The right to self-develop ones capacities

[TuringAI]

I've been thinking about this issue at length. Children are not born with the ability to completely exercize their rights, but they do have them. By what means does a child gain his or her right to exerize his or her rights? It happens somehow, and it doesn't arbitrarily happen just because a legal decree says at a certain age they suddenly have the capacity when they didn't a day before their 18th birthday. Law must be based on objective fact. Objectively, a child develops the capacity to think and live closer and closer to an adult level over time, with different parts happening at different stages.

I don't want to talk about reproductive rights right now because it's such a contentious topic. Limiting to what I was talking about in the chat, what right does a child have to pursue their physical and intellectual strengths? I argue that the child who wants to develop should be allowed by the parents to develop, and that parents engaging in behaviour which on principle harms the child's developmment and not for the sake of protecting them from harm is a violation of the child's rights.

The parents don't have the right to decide what rights the child has, nor does anyone else have a right to make that decision. It's a matter of objective fact which capacities the child is able to develop at that time and since it is the ability or inability to exercize a right which make parents responsible for the child and able to or not able to make decisions for the child, it is the child's capacities which determine their right to engage in self development.

If anyone doesn't understand what I am arguing, I'm talking about a child with talents. Let's say a child is brilliant at something. We know that coerced education is illegal in an Objectivist government, but what about coerced diseducation? Should the brilliant child be subjected to a parenting method hostile to individual talent without any legal recourse?

[DavidOdden]

You are asking the wrong question, but let me help you. You should also ask, by what means does a parent gain his or her autonomy, and become legally free of the obligation to be responsible and liable for the child? At what point does the child become filly responsible for the consequences of their own actions. You claim that age is not an objective fact. But demonstrating a person's age is one of the most fundamental objective facts that there is, even more than citizenship. Keep in mind Rand's statements in "Objective law", if you start referring to objectivity in the law.

As for why a specific age, one of the reasons is so that the child will in fact reach that status of full legal adultery, no wait, adulthood. If there were some subjective test like the driving test, many children might fail well into their 20's and probably for the rest of their lives. This would impose an intolerable burden on the parent. In addition, requiring people to pass a test before they are allowed to exercise their rights as a person raises the subjectivity question that you aim against the age-based rule, namely that it is apparently arbitrary since it is stated objectively. You'd have to defend the particular required score ("Why 80% and not 79%"?) and justify the choice of questions (is it really an essential property of "having and exercising rights" that the person know who authored the Bill of Rights, or that they be able to summarize Peikoff's "Analytic v. Synthetic" paper accurately?).

The question of whether a child has the right to pursue their physical and intellectual strengths disregards the fact that at age 4, children have a really lousy grip on reality, and they don't seem to understand that knives are sharp objects, mixing bleach and ammonia in the bathtub is not a "scientific experiment", and they cannot fly from the roof. So should a child be granted the legal right to accidentally kill or maim himself? I don't think so. I think that is exactly the point of having parents be the custodians of the child, making decisions for his benefit. Perhaps there is wisdom in a more Darwinian approach to child raising, that children should be granted the right and obligation to take care of themselves from birth, or at least as soon as they are old enough to get a court order against their parents. That way, children who are stupid enough to think that they can fly will be faced with the objective fact of gravity, and the gene pool will be cleansed. And yet I just don't feel like granting any 4 year old that I care about their full rights and responsibilities.

Parents have the obligation to decide what choices are in the child's best interest. Parents can be in error -- so can the child, and so can the State Board of Child Supervision, the mega social bureaucracy that would be necessary to implement a disinterested "objective" system of determining what is in the child's best interest. There already exists a method for sorting out the answer to your question: we have a court system, and a burgeoning social bureaucracy, so that if any 4 year old wants to pursue their natural abilities to fly, they can get one of those social welfare agencies to sue for the right to be allowed to jump off a roof.

[TuringAI]

You're using the fallacy of the extreme example as a way to justify any and all other examples. I'm not saying that a child at age 6 has the right to determine whether or not he or she can fly, but what about the example of the 12 year old who wants to learn about plant life so they examine specimens in the garden, or even a 9 year old who wants to exercize so that when they grow up they can become the next olympic athlete?

These examples are way far off from the example of the 3 year old who is curious what would happen if they smacked the vicious dog next door right between the eyes. Arguing that there's no way to tell, objectively, the difference between the two, then using an example which in all rational minds would definately indicate a difference, is intellectually dishonest.

[DavidOdden]

You're using the fallacy of the extreme example as a way to justify any and all other examples.

When it's coupled with the fallacy of the vague idea, it's not a fallacy.

I'm not saying that a child at age 6 has the right to determine whether or not he or she can fly, but what about the example of the 12 year old

So you don't object to the idea of an objectively stated age, you were just complaining about the particular age 18 and would like to see it lowered to 12?

who wants to learn about plant life so they examine specimens in the garden,

Just for that purpose? What about the 12 year old who wants to jump off a roof? You apparently fail to grasp the nature of objective law. If a child is a legal adult at age 18, then he is an adult at 18 and he can jump off a roof or explore bug life or whatever. If a child is a legal adult at age 16, then he is an adult at 16 and he can jump off a roof or explore bug life or whatever. If a child is a legal adult at age 12, then he is an adult at 12 and he can jump off a roof or explore bug life or whatever.

If you don't like the idea of children being adults only at age 18 and you think it's okay to let them be parties to binding contracts and to explore bug life, but not jump off a roof, then you have to pass an appropriate law that states that parents are still responsible for their children in certain ways and that the may not override the wishes of the child in certain other ways. Write the law that you propose; and tell me why we should only extend this exercise of rights to children who are 12 or 16 or whatever age you settle on, and why only for exploring in the garden. Why not fashion design; or automotive repair; or pig-farming?

or even a 9 year old who wants to exercize so that when they grow up they can become the next olympic athlete?

Why should a 9 year old be allowed to abandon school in favor of exercise against his patent's wishes, but a child isn't allowed to abandon school to bus tables in a restaurant?

Arguing that there's no way to tell, objectively, the difference between the two, then using an example which in all rational minds would definately indicate a difference, is intellectually dishonest.

You're the one engaging in intellectual dishonesty, by implying that I made such an argument. Your problem is, you can't accept the ridiculous consequences of your "free the children" position. If you think parents are such horrid custodians of children's rights, you need to come us with a though-out proposal. Any rational person can see why the child should not be allowed to ignore his education to become a gymnast. Parents do not prevent their children from looking at plants in the garden, and it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that they do. Try coming up with something real, and then try stating a law that would say objectively under what conditions parents should be forced by the courts to allow their children to act in a way that the parents judge not to be in the child's interest.

[TuringAI]

When it's coupled with the fallacy of the vague idea, it's not a fallacy.So you don't object to the idea of an objectively stated age, you were just complaining about the particular age 18 and would like to see it lowered to 12?Just for that purpose? What about the 12 year old who wants to jump off a roof? You apparently fail to grasp the nature of objective law. If a child is a legal adult at age 18, then he is an adult at 18 and he can jump off a roof or explore bug life or whatever. If a child is a legal adult at age 16, then he is an adult at 16 and he can jump off a roof or explore bug life or whatever. If a child is a legal adult at age 12, then he is an adult at 12 and he can jump off a roof or explore bug life or whatever.

My point isn't that the child becomes a legal adult. My point is that there are stages between childhood and adulthood that need to be respected. Are we going to have it be legal for parents of a perfectly mentally capable child to keep him in diapers, spoon feed him, wash him, and keep him in a crib? Let me reiterate, a PERFECTLY MENTALLY CAPABLE CHILD, meaning one that knows how to control bladder functions, eat normal food, deal with hygiene, and sleep at an appropriate time. I'm sure if I had not said that that you would have found the exceptional case as if it disproved the general case.

If you don't like the idea of children being adults only at age 18 and you think it's okay to let them be parties to binding contracts and to explore bug life, but not jump off a roof, then you have to pass an appropriate law that states that parents are still responsible for their children in certain ways and that the may not override the wishes of the child in certain other ways. Write the law that you propose; and tell me why we should only extend this exercise of rights to children who are 12 or 16 or whatever age you settle on, and why only for exploring in the garden. Why not fashion design; or automotive repair; or pig-farming?Why should a 9 year old be allowed to abandon school in favor of exercise against his patent's wishes, but a child isn't allowed to abandon school to bus tables in a restaurant?You're the one engaging in intellectual dishonesty, by implying that I made such an argument. Your problem is, you can't accept the ridiculous consequences of your "free the children" position. If you think parents are such horrid custodians of children's rights, you need to come us with a though-out proposal. Any rational person can see why the child should not be allowed to ignore his education to become a gymnast. Parents do not prevent their children from looking at plants in the garden, and it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that they do. Try coming up with something real, and then try stating a law that would say objectively under what conditions parents should be forced by the courts to allow their children to act in a way that the parents judge not to be in the child's interest.

I can't come up with a fully written federal law, one that goes down to to concretes, because it would need to be really long, and probably revised as language changes and as self explained terms change their definitions. But a good principle would basically be in the form of a bill of rights, stating that the child has a right to an adequate education (of all sorts, mental, social, physical, and so on). That means that a parent who refused to educate a child by homeschooling them or sending them to school or buying a number of books and letting the child practice them, who instead insisted on neglecting the child's needs, would be culpable for a violation of the child's rights. Just like the parents of a child who only bought fast food, and whose child turns out to be morbidly obese, could be given warnings, fines, and even prison terms.

[DavidOdden]

My point isn't that the child becomes a legal adult. My point is that there are stages between childhood and adulthood that need to be respected.

Alright, but that is so obvious that it hardly bears saying. You don't have any plan that involves someone forcing parents to let their children do stuff, I take it.

Are we going to have it be legal for parents of a perfectly mentally capable child to keep him in diapers, spoon feed him, wash him, and keep him in a crib?

I thought your concern was with allowing a child to go out into the garden and look at flowers. Now you're going to prevent prevent parents from feeding their children?

I can't come up with a fully written federal law, one that goes down to to concretes

Well there's your problem. You distrust parents' good judgment, but you refuse to even made the effort to write this child liberation act of yours. You need to make up your mind. Either you have a law (which means you better get to work on your writing project), or you don't have a law, in which case you've got what we have now.

But a good principle would basically be in the form of a bill of rights, stating that the child has a right to an adequate education (of all sorts, mental, social, physical, and so on).

Yes; I can see it now. Right #1: Parents shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the child peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 'rents for a redress of grievances. Right #2: A well stocked candy jar, being necessary to the emotional security of a child, the right of the child to keep and bear chocolate, shall not be infringed.

Just like the parents of a child who only bought fast food, and whose child turns out to be morbidly obese, could be given warnings, fines, and even prison terms.

Also, any parent who allows their children to watch more than 1 hour of TV per day, or download any music, or hang out in any mall, shall be imprisoned for a term of not less that 20 years. Any parent who smokes in the presence of their child shall be subject to 5 years in prison; any parent who drinks alcoholic beverages in the presence of their child shall be subject to 1 year in prison; any parent who uses illegal drugs in the presence of their child shall be summarily executed. Any parent who advocates statism in the name of "protecting the children" shall be horsewhipped and imprisoned for 20 years.

We already have a mechanism for dealing with child abuse and neglect; what is your evidence that we need something more?

[TuringAI]

We already have a mechanism for dealing with child abuse and neglect; what is your evidence that we need something more?

I think this is what it boils down to, is rules and regulations based on the child abuse / child neglect concept, but expanding for a much wider variety of forms. IE overfeeding a child to the point of obesity would be child abuse, and not seeing to it that your child is properly educated is child neglect.

[DavidOdden]

IE overfeeding a child to the point of obesity would be child abuse

You mean, not restricting a child's urge to suck down food, to keep him from getting fat -- nobody force-feeds children. This is not an instance of a child having a right to free expression that parents are denying. What you're saying here is that a child should have fewer adult rights than they are generally granted now. Do you propose that this law be based just on amount of food eaten, or on weight (which involve also metabolism and exercise)? What's the correct standard for defining a "too fat" child, which results in prison time for the parents? i.e BMI over 27?

and not seeing to it that your child is properly educated is child neglect.

I.e. you support existing mandatory education laws, so this is no change.

[volco]

I've been thinking about this issue at length. Children are not born with the ability to completely exercize their rights, but they do have them. By what means does a child gain his or her right to exerize his or her rights? It happens somehow, and it doesn't arbitrarily happen just because a legal decree says at a certain age they suddenly have the capacity when they didn't a day before their 18th birthday. Law must be based on objective fact. Objectively, a child develops the capacity to think and live closer and closer to an adult level over time, with different parts happening at different stages.

I don't want to talk about reproductive rights right now because it's such a contentious topic. Limiting to what I was talking about in the chat, what right does a child have to pursue their physical and intellectual strengths? I argue that the child who wants to develop should be allowed by the parents to develop, and that parents engaging in behaviour which on principle harms the child's developmment and not for the sake of protecting them from harm is a violation of the child's rights.

The parents don't have the right to decide what rights the child has, nor does anyone else have a right to make that decision. It's a matter of objective fact which capacities the child is able to develop at that time and since it is the ability or inability to exercize a right which make parents responsible for the child and able to or not able to make decisions for the child, it is the child's capacities which determine their right to engage in self development.

If anyone doesn't understand what I am arguing, I'm talking about a child with talents. Let's say a child is brilliant at something. We know that coerced education is illegal in an Objectivist government, but what about coerced diseducation? Should the brilliant child be subjected to a parenting method hostile to individual talent without any legal recourse?

I've thought of this for a while as well but never aired it. My interest began long ago when I discovered Maria Montessori and realized children as stem cells with the soon to expire potential to become heroes or second-handlers. But I believe it goes further back when I myself was in my early teens, had earned some money trading online and found out that minors couldn't legally own property, which to the day makes me very angry (particularly because that ban comes from the fear of kids becoming dummies or figureheads for adults instead of even considering the chance of minors generating wealth by their own merit).

I wouldn't like to mess into reproductive rights either, but i consider it utterly criminal for a 19 year old to spend time in jail for having consensual intimacy with a 17 year old. Since I wouldn't think the same of a 50 yr old with a 10 yr old, I concede that there should be an arbitrary limit.

But ideas and money don't quiet involve the same risk as intercourse.

If children become more and more intelligent over time trhough technology, in addition to the ones already genius, we'd be neglecting basic rights to many individual adults.

The issue of emotional versus IQ adulthood will rise, but a) I doubt many adults are emotionally grown ups, and B ) the only biological standard is puberty and we've already discarded that.

Edited August 17, 2008 by volco

[brandonk2009]

I've been thinking about this issue at length. Children are not born with the ability to completely exercize their rights, but they do have them. By what means does a child gain his or her right to exerize his or her rights? It happens somehow, and it doesn't arbitrarily happen just because a legal decree says at a certain age they suddenly have the capacity when they didn't a day before their 18th birthday. Law must be based on objective fact. Objectively, a child develops the capacity to think and live closer and closer to an adult level over time, with different parts happening at different stages.

I think to a certain extent this sort of thinking is already in our system today, although with some differences of intent. Child-labor laws are one example that comes to mind. The original intent of these sort of laws were to prevent young children from not only working in dangerous factories and industries, but to prevent young children from working altogether (I disagree with child-labor laws, but that's a different issue). In Montana a "child" can work for their parents for a wage before age 15, however once that child has reached age 15 he may go to other businesses to get a job. This gives the child more options than what he previously had. I know that when I turned 15 I could use my money to go out and buy the things I wanted.

In this way I became interested in politics and philosophy, giving me the financial opportunity to buy books that my parents didn't really want to buy me. I remember when I was 11 and I wanted a book by Ann Coulter and my dad (who is left-leaning independent) went nuts and refused to buy it for me. From then on, if I wanted a political book my parents would look it over and decide whether I needed it or not and whether they wanted to buy it for me. I felt that for some reason this was wrong then, and I still think it's wrong now, but it was their money and they could do what they want with it.

It was only until I became partially financially independent and got a job that I could buy the things I wanted rather than what my parents preferred me to have.

We also have emancipation laws giving certain children, if they are responsible enough, legal adult rights before the age of 18. I think this, coupled with a proper government system, would enable a child to strike out independently and achieve the goals they want without the interference of a parent. If a child wants to leave the care of his parents and strike out on his own, he should be given the legal option to do so, if he is shown to be responsible for his life.

Edited August 20, 2008 by brandonk2009

[volco]

I think to a certain extent this sort of thinking is already in our system today, although with some differences of intent.

We also have emancipation laws giving certain children, if they are responsible enough, legal adult rights before the age of 18. I think this, coupled with a proper government system, would enable a child to strike out independently and achieve the goals they want without the interference of a parent. If a child wants to leave the care of his parents and strike out on his own, he should be given the legal option to do so, if he is shown to be responsible for his life.

The extent to which this exists today is basically the black market. A poor child can surely work from age 4 in the black market, and a better off child can also do so with his earnt money. I did it trading products over the net. That's when I realized that I didn't legally own any of the stuff I traded - unless I applied to emancipation which leads me to my point:

For a child to become emancipated he or she must convince a court of law. I don't want to say Krytocracy, but how exactly would it otherwise work, granting rights to some children and none to others?

[brandonk2009]

For a child to become emancipated he or she must convince a court of law. I don't want to say Krytocracy, but how exactly would it otherwise work, granting rights to some children and none to others?

That's the only objective way to do it, I think. Set certain criteria that a child has to meet in order to be emancipated and do it through the courts. Many children do not choose to be emancipated, but at least they have that option.