Rights For Minors

[Bizud]

Okay, so I'm talking full civil and political rights for minors. Start with the right to vote and run for office. Abolish adult control of children. Democratize schools, and families too. Parents will no longer be allowed to use violence or the threat of violence to control their children. Allow minors to live where they want, including on their own. Let them buy cigarettes and alcohol, let them drive if they can pass the tests, etc.

 

What say? ;)

[Sparq]

I'm picturing SO MANY dead children right now.

[garsk]

children are stupid, end of story.

[Bizud]

adult supremacist!

 

I'm picturing SO MANY dead children right now.

 

See, this reminds me of the debates around earlier civil rights movements. White supremacists argued that black people couldn't take care of themselves and needed to be controlled by white people. Male supremacists argued that women needed to be controlled by men. Adult supremacists today argue that children need to be controlled by adults.

 

Where does this attitude come from? It comes from being treated badly as a child, and from the way our culture generally takes a positive view of adulthood ("mature" is a compliment) and a negative view of youth ("childish" and "immature" are insults). All through our childhoods, in schools and at home, the idea that adults tell children what to do is drilled into our heads. By the time we become adults ourselves, we have internalized our own oppression and are ready to subject others to the same oppression. That's where attitudes like "children are stupid, end of story" come from. It's bigotry. You wouldn't get away with saying that about any other group in society.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Bizud

[garsk]

question, how many 10 year olds do you know that make their own income? back in the 1700, tonnes. Today? maybe when the make their own money, they can buy their cigarettes and alcohol.

[Sparq]

That's where attitudes like "children are stupid, end of story" come from.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Sparq

[garsk]

It's ignorance and lack of experience, not neccessarily stupidity. Equal treatment for all isn't practical in the real world. People are not born educated beyond certain instincts. They require time to learn to handle their emotional responses, among other things. Some never learn.

 

Ok, so you let them do everything that 'adults' do. Fine. So they need money to do alot of it. Well, you have to let them make money somehow, or it's discrimination. Affrimitive action for eight year old children. Great! Sure, Billy, come on and help out around the sawmill. Don't worry about your poorly developed motor skills, just start running planks through that band saw over there. Oh, chickenpox? Well that's too goddamn bad, you only get two sick days a year. You're fired. And no severance package, you little bastard, you signed a binding contract you couldn't possibly understand.

 

I'd continue this story about how Billy gets thrown out by his negligent parents who are now absolved of all responsibility for him, gets tanked on about one beer, and steals his dad's Ford Ranger, driving it through a crowded bus stop and ending up in federal prison because he can be tried as an adult, but I think you get the idea.

 

It's a hilarious concept if you don't like children.

is that why i am laughing my ass off?

 

edit: please for the love of god, please continue the story. i want to know how little Billy deals with fatherhood after knocking up his seven year old wife.

Edited September 12, 2007 by garsk

[Zaino]

Let them buy.........alcohol

 

What say?  ;)

Even though I am a minor, regardless, I do not think that minors should be legally allowed to purchase alcohol. This is because for every minor who may be responsible enough, and able to handle themselves on the substance, there are handfuls upon handfuls of naive children who think they can handle themselves because they are "drinkers". Well, that surely explains the numerous reports I always hear on a Monday morning at high school about all these "intelligent" children getting alcohol poisoning or being charged after being caught at a suburban park with their parents Grand Marnier and backpack of chasers by the Police, right?

 

 

EDIT: That comment is not an attack at the poster posting the original comment to this thread, but rather to the idea of that specific right.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Zaino

[Some Random]

children are stupid, end of story.

what he said.

[Ravenous megin-sane]

children today in our society are too spoiled to take care of themselves, so if we let them drink or smoke or drive we would be putting them and ourselves in danger.

 

it's not that all kids wouldn't be able to adapt, but the majority lack the maturity required.

[Bizud]

You guys know that minors already drink and smoke, right? Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and doesn't work for pot and other drugs, why would we expect it to work for minors? And all these stories about minors hurting themselves with alcohol...you know adults do that all the time as well, right? I think we need to have a rational attitude towards drug use starting from the assumption that a person should have the right to control their own body and drug use.

 

As for minors being stupid or spoiled, I think that's pretty blatant anti-youth prejudice. It's common to denegrate young people and youth culture.

 

Sparg, believe it or not it's not childhood I think needs to be abolished, it's adulthood.

 

food for thought

Edited September 12, 2007 by Bizud

[garsk]

First off, please tell me how old you are Bizud. Cause i am getting the impression that you are about 16.

 

Secondly, please tell me when do you think we should start treating "Minors" as "Adults"? when? 16 years old? 14 years old? 8 years old? there has to be a limit. we already let them drive at 16. we let them vote at 18. and we let them drink and smoke at 19. what do you want us to do? drop the age down to 12 so that they can drink and smoke and vote whenever they want to? but if we are going to do that, i think we should abolish the laws the protect the rights of the people as minors. if the break the law then i want to know their names in the news paper. if they are found guilty, i want to see their 12 year old asses in a maximum security jail. If they are going to go drinking at bar, i dont want to hear stories about how some guy slept with a 13 year old girl, but hey, she's an adult, so there's nothing wrong with it. she could do porn if she wanted.

 

Also, i read over your little link that you gave us, and started to laugh at the

[Sparq]

shifty eyes

[Ravenous megin-sane]

You guys know that minors already drink and smoke, right? Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and doesn't work for pot and other drugs, why would we expect it to work for minors? And all these stories about minors hurting themselves with alcohol...you know adults do that all the time as well, right? I think we need to have a rational attitude towards drug use starting from the assumption that a person should have the right to control their own body and drug use.

of course kids still smoke and drink, but some wait until they're of legal age. if we let anyone drink, the negative affects to drinking would be even more severe and apparent. even if you look past rights, think about the medical bills and taxes that are going to go up as a direct affect of raising the age.

 

the idea behind drinking and drug use is that you lose control of your body, it's a way to escape so to speak. so using such things to do so has nothing to do with the right to control what you do with your body.

 

 

you have to keep in mind that there are age restrictions on things for a reason, and not so adults can get off knowing they have more power over their kids for a few more years.

[HoboFactory]

This is the most laughable crap I've heard since the Flat Earth Society. Of course children shouldn't be regarded as equaly intelligent and capable as adults. Know why? Because they're not. If you had a brain tumor, do you know any 5 year old you'd trust to operate on you? Or if your house was being robbed, would it comfort you know that the cop on the way is an 8-year-old? Would you feel at ease, knowing the pilot of the airline flight you're on barely has the hand-eye coordination to tie his own shoes? Silly examples to be sure, but it does illustrate a point... that people, aren't born knowing all they need to know to get by in society, nor do they even have the physical capailities necessary to function within society from early age. This is why you can't put a newborn into a suit and tie, and then tell it find a job and to make its own living and all that. Fact is, this mental capacity and such skills are developed gradually over time, this is true of humans, as it is for many animals (which incidentally, could not be said to be bound by ancient discriminatory bias simply because they were also thought of as lesser in their youth). While many societies disagree on just when a child makes the transition into adulthood, they all do agree that a transition is necessary, this is probably because some people mature slower than others, and some faster, and so there really can't be a universal consensus on the matter. It isn't discrimination, however, because everyone knows that children do grow up to become adults (unlike your attempt to parallel this with the historical treatment of blacks and women... you see... black people don't "mature" to become white, and women don't "mature" to become men, but children do, become adults). It's simply a process. To illustrate, I just started working at a hospital less than 2 months ago, I'm also only 20 years old... if I were now to apply for the position of chief of medicine at the hospital, I would be laughed out of the room, simply because my experience and knowledge relating to what will be demanded of me in that job are at present woefully inadequate to fill such a role. However, if I continue my education, and continue gaining the necessary experience, I know that if I were to make it my goal, it could some day become realistic; this isn't discrimination, it is simply allowing rights and responsibilies based upon perceived capacity to handle them.

[Bizud]

First off, please tell me how old you are Bizud. Cause i am getting the impression that you are about 16.

 

I'm 24. Interesting attempt to discredit me based on age though. It really shouldn't matter how old the person writing this is.

 

I think anyone should be allowed to drink and smoke, and drive if they can pass the test. And yes, I think everyone should get to vote, because otherwise some people will not be represented in the government. Our parliament is a disgrace, it does not represent Canadians. It needs more representatives from first nations, more women, more gays, more people from the working class and the poor and it needs a youth perspective as well.

 

You really seem unable to differentiate between treating minors as full persons and saying they have to be treated the same as adults. What I'm talking about is the right to control one's own destiny, and to leave unpleasant or harmful situations. The right to walk out on one's parents, for example. Kids can already be emancipated from their parents and live on their own with government support - why do we only reserve this right for when all else has failed? It should be available to any minor that wants it. No parent should be allowed to use the "you live under my roof" excuse to coerce their kids. I also think spanking should be outlawed. A society that allows parents to control their children with violence shows considerable contempt for children. There is never any excuse for anyone to hit anybody, let alone a defenseless child. New Zealand is doing this, by the way, thanks to a private member's bill from a Green Party MP.

 

Kids should be paid the same as adults, new workers should not be paid a lower "training wage" that is less than the minimum wage. That is just a way to allow businesses to be more profitable by hiring new employees (read: minors) that they can pay less.

 

Parents should not be allowed to force their kids to take medications that they don't want to. They should definitely have no say if a minor wants or does not want an abortion.

 

Kids should have the right to walk out on school at any age, or to attend the school of their choice. We all know that high school is there to keep kids off the streets and their parents' homes for 6 hours of the business day, and to train students to serve capitalism. You learn first and foremost to obey in high school. You learn to tolerate boring, routine work that someone else wants you to do. You learn to obey the timetable and the bells and do what the adults tell you to do.

 

Also, I fully support unschooling, which is a homeschooling method that doesn't replicate the school environment at home. It's student-directed learning, and it's proving that kids don't need school to learn. I think most schools are totalitarian environments where kids are routinely subjected to degrading and harmful treatment. It's degrading to have to ask to go to the washroom. And to be subjected to degrading things is harmful to one's spirit.

 

Finally, a comment on the socially constructed nature of our age divisions. Supporters of early public schools marvelled at how mandatory schooling until 18 was successfully delaying the onset of adulthood. People were staying "kids" longer. This was perceived as a good thing because it gave society more time to socialize people into the kind of adults we want to produce (obedient ones). Today, many people remain "kids" living in their parents homes and going to school well into their mid-twenties.

 

No one would hire a 15-year old to be chief of medicine at a hospital, but nor should we subject minors to things that we would never allow ourselves as adults to be subjected to.

 

of course kids still smoke and drink, but some wait until they're of legal age. if we let anyone drink, the negative affects to drinking would be even more severe and apparent. even if you look past rights, think about the medical bills and taxes that are going to go up as a direct affect of raising the age.

 

I completely disagree. A 16 year old can buy alcohol in many european countries and all the evidence shows that they have less binge drinking and fewer alcohol related fatalities. This is because prohibition is a stupid idea that doesn't work, has never worked, for any substance, ever, and we should thoroughly reject the idea and legalize all drugs. Not to mention it relies on a police state. The state should not inhibit anyone's access to drugs!

 

Finally, just because "minor's" think that they are mature, doesn't mean that they are. you also said they should be able to live where ever they want. Where the hell are they going to find the money to pay rent? it is a whole different world when you first move away from mommy and daddy.

 

Uh, how about the same place that kids who live on their own get it now - from the government.

 

I guess you have all forgotten what it's like to be a minor, treated like crap and viewed with a mixture of suspicion and disdain by society.

 

There is this sense that "adults" are real people and kids are just developing people, not yet complete human beings. That's simply not true. Kids are full persons.

 

http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/a...nd_victimiz.php

 

"One oppression that virtually every human encounters regardless of class, gender, race or ethnicity, is the oppression of children. It is our first experience of systematic invalidation, disempowerment and mistreatment. If we had not first been subjected to such treatment as young people and internalized it, we never would have tolerated the ensuing sexism, racism or classism heaped upon us. We would have had no doubts about our intelligence, self-worth, power, beauty, creativity, connection and honest pride as human beings. It is the primer coat of internalized oppression that makes us vulnerable to all the other layers of oppression we face later on." -Dan Kwong

 

Youth liberation resources

Edited September 12, 2007 by Bizud

[Sparq]

Yes, yes, when you throw around words like "oppression" and "liberation" it all sounds like a very noble and lofty crusade, like a revolutionary greeting card. But the fact is that it wouldn't work. For exactly the same reasons that a movement of pacifists is doomed to fail. The system is already in place. You would need to wipe out the human race and start from scratch with very specific controls on the development of their new society to even BEGIN to make children 'equal' to mature humans. And those very guidelines would be the control and oppression you're railing against here to begin with.

 

Even in nature, you'll find a couple of instances:

1: creatures which care for (I'm sorry, brutally dominate) their young until they are large enough and have gained enough experience to survive on their own.

2: creatures which just have hundreds or thousands of young so that a few will survive by pure chance.

 

Humans, I think it's obvious, belong to the former group. You're talking about further severing that natural relationship. It exists for a reason. This isn't some vast conspiracy of mammals who get off on dictating their offspring's every action.

 

Now, some of what you're saying here is fine with me. Sure, get an abortion, I don't care. Fine, refuse to take medication. If they're willing to accept responsibility for the consequences, then I have no beef. Vote? Have to work on that one, but with a heavily revamped education system, maybe.

 

Bottom line. I'm not saying the current system is perfect. I'm saying it exists, in a way that your egaitarian utopia never can. Universal equality is impractical. It doesn't exist. It can't. It won't. If you want to eliminate control of children, you'll need to eliminate the children.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Sparq

[garsk]

i honestly don't know where to start...

 

 

Parents should not be allowed to force their kids to take medications that they don't want to.

 

yeah, have you ever had Buckley's? it taste like shit, nobody in there right mind would want to take that stuff, but you know what? it works. maybe the parents are forcing the children to take medication so they can live longer.

 

 

Kids should be paid the same as adults

 

Sure! when they have training and knowledge about the same job as the other adults do.

 

Kids should have the right to walk out on school at any age

 

if that was true, there would a hell of a high drop out rate in grade 2.

 

Finally, just because "minor's" think that they are mature, doesn't mean that they are. you also said they should be able to live where ever they want. Where the hell are they going to find the money to pay rent? it is a whole different world when you first move away from mommy and daddy

 

Uh, how about the same place that kids who live on their own get it now - from the government.

 

yeah... i want my money back. i don't care if you could live under your parents iron fist rule. i want my taxes to go to something good like defense and education.

 

 

There is this sense that "adults" are real people and kids are just developing people, not yet complete human beings. That's simply not true. Kids are full persons.

 

yeah, i honestly don't know if i can take this seriously any more.

[Sparq]

Also: You may want to work on getting women paid as much as men before you worry about the paycheques of their tiny spawn.

[heyrabbit]

I agree with sparq, although I do entirely appreciate Bizud's disdain for the way children are treated in society. In fact, I'd say it's the great moral injustice in our society. Children are indocrinated to accept evil doctrines, instilled with anti-life values, retarded developmentally, abused physically, psychologically and emotionally. This isn't because children have no rights, but simply because we live in a degenerate society.

 

The answer isn't to more rights to children, but to give more rights to adults. Improve our society first, and children will naturally benefit from it. A free child in a degenerate society really benefits nobody. Somebody will end up looking after the children, because it has to be done. I don't want to look after other people's children, or pay for it. anarchism benefits the anarchist. What happens when you let your let your 6 month old child exercise anarchism? You see why you have to draw a line somewhere? people need help to develop, but abolishing the justice system - which is what you're proposing - helps nobody. Children do not have the right to harm themselves.Who's going to support Billy when he runs away from home because he had a tantrum? I sure as fuck don't want to.

 

Also, you can't be completely indiscriminate about giving rights to underdeveloped people. Why is it that mentally retarded people aren't allowed to own guns? It's not because they can't pass the test. These arbitrary rules are meant to be as reasonable, not perfect. You can't give a driver's license to children for obvious reasons.

 

It's really very simple. it's immoral to allow children to harm themselves. if you can't work, you can't live (without the sacrifice of someone) How many children can you afford to take care of ? Our government already wastes gross amounts of money on people who don't want to work, never mind people who can't work.

Edited September 12, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

The answer isn't to more rights to children, but to give more rights to adults. Improve our society first, and children will naturally benefit from it. A free child in a degenerate society really benefits nobody. Somebody will end up looking after the children, because it has to be done. I don't want to look after other people's children, or pay for it. anarchism benefits the anarchist. What happens when you let your let your 6 month old child exercise anarchism? You see why you have to draw a line somewhere? people need help to develop, but abolishing the justice system - which is what you're proposing - helps nobody. Children do not have the right to harm themselves.Who's going to support Billy when he runs away from home because he had a tantrum? I sure as fuck don't want to.

 

Children don't have the legal right to protect themselves from harm either. They do on paper, but not in practice. There's a lot of harm a parent can do to a child before it crosses the legal line where the kid must be removed from the home. But, okay, nobody supports a 6 year old who wants to live on their own, but most 6 year olds are not going to do that unless they're running away from a bad situation. And what about a 16 year old that doesn't want their parents running their life anymore?

[supercanuk]

The answer isn't to more rights to children, but to give more rights to adults. Improve our society first, and children will naturally benefit from it. A free child in a degenerate society really benefits nobody. Somebody will end up looking after the children, because it has to be done. I don't want to look after other people's children, or pay for it. anarchism benefits the anarchist. What happens when you let your let your 6 month old child exercise anarchism? You see why you have to draw a line somewhere? people need help to develop, but abolishing the justice system - which is what you're proposing - helps nobody. Children do not have the right to harm themselves.Who's going to support Billy when he runs away from home because he had a tantrum? I sure as fuck don't want to.

Although this is a worthy debate i'm entirely too tired to make very many comments, but I will make a few. On the whole i agree with Sparq on this, it's nature, and in fact, most anarchists (I've noticed you dropped the A-bomb) actually believe that the only form of domination that is acceptable is that which you can justify. A parent "dominating" over a child for the obvious reasons of survival are something that anarchists actually support, despite the fact that it can be considered a form of oppression. It's a little insane to think that a mother would not grab her son or daughter as quickly and as even forcefully as possible to ensure they don't get hit by a car. That's just nature, it doesn't have to do with child liberation. (CLF? Child Liberation Front? lol )

[Azalroth]

Wow I haven't read so much bullshit in my life. I can not believe that you honestly believe that children, we're talking 0-13 here since Adolescence starts after that...roughly, are capable of making their own uneducated decisions based on personal convictions that they have know knowledge of.

 

The first thing I'd like to say is a rather simple concept: Evolution.

 

Read about it, learn it, and remember it. Because clearly, you don't know it.

 

The second thing is to analyze what you are saying.

 

****Legalizing Currently Prohibited Substances****

 

Ok fine, legalize it. Then you'll have people abusing the substance even more so than we do now. Sure in some places in the world as long as you can see over a bar you can drink. Fine, this raises alcohol tolerance and could teach responsibility in drinking habits. I'll agree on this....but to a certain point. You still need to set some kind of limit on the age, you wouldn't want your child (0-10 we'll say...still really young by my standards...I'd go with 13 minimum) getting absolutely sloshed and possibly giving him/herself alcohol poisoning and possibly dying...would you?

 

They still need to learn what is a safe limit consume of any drug, including prescription. This information isn't genetically passed down so it must be taught, typically from parents or other authority figures.

 

****Driving****

 

Again as above, some people (including children here) can drive fairly early. I was driving a tractor myself at an early age, around 13 I believe. The testing idea is a good thing, but people only drive that way for testing purposes at any rate. But they MUST past the test! Which would have to include a strength test, height test, vision, hearing, knowledge and practice.

 

Like I said about the substance usage this information is typically learned from other older people, typically people with the most experience...aka adults.

 

****Voting****

 

For voting...I don't vote, I could care less who's in the damned political parties and all that crap. When I hear of one I actually like, I might vote, but until then I don't think I'll like anyone even after I vote them in so I don't vote. If a child can understand the promises that a politician makes, or the economic ramifications of their vote then by all means vote. Until they learn about these things they can't vote, again another "test" would have to be devised for this as well.

 

Again the best way to learn this information is from other people who have more experience and knowledge of these kind of things.

 

****Emancipation/Separation from Parents****

 

Wow...can't believe you went here. Well what can I say, you want them to live on their own. Fine. But they better be able to be able to support themselves with out the governments help, we need that money to go to more important things than Billy wanting to live on his own because he can't be bothered respect a couple simple rules like curfew or cleaning up his room. I mean seriously, you think that some child is going to be able to support and learn the required skills to survive? Maybe some can, but not the majority of them.

 

Spanking, from what I understand, is already not allowed and the children can bring it up to authorities if they so wish. This is considered abuse now a days.

 

To live on your own you must learn how to budget, earn money, and how to get and keep a job. This is starting to become a moot point in saying this but; Knowledge would have to be passed down, taught if you will, from someone with more experience...again

 

****Equal Pay Rates/School Drop Out****

 

Alright, I remember my first job and getting paid below minimum wage. Sure it sucked, and I didn't like it but this job was to gain experience in the work force so that I could get money to go to College and to get a career job that I have now and am paid enough to live on my own with. I owe this to my parents and the teachers that taught me what I know today. Sure I learned stuff along the way through my own experiences...but C'est la vie.

 

As for the school drop out age, I think it's low enough as it is. Would you want your child dropping out from elementary school because they would rather go and play than learn anything about the real world in which they will be so harshly thrown into once they drop out and join us Adults in the real world? Hmmm? I think not. Some will be able to do it, but there's exceptions to EVERY rule.

 

Sounds like someone had a bad experience in school and now holds much disdain for the system. I could personally walk out of class whenever I needed to go to the washroom with out any troubles, and show up late for classes as well. Schooling is not just to get the children off the streets and out of the house for 6hrs on a weekday, it's to teach them basic knowledge of a broad range of topics. To immerse you in the topics of the world, from math to physical education to economics and politics. This sounds like it may take care of a lot of that learning from more experienced people I mentioned above...imagine that now.

 

 

 

As for forgetting to be a minor? I personally haven't. I'm 22 now. I have a fantastic job in my field of study, full benefits and a great place to live and a girlfriend who loves me. As a minor, I went through the hells of High School and the bullshit behavioral adjustments that everyone goes through. Oh this also included a few moves and my parents splitting up abruptly in Grade 10. My parents personally gave me the final decision on moving to Ontario, if I didn't say yes we wouldn't have moved. This was a good decision, and an educated one as my parents taught me about why they wanted to move and made sure that I fully understood (to the full extent of that word) why moving was a good thing. They also taught me the things I would be giving up in my home province of Nova Scotia. I weighed all of this at the age of 12, I was still a child then. I shouldn't have had that kind of responsibility, and I wouldn't expect my child to have that decision either. Can you imagine if this turned out for the worst? I'd have no one to blame but myself.

 

There is this sense that "adults" are real people and kids are just developing people, not yet complete human beings. That's simply not true. Kids are full persons.

 

Define your terms. People refers to a plural of humans and people of any age still belong to the species of humans. Not sure what your trying to get at.

 

Again I must emphasize the simple fact of Evolution. This is the natural order of things, this is how the human species and civilization has evolved.

 

Now it is really late and I've written a lot...and I haven't a clue if this makes sense in the least. I'm willing to continue debating this...but later.

 

Cheers,

J

 

PS And as always this is not directed as a personal attack.

[Bizud]

Ok fine, legalize it. Then you'll have people abusing the substance even more so than we do now. Sure in some places in the world as long as you can see over a bar you can drink. Fine, this raises alcohol tolerance and could teach responsibility in drinking habits. I'll agree on this....but to a certain point. You still need to set some kind of limit on the age, you wouldn't want your child (0-10 we'll say...still really young by my standards...I'd go with 13 minimum) getting absolutely sloshed and possibly giving him/herself alcohol poisoning and possibly dying...would you?

 

Actually, some kids that young do drink and it's really sad. But I'd rather they have to do it in full view of the community than out in the woods, especially if they're drinking dangerously. A bar will cut you off at some point.

 

This information isn't genetically passed down so it must be taught, typically from parents or other authority figures.

 

How come you think the only way to learn something is to have an authority figure teach it to you? People teach themselves all kinds of things, and teaching someone else doesn't require being an authority figure.

 

Again as above, some people (including children here) can drive fairly early. I was driving a tractor myself at an early age, around 13 I believe. The testing idea is a good thing, but people only drive that way for testing purposes at any rate. But they MUST past the test! Which would have to include a strength test, height test, vision, hearing, knowledge and practice.

 

Yeah, that was my whole point. We know that people younger than 16 do learn to drive.

 

As for forgetting to be a minor? I personally haven't. I'm 22 now. I have a fantastic job in my field of study, full benefits and a great place to live and a girlfriend who loves me. As a minor, I went through the hells of High School and the bullshit behavioral adjustments that everyone goes through. Oh this also included a few moves and my parents splitting up abruptly in Grade 10. My parents personally gave me the final decision on moving to Ontario, if I didn't say yes we wouldn't have moved. This was a good decision, and an educated one as my parents taught me about why they wanted to move and made sure that I fully understood (to the full extent of that word) why moving was a good thing. They also taught me the things I would be giving up in my home province of Nova Scotia. I weighed all of this at the age of 12, I was still a child then. I shouldn't have had that kind of responsibility, and I wouldn't expect my child to have that decision either. Can you imagine if this turned out for the worst? I'd have no one to blame but myself.

 

Wait, so are you saying it was good of them to let you make the decision or bad of them? It sounds like your parents treated you with respect. Unfortunately, some parents don't respect their kids at all. Some are just petty tyrants, some are abusers, most just replicate a lot of what their parents did to them as children. When adults make children feel powerless, children become resentful and parents become alienated from their children. If I have kids, I'll let them play video games all day if they want to. It's better for them than learning to sit at a desk in an age-segregated environment and work on command and only eat and go to the bathroom when some strange adult says you can. Sorry, I'm pretty anti-school.

 

There's nothing wrong with video games

 

Again I must emphasize the simple fact of Evolution. This is the natural order of things, this is how the human species and civilization has evolved.

 

Again I must emphasize the simple fact of social constructions. Adulthood is a social construct. The average age during most of early human history was between 20 and 30 years. In some cultures a person can be an adult at 13. In others, it's 18. In the US, it's basically 21. There's nothing natural about that, those are laws. Law is quite obviously constructed, not natural. To say that things are the way they are because of human nature is a fundamentally conservative view that I just don't agree with - we know that things have not even always been the way they are.

 

For voting...I don't vote, I could care less who's in the damned political parties and all that crap. When I hear of one I actually like, I might vote, but until then I don't think I'll like anyone even after I vote them in so I don't vote. If a child can understand the promises that a politician makes, or the economic ramifications of their vote then by all means vote. Until they learn about these things they can't vote, again another "test" would have to be devised for this as well.

 

Again the best way to learn this information is from other people who have more experience and knowledge of these kind of things.

 

I am 100% opposed to any kind of test for voting ever. It has to be a universal right. This is a democracy. You get a say because you're a valued member of the community, period. We have been gradually extending the franchise for as long as it's been around. By now, even prisoners can vote (as it should be). Minors are pretty much the only ones who can't. I think that's appalling, and contributes to much of the anti-youth prejudice in our laws and culture.

 

Cheers.

 

A parent "dominating" over a child for the obvious reasons of survival are something that anarchists actually support, despite the fact that it can be considered a form of oppression. It's a little insane to think that a mother would not grab her son or daughter as quickly and as even forcefully as possible to ensure they don't get hit by a car. That's just nature, it doesn't have to do with child liberation.

 

Surely you can distinguish between that and what we're talking about here. You don't need legal authority to do that. I'd grab anyone out of the way of a car, not just my own kid.

[heyrabbit]

Children don't have the legal right to protect themselves from harm either. They do on paper, but not in practice. There's a lot of harm a parent can do to a child before it crosses the legal line where the kid must be removed from the home. But, okay, nobody supports a 6 year old who wants to live on their own, but most 6 year olds are not going to do that unless they're running away from a bad situation. And what about a 16 year old that doesn't want their parents running their life anymore?

it's not that they don't have the right to protect themselves, but that they don't have the ability. The laws are utilitarian in the sense that they are meant to work for most people, not all people. some 16 year olds would benefit from leaving home, and some mentally challenged people would benefit from being given a firearms license. The line needs to be drawn somewhere and I don't think it's way out of place.

 

Lots of parents abuse their children, but you can't stop all stupid people from being stupid. in cases where there's extreme abuse, the government does act to protect minors.

 

 

Although this is a worthy debate i'm entirely too tired to make very many comments, but I will make a few. On the whole i agree with Sparq on this, it's nature, and in fact, most anarchists (I've noticed you dropped the A-bomb) actually believe that the only form of domination that is acceptable is that which you can justify. A parent "dominating" over a child for the obvious reasons of survival are something that anarchists actually support, despite the fact that it can be considered a form of oppression. It's a little insane to think that a mother would not grab her son or daughter as quickly and as even forcefully as possible to ensure they don't get hit by a car. That's just nature, it doesn't have to do with child liberation. (CLF? Child Liberation Front? lol )

 

There are a million different types of "anarchists". I find that most of them are either confused libertarians or confused socialists. You could call me an "anarcho-capitalist". that's the only reasonable form of anarchism. Pure anarchism is fundamentally flawed - like every other ideology except one - and it's completely impractical.