RoR: Forum

It is necessary therefore for the rights of the child to be in a sense entrusted, or vested to the parents or other guardians ...

By the way, Betsy Speicher was making an argument along those lines many years ago.

... So parents wouldn’t be able to arbitrarily prevent a teenager from exploring religions other than their own ... There would be no right [of parents] to “confiscate” (i.e. steal) [pornography from the teenager].

Well here's the basic problem with your position. You talk about the rights of the child, but what about the rights of those providing the food and shelter? Were the child an adult, the concept of rights would imply that the relationship is conditional: the guest may stay as long as he follows the house rules. Law would have little to say about what rules are acceptable in what house (obviously a rule that says "if you don't I can shoot you" should be illegal). But by your view, it seems that the parents have no rights, they become slaves to the child's "rights".

It really isn't that complicated, and it's not so much about the child's rights as it is about the child's implicit obligations arising from the fact that he's dependent on someone else. Yes, there is a range of obligations that should be legally acceptable - but it's quite broad, basically it includes every condition and limit one *legally* ought to be able to place on an adult guest in your house. Yes, many parents place *immoral* obligations on the child - but the parent will get his just desserts when the child grows up; it's not the government's job to force the parents to, say, let him go to a different church.

Now you can talk about what house rules rational parents *ought* to enforce, and that's going to be a more complicated discussion, and one where I think it substantially depends on the child himself, but this whole thing about their rights is simple. Yes the child has rights, but he's essentially a guest in the house and within certain broad limits, must follow the house rules.

Post 1

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 10:45am

Shane, you make an excellent point. Political correctness and other insidious forces have transformed the Western family into a hotbed of altruism, to the benefit of the child and detriment to the parent. Parents, to be good parents, must sacrifice everything and demand nothing. Their time is no logner their own, ever, not even after Johnnie and Janie have left the house (you see, the right to a paid college education, and support while they embark on their careers is now a middle class expectation placed on parents). Essentially, parents, especially Dad's, are expected to stop living their lives altogether.

Ridiculous.

Your 'house rules' point is well taken. So is your focus on the breadwinners who actually make life and existence possible for the family.

Post 2

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 10:49am

Shayne wrote:

Yes, the child has rights, but he's essentially a guest in the house and within certain broad limits, must follow the house rules.

I basically agree with your post, Shayne. As I have said in other threads in the SOLO Forum, the law cannot sunder responsibility from authority without creating chaos and rights violations.

Leftists like to argue that because workers "must" live and work on the land of the "propertied class," they should have some say in how that property gets used. In other words, the argument goes, they should have some legal authority over "productive" property while the title and responsibility for that property belong to others.

Such arguments, whether about children or workers, amount to a divorce of authority from responsibility. They advocate the violation of the rights of property owners.

Luke Setzer

Post 3

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 11:15am

MH,

Thanks for the article. (You will get some disagreement that children have the right “not to be assaulted.”)

It is essential that we keep separate the legal from the ideal moral. Shayne makes this point quite elegantly at the end of his first post. I’m much more interested in the latter.

Jon

Post 4

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 11:20am

Thanks for the comments guys.

Shayne,

I've read very little of Betsy Speicher, and based on what I have read have little desire to read more.

You talk about the rights of the child, but what about the rights of those providing the food and shelter? Were the child an adult, the concept of rights would imply that the relationship is conditional: the guest may stay as long as he follows the house rules. Law would have little to say about what rules are acceptable in what house (obviously a rule that says "if you don't I can shoot you" should be illegal). But by your view, it seems that the parents have no rights, they become slaves to the child's "rights".

The parents don't become slaves in any way. The parents CHOOSE to have the child. The child on the other hand doesn't choose to have those parents (or for that matter to be born at all). To my mind that makes a pretty crucial difference to your analogy of a guest agreeing to abide by house rules. That doesn't mean the parents can't set any rules, just not as many as they presently can.

Scott,

Political correctness and other insidious forces have transformed the Western family into a hotbed of altruism, to the benefit of the child and detriment to the parent.

I agree. But I am not one of them. Nor do I accept that anything which benefits the child is necessarily detrimental to the parents.

Parents, to be good parents, must sacrifice everything and demand nothing. Their time is no logner their own, ever, not even after Johnnie and Janie have left the house (you see, the right to a paid college education, and support while they embark on their careers is now a middle class expectation placed on parents). Essentially, parents, especially Dad's, are expected to stop living their lives altogether.

I may be wrong but I suspect that many of the parents on this board will disagree strongly with that. If I decide to have children in the future it will be for my own selfish reasons of wanting to bring up another human being.

Luke,

As I have said in other threads in the SOLO Forum, the law cannot sunder responsibility from authority without creating chaos and rights violations.

Once again, I agree but honestly don't believe that my "position" implies such a sundering.

Jon,

Thanks for the comments. I do understand the distinction between the moral issue and the legal, though if there is a rights issue (as I believe there is) then it is something Objectivists ought to try dealing with. That said, a moral change may well come before any legal change.

Cheers,

MH

Edited to add response to Jon's post, which appeared while I was composing mine.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 2/04, 11:35am)

Post 5

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 11:53am

Hi MH,

I haven’t followed the other debates on this issue you refer to, but thought I’d chime in with a couple of things here.

Overall interesting topic, but I am not sure that I agree with you based on the fact that I don't think children have as much ability to reason, esp at the young age that you propose to give them rights at.

Your response to Shayne's post was that parents chose to have a child, therefore they are not 'slaves', but simply cannot make as many rules as they do now. It isn't very practical as I see it. You say that a parent can make rules, but not have any say over a child's entertainment activities for example. What about in their house? Can they restrict a child's reading of the Fountainhead or watching porn in their house? Can they make a child do homework?

Also, just because you chose to have a child, does not mean you have to accept all of their behavior. I would never give an investor my money if he could do whatever he wanted with it and I'd have no say, even if he was losing it all. Likewise I wouldn't want to raise a child if I had no say in what they did and couldn't even kick them out if they went down a horrible path. Most parents are tolerant, but if you weren't allowed to enforce curfew or whether they went to school, etc., that's not really a fair trade. You wants kids to have the right to do whatever they want but not be forced to be responsible for it.

To address some of your specific points from the article:

“In the case of a very young child the effect of this would be that parents and guardians were allowed able to override the child’s immediate autonomy where and only where not to do so would be to the child’s detriment.”

The examples that you give seem to be more physical threats. But you’re talking about young children here, actually, very young children as you say; their ability to think things through isn’t there yet. The movie Big Daddy comes to mind, have you seen it? Adam Sandler decides the best way to parent is to encourage a young boy to do what he wants and not enforce non-critical rules. Soon, the boy becomes the smelly kid in class (from not showering), eats junk food, stays up watching tv, gives himself a ridiculous name and pees on the side of buildings. According to your idea above, you wouldn’t be able to make a child do their homework or take out the trash, etc. I don’t think that’s helping them any. You have to remember how children think and even if they don’t mean to, they can hurt themselves. Parents have the responsibility to teach them. For some that means teaching religious beliefs that you may not agree with, but I don’t think the answer to fixing that is to give the child all these rights.

The one thing parents can’t take from their children is their ability to think. They might hinder it some, or teach them bad things, but as a child matures they must learn to think for themselves and overcome some of those bad things we all had growing up.

“For instance parents ought not to be able forcibly restrict a teen’s access to information and entertainment where the teen has the means and the wherewithal to obtain such material.”

Where there is money to be made, there will be access for all sorts of materials, even ones not appropriate for children. You see this as an opportunity for children to freely read Fountainhead, I guess my mind goes right to porn and alcohol that I would like control over for my kids.

“There would be no right to “confiscate” (i.e. steal) such items.”

Again, so long as I am raising a child, I’d like to be able to take the drugs out of their hand if I see it…

“In addition there probably ought also to be an absolute bar on sex with a child who has little or no independent knowledge of sexuality.”

It’s scary how much 6 year olds know now, and what 12 year olds are doing. Do you think that just because a 12 year old knows about sex, they should be allowed to engage in it without your say, as long as their partner is 15 years old or less?

“My solution would be that this occurs when the individual, preferably with the consent of the parents, is ready to accept all the responsibilities that go with being an adult.”

I think that means they can support themselves and live on their own? Teens under the age of 18 can still go on their own by emancipating themselves if they so wish. And you mention it might be later than 18 for some kids…I know 30 year olds who couldn’t make it on their own now and still live at home. What if they never become “ready” to take on all the responsibilities?

I think Shayne above made the point that kids rely on their parents for so many things to survive, but the article seems to be giving kids all the rights and none to the parents. I think you might also underestimate a child’s ability to make the right decisions entirely on their own. Sometimes you just have to force a child to brush their teeth or take their antibiotics. Parents aren’t just “safety bumpers” on the side but need to guide kids, especially young ones.

I don’t particularly have a problem with the way things are now. Children are protected from physical harm (some spanking aside) but parents have the ability to make decisions until the child is able to on their own. Parents do the best they can to raise kids, and I’m not sure that giving the kids more rights would help them any.

Pardon my font issues!!!

-Elizabeth

Post 6

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 11:59am

Scott: Thanks, though I think the point I'm making has been made here in various ways by others but ignored over and over again.

Matthew:

I've read very little of Betsy Speicher, and based on what I have read have little desire to read more.

Your feelings on Betsy Speicher are oh so useful to me, thank you so much for posting them. Do you have some more feelings you'd like to offer?

The parents don't become slaves in any way. The parents CHOOSE to have the child. The child on the other hand doesn't choose to have those parents (or for that matter to be born at all). To my mind that makes a pretty crucial difference to your analogy of a guest agreeing to abide by house rules.

I note that you failed to point out what crucial difference is made and why. If it was so crucial I'd expect it would deserve to be explained.

Actually I thought that the first reaction to what I said by the liberals that for some reason inhabit this forum would be to point out that the "poor little kid" didn't ask to be born as if that fact were some kind of magic wand that makes all the kid's wishes come true (and as if it were some kind of affliction instead of a wonderful gift!). But just as that fact doesn't give parents unjust powers over the child, the reverse is true. Again, just as there is an implied obligation on the parents to take care of the child until he can himself, there is an implied obligation on the child to follow the house rules.

Post 7

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 1:00pm

Hey Liz,

Thanks for the lengthy response. I certainly understand your concerns about porn, drugs etc. I'm certainly not comfortable in the least with the thought of 5 year olds looking at hardcore. Can I ask how, in a predominantly Objectivist culture (and what I'm suggesting has precisely zero chance of working without an O'ist culture), you think a 5 year old is going to get hold of hardcore? On the other hand I don't think religious parents should be able to take away copies of Objectivist works because they don't like the kids having them. Do you honestly think they should? I also don't think its a biggie for older teenagers to look at porn (they're going to anyway, regardless of what their parents say - it's just a question of whether they feel able to talk to their parents about sex or not).

The one thing parents can’t take from their children is their ability to think. They might hinder it some, or teach them bad things, but as a child matures they must learn to think for themselves and overcome some of those bad things we all had growing up.

Precisely the point I'm making is that a maturing child should be able (within limits) to think for themselves, learn to excercise their rational faculties. The parents should in effect be guides rather than authoritarian figures they obey out of fear. I accept that it does have certain unfortunate implications that need to be ironed out. Btw I haven't seen the movie you referred to but I assume the parent didn't just not enforce the rules but didn't try to guide the child in any way?

It’s scary how much 6 year olds know now, and what 12 year olds are doing. Do you think that just because a 12 year old knows about sex, they should be allowed to engage in it without your say, as long as their partner is 15 years old or less?

At the end of the day I think some young teens will do so, regardless of what you, me, their parents or the state has to say. Perhaps three years is too great a gap, but I don't think teens should be effectively criminalised for having sex. Isn't there some way of allowing consensual teenage exploration while still protecting kids from being exploited by pedos?

Very good point regarding the teens being able to "emancipate" themselves while the parents are required to care for the child - of course the parents should have an equal right to throw the kids out (as long as they're not like 4 or 5 years old and can't possibly feed themselves, in which case parents should at the very least hand them into an adoption agency if they no longer want them). So that would take care of the 30 year old.

Shayne,

Your feelings on Betsy Speicher are oh so useful to me, thank you so much for posting them. Do you have some more feelings you'd like to offer?

Other than stating that the fact that Betsy Speicher proposed something similar many years ago is equally oh so useful to me and thank you for posting that, no. ;-)

I note that you failed to point out what crucial difference is made and why. If it was so crucial I'd expect it would deserve to be explained

The crucial difference is that a guest choses to accept your house rules by choosing to be a guest, whereas a baby doesn't choose to be a "guest" in the parents house. Of course if the child is old enough to take care of themselves some and the parent wants to basically issue an ultimatum that they stop reading Rand or leave the house, that's different. With any luck the child'll find some O'ists to look after them.

MH

Post 8

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 2:30pm

Other than stating that the fact that Betsy Speicher proposed something similar many years ago is equally oh so useful to me and thank you for posting that, no. ;-)

Utility wasn't the premise on which I thought you originally credited Joe. Rather I thought it was from some sense of justice to the originator of what you thought was a good idea. I thought it was quite on topic to add that I'd heard the same idea years ago by Betsy. On the other hand I thought your gratuitous insult of Besty was off topic, and in very poor taste. And on top of that, it was a useless statement of your feelings, in contrast to the factual reference to the originator of some idea.

If you want to fling around pointless insults, I recommend that you leave Solo and take up residence as a troll on Usenet.

The crucial difference is that a guest choses to accept your house rules by choosing to be a guest, whereas a baby doesn't choose to be a "guest" in the parents house.

Thanks for restating the difference, but I notice that you've again failed to point out why it's "crucial," i.e., why that difference makes a difference that's relevant to my post. You keep using the same point as a magic wand, it's not a magic wand.

Post 9

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 2:47pm

Shayne,

MH said he has little desire to read more of her. I have read some comic books and have little desire to read more. Where is the “gratuitous insult?” The “very poor taste?”

Jon

Post 10

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 4:02pm

Hi MH,

For some reason I feel like this is a circular reference, chicken/egg, can't win thing. :)

You mentioned this would take place in an objectivist world, not as it currently is, but in that case I don't really see why we'd need all these rights for kids, the parents should be encouraging them to explore on their own anyway.

And just as kids still have sex now even though it's not allowed, if it were the other way around and kids had more 'rights', then you'd still have some non-objectivist parents breaking the law and controlling what their kids can do.

And if this were to pass, what could a child do if they had the right to watch whatever they want and their parent tried to stop them? Would they call the police? Would a parent be forced to let them watch what they want? I doubt they wouldn't resent that and retaliate. A kid could move out if it's 'not working', but if they were old enough to move out as it was they could do that regardless.

I think as long as the parents pay the rent, are responsible for bills, etc. etc. they get to make the rules. If the kids don't like it, they can move out. There are a lot of bad parents out there, but I don't think giving kids all these rights would help that. And there is no rule holding kids at home until they are 18. I moved out of the house a week after my 17th birthday... When you're old enough to be on your own and responsible enough, you leave home and don't have to worry about all these rules.

-Elizabeth

Post 11

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 4:02pm

Shayne,

What the fu*k?!?!

Yes I gave due credit to Joe and where appropriate other people for their ideas because those ideas impacted on the content of my article. I haven't read the specific piece by Betsy Speicher dealing with this issue, so her ideas had no impact on the position (or rather, tentative position) I outlined in the article. Her style doesn't appeal to me. If her work does appeal to you, that's fine by me. Each to his own. No insult was intended.

As to your argument:

Were the child an adult, the concept of rights would imply that the relationship is conditional: the guest may stay as long as he follows the house rules

Ok, so your analogy is one of an adult guest who chooses to visit someone's house. Of course the guest ought to follow the house rules, he's there of his own free will. A kidnap victim on the other hand makes no choice to be in whatever house he's being held in, and is under no obligation to follow house rules. The child makes no choice to live in his parents house. Obviously, a child living with his parents isn't a kidnap victim, but insofar as applied to a very young child who is not and simply cannot choose between living with his parents or some alternative arrangement, nor do I think your guest analogy fits.

Jon,

Thanks :-)

MH

Post 12

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 4:37pm

If her work does appeal to you, that's fine by me. Each to his own. No insult was intended.

Right. Well for the record, I never indicated whether her style did or didn't appeal to me, or even whether I agreed with Joe and Betsy. That's not the subject. Instead of repeating myself I guess I'll just ask that you read what I wrote.

Ok, so your analogy is one of an adult guest who chooses to visit someone's house.

It's actually not an analogy. If you were to think in principle, you would have already realized that as the child matures, he becomes to a larger and larger degree, only a guest. He starts out as a total dependent, and just before he leaves he's his own person, living there purely as a guest. This guest aspect of the parent/child relationship doesn't just pop into existence when the child is mature. It's there all the time.

And as for the rest of your comments, all you are doing is, again, repeating yourself in different forms. Yes Matt, I get the point that the child didn't choose to be born.

In regards to using a kidnap victim as a comparison to a child, I'll just compliment you on picking examples that aptly represent your position on the matter.

Post 13

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 5:18pm

Shayne,

This getting tiresome. I was simply emphasising that I meant no insult to Betsy Speicher.

It's actually not an analogy. If you were to think in principle, you would have already realized that as the child matures, he becomes to a larger and larger degree, only a guest. He starts out as a total dependent, and just before he leaves he's his own person, living there purely as a guest. This guest aspect of the parent/child relationship doesn't just pop into existence when the child is mature. It's there all the time.

In my previous post I commented that "Obviously, a child living with his parents isn't a kidnap victim, but insofar as applied to a very young child who is not and simply cannot choose between living with his parents or some alternative arrangement, nor do I think your guest analogy fits." It ought to be clear from my post before that I already accepted as the child matures there comes a point where in a sense he is a guest.

And as for the rest of your comments, all you are doing is, again, repeating yourself in different forms. Yes Matt, I get the point that the child didn't choose to be born.

And apparently failing to grasp my point (which I think you actually agree with!!) that an infant therefore can't be considered a guest. Seems to me you're being confrontational for no reason.

In regards to using a kidnap victim as a comparison to a child, I'll just compliment you on picking examples that aptly represent your position on the matter.

"Obviously, a child living with his parents isn't a kidnap victim...."

MH

Post 14

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 5:49pm

... nor do I think your guest analogy fits." It ought to be clear from my post before that I already accepted as the child matures there comes a point where in a sense he is a guest.

It's not an analogy and it's not "in a sense" - as he matures he literally is a guest. And since that aspect comes in increasing degrees as the child matures, it's increasingly relevant as the child matures, notably during the phase of most interest here - the teenage years.

And apparently failing to grasp my point (which I think you actually agree with!!) that an infant therefore can't be considered a guest. Seems to me you're being confrontational for no reason.

I thought your point was that the idea of the child being a guest is merely an analogy, and one that doesn't fit, and that therefore the parents have no right to regard the child as a guest and expect him to follow the house rules. If your point is that the parent has less and less right to enforce house rules as the kid is less and less mature, OK, but that strikes me as an even more bizarre position than the one you started with.

I took it for granted that we all understood that a 2-year-old ought not to be allowed by law do whatever he pleases, and that we were trying to understand how to deal with the more mature child, so that's what I focused on - the principle that governs the more mature child. So I guess you're going to have to put me back on track Matt. What exactly is your point?

Post 15

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 6:08pm

MH,

Thanks for displaying your tentative suggestions on how we should treat children. I agree that there are problems with how our society treats children, and parenting in general.

To all of the negative comments: I think the "brainstorming" stage is crucial to finding the best solution to a problem. It does not seem like a good idea to shoot potentially good ideas down at such an early stage. I think it is a good idea at this point to offer alternative ideas, but it seems premature to attack other's viewpoints.

My biggest qualm with how children are treated is when a person says "Do it!" and "Don't do it!" without giving the child a reason. "Because mommy says!" is clearly not a satisfying reason. Instead, we should teach them why they should behave in a certain way.

I think that children are capable of reasoning, although they may not have the experience or depth of insight as adults do. So the job of the parent is to help the child understand why they should or should not behave in a certain way. Surely after the child understands the consequences of their actions in a particular situation, they (the children) are fully responsible for the consequences. Even if we failed to help the child understand the consequences, I think the child should fix his own mistakes. It is their choice whether they want to learn the hard way or not.

Thanks,

Dean

Post 16

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 6:28am

I don't think the problem, as stated at the start of the article, is that the Objectivist/libertarian conception of children's rights isn't very well developed; the problem is that people are trying to reinvent the wheel. It's not as if the isue of children's legal rights has suddenly arisen out of nowhere; the issue has been around for as long as law has been around.

Not surprisingly, there is nothing new in any of the discussion here.

I also have a problem with the implicit assumption in this discussion that Objectivists/libertarians actually need to come up with solutions to these sorts of legal issues. The whole thing smacks of central planning. I'm actually in favour of laissez faire when it comes to the development of particular applications of law. In an Objectivist society, there wouldn't be any need for a single objective solution to "the children issue", rather the legal processes and nuances would develop out of rulings in individual cases, i.e. Common law.

This was the whole problem with the smacking debate. The issue shouldn't be whether smacking is or isn't allowed, there shouldn't be any central ruling on smacking. Each case should be considered on its merits. (This is true for all crimes where there is a continuum between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. In the smacking case for instance the continuum ranges from an innocuous tap to outright child beating. Somewhere in between there is a line to be drawn, but it should be drawn on a case by case basis throuh the courts, not by some central planner).

The article is full of "oughts", both implicit and explicit, whereas I don't think a libertarian/Objectivist should presume to make such judgements in a legal context. At the end, MH recognises that the courts should develop some sort of maturity standard, similar to the courts' judgments on insanity. Well, fine. But this is a long-established libertarian position. And the reason libertarians can take this position comfortably is because it doesn't imply any central planning - this would inevitably be taken up in practice anyway if legislation on ages of consent was removed.

Post 17

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 12:30pm

Matt,

I think your article tries to cover several issues that are too broad to be address all together at once. Infant (0-1 year), toddlers (1-3), young children (3-7 perhaps), no-so-young children (7-9), pre-teens, early teens and late teens are all very different stages in human development and need to be treated differently.

To me, the bottom lines are

1). When a child comes into this world, he/she has the right to life. And he is entitled to be brought up to be a self-sufficient and productive human being.

2). It is usually the parents’ responsibility to do their best (according to their values) to satisfy the child’s need to the life of a human being. This task is, frankly, quite brutal. It includes many sleepless nights, backbreaking holdings and carryings, and many other tortures later on. Of course it often brings a lot of joy as well.

3). Children are more than houseguests in parents’ home. Parents in fact are making a future independent and productive human being. Therefore parents should also take care of children’s intellectual development, moral characters, physical fitness, etc., according to their value system. These are parents’ responsibilities as well as their rights and it apparently should coincide with children’s rights and their best interests.

I hesitate to go into detailed rules, because the ways children are brought up in different families, different cultures, or different times are just too different. Additionally each child is also different. In each situation where children get into conflict with their parents, there’s always context to consider. It is hard to generalize. Of course children should in no way be viciously abused physically or mentally. I think in America, laws are quite comprehensive about child abuse already.

I just now read Tim Sturm’s post and think that my last paragraph is trying to say the same thing that he has said.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 2/05, 1:10pm)

Post 18

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 3:10pm

Tim Sturm writes:

The whole thing smacks of central planning. I'm actually in favour of laissez faire when it comes to the development of particular applications of law. In an Objectivist society, there wouldn't be any need for a single objective solution to "the children issue", rather the legal processes and nuances would develop out of rulings in individual cases, i.e. Common law.

Better be careful there! Having different courts come up with different decisions sounds a little too much like (cough, cough) the A-word.

Post 19

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 3:31pm