If children and parents could legally do to each other...

[Will]

It's certainly not going to happen any time soon, but if children and parents could legally do anything to each other, lots of problems could get fixed.

I've believed for a while that parents should be allowed to do whatever they want to their children but that this power should not be enforced by the government. It makes a lot of sense because children are just extensions of parents.

This would prevent the government from getting in the way of good parents and allow the bad parents' children to fail, kill themselves or run away. If children can also do whatever they want to their parents, their parents have to avoid getting their children angry enough to kill them.
-----
I notice that I rarely post anything directly about school anymore. That's because I think the problems with school are sustained because of parents who make their children go.

In case you, like me, hate placing blame on a particular person or thing, I'll explain why it's okay in this case. While I won't explain what is to blame for the way mothers act the way they do, I believe firmly say that a child is entirely his mother's fault. She is the first person to have physical control of the child, and she has the power at some level to determine who else can have physical control.

[Guest]

I think you are missing the word "anything" in a couple sentences.

[HerHipness]

When I first saw this topic I thought the title was "if children and parents could legally do each other". Yea.

wsgosset Wrote:This would prevent the government from getting in the way of good parents and allow the bad parents' children to fail, kill themselves or run away. If children can also do whatever they want to their parents, their parents have to avoid getting their children angry enough to kill them.

I don't get it. I just really don't understand what you're trying to get at.

[Suicidal-kun]

So parents can be horrible to their children, taunt them, beat them, treat them like shit and it'll be ok? And kids can kill their parents? I'm alittle confused.

[Will]

Suicidal-kun Wrote:So parents can be horrible to their children, taunt them, beat them, treat them like shit and it'll be ok? And kids can kill their parents? I'm alittle confused.

I'm not encouraging parents and children to fight with each other, which they already do anyway; I'm just saying that the government shouldn't be able to stop them.

[Darthmat]

what's different between a regular murder and one of a child? it is still murder.

[Will]

darthmat Wrote:what's different between a regular murder and one of a child? it is still murder.

Should the government be able to restrict what you can do to something that came out of a hole in your body? Perhaps there should be rules about where it can be dumped just for sanitation reasons, but there shouldn't be rules preventing you from throwing it out.

[Suicidal-kun]

Even though the government does some stupid shit, if a small child's getting beat daily and mentally scarred, the government should step in and do something, people are assholes, just because they're being assholes to something they created doesn't mean it should be ok.

[Darthmat]

once it has a mind of its own there should be.

[Guest]

While I completely disagree with your reasons I agree with your conclusion, Master Gosset. As an anarchist I am opposed to all laws but that only means I am opposed to legal actions related to the parent-child relationship.

In no situation is there justification for allowing complete nonconsensual control over another person. The simple reason is that if a parent can do anything to a child then that child is lacking freedom and not being treated like a real person. The situation you describe with parents and children being able to do anything to each other is essentially what could be called reciprocal slavery. It is still slavery nonetheless because ownership is the right to use and abuse.

Freedom implies the use of consent. Consent is allowing or accepting an action done to something you own, whether possessions or yourself. The only true type of consent is when it is informed consent. When a person is not informed they are being manipulated thus the actions done are not actually free. One thing to note is that whether consent can be considered informed or not depends on the facts available in the situation. If you are stranded on a desert island and need to operate on somebody but only have basic medical knowledge and have wrongly informed the patient, the patient can still give informed consent. Within that situation the patient knows everything they can. We are looking in from a God-perspective and know that there is more information but all participants in the surgery do not.

Also note that the need is only for knowledge not intellect. In other words, a person needs to only be able to comprehend the situation and the effects and does not need to come to a rational conclusion. I have noticed that many objections of teens being able to vote are based on the argument that teens don't choose rationally when in fact it is only that the adults do not like the decisions made. There are no doubt situations where a person who is mentally handicapped is being manipulated and those situations are wrong. As long as the consent is informed and done honestly without manipulation on either side, the agreement can be allowed.

Where there is not the ability to give informed consent, such as with a baby, the decision must be made for them in their best interests. The most basic and obvious moral principle is "do good". If we are to make decisions for another person it must be a good decision thus it must be in their interests.

Adults and children should not be able to do whatever they want to each other because that would deny their freedom. Say that a parent thinks that the best punishment for their unruly child is to rape them. Obviously the child would not want this to happen. If they are too young to fight back then there would be no hope for them under your system. The situation is pretty simple for a child to understand and so this rape should not be allowed. A child can understand that the act causes pain and is supposed to make them better. If the parent has cultish reasons for raping the child then there is manipulation going on because the child is not being informed thus making the situation worse. This applies to any and all acts between parents and children. If the child cannot understand that he will die if he doesn't take his pills then it is okay to force him to. If a teenager understands he will die if he doesn't take his pills, he has full rights to violently defend himself.

[Will]

Kirby Wrote:While I completely disagree with your reasons I agree with your conclusion, Master Gosset. As an anarchist I am opposed to all laws but that only means I am opposed to legal actions related to the parent-child relationship.

In no situation is there justification for allowing complete nonconsensual control over another person. The simple reason is that if a parent can do anything to a child then that child is lacking freedom and not being treated like a real person. The situation you describe with parents and children being able to do anything to each other is essentially what could be called reciprocal slavery. It is still slavery nonetheless because ownership is the right to use and abuse.

Freedom implies the use of consent. Consent is allowing or accepting an action done to something you own, whether possessions or yourself. The only true type of consent is when it is informed consent. When a person is not informed they are being manipulated thus the actions done are not actually free. One thing to note is that whether consent can be considered informed or not depends on the facts available in the situation. If you are stranded on a desert island and need to operate on somebody but only have basic medical knowledge and have wrongly informed the patient, the patient can still give informed consent. Within that situation the patient knows everything they can. We are looking in from a God-perspective and know that there is more information but all participants in the surgery do not.

Also note that the need is only for knowledge not intellect. In other words, a person needs to only be able to comprehend the situation and the effects and does not need to come to a rational conclusion. I have noticed that many objections of teens being able to vote are based on the argument that teens don't choose rationally when in fact it is only that the adults do not like the decisions made. There are no doubt situations where a person who is mentally handicapped is being manipulated and those situations are wrong. As long as the consent is informed and done honestly without manipulation on either side, the agreement can be allowed.

Where there is not the ability to give informed consent, such as with a baby, the decision must be made for them in their best interests. The most basic and obvious moral principle is "do good". If we are to make decisions for another person it must be a good decision thus it must be in their interests.

Adults and children should not be able to do whatever they want to each other because that would deny their freedom. Say that a parent thinks that the best punishment for their unruly child is to rape them. Obviously the child would not want this to happen. If they are too young to fight back then there would be no hope for them under your system. The situation is pretty simple for a child to understand and so this rape should not be allowed. A child can understand that the act causes pain and is supposed to make them better. If the parent has cultish reasons for raping the child then there is manipulation going on because the child is not being informed thus making the situation worse. This applies to any and all acts between parents and children. If the child cannot understand that he will die if he doesn't take his pills then it is okay to force him to. If a teenager understands he will die if he doesn't take his pills, he has full rights to violently defend himself.

I'm an anarchist too. If your reasoning is that there shouldn't be any laws in general, then I'm pretty sure my reasoning agrees with yours. I think I'm just saying that this is one area where we would solve lots of problems by removing just a few laws. (Of course, we may have chaos during the first generation.)

The government should not determine that rape is bad in case it is for some reason okay. Also, the definition of rape is imprecise, so coming up with a simple law about rape would be difficult, which raises my concern that such a law is not good.

I still don't see what's wrong with allowing mothers to have their natural complete non-consensual control over their babies as long as the government does not enforce it.

HerHipness Wrote:When I first saw this topic I thought the title was "if children and parents could legally do each other". Yea.

It's not the title, but that's part of the idea.

HerHipness Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:This would prevent the government from getting in the way of good parents and allow the bad parents' children to fail, kill themselves or run away. If children can also do whatever they want to their parents, their parents have to avoid getting their children angry enough to kill them.

I don't get it. I just really don't understand what you're trying to get at.

I was going to say something about how parents are required to send children to school, and I realized that this change would be even bigger than I thought it would be. I have to rethink this to make sure, but I think that the change I'm suggesting would also involve removing most laws that apply exclusively to minors.

[Freak]

Rape= Forced sex. No consent from one party. How is that imprecise?
And having a mother have complete non-consensual control over theirs kids is ridiculas, and you fail to mention any part of the father. The child is still 50% his, even if the child isn't technically an extended version of himself.

I think the only possible way an anarchist society would deal with this (If there's abuse) is to let the neighbors watch over eachother, kinda ike a checks and balances sort of thing. Your suggesting we completely fuck over entire generations, I mean if 1/4 of the female populace has already been raped, mainly from incest, then what do you expect when there are no laws preventing it? Or I should say no one fighting for the best interest of a child.
For one, people are going to lose faith in the anarchist system. Then your jsut screwing over any possibility towards freedom.

[Guest]

LittleFreak14 Wrote:I think the only possible way an anarchist society would deal with this (If there's abuse) is to let the neighbors watch over eachother, kinda ike a checks and balances sort of thing.

The way I see it, if some guy has been found to be raping a bunch of women then he is bound to find a group of people with tire irons outside his door. Hopefully they would be an entourage of people making sure he gets the fuck out of town and never comes back but I don't doubt that lynch mobs would exist. Hopefully there would have been a tribunal of sorts to determine what should be done with the jerk.

wsgosset Wrote:I still don't see what's wrong with allowing mothers to have their natural complete non-consensual control over their babies as long as the government does not enforce it.

That's what I already said though it is technically not nonconsensual.

wsgosset Wrote:The government should not determine that rape is bad in case it is for some reason okay.

You can say that in support of or against anything.

wsgosset Wrote:I think I'm just saying that this is one area where we would solve lots of problems by removing just a few laws.

That I am opposed to also. By participating in the political system you justify it's existence. The state is oppressive no matter what reforms come to it. Rights and freedoms are not supported by the state, they are created by activists working to change what people think.

[Will]

Maybe it'll make more sense if I explain how I came up with this idea. A long time ago, I saw a documentary that mentioned that Roman parents could discipline their children however they wanted to, even if it involved killing them. I should read about that.

[Freak]

Well good for the Romans.

[Guest]

wsgosset Wrote:Maybe it'll make more sense if I explain how I came up with this idea. A long time ago, I saw a documentary that mentioned that Roman parents could discipline their children however they wanted to, even if it involved killing them. I should read about that.

It would make more sense if you actually reply to what I have written.

[Suicidal-kun]

wsgosset Wrote:Maybe it'll make more sense if I explain how I came up with this idea. A long time ago, I saw a documentary that mentioned that Roman parents could discipline their children however they wanted to, even if it involved killing them. I should read about that.

Killing's definately way too extreme, killing someone should never be allowed, to end someone's life is the worst thing anyone can do.

[Will]

Suicidal-kun Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:Maybe it'll make more sense if I explain how I came up with this idea. A long time ago, I saw a documentary that mentioned that Roman parents could discipline their children however they wanted to, even if it involved killing them. I should read about that.

Killing's definately way too extreme, killing someone should never be allowed, to end someone's life is the worst thing anyone can do.

Won't it make the killer feel bad? Why do we need a law to stop him. It just makes even less sense when the person he wants to kill is his own kid. I also believe that it would be better to kill a severely handicapped (mental retardation, missing limbs, blindness, &c.) baby shortly after birth and just having another than keeping it alive. That baby may be able to succeed, whatever that means, anyway, but a baby without such a severe handicap should have better chances. I didn't word that perfectly, but I think you get the point.

[Guest]

Law or no law, if you wanted to kill your child I would kill you first.

[Suicidal-kun]

Kirby Wrote:Law or no law, if you wanted to kill your child I would kill you first.

Yup.

[SoulRiser]

wsgosset Wrote:I also believe that it would be better to kill a severely handicapped (mental retardation, missing limbs, blindness, &c.) baby shortly after birth and just having another than keeping it alive.

How about letting 'em live long enough to make that decision for themselves?

[Will]

SoulRiser Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:I also believe that it would be better to kill a severely handicapped (mental retardation, missing limbs, blindness, &c.) baby shortly after birth and just having another than keeping it alive.

How about letting 'em live long enough to make that decision for themselves?

If I were the parent, I would consider that a waste of resources.

[Suicidal-kun]

wsgosset Wrote:

SoulRiser Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:I also believe that it would be better to kill a severely handicapped (mental retardation, missing limbs, blindness, &c.) baby shortly after birth and just having another than keeping it alive.

How about letting 'em live long enough to make that decision for themselves?

If I were the parent, I would consider that a waste of resources.

That's kind of harsh, that's a human life you're talking about.

[Will]

Suicidal-kun Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:

SoulRiser Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:I also believe that it would be better to kill a severely handicapped (mental retardation, missing limbs, blindness, &c.) baby shortly after birth and just having another than keeping it alive.

How about letting 'em live long enough to make that decision for themselves?

If I were the parent, I would consider that a waste of resources.

That's kind of harsh, that's a human life you're talking about.

• Making another one isn't hard.
• Doesn't my life matter too? I don't want to deal with a handicapped child if I can have one that isn't handicapped instead.[/list:u]

[SoulRiser]

wsgosset Wrote:Making another one isn't hard.

(not entirely sure how to respond to that)

wsgosset Wrote:Doesn't my life matter too? I don't want to deal with a handicapped child if I can have one that isn't handicapped instead.

It does. Put the kid up for adoption. Just 'cause you think the kid is a "waste of resources" doesn't mean there aren't other people out there who might actually like to adopt him/her.

[youvebeenthunderstruck]

Ultimately, we can't stop a lot of things. Shit is spilling more and more over the edges as each day passes us by. Sure, if you smoke marijuana in public, you can get arrested, but nobody's there to catch you at home if you murder your kid for whatever reason. The best thing we can do is find an appropriate punishment (I'm against it but it has to happen) and try and spread good morals...

[Suicidal-kun]

wsgosset Wrote:

Suicidal-kun Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:

SoulRiser Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:I also believe that it would be better to kill a severely handicapped (mental retardation, missing limbs, blindness, &c.) baby shortly after birth and just having another than keeping it alive.

How about letting 'em live long enough to make that decision for themselves?

If I were the parent, I would consider that a waste of resources.

That's kind of harsh, that's a human life you're talking about.

• Making another one isn't hard.
• Doesn't my life matter too? I don't want to deal with a handicapped child if I can have one that isn't handicapped instead.[/list:u]

. Like soul said, if you feel that a handicapped kid is a waste of your time you can put the kid up for adoption, you don't have to kill the poor thing. That's still pretty cold though, I mean if a kid doesn't come out the exact way you want are you saying the parent has the right to kill it and try again?

[Will]

Suicidal-kun Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:

Suicidal-kun Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:

SoulRiser Wrote:

wsgosset Wrote:I also believe that it would be better to kill a severely handicapped (mental retardation, missing limbs, blindness, &c.) baby shortly after birth and just having another than keeping it alive.

How about letting 'em live long enough to make that decision for themselves?

If I were the parent, I would consider that a waste of resources.

That's kind of harsh, that's a human life you're talking about.

• Making another one isn't hard.
• Doesn't my life matter too? I don't want to deal with a handicapped child if I can have one that isn't handicapped instead.[/list:u]

. Like soul said, if you feel that a handicapped kid is a waste of your time you can put the kid up for adoption, you don't have to kill the poor thing. That's still pretty cold though, I mean if a kid doesn't come out the exact way you want are you saying the parent has the right to kill it and try again?

Um, yes

I would put it up for adoption today just because I wouldn't be able to kill it legally.

[Suicidal-kun]

But if you could kill it, you would instead of putting the kid up for adoption?

[Freak]

(Damn quote pyramids)
Killing your kid is retarded, and I second Kirby's statement.
This entire conversation is retarded.