"Anarchists" who don't recognize children as equals

[African_Prince]

Children are our equals not in terms of intelligence, judgement, maturity etc. but in terms of moral value and worth. Anarchists must believe that all humans are equal, if not, on what grounds is authority or the exercising of power by one human over another illegitimate? If children are our equals and thus deserve equal consideration and respect, are we justified in expressing authority over them? I wouldn't deny that expressing authority over them in certain situations might be in their best long-term interests but would we be justified in expressing the same paternalistic authority over fellow adults, even if it might benefit their long-term interests? Should it not be up to the individual to determine what their 'interests' are, should all sentient beings not be allowed to enjoy the freedom of self-autonomy?

Anarchists should be critical of the idea that parents/adults are entitled to exress authority over children and there's no real, moral quagmire involved. Authority can only be considered just, it can't be proven just. From an objective standpoint, the parent's opinion isn't any more valid than the child's.

[coup-detat]

I agree that children shouldn't be brought up in authority. I believe that you should be a mentor for your child. Though, there are times when authority is necessary just to make sure they are not spoiled rotten. I always talk to children as peers.

[African_Prince]

there are times when authority is necessary

You must realize that pro-statists can use this exact same argument to justify the existence of governments. Individuals arbitrarily decide when authority is necessary but it can never be proven as valid or legitimate. Even if it would be in the best long-term interests of the child or citizen, who are individual, flawed humans to take it upon themselves to exercise that authority?

Consistent anarchism leads us to conclusions that most self-proclaimed anarchists aren't ready for.

[coup-detat]

If you were to raise a child, would you exercise no authority over him/her at all? Would you let your child run as wild as a child who is never told no would do? If so, you'll have a really fucked up child. I agree that children should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as it does not infringe on others. There are times when you have to show a child that it cannot hit others and such, but this can only be brought about by asserting a small amount of authority.

[African_Prince]

If you were to raise a child, would you exercise no authority over him/her at all? Would you let your child run as wild as a child who is never told no would do? If so, you'll have a really fucked up child. I agree that children should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as it does not infringe on others. There are times when you have to show a child that it cannot hit others and such, but this can only be brought about by asserting a small amount of authority.

First things first, whether or not authority really is in a child's best long term interests is a separate issue as to whether or not we're morally justified in denying them self-autonomy and expressing authority over them.



While I'm not closed-minded to the idea that children really do need some coerceive authority I wonder how much non-authoritarian parenting is blamed for the problems that come with laissez faire parenting (since the overhwhelming majority of parents feel that discipline is necessary and the ones who don't exercise it are likely to not invest any real energy into raising their children period). We are morally justified in preventing them from infringing upon the rights of other people. Although I would prefer not to use negative reinforcement, I think I would be justified in revoking privileges like television, the internet etc., I could do that with a roomate who insisted on living dishes in the sink or something like that, if I owned the tv or computer. Even positive reinforcement (although psychologists tend to agree it is much healthier than negative reinforcement) I have some issues with, you're still trying to coerce someone else's behavior, children should behave ethically because they realize why it's important to behave ethically, not to avoid punishment or acquire a reward.

If anarchist beliefs contradict with the most successful way to raise children, I would opt to simply not have them. Anarchism would be a lot more practical if the world population was lowered.

[coup-detat]

Heh, I don't really want kids. When I spend time with my nieces and nephews I try to figure out how an anarchist would raise kids. Positive reinforcement is the only thing I can think of. Make sure they know when they do something good, that way they'll like to do things that are good.

[African_Prince]

[quote author=anarchy91 link=board=1;threadid=22057;start=0#msg451067 date=1243028854]
Childrens rights are an interesting issue for libertarians. Obviously they cant be treated as if they are as rational and independant as adults, however on the other hand its not really desirable for parents to be allowed to throw their children into the fire.
Any thoughts on what rights children have and how they should be enforced?

[/quote]

Of course their autonomy can be respected, we choose not to because we believe it is 'for their own good' (it may very well be but that doesn't legitimize doing so). Treating children as equals vs. throwing them into a fire is a false dichotomy, you have no right to violate the autonomy of someone who is your equal or to physically injure them.

Most self-proclaimed anarchists/libertarians have an inconsistent stance when it comes to children (and non-human animals, for that matter, but I guess it can be argued that anarchism is a human concept applying to humans alone). Children are either property or they are self-owners, if they are self-owners, then they should be allowed to demonstrate the same autonomy that adults enjoy. There is no way around this, not if you are consistent with the idea that no human is morally justified in dominating, controlling or coercing another human into behaving in a way that (s)he thinks is appropriate and that force is only justified in defense. Whether or not it would benefit a child, in the long-run, to have parents that make decisions on his or her behalf is irrelevant to whether or not his/her parents are morally entitled to do so.

Children should have a right to not attend school. They should have a right to vote (for conversation's sake, I'll pretend that representative democracy is valid to begin with). They should have a right to have consensual, uncoerced sex with other children or adults if they want to. They should even have a right to smoke, drink or get high if they choose to. The only justification for punishing children or preventing them from doing any of these things/forcing them to do these things is the "as long as you live under my roof" argument but as an anarchist, I'm opposed to all dominant-submissive relationships, even if it is voluntarily accepted as the lesser of two undesirable ultimatums. Even then, a child should still have the right to 'run away' if they prefer the alternative of living on their own or with another family.

-My reply to a thread on anti-state.com For some reason, they don't let you post.

[Yarrow]

the problem is, if you don't exercise some authority over a child, they'll run out in the road and get squashed (not a hypothetical situation, trust).

as an anarchist i'm not 'against all authority', i'm against all imposed, coercive, non-meritocratic authority. i'll place my authority in whosoever i feel has it in a given situation, and so will a child (that is, before they start making their own decisions). If a non-parent tells a child to do something they don't want to , the result will be different to if the parent said it. and that is because of trust and the familial bond.

[Francois Tremblay]

If you were to raise a child, would you exercise no authority over him/her at all? Would you let your child run as wild as a child who is never told no would do? If so, you'll have a really fucked up child. I agree that children should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as it does not infringe on others. There are times when you have to show a child that it cannot hit others and such, but this can only be brought about by asserting a small amount of authority.

This is a perfect example of why people shouldn't have kids. If even Anarchists can't imagine how to raise a child without all the strictures of hierarchy, what's the point?

[jack]

If you were to raise a child, would you exercise no authority over him/her at all? Would you let your child run as wild as a child who is never told no would do? If so, you'll have a really fucked up child. I agree that children should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as it does not infringe on others. There are times when you have to show a child that it cannot hit others and such, but this can only be brought about by asserting a small amount of authority.

This is a perfect example of why people shouldn't have kids. If even Anarchists can't imagine how to raise a child without all the strictures of hierarchy, what's the point?

You're so anti-parent because nobody finds you attractive enough to let you get the opportunity. People breed because it continues the fucking human race.

[Francois Tremblay]

You're so anti-parent because nobody finds you attractive enough to let you get the opportunity.

1. I am married. Neither of us want children, because we're both Anarchists. Not wannabe Anarchists who only fight against hierarchies when it's convenient. Like you.
2. Nice ad hom, jerk. What does that have to do with what I said?

People breed because it continues the fucking human race.

So you reify the "human race," a pure abstraction, as more important than the lives of individuals and societies. Very fascistic.

[Francois Tremblay]

Also see this entry for a full refutation of the nonsensical "the human race must perpetuate" argument:

http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2 ... erpetuate/

[Yarrow]

surely neither of you want children because you're not in love?

but seriously, if you don't want to have kids then that's great for the rest of us. if those who dare to assess the situation want kids, then all the better for society.

does anyone here believe in natural fluid authority? the idea that in certain situations, some people posess authority through experience, common sense or motivation? because i do, and in my eyes protecting and educating a child is one of those situations. it's a fluid situation, and you have to adapt with the times. sometimes the child has authority, sometimes not. most times it's an unspoken agreement, sometimes you have to assert yourself. c'est la vie.

p.s. it's anarchist, not 'anarchist'. i don't need your approval, and you don't need to qualify everything.

[African_Prince]

surely neither of you want children because you're not in love?

but seriously, if you don't want to have kids then that's great for the rest of us. if those who dare to assess the situation want kids, then all the better for society.

does anyone here believe in natural fluid authority? the idea that in certain situations, some people posess authority through experience, common sense or motivation? because i do, and in my eyes protecting and educating a child is one of those situations. it's a fluid situation, and you have to adapt with the times. sometimes the child has authority, sometimes not. most times it's an unspoken agreement, sometimes you have to assert yourself. c'est la vie.

p.s. it's anarchist, not 'anarchist'. i don't need your approval, and you don't need to qualify everything.

An "anarchist" justifying AUTHORITY is so fucking laughable. Fucking hypocrites. Most 'anarchists' are full of SHIT and they piss me off.

"I'm an anarchist, I support the existence of states and capitalism but I don't need your approval, I'm still an anarchist".

Let's exercise some ridiculously simple logic : if you're going to argue that authority is sometimes necessary or acceptable, a statist can turn around and argue that the existence of the state is both necessary and acceptable and point out that even anarchists see authoity as sometimes necessary, it's only a matter of when. DO YOU NOT SEE HOW FUCKED UP AND INCONSISTENT YOUR POSITION IS??!!?

If I ever have children, I will adopt. Anarchism becomes more and more practical with smaller populations, not to mention all of the ecological reasons to avoid procreating, all the existing children who need loving, non-authoritarian parents and the exacberation that overpopulation has on poverty. Capitalism requires large populations to grow.

as an anarchist i'm not 'against all authority', i'm against all imposed, coercive, non-meritocratic authority.

All 'authority' requires the threat of punishment to legitimize itself. Studies have already shown that positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative reinforcement is. I've altered my view somewhat over the past few weeks. I don't know if parents are ever 'justified' in violating a child's autonomy but if I found my son injecting heroin into his veins, I would coniscate the drugs from him but I would NOT punish him or react aggressively. I would simply explain to him the dangers of heroin, confiscate the drug and use some kind of incentive to encourage him to remain drug free. Children our equals, they should be respected as our equals, the whole point of anarchism is political egalitarianism.

[Francois Tremblay]

surely neither of you want children because you're not in love?

What the FUCK is your problem?

if those who dare to assess the situation want kids, then all the better for society.

Wrong. People who have children divert resources that would help the rest of society, and become more and more dependent and enslaved to the dominant hierarchies. Society is not helped by people having children.

does anyone here believe in natural fluid authority? the idea that in certain situations, some people posess authority through experience, common sense or motivation? because i do, and in my eyes protecting and educating a child is one of those situations. it's a fluid situation, and you have to adapt with the times. sometimes the child has authority, sometimes not. most times it's an unspoken agreement, sometimes you have to assert yourself. c'est la vie.

What the FUCK is wrong with you? Are you even listening to yourself?

You cut a quite pitiful figure.

"Hey, I know we're supposed to be against unjust authority riiiight? But authority is a fluid thing. When I'm full of shit and being called on it, then I can be for authority, no biggie, I have to adapt to people calling me on my FUCKING CRAZY SHIT."

p.s. it's anarchist, not 'anarchist'. i don't need your approval, and you don't need to qualify everything.

Shut up, wannabe.