parent, not a person seeking to have confirmed the name they're used to which isn't offensive or hard to spell.
If a parent decides to name their kid "Fuck", "Broken Condom Smith", "Abortion Should Be Free McCloud" or even something very incompatible but non-abusive like πr² or "31January 2013 Smith" because they were born yesterday I don't think it is unreasonable for the state to approach the judiciary about whether that child is being subject to abuse, let alone if the name should simply be required to be changed. Your name is a big deal, and its sort of the nature of the beast that by the time you could self-name, as is certainly your right trumping your parents, it's pretty throughly attached to you. It's also not some random sequence, names have impact the way height and appearance do, so one can't make a case it is meaningless.
Now, that said, I would consider the government's power on this very limited. Laws permitting only cultural names, that is just wrong at several levels, but a law requiring the legal spelling be in the de facto or de jure language(s) of a nation using that alphabet and only that alphabet don't strike me as over-reaching, and I'm not going to throw out the Tyranny Card if some place bans obscene words or non-names. If an adult wants to change their name to "Transmission" it is one thing, if your Mom is a car junkie and decided to name you that it is another, and frankly I don't care if there is an amusing anecdote justifying it like "Well the transmission in the car broke and they couldn't get a tow truck out for over an hour and it was cold... so... well, that was the night you were conceived."
Anyway this doesn't seem to unreasonable and I think the 'slippery slope' potential is pretty far removed, I don't see a big problem. This particular case though is a bit of a stretch, 'Breeze' doesn't seem a weird girl's name to me, alternatively it isn't my language and I would think it abusive of me to name my son 'Princess' or my daughter 'John'. I don't know how awkward it is, and that's as a perspective of a freshly given name by a parent, not a person seeking to have confirmed the name they're used to which isn't offensive or hard to spell.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
This message last edited by Isaac on 01/02/2013 at 05:03:51 PM
Ok. I thought living in America with the rise of the Federal Gov't was leading towards ...
- 01/02/2013 08:38:46 AM
813 Views
I think it's okay for a law to protect children from stupid parents
- 01/02/2013 09:26:53 AM
489 Views
As libertarian as I am in most things, I agree with you.
- 01/02/2013 02:26:21 PM
495 Views
Then you are not a libertarian *NM*
- 01/02/2013 02:44:14 PM
262 Views
In a general sense I see this as the state protecting the rights of the individual...
- 01/02/2013 07:35:05 PM
469 Views
I don't give a flying fuck what you think. *NM*
- 02/02/2013 05:14:45 PM
242 Views
I wonder why you haven't slit your wrists yet, with the vehemence of your posts lately
- 02/02/2013 09:05:07 PM
476 Views
if your parents are that stupid a bad names is the least of your problems *NM*
- 02/02/2013 04:27:43 PM
314 Views
I wouldn't give gov'ts a blank check on this but conceptually it isn't that bad
- 01/02/2013 04:59:28 PM
497 Views
Names can be like art. People have different opinions about their quality.
- 02/02/2013 03:52:25 PM
460 Views
But in this case the child, a minor, has no control over the name.
- 02/02/2013 05:19:35 PM
435 Views