(01-18-2017 03:57 AM)Jop Wrote:  The law often doesn't care about theft. Their definition of theft is extremely narrow and inconsistent. Digital piracy being legal in so many places is another example.

Quote:The law often doesn't care about theft. Their definition of theft is extremely narrow and inconsistent.

(01-18-2017 05:32 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  What if the child didn't earn their pocket money? Does that make it any different?

Quote:No.

(01-18-2017 06:43 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  

Quote:No.

Why? If the child did not earn the money then it wouldn't be a stretch for the parent to consider the laptop or whatever paid for out of their own pocket.

(01-18-2017 07:57 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  Often the case is it isn't a gift and the parent expects good behaviour in return for the money (or at least, not shit behaviour). In that case, is it justified for the parent to take the laptop that they (in their opinion) forked out for away from the child for misbehaving?

Quote:Depends..

(01-18-2017 09:21 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  

Quote:Depends..

On?

(01-18-2017 09:07 AM)TheCancer Wrote:  Is it theft when a parent is forced by law to provide food, clothing, and shelter for a child?

(01-18-2017 09:07 AM)TheCancer Wrote:  If a 12 eats food that she didn't buy isn't she stealing from whoever paid for it?

Quote:They aren't. You can let your child be adopted by someone else.

(01-18-2017 08:39 AM)Superkamiguru Wrote:  [quote='Gwedin' pid='574726' dateline='1484690273']
Often the case is it isn't a gift and the parent expects good behaviour in return for the money (or at least, not shit behaviour). In that case, is it justified for the parent to take the laptop that they (in their opinion) forked out for away from the child for misbehaving?

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 08:39 AM)Superkamiguru Wrote:  [quote='Gwedin' pid='574726' dateline='1484690273']
Often the case is it isn't a gift and the parent expects good behaviour in return for the money (or at least, not shit behaviour). In that case, is it justified for the parent to take the laptop that they (in their opinion) forked out for away from the child for misbehaving?

this would just behavior control.

i would feel discouraged if anyone on ss would think this could possibly be ok. the relationship between so called children and the birth parents is an involuntary one, forced by laws in every country i have been to

i believe few pple would agree to blatant behavior control if they were really free, and relatively intelligent

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  

(01-18-2017 08:39 AM)Superkamiguru Wrote:  [quote='Gwedin' pid='574726' dateline='1484690273']
Often the case is it isn't a gift and the parent expects good behaviour in return for the money (or at least, not shit behaviour). In that case, is it justified for the parent to take the laptop that they (in their opinion) forked out for away from the child for misbehaving?

this would just behavior control.

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  i would feel discouraged if anyone on ss would think this could possibly be ok.

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  the relationship between so called children and the birth parents is an involuntary one, forced by laws in every country i have been to

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  i believe few pple would agree to blatant behavior control if they were really free, and relatively intelligent

Superkamiguru Wrote:Yay,this.

Quote:Moralism, however, can never get at the root of the problem of secondary drives, but in fact only increases the pressure of crime and guilt. The real solution is to let children develop what Reich calls natural self-regulation. This can be done only by not subjecting them to punishment, coercion, threats, moralistic lectures and admonitions, withdrawal of love, etc. in an attempt to inhibit their spontaneous expression of natural life-impulses. The systematic development of the emphatic tendencies of the young infant is the best way to "socialise" and restrict activities that are harmful to the others. As A.S. Neill pointed out "self-regulation implies a belief in the goodness of human nature; a belief that there is not, and never was, original sin." [Summerhill, p. 103]

According to Neill, children who are given freedom from birth and not forced to conform to parental expectations spontaneously learn how to keep themselves clean and develop social qualities like courtesy, common sense, an interest in learning, respect for the rights of others, and so forth. However, once the child has been armoured through authoritarian methods intended to force it to develop such qualities, it becomes out of touch with its living core and therefore no longer able to develop self-regulation. In this stage it becomes harder and harder for the pro-social emotions to shape the developing mode of life of the new member of society. At that point, when the secondary drives develop, parental authoritarianism becomes a necessity.

This oppression produces an inability to tolerate freedom. The vast majority of people develop this automatically from the way they are raised and is what makes the whole subject of bringing up children of crucial importance to anarchists. Reich concluded that if parents do not suppress nature in the first place, then no anti-social drives will be created and no authoritarianism will be required to suppress them: "What you so desperately and vainly try to achieve by way of compulsion and admonition is there in the new-born infant ready to live and function. Let it grow as nature requires, and change our institutions accordingly." [Op. Cit., p. 47] So in order to raise psychologically healthy children, parents need to acquire self-knowledge, particularly of how internal conflicts develop in family relationships, and to free themselves as much as possible from neurotic forms of behaviour. The difficulty of parents acquiring such self-knowledge and sufficiently de-conditioning themselves is obviously another obstacle to raising self-regulated children.