[Wikipedia-l] Censorship and bowdlerization

[Michael R. Irwin]

Steve Callaway wrote:
> 
> Mike Irwin wrote (for full text see beneath):
> 
> > If a minor has not established sufficient trust/respect
> > with his or her guardian to be trusted online without censorship or
> > spy software enabled ..... then perhaps it would be better (for
> > the project and possibly for the child) if they were not participating
> > at Wikipedia?
> 
> You could quite easily extend that argument, replacing "guardian" with
> government and "child" with "people". Just a thought.
> 
> Steve Callaway

Consider that in the U.S.A.; We, the people, are sovereign; while 
George W. Bush is a paid employee, with some specifically delegated
responsibilities and authority.  These are not small despite being
constitutionally limited, as the Taliban discovered and as Saddam
Hussein (who is also sovereign but who apparently has few fellow 
sovereigns nearby with the desire or means necessary to constrain 
his actions) is about to find out.

A juvenile in the U.S. is considered incompetent to
manage their own affairs and is assumed to have a guardian. If
the authorities become aware that they do not have a competent
guardian, one is appointed by a court.  Thus we may conclude
that in the U.S. the juvenile's self sovereignty has been
deferred somehow despite its inalienibility.   Essentially
enough adults in our society have agreed to certain constraints
and have enough collective force available to implement these
constraints.   Our founding poetry is not allowed to get in
the way of survival and prosperity on a practical day to 
day basis.  

The argument extension you propose above could be made easily
only if rights are alienable and the government could 
convince enough people of that to maintain their authority
by guile, force or divine right.

IMO, George W. Bush is making the case to the American people 
effectively (they believe him and support his actions and preparations
for war to date) that we can no longer rely on common sense
and the sovereign Iraqui people to constrain Saddam Hussein's potential
use of weapons of mass destruction should conflicting interests
in the Middle East lead to warfare.

I hope this clarifies things regarding the U.S.A.  I have very
limited exposure or detailed understanding of other cultures.

Regards,
Mike Irwin