Parental Rights and Power.

[Absnt]

If I own my own house, I should most definitely have the right to decide who can live there, who can stay there, who can visit, and all of that. I can also, probably at least to some extent, control the comings and goings of those who live with me, since if they don't do what I say, I can make them leave. I have that weight over their head. Those are the rights and powers inherently granted to those who own their own homes or rent their own apartments, yes?

This, as we all know, doesn't change just because someone has a kid. They use their rights as parents, and the power to kick their kids out to control their kids, and, arguably, it's their right since it's their house that they paid for. I can definitely see this line of argument. The reason I have a problem, and the reason all youth-rights supporters generally have a problem with this, is because the children/teens/whatever don't actually have a choice in the matter.

In fact, they are forced to stay with their parents. So, how does this change the parents rights? Should parents have to give up their own inherent rights if they have kids, or is this a burden that kids just have to fucking deal with until they can support themselves?
In my opinion, neither is a very appealing remedy. It is my belief that parents should be able to retain their rights over their property, while "dependents" should have the ability to free themselves of their status as a dependent.

In order to do this, we must refer to the system of education that is currently being implemented around the world. K-12 education is one of the largest reasons for youth-dependence on parents. Youth are deemed unprepared and unskilled enough to live, or work on their own due to our system of education. It is my contention that the youth of the future should have access to the means to free themselves at a much earlier stage, for freedoms sake. Our system of education, and the economy as a whole should be revamped and modified to allow todays youth to learn necessary and useful skills they can use to support themselves at a much earlier age.

Obviously this is a very, very large and unlikely future scenario, but all the same, I think that it should, if we are truly to be a just and free society, the right thing to do. Thoughts?

[thewake]

Maybe. I don't see why we can't take steps in that direction.

However, there's a reason that practically every society is set up this way, because it has shown a certain ability to organize society properly. We shouldn't just go throwing out established societal institutions willy nilly. We might not be able to replace them properly.

[Absnt]

Certainly. This isn't something that would be easy to implement, by any stretch of the imagination. All I'm saying is, for there to be equality, we must to some degree give the youth the ability to escape parental power at an earlier age. Which, historically, isn't even that big of a deal. In some parts of human history, people would be married with their own house and job at the age of 13, dying somewhere in their 20's or 30's...

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

(04-04-2012 02:26 PM)Wes Wrote:  Maybe. I don't see why we can't take steps in that direction.

However, there's a reason that practically every society is set up this way, because it has shown a certain ability to organize society properly. We shouldn't just go throwing out established societal institutions willy nilly. We might not be able to replace them properly.

The public educational system has only been about for around one hundred years. It was created for control, foster obedience, and keep youth off the job market after over-bearing child labor laws were enacted.

Sadly, we can't just get rid of it like you said. Our society relies on parents sending their children off to daycare....I mean school so the parents can work. I, however, shall not follow that mold.

What needs to be done is the educational system needs to be rebuilt and slowly phased out... well not phased out but it should only be used by parents who really have no other choice. Child labor laws need to be relaxed so youth can help with the family income.

Absent, not only can youth have a choice to become dependent they also need the power to choose who they are dependent to. John Holt talks about it in his book "Escape From Childhood". We can't reasonable expect most six or seven year olds to be able to declare themselves independent. Giving them the power of choice where to live is important. Though even in cases of abuse most kids that age will opt to stay with their current guardian because of instinct. It is a tricky situation. When it comes down to it parents can't expect to be over bearing and ridiculously unfair with the children in their homes. It just doesn't even make sense, the only reason it is so popular now is because of ignorance and idiocy.

[Absnt]

I seriously need to get my hands on some of these books, lol. In any case, I agree.

[SoulRiser]

Parents had the choice to have kids in the first place, so as far as I'm concerned, they just have to deal with it. It was their choice to add another member to the family, one who is completely dependent on them, so any parent who tries to bawww over the "itz mah house" thing should just STFU and suck it up. No sympathy whatsoever.

But yeah, kids who want to leave should definitely have some options in that area.

[Absnt]

(04-04-2012 02:55 PM)SoulRiser Wrote:  Parents had the choice to have kids in the first place, so as far as I'm concerned, they just have to deal with it. It was their choice to add another member to the family, one who is completely dependent on them, so any parent who tries to bawww over the "itz mah house" thing should just STFU and suck it up. No sympathy whatsoever.

But yeah, kids who want to leave should definitely have some options in that area.

I still live with my parents, unfortunately, so I can definitely agree with that sentiment. I still try to see my parents side of things, though. Like, if I owned my own house and had an seventeen year old kid, and he kept having some douche kid over who kept breaking my shit, I might not want that kid to come over much anymore. I'd probably still let him being me, but I can see how most parents would exert their "authority" that they have in this situation. I think the whole issue can be resolved if we give youth a better chance to gtfo and start their own life before that age.

Besides, I feel like I should, and would of been able to been off at college or in some career by now. Srsly. I would have been capable, and happy to perform shitty tasks when I was thirteen/fourteen for a job part time while also going to some sort of learning institution. I probably could have learned a lot more in that time, anyway, if I were given the proper learning tools/environments. I could have probably developed a career by now. Meh.

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

(04-04-2012 03:00 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 02:55 PM)SoulRiser Wrote:  Parents had the choice to have kids in the first place, so as far as I'm concerned, they just have to deal with it. It was their choice to add another member to the family, one who is completely dependent on them, so any parent who tries to bawww over the "itz mah house" thing should just STFU and suck it up. No sympathy whatsoever.

But yeah, kids who want to leave should definitely have some options in that area.

I still live with my parents, unfortunately, so I can definitely agree with that sentiment. I still try to see my parents side of things, though. Like, if I owned my own house and had an seventeen year old kid, and he kept having some douche kid over who kept breaking my shit, I might not want that kid to come over much anymore. I'd probably still let him being me, but I can see how most parents would exert their "authority" that they have in this situation. I think the whole issue can be resolved if we give youth a better chance to gtfo and start their own life before that age.

Besides, I feel like I should, and would of been able to been off at college or in some career by now. Srsly. I would have been capable, and happy to perform shitty tasks when I was thirteen/fourteen for a job part time while also going to some sort of learning institution. I probably could have learned a lot more in that time, anyway, if I were given the proper learning tools/environments. I could have probably developed a career by now. Meh.

Breaking things? I would talk to that kid. Then talk to my kid about making sure your friends respect your property. If he kept breaking shit then he would not be allowed in my house. Plain and simple. It has little to do with my kid.

[Absnt]

Yeah, it was kind of a bad example. But, would you agree that your kid should be allowed to have friends over, even if you don't like them? Like, if they have a sort of douchy attitude? It's your house, and if the kid really annoys you, why should you HAVE to let 'em in your house? On the flip side, why should the kid be punished just because you don't like his friend? It's his life, he should be able to hang out with and have over his friends without being hassled.

Both are legitimate arguments, so the only solution is to give the kid more autonomy and allow him to have more power over his situation.

[thewake]

(04-04-2012 02:39 PM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 02:26 PM)Wes Wrote:  Maybe. I don't see why we can't take steps in that direction.

However, there's a reason that practically every society is set up this way, because it has shown a certain ability to organize society properly. We shouldn't just go throwing out established societal institutions willy nilly. We might not be able to replace them properly.

The public educational system has only been about for around one hundred years. It was created for control, foster obedience, and keep youth off the job market after over-bearing child labor laws were enacted.

Sadly, we can't just get rid of it like you said. Our society relies on parents sending their children off to daycare....I mean school so the parents can work. I, however, shall not follow that mold.

What needs to be done is the educational system needs to be rebuilt and slowly phased out... well not phased out but it should only be used by parents who really have no other choice. Child labor laws need to be relaxed so youth can help with the family income.

Absent, not only can youth have a choice to become dependent they also need the power to choose who they are dependent to. John Holt talks about it in his book "Escape From Childhood". We can't reasonable expect most six or seven year olds to be able to declare themselves independent. Giving them the power of choice where to live is important. Though even in cases of abuse most kids that age will opt to stay with their current guardian because of instinct. It is a tricky situation. When it comes down to it parents can't expect to be over bearing and ridiculously unfair with the children in their homes. It just doesn't even make sense, the only reason it is so popular now is because of ignorance and idiocy.

I was speaking more about the institution of the conventional familty with parental authority and such.

I'm most definitely not for undermining the family, but I do think more freedom should be given to kids. A start would be to lower the age of majority to 17 or 16.

I'm personally of the opinion that a child over a certain age should be able to pick new guardians if he wants to. Surely that will solve the problem. These children will have guardians that they need because they are not capable of functioning as adults, but they will have a choice in that guardian so overly despotic guardians may be shed more easily. I don't see why they can't make the choice for themselves on this count.

It's clearly obvious a twelve year old can't live as an adult and should be allowed to try, but it's not safe to assume that he should have no choice in his own destiny. We also know that teenagers, at least those in their mid to late teens, can function in adult roles (even if they are still a bit immature at times). Make them legal adults and give them the franchise.

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

If I simply don't like the kid he brings over I am not forced to hang out with them. I could go in another room or outside or something. Parents don't like that, they see it as "Oh I shouldn't be forced to not go somewhere is MY house!!!"

Though normally if I don't like someone it is for a legitimate reason haha I'll probably like my kids friends and partners.

[Absnt]

^ Agreed, and this isn't a problem for people like you and I, but in most families it is, so the problem persists on a grander scale.

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

(04-04-2012 03:19 PM)Wes Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 02:39 PM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 02:26 PM)Wes Wrote:  Maybe. I don't see why we can't take steps in that direction.

However, there's a reason that practically every society is set up this way, because it has shown a certain ability to organize society properly. We shouldn't just go throwing out established societal institutions willy nilly. We might not be able to replace them properly.

The public educational system has only been about for around one hundred years. It was created for control, foster obedience, and keep youth off the job market after over-bearing child labor laws were enacted.

Sadly, we can't just get rid of it like you said. Our society relies on parents sending their children off to daycare....I mean school so the parents can work. I, however, shall not follow that mold.

What needs to be done is the educational system needs to be rebuilt and slowly phased out... well not phased out but it should only be used by parents who really have no other choice. Child labor laws need to be relaxed so youth can help with the family income.

Absent, not only can youth have a choice to become dependent they also need the power to choose who they are dependent to. John Holt talks about it in his book "Escape From Childhood". We can't reasonable expect most six or seven year olds to be able to declare themselves independent. Giving them the power of choice where to live is important. Though even in cases of abuse most kids that age will opt to stay with their current guardian because of instinct. It is a tricky situation. When it comes down to it parents can't expect to be over bearing and ridiculously unfair with the children in their homes. It just doesn't even make sense, the only reason it is so popular now is because of ignorance and idiocy.

I was speaking more about the institution of the conventional familty with parental authority and such.

I'm most definitely not for undermining the family, but I do think more freedom should be given to kids. A start would be to lower the age of majority to 17 or 16.

I'm personally of the opinion that a child over a certain age should be able to pick new guardians if he wants to. Surely that will solve the problem. These children will have guardians that they need because they are not capable of functioning as adults, but they will have a choice in that guardian so overly despotic guardians may be shed more easily. I don't see why they can't make the choice for themselves on this count.

It's clearly obvious a twelve year old can't live as an adult and should be allowed to try, but it's not safe to assume that he should have no choice in his own destiny. We also know that teenagers, at least those in their mid to late teens, can function in adult roles (even if they are still a bit immature at times). Make them legal adults and give them the franchise.

I agree, the only problem currently is that the nuclear family has become too separated from extended family and/or the rest of the "tribe".

Since we no longer live in tribal type communities people stick with their own immediate family. Luckily for me my extended family was important.

I don't plan on getting married, just having a partner, so to speak. So it would still be the same structure, generally.

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

(04-04-2012 03:23 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  ^ Agreed, and this isn't a problem for people like you and I, but in most families it is, so the problem persists on a grander scale.

Mot of the problems we point out need to be changed within the person. Laws won't do dick. People need to change. Which is why spreading our ideas and passing them to our children is important.

[thewake]

(04-04-2012 03:20 PM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  If I simply don't like the kid he brings over I am not forced to hang out with them. I could go in another room or outside or something. Parents don't like that, they see it as "Oh I shouldn't be forced to not go somewhere is MY house!!!"

That's how I see it. Though normally if I don't like someone it is for a legitimate reason haha I'll probably like my kids friends and partners.

I do think the arbitrary power exerted by parents over their children is a bit silly, but honestly what alternative is their? Kids aren't adults, there are societal barriers to them being considered adults, nevermind the fact that children do not function at the same mental level as adults and aren't able to physically protect themselves from danger as easily.

We have to have parents and these parents have to be given some sort of power, but I honestly am pretty stumped as to all the fine details. I also think as much of the current parental authority system should be retained as possible, because it works pretty good in a lot of ways even if there are bad spots.

[SoulRiser]

If your kid and you have mutual respect, he will probably want to avoid having that friend in the house so as to not annoy you. They can maybe hang out somewhere else or something. Or go to his place.

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

(04-04-2012 03:28 PM)Wes Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 03:20 PM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  If I simply don't like the kid he brings over I am not forced to hang out with them. I could go in another room or outside or something. Parents don't like that, they see it as "Oh I shouldn't be forced to not go somewhere is MY house!!!"

That's how I see it. Though normally if I don't like someone it is for a legitimate reason haha I'll probably like my kids friends and partners.

I do think the arbitrary power exerted by parents over their children is a bit silly, but honestly what alternative is their? Kids aren't adults, there are societal barriers to them being considered adults, nevermind the fact that children do not function at the same mental level as adults and aren't able to physically protect themselves from danger as easily.

We have to have parents and these parents have to be given some sort of power, but I honestly am pretty stumped as to all the fine details. I also think as much of the current parental authority system should be retained as possible, because it works pretty good in a lot of ways even if there are bad spots.

I already said the solution is a change in thinking. People need to change. No, they can't protect themselves as easily or take care of themselves (12 and under at least) but they should have the chance to choose their guardian. That is one possible solution.

[thewake]

(04-05-2012 02:43 AM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 03:28 PM)Wes Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 03:20 PM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  If I simply don't like the kid he brings over I am not forced to hang out with them. I could go in another room or outside or something. Parents don't like that, they see it as "Oh I shouldn't be forced to not go somewhere is MY house!!!"

That's how I see it. Though normally if I don't like someone it is for a legitimate reason haha I'll probably like my kids friends and partners.

I do think the arbitrary power exerted by parents over their children is a bit silly, but honestly what alternative is their? Kids aren't adults, there are societal barriers to them being considered adults, nevermind the fact that children do not function at the same mental level as adults and aren't able to physically protect themselves from danger as easily.

We have to have parents and these parents have to be given some sort of power, but I honestly am pretty stumped as to all the fine details. I also think as much of the current parental authority system should be retained as possible, because it works pretty good in a lot of ways even if there are bad spots.

I already said the solution is a change in thinking. People need to change. No, they can't protect themselves as easily or take care of themselves (12 and under at least) but they should have the chance to choose their guardian. That is one possible solution.

I realize that, but we also cannot force a change in thinking.

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

(04-05-2012 02:54 AM)Wes Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 02:43 AM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 03:28 PM)Wes Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 03:20 PM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  If I simply don't like the kid he brings over I am not forced to hang out with them. I could go in another room or outside or something. Parents don't like that, they see it as "Oh I shouldn't be forced to not go somewhere is MY house!!!"

That's how I see it. Though normally if I don't like someone it is for a legitimate reason haha I'll probably like my kids friends and partners.

I do think the arbitrary power exerted by parents over their children is a bit silly, but honestly what alternative is their? Kids aren't adults, there are societal barriers to them being considered adults, nevermind the fact that children do not function at the same mental level as adults and aren't able to physically protect themselves from danger as easily.

We have to have parents and these parents have to be given some sort of power, but I honestly am pretty stumped as to all the fine details. I also think as much of the current parental authority system should be retained as possible, because it works pretty good in a lot of ways even if there are bad spots.

I already said the solution is a change in thinking. People need to change. No, they can't protect themselves as easily or take care of themselves (12 and under at least) but they should have the chance to choose their guardian. That is one possible solution.

I realize that, but we also cannot force a change in thinking.

I didn't suggest that.

[thewake]

(04-05-2012 03:26 AM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 02:54 AM)Wes Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 02:43 AM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 03:28 PM)Wes Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 03:20 PM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  If I simply don't like the kid he brings over I am not forced to hang out with them. I could go in another room or outside or something. Parents don't like that, they see it as "Oh I shouldn't be forced to not go somewhere is MY house!!!"

That's how I see it. Though normally if I don't like someone it is for a legitimate reason haha I'll probably like my kids friends and partners.

I do think the arbitrary power exerted by parents over their children is a bit silly, but honestly what alternative is their? Kids aren't adults, there are societal barriers to them being considered adults, nevermind the fact that children do not function at the same mental level as adults and aren't able to physically protect themselves from danger as easily.

We have to have parents and these parents have to be given some sort of power, but I honestly am pretty stumped as to all the fine details. I also think as much of the current parental authority system should be retained as possible, because it works pretty good in a lot of ways even if there are bad spots.

I already said the solution is a change in thinking. People need to change. No, they can't protect themselves as easily or take care of themselves (12 and under at least) but they should have the chance to choose their guardian. That is one possible solution.

I realize that, but we also cannot force a change in thinking.

I didn't suggest that.

But you did suggest change is needed, which it is. But is is accomplishable?

[UnschoolShqiponjë]

(04-05-2012 03:28 AM)Wes Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 03:26 AM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 02:54 AM)Wes Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 02:43 AM)UnschoolShqiponjë Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 03:28 PM)Wes Wrote:  I do think the arbitrary power exerted by parents over their children is a bit silly, but honestly what alternative is their? Kids aren't adults, there are societal barriers to them being considered adults, nevermind the fact that children do not function at the same mental level as adults and aren't able to physically protect themselves from danger as easily.

We have to have parents and these parents have to be given some sort of power, but I honestly am pretty stumped as to all the fine details. I also think as much of the current parental authority system should be retained as possible, because it works pretty good in a lot of ways even if there are bad spots.

I already said the solution is a change in thinking. People need to change. No, they can't protect themselves as easily or take care of themselves (12 and under at least) but they should have the chance to choose their guardian. That is one possible solution.

I realize that, but we also cannot force a change in thinking.

I didn't suggest that.

But you did suggest change is needed, which it is. But is is accomplishable?

Of course it is accomplishable. How long it could take is a whole different matter.

[Absnt]

So, it's a bit like a discrimination issue. Once mass acceptance of youth rights is gained, we should see relic ideas of kids not having any rights fading away. Perhaps. But, I honestly don't think I have enough faith in humanity for this. Parents, even those who consider themselves fair and reasonable, end up overprotecting kids, and enforcing shitty rules that generally, aren't fair and are based on wanting to protect/control their children. This is, in a way, somewhat natural. Sure, as youth rights gains ground, this problem will be mitigated, but until that happens I don't think we'll see any changes at all. And, even if youth rights is embraced on a broader scale, I don't think many parents will be willing to give up much of their power/rules/whatever over their kids.

Everyone thinks they're right. That's a huge problem for the youth rights movement in general. Parents won't want to give up any power, and a lot of them won't give up their controlling ways.

I still think we really, really need to, through the reform of the education system, create an environment were students have much more control over their own lives. Giving them the ability to decide who their legal guardian is is definitely a step in the right direction, after a certain age and with some limitations. (A pissed off 6 year old shouldn't be able to make, and formalize the decision just because he's mad at his parents for a few hours, and protections should be made against manipulative fucks convincing kids that they should choose them, etc.)

I also think we should make career training, and jobs more available to youth. Which, obviously, is going to be a pain in the ass. If there's no need for that many new workers, we won't get work. But that confines these students/kids to the power of their parents.

It's a rather aggravating issue.

[thewake]

(04-11-2012 03:00 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  Giving them the ability to decide who their legal guardian is is definitely a step in the right direction, after a certain age and with some limitations. (A pissed off 6 year old shouldn't be able to make, and formalize the decision just because he's mad at his parents for a few hours, and protections should be made against manipulative fucks convincing kids that they should choose them, etc.)

I honestly think its the only good step we can make in that direction unless we just want to get rid of parents altogether, which ain't happening. Parenting is biologically motivated and happens for a reason, and I'm sure you'd agree on that point.

We can't get around arbitrary rules that parents make and there's not practical way of keeping them from making them. And, honestly, some of the rules we hate turn out to be for our own good in the long run (some of them, though, are pretty unnecessary and cruel). We just need to punish physical abuse and let kids have a little more power in their own lives.

[Absnt]

Agreed. I guess the only thing we can do is give the youth more rights, and the rest really is up to the parents. So the best we can really do is change peoples ideas, like unschool was saying, on how much freedom and how strict one should be while raising a kid. In other words, we can't force the parents to parent in any specific manor, we can only try to convince them. While preventing abuse, of course. I also think freedom in education will be integral in youth obtaining more independence, but I'm not sure how much freedom it will grant.

[1312]

My parents tell me to do things and follow whatever they want or get out and support myself. I should stop making excuses like it is impossible or something and get to fulfilling my dream.

[Absnt]

^ Same thing here, man. Same thing here. I'm dreading getting a job lol. Still, I need the freedom.

[Avatar Korra]

Hey The Man, what do you think about the discussion in this thread?
Especially:

Quote: Giving them the ability to decide who their legal guardian is is definitely a step in the right direction, after a certain age and with some limitations. (A pissed off 6 year old shouldn't be able to make, and formalize the decision just because he's mad at his parents for a few hours, and protections should be made against manipulative fucks convincing kids that they should choose them, etc.)

and

Quote:I honestly think its the only good step we can make in that direction unless we just want to get rid of parents altogether, which ain't happening. Parenting is biologically motivated and happens for a reason, and I'm sure you'd agree on that point.

We can't get around arbitrary rules that parents make and there's not practical way of keeping them from making them. And, honestly, some of the rules we hate turn out to be for our own good in the long run (some of them, though, are pretty unnecessary and cruel). We just need to punish physical abuse and let kids have a little more power in their own lives.

This reminds me of the "How Far Are You Willing to Take Anti-Ageism" thread.

[James Comey]

(04-04-2012 09:33 AM)Absnt Wrote:  If I own my own house, I should most definitely have the right to decide who can live there, who can stay there, who can visit, and all of that. I can also, probably at least to some extent, control the comings and goings of those who live with me, since if they don't do what I say, I can make them leave. I have that weight over their head. Those are the rights and powers inherently granted to those who own their own homes or rent their own apartments, yes?

This, as we all know, doesn't change just because someone has a kid. They use their rights as parents, and the power to kick their kids out to control their kids, and, arguably, it's their right since it's their house that they paid for. I can definitely see this line of argument. The reason I have a problem, and the reason all youth-rights supporters generally have a problem with this, is because the children/teens/whatever don't actually have a choice in the matter.

In fact, they are forced to stay with their parents. So, how does this change the parents rights? Should parents have to give up their own inherent rights if they have kids, or is this a burden that kids just have to fucking deal with until they can support themselves?
In my opinion, neither is a very appealing remedy. It is my belief that parents should be able to retain their rights over their property, while "dependents" should have the ability to free themselves of their status as a dependent.

In order to do this, we must refer to the system of education that is currently being implemented around the world. K-12 education is one of the largest reasons for youth-dependence on parents. Youth are deemed unprepared and unskilled enough to live, or work on their own due to our system of education. It is my contention that the youth of the future should have access to the means to free themselves at a much earlier stage, for freedoms sake. Our system of education, and the economy as a whole should be revamped and modified to allow todays youth to learn necessary and useful skills they can use to support themselves at a much earlier age.

Obviously this is a very, very large and unlikely future scenario, but all the same, I think that it should, if we are truly to be a just and free society, the right thing to do. Thoughts?

Having a child is a choice, and IMO I think people should be better educated on the costs of having a child and what it'll take to raise a child.

Conversely, the child may not want to go to school, because their life will just be wasted there, at least past the 5th grade.

Of course, school doesn't teach that, does it?

[Rule_BreakerXVIII]

Quote:In fact, they are forced to stay with their parents. So, how does this change the parents rights? Should parents have to give up their own inherent rights if they have kids, or is this a burden that kids just have to fucking deal with until they can support themselves?
In my opinion, neither is a very appealing remedy. It is my belief that parents should be able to retain their rights over their property, while "dependents" should have the ability to free themselves of their status as a dependent.

In order to do this, we must refer to the system of education that is currently being implemented around the world. K-12 education is one of the largest reasons for youth-dependence on parents. Youth are deemed unprepared and unskilled enough to live, or work on their own due to our system of education. It is my contention that the youth of the future should have access to the means to free themselves at a much earlier stage, for freedoms sake. Our system of education, and the economy as a whole should be revamped and modified to allow todays youth to learn necessary and useful skills they can use to support themselves at a much earlier age.

YES. This.

[James Comey]

It sounds good on principle, IMO. The issue you might get unfortunately might include job/housing discrimination. AKA "you're just a kid, why should I rent to you?".

Not that I oppose it, just issues will come up with it.