Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.  (Read 5988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2009, 08:37:36 PM »

Again, you're straw manning the whole point. In what exact formulation as you believe the family construct is "pro-freedom?" I know everyone else's POV on it, but you seem to DODGE the bullet as opposed to your opponents on this issue. Stand and deliver, and quit being a pussy, Euler.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Euler

  • Guest
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2009, 12:47:28 PM »

Again, you're straw manning the whole point. In what exact formulation as you believe the family construct is "pro-freedom?" I know everyone else's POV on it, but you seem to DODGE the bullet as opposed to your opponents on this issue. Stand and deliver, and quit being a pussy, Euler.


I did not mean to single out the family as an institution that protects liberty.  It's just that it was the subject of the thread.  Non 501c3 churches and businesses that don't rely on government contracts are other examples.  The family is a market or anarchistic institution.
Logged

Jetfire

  • Guest
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2009, 01:00:24 PM »

Big brother doesn't make emancipation easy. If it did I would have moved out when I turned 16 instead of 18. Saved up enough and bought my own car and had a job at 16. I was ready to just leave and find a roommate. Government is stupid though and doesnt want you being a man until ur 18. Thats when ur officially an adult.
Logged

Euler

  • Guest
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2009, 02:55:17 PM »

That doesn't prove your case, Euler. In fact, it could be easily argued that the family unit is what starts the whole State ball rolling with the threat of violence coming from mommy and daddy, then being transposed onto perfect strangers later down the line (via the assumption that family leads to tribe, and tribe leads to nation). So, you have to prove the case, Euler. Now go do it. Or I might have to use a catch phrase from my favorite TV character.



Why can't we regress further and say that the individual is what starts to ball rolling.  Families, after all, are just made up of individuals.  It would then go from individual to family to tribe to nation.  Since the family is a voluntary association of individuals, it is at least as much as a bulwark against tyranny as an individual. 

I would like to know how the NAP principle can be completely binding on the parent-child relationship.
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2009, 02:56:26 PM »

Quote
Quote
Alex has described Jeff as "shaking with fear" in the presence of his mother. Maybe it's not physical, but it's abuse. Whether we live in a free society or a statist society does not change whether or not an individual interaction is virtuous. Petitioning for guardianship may be morally preferable, but it's not morally obligatory, so I wouldn't say "should." It's a voluntary act. Just like opening the account was a voluntary act. I think his involvement shows great courage, and some foolish optimism. It's a principled act and I don't think we should be discouraging any principled act.
I don't know the details but you as a somewhat devout member of an Abrahamic faith should know the Ten Commandments better than most, "Respect thy mother and thy father".  A child should be shaking with fear in the presence of his mother IF he did something immoral or wrong.  If she just beats up on him (which I really doubt for a male old enough to have a bank account), then sure that's abuse, but come on, don't pull this Stephan Molyneux cult shit as fact.
:) Thank you, that was such a delicious paradox. First with the Abrahamic faith stuff, which is a perfect Stefan cult response, followed by an attack on the Stefan cult stuff itself... brilliant one two ad hominem punch! (btw, didn't realize I was quoting the Stefan cult, I was actually worry someone would catch me quoting Spock, so feel free to wage an ad hominem attack against Star Trek, third time's the charm.)

So, how about we put Stefan aside and just look at the argument. I'm making a few claims:

1) "shaking with fear" equals emotional abuse. I would have taken this as given, but if you think the existence of Abrahamic faiths is a counter argument... despite no one in this situation being part of an Abrahamic faith as far as I know... ok. I don't want to get into a theological debate but my understanding of Abrahamic faiths is that puberty is generally the adult/child dividing line, therefor Jeff is absolutely an adult, therefore "Thou Shalt not Steal" incumbent on the mother should trump "Honor thy mother and father" incumbent on the child. Second, Jeff hasn't done anything immoral or wrong, so shaking with fear can't be an indication of his conscience. And, it is absolutely the case that adult males who grew up physically abused by their mother do often lack the will to stop it when they are physically large enough to stop it. But hey, I'll let this one go if you wish to continue in the belief that children should shake in fear of their parents. It's not relevant to the argument from property rights.

2) Society can not change whether an act is virtuous. This is absolutely the subject of this thread, whether what Alex did was right or wrong. It's as simple as "good people disobey bad laws." The people on this board are here because they have recognized the non aggression principle as virtuous, even though society does not (Generalizations I know, but at the very least Alex and I are in the NAP camp). So that's the principle I think we're using to determine right action. Our society would allow Jeff's mother to steal his property. Property rights tell us this would be an immoral act. Law doesn't change that.

3) Petitioning for guardianship is morally preferable, but not morally obligatory. Opening the account is morally preferable, but not morally obligatory. Ok, now I'm quoting Spock. But I stand by it. Jeff is an adult in a literal sense, but not in a statutory sense. This disparity of definitions would allow him to be stolen from, which would be a legal act, but not a moral act. Alex, being neither to victim or the perpetrator of the theft is morally neutral. He has no moral obligation to be involved. However, because he is an adult in a statutory sense he has the ability bring legal protections to Jeff's property thus preventing an immoral act, which is morally preferable.

4) I don't think we should be discouraging any principled act. Well this is stated as more of an opinion than a claim. But the LAP camp envisions a more moral society. And despite our subtle differences we are up against great odds. Therefore, I don't think we should be discouraging eachother's efforts. Alex is morally in the right. Moral people should support any move toward a more moral society, regardless of law.


I don't know the details but you as a somewhat devout member of an Abrahamic faith should know the Ten Commandments better than most, "Respect thy mother and thy father".  A child should be shaking with fear in the presence of his mother IF he did something immoral or wrong.  If she just beats up on him (which I really doubt for a male old enough to have a bank account), then sure that's abuse, but come on, don't pull this Stephan Molyneux cult shit as fact.
I didn't catch the Spock quote, but I should have! :P

1)  The kid is 16.  He's gotta be a pussy to claim he's suffering "Emotional Abuse".  When I was 16 I had a job, I got good grades in school, I smoked a lot of pot, and got into a lot of trouble with my parents for doing stupid shit.  </anecdote>  
I agree that puberty should be the adult/child dividing line, that's why us Jews do the Bar/Bat Mitzvah at age 13, the child is supposed to step up to the plate and become a Man/Woman.  Unfortunately, society today prevents that and delays it by another 5+ years.  But still, a 16 year old should be capable of thinking for himself and be mentally sound enough to deflect any "Emotional Abuse".  I'm not saying the kid did anything wrong, and I do not know all of the details.  I am saying that if he had done something wrong, that I see no issue with him shaking in fear of his parent because of it.  Unless his mother is a truly evil or worthless individual, he should respect her for what she is, again, that does not mean that he has to follow all of her rules or continue to live under her roof, but he should respect her, especially if he lives under her roof.

2)  I'd like to slightly change your quoted phrase: "Good people may disobey bad laws."  If Jeff is living under his mother's roof, and has not emancipated himself, it is not theft if she takes the money.  I agree that it is fucked up though, unless she's having trouble paying bills like the mortgage and water and power and food.

3)  Alex stepped into a personal family matter, which is typically to be frowned upon.  Again, since I don't know all of the details, he may or may not be in the right or morally neutral area.  Assuming this "Emotional Abuse" is in fact a reality, he would be in the right to step in and prevent issues stemming from it.  Assuming that the mother does not "abuse" her child, Alex is in the wrong to step into family matters.  When I was 13 my mother opened a savings account for me, and took me down to the bank and showed me how to deposit money into it.  I did.  When I was 16 and got my first legal job, she took me down to open a checking account so I could buy gasoline and toys for myself with my card.  I saved up my money until I got to college and needed it to pay rent.  She only withdrew money from my account when I borrowed a somewhat large chunk of change from her, and didn't pay her back in a reasonable amount of time.  That was not theft or emotional abuse.  It was completely reasonable, and her right as a lender, provider, and parent.

4)  I cannot disagree.  I would love to see a more moral society that returned to more "ancient" style treatment of age and maturity and morality, regardless of law.  
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Muslim Agorist

  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1270
  • Join the Counter Economy
    • View Profile
    • The San Francisco Muslim Examiner
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2009, 04:17:57 PM »

I didn't catch the Spock quote, but I should have! :P

1)  The kid is 16.  He's gotta be a pussy to claim he's suffering "Emotional Abuse".  When I was 16 I had a job, I got good grades in school, I smoked a lot of pot, and got into a lot of trouble with my parents for doing stupid shit.  </anecdote> ... a 16 year old should be capable of thinking for himself and be mentally sound enough to deflect any "Emotional Abuse".  I'm not saying the kid did anything wrong, and I do not know all of the details.  I am saying that if he had done something wrong, that I see no issue with him shaking in fear of his parent because of it.
Wow really! I thought that was a sarcastic jab at my religion. You really think that children should quake in fear of their parents? If emotional abuse occurred for the first 16 years of his life it's expected that he'd be somewhat broken. Calling him a pussy is kind of blaming the victim. But I think that Jeff's willingness to enter this arrangement with Alex shows that he is starting to come out of his childhood into adulthood. He is deflecting the abuse, in this case, theft. It's healthy and should be apploaded as a step in the right direction.

Quote
2)  I'd like to slightly change your quoted phrase: "Good people may disobey bad laws."  If Jeff is living under his mother's roof, and has not emancipated himself, it is not theft if she takes the money.  I agree that it is fucked up though, unless she's having trouble paying bills like the mortgage and water and power and food.
I wouldn't make that change. A good person in the German military should disobey orders to gas Jews. Everything else is a difference of degrees, not of kind IMO. How about this compromise: "Good people should disregard bad laws." It’s very simple. If the money is his property, taking it is theft. If he's living under his mother's roof, and she's having problems with bills she can charge him rent, or charge for her domestic services, or find some other way to acquire his money on a voluntary basis. That way he can make a free choice as to whether or not the rent is worth staying under her roof.

Quote
3)  Alex stepped into a personal family matter, which is typically to be frowned upon.
Why?

Quote
Again, since I don't know all of the details…  When I was 13 my mother opened a savings account for me, and took me down to the bank and showed me how to deposit money into it.  I did.  When I was 16 and got my first legal job, she took me down to open a checking account so I could buy gasoline and toys for myself with my card.  I saved up my money until I got to college and needed it to pay rent.  She only withdrew money from my account when I borrowed a somewhat large chunk of change from her, and didn't pay her back in a reasonable amount of time.  That was not theft or emotional abuse.  It was completely reasonable, and her right as a lender, provider, and parent.
Ok, my understanding is that Jeff came into quite a bit of money, I think through inheritance from a grandparent. His mother in the past had taken any money he ever had, so he opened a joint account with Alex to hide the money which would be turned over to Jeff when he turned 18. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

So, Imagine if, after building this savings account of yours, that you’d put your own money in, your mother turned around when you were 16 and took the money back, even though you earned it outright, and left you with nothing. Not as payment of debt, but because the law is on her side.

Logged
"The Greatest Jihad is to speak a word of truth in the face of a tyrant."
~Prophet Muhammad

I'm tired of Repeating Myself

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2009, 07:10:15 PM »

The NAP absolutely does apply to parent-child relationships. A parent does what they believe in the child's best interest until the child is ready to exercise his rational capacity, at which point the child becomes an adult. A parent who prevents his child from crawling into the street because the child is assumed to want to survive (and would, if the child had developed the ratiocination necessary for the exercise of rights, not have crawled into the street in the first place), is not violating the NAP. After the child develops that capacity, it is then a relationship wherein the child obeys the parents' rules in exchange for the privilege of living in the parents' house, eating the parents' food, etc. In enforcing those terms of license, the parent does not violate the NAP.

But once that rational capacity is formed, the child has the right to end that arrangement at any time. This means that the child may either renegotiate the terms by which the parents give him license to stay in their house, or as Murray Rothbard points out, he may demonstrate his change from childhood to adulthood by leaving his parents' house.

But the state prevents that from occurring until years after the time it ought to happen. The young adult is compelled to live in the parents' house, and so is mostly deprived of the right to renegotiate his "terms of license", and is almost entirely deprived of the right to terminate the association (obviously only a better-than-average parent will renegotiate when there is no threat of the young adult leaving, and as Dave said, emancipation is hardly a given. I know of many cases where it has been refused outright for no good reason, being acquainted with a juvenile law practitioner.)

So since the young adult has been deprived of his rights to free association, he is living in a condition of aggression, from which he absolutely has the right to defend himself. In the case under discussion, Jeff has done this by seeking the help of an agent of defense, Alex, to preserve some of his property rights. Since it was his right to delegate his self-defense to Alex, it was right for Alex to carry out that action.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2009, 07:13:29 PM by MacFall »
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2009, 07:21:32 PM »

A family is a voluntary association, and there is nothing magical about it that creates a moral obligation against other people interfering in the affairs of its individual members.
Logged

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #23 on: June 15, 2009, 10:47:21 PM »

... is thsi an alex libman topic?
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

Kevin Freeheart

  • FTL AMPlifier Gold
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
    • View Profile
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2009, 11:09:09 PM »

Your arguement lost credit at the "but this isn't the society we live in..." thing.

If nobody steps outside and does what's RIGHT, when will we every get there. The only problem I had with what Alex did was that he didn't think of Mark's suggestion of telling the woman to stop being a bitch and get back to him in the morning.
Logged
Quote from: John Shaw
Libman was setting you up. You see, he's a resident troll, which means that while I hate him passionately and wish him great harm, he's ONE OF OURS. You are a pathetic interloper who will fade away in a few weeks at most.

Euler

  • Guest
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2009, 01:01:56 AM »

The NAP absolutely does apply to parent-child relationships. A parent does what they believe in the child's best interest until the child is ready to exercise his rational capacity, at which point the child becomes an adult. A parent who prevents his child from crawling into the street because the child is assumed to want to survive (and would, if the child had developed the ratiocination necessary for the exercise of rights, not have crawled into the street in the first place), is not violating the NAP. After the child develops that capacity, it is then a relationship wherein the child obeys the parents' rules in exchange for the privilege of living in the parents' house, eating the parents' food, etc. In enforcing those terms of license, the parent does not violate the NAP.

But once that rational capacity is formed, the child has the right to end that arrangement at any time. This means that the child may either renegotiate the terms by which the parents give him license to stay in their house, or as Murray Rothbard points out, he may demonstrate his change from childhood to adulthood by leaving his parents' house.

But the state prevents that from occurring until years after the time it ought to happen. The young adult is compelled to live in the parents' house, and so is mostly deprived of the right to renegotiate his "terms of license", and is almost entirely deprived of the right to terminate the association (obviously only a better-than-average parent will renegotiate when there is no threat of the young adult leaving, and as Dave said, emancipation is hardly a given. I know of many cases where it has been refused outright for no good reason, being acquainted with a juvenile law practitioner.)

So since the young adult has been deprived of his rights to free association, he is living in a condition of aggression, from which he absolutely has the right to defend himself. In the case under discussion, Jeff has done this by seeking the help of an agent of defense, Alex, to preserve some of his property rights. Since it was his right to delegate his self-defense to Alex, it was right for Alex to carry out that action.

What you posted is very well written and I agree almost completely.  The only thing I would add is that we can't assume Jeff cannot get himself emancipated however improbable it is that he could.  He should at least try and if he is refused, then the morality of his and Alex's actions will be easier to judge.

As far as the NAP goes, I believe you are stating that what might be called aggression isn't really aggression if the parent feels that they are acting in the best interests of the child.  What if there was a disagreement between an older child and the parent over such an action?  How would you propose it be solved in a free society?  What about in a state dominated society?  Can we assume that many children above a certain age but below 18 are being aggressed upon and should be able to take whatever actions are necessary to alleviate the aggression?
Logged

Jetfire

  • Guest
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #26 on: June 16, 2009, 01:25:08 AM »

Morality to be judged? It's his money period. He shouldn't have to go through some shitty system just to attempt at getting emancipated. Which is most likely not gonna end in his favor anyway.
Logged

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2009, 01:32:31 AM »

Personally, I think that most "legal" (for lack of a better word at this late hour) agencies - insurers, courts, arbitors, etc. - would probably pick an age at which most children grow up, and use that as the standard. I.e., under Anglo-Saxon common law a 10-year-old was considered capable of consent in any relationship other than those involving military service. I think we'd see something like that: 12- (to pick a number that makes sense to me) year-olds are automatically considered adults. A person younger than that could prove his or her adulthood before a Juvenile Competency Judge, of course - the "age of majority" would simply be the time at which it occurs automatically.

Of course such a system would not be perfect - suppose a 10-year-old ran away from home and went to get a job, and finds that nearly every business owner asks to get permission from his mom and dad before hiring them, for liability reasons. This would mean that either he would have to get a juvenile competency hearing, work for a less reputable company, or go back home. So it wouldn't necessarily be a Rothbardian utopia wherein self-emancipation would happen in a matter of seconds. If the society was paternalistic, the standard age of majority may be even higher, and judges may be unwilling to declare adulthood upon prepubescents, no matter how bright.

But I don't think that's likely to be the case. Without a government-enforced age of majority, society would basically find a market-based age of majority which may in fact be quite low. If 8-year-olds were constantly going around looking for work and proving themselves capable, autonomous members of society, then that would be the prevailing age of majority. I think, however, that it would probably fall somewhere around puberty.

In some cases the parents might protest that the young person is still a child, but the burden of proof would be on them to show that to be the case.

In cases of abuse, naturally children would be treated differently. A child would be free to change guardians without some market-based form (or shadow of a form) of CPS getting involved, although such an industry might exist, to whom a person could go who suspects abuse against a child.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2009, 02:32:43 AM »

I didn't catch the Spock quote, but I should have! :P

1)  The kid is 16.  He's gotta be a pussy to claim he's suffering "Emotional Abuse".  When I was 16 I had a job, I got good grades in school, I smoked a lot of pot, and got into a lot of trouble with my parents for doing stupid shit.  </anecdote> ... a 16 year old should be capable of thinking for himself and be mentally sound enough to deflect any "Emotional Abuse".  I'm not saying the kid did anything wrong, and I do not know all of the details.  I am saying that if he had done something wrong, that I see no issue with him shaking in fear of his parent because of it.
Wow really! I thought that was a sarcastic jab at my religion. You really think that children should quake in fear of their parents? If emotional abuse occurred for the first 16 years of his life it's expected that he'd be somewhat broken. Calling him a pussy is kind of blaming the victim. But I think that Jeff's willingness to enter this arrangement with Alex shows that he is starting to come out of his childhood into adulthood. He is deflecting the abuse, in this case, theft. It's healthy and should be apploaded as a step in the right direction.

Quote
2)  I'd like to slightly change your quoted phrase: "Good people may disobey bad laws."  If Jeff is living under his mother's roof, and has not emancipated himself, it is not theft if she takes the money.  I agree that it is fucked up though, unless she's having trouble paying bills like the mortgage and water and power and food.
I wouldn't make that change. A good person in the German military should disobey orders to gas Jews. Everything else is a difference of degrees, not of kind IMO. How about this compromise: "Good people should disregard bad laws." It’s very simple. If the money is his property, taking it is theft. If he's living under his mother's roof, and she's having problems with bills she can charge him rent, or charge for her domestic services, or find some other way to acquire his money on a voluntary basis. That way he can make a free choice as to whether or not the rent is worth staying under her roof.

Well I qualified it with an italicized if, if the kid did something wrong then he should be afraid of his parents because he should know that he's going to be punished for doing something wrong or immoral.  If he didn't do anything wrong, then there should be no reason for him to be quaking with fear, that would probably be indicative of some sort of abuse.  "Good people should disregard bad laws" sounds fine to me.

Quote
Quote
3)  Alex stepped into a personal family matter, which is typically to be frowned upon.
Why?

Quote
Again, since I don't know all of the details…  When I was 13 my mother opened a savings account for me, and took me down to the bank and showed me how to deposit money into it.  I did.  When I was 16 and got my first legal job, she took me down to open a checking account so I could buy gasoline and toys for myself with my card.  I saved up my money until I got to college and needed it to pay rent.  She only withdrew money from my account when I borrowed a somewhat large chunk of change from her, and didn't pay her back in a reasonable amount of time.  That was not theft or emotional abuse.  It was completely reasonable, and her right as a lender, provider, and parent.
Ok, my understanding is that Jeff came into quite a bit of money, I think through inheritance from a grandparent. His mother in the past had taken any money he ever had, so he opened a joint account with Alex to hide the money which would be turned over to Jeff when he turned 18. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

So, Imagine if, after building this savings account of yours, that you’d put your own money in, your mother turned around when you were 16 and took the money back, even though you earned it outright, and left you with nothing. Not as payment of debt, but because the law is on her side.


Sounds like a good reason to get a friend to hide your cash for you.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

prashantpawar

  • Guest
Re: The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2009, 02:18:54 PM »

Coming from an Indian family myself, I know what his mom thinks.

The culprit here is the 'Cultural values' of Indian families. The Indian-American families despise the European-American(for the lack of a better term) family values. Jeff sounds like a second generation Indian-American and most of the Indian-American parents keep a very very strict tab on their kids in order to shield them from the European-American values(well its not as much as against the European-American values rather than FOR the Indian cultural values). And because of that, the Indians from India end up being more Liberal than the ABCDs(American-Born Confused Desi).

Maybe if I go and talk to Jeff's mom, she would be more open to doing the exactly the same thing which Alex wants to do(well I guess I can sell it better to her and she would be more receptive to hear it from me). Most Indian-American families are pretty rich and $1,000 don't matter that much if say Jeff just wanted to buy a Video-game console or something like that and had he come to his mom for it.

The problem of Jeff's mom is that her son is going against her(classic control freak issues), and she considers Alex as someone who is ruining her kid.

I grew up with similar parents, I was never given the control of money, and I can tell you one thing, I never learned how to respect it. By 16, I was stealing money from my parents. Its only now in past one year(8-9 years since then) when I am actually facing the shit of the recession I have finally understood the concept of money, and savings.

Alex is doing a wonderful job. Jeff's mom must understand that there is nothing so inherently great about Indian values, its nothing but a well established Indian government's propaganda(which country has a Dept of Culture http://indiaculture.nic.in/), in order to keep the whole country has one administrative unit. There is no way Alex will ever be able to gain the acceptance of Jeff's mom, so he should never bother for that.

Jeff will always thanks Alex for someone who stood up for him and showed him how to stand up against his parents when he didn't know how to. I wish I had someone to do that for me.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  The guy who opened the bank account for/with Jeff was wrong.

// ]]>

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 46 queries.