Do children have property rights independent of parents?

[thenelli01]

Take this (common) scenario:

 

A child gets a gift, a kitchen set, when he is 18 months from a relative. After a while, he grows out of it and doesn't use it very often. He is now 4 or 5 years old and there is a niece of the parent that is turning 2 years old. For her birthday gift, the parent wants to give her his kitchen set. When asked, the boy says, "no, that's mine" and refuses to give it away. The parent gives it away anyway.

 

Is this moral or proper? Do children have property rights independent of their parents at this age?

Edited July 30, 2013 by thenelli01

[CrowEpistemologist]

Take this (common) scenario:

 

A child gets a gift, a kitchen set, when he is 18 months from a relative. After a while, he grows out of it and doesn't use it very often. He is now 4 or 5 years old and there is a niece of the parent that is turning 2 years old. For her birthday gift, the parent wants to give her his kitchen set. When asked, the boy says, "no, that's mine" and refuses to give it away. The parent gives it away anyway.

 

Is this moral or proper? Do children have property rights independent of their parents at this age?

 

Children are themselves property of the parents. They have ultimate legal and moral control of a child insofar as they properly retain this right and do not violate the rights a child does have.

 

However, the question you might be asking might not pertain to the legal or even the (directly) moral: you may be asking for an opinion about good parenting. This isn't in the realm of philosophy, but certainly a good question.

 

In this case, my opinion is that you'd want to teach your child not to be dickish by keeping a toy they don't even play with or care about just to keep it from somebody else, and instead see the value in helping out somebody that you (and they) might care about and see them enjoy something. Teach them that things are not ends in themselves, but rather a means to and end, and a toy you don't play with has no value (and that clutter from a bunch of crap you'll never use is an anti-value :-)). Also, generosity, among people whom you care about, is a virtue. A good parent would teach their child this, I think...

[A is A]

Children are NOT property.  Property can be used and disposed of as the owner sees fit, whether it be physical things or pets or animals.  As to the question of property rights, children cannot exercise such as legal rights but it would immoral for parents to give away something the child wants, even if the child doesn't use it anymore.  A child must learn what property and ownership means as it grows up, and giving away things the child has under its control is one way to destroy such an experience.  

Edited July 30, 2013 by A is A

[Nicky]

Take this (common) scenario:

 

A child gets a gift, a kitchen set, when he is 18 months from a relative. After a while, he grows out of it and doesn't use it very often. He is now 4 or 5 years old and there is a niece of the parent that is turning 2 years old. For her birthday gift, the parent wants to give her his kitchen set. When asked, the boy says, "no, that's mine" and refuses to give it away. The parent gives it away anyway.

 

Is this moral or proper? Do children have property rights independent of their parents at this age?

A child's property is managed by his parents, but this must be done so in his best interest (meaning that any substantial wealth must be preserved for when he grows up, and anything that's used must be spent on his food, care and education). There need to be legal mechanisms in place to prevent abuses.

As for the kitchen set, there is no reason for the government to get involved in what the parents see fit to do with it. The morality of the act also depends on the specifics.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Nicky

[softwareNerd]

The morality of it depends on knowing the full context.

 

Do children have property rights independent of their parents at this age?

Yes, they do, but their property is in the trust of their guardians. If the guardians think that a certain disposition of that property is correct, then the default assumption -- absence something egregious -- is that the guardian acts legally. Someone (e.g. a grandparent) leaving substantial money to a minor will often create a trust that specifies how the money should be spent: e.g. invested safely until the child is 18 and only spent on college, etc. To play it even safer, the trustee could be someone other than the parent -- e.g. a lawyer might be a trustee along with the parent. Without such an explicit legal arrangement, the default presumption is that the parent decides for the minor.

 

(Like every discussion about minors, there's always the borderline issue: why should the nor get control at 18 and not 17, and that would apply here too.)

 

Personally, I'm really wary of the law second-guessing a parent unless the harm to the child is serious, unambiguous, and objective. 

[Devil's Advocate]

Is this moral or proper?

No;  it's neither moral nor proper to allow a child to claim property, then ask them to give it away, and then force them to against their wishes.

 

Do children have property rights independent of their parents at this age?

Yes;  primarily children have a property in their own life, but they are unprepared for the preservation of it.  Parents assume the responsibility of guardians until their children are capable of self-preservation.  Parents might properly remove their child's possession in order to prevent injury or to discipline, but not to regift without the sanction of the victim; your example makes me think of parenting skills of altruists

 

It is moral and proper for a child to have safe property, and for a parent to administer the child's possession of it.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Wow, all I can say is that there are a whole lot of non-parents responding to these :-).

 

People should remember that the "property" of a child is always a gift until they are older and can perform productive labor and thus purchase something themselves. As a parent I wouldn't generally (with exceptions) take away something a child bought themselves, and would give them a lot more leeway, but baby toys are not "theirs" in any grown-up sense--i.e. in the sense that they can implement the property in a way that you do not approve.

 

If your ten year-old is hording his baby toys just to piss off his cousin, he's being a dick. You should teach him not to do that, and certainly overriding his wishes over the toys that you own is one way. That's my opinion, anyhow...

[Nicky]

Wow, all I can say is that there are a whole lot of non-parents responding to these :-).

Everything's a logical fallacy with this guy. Even when it's just about a kid's toys, we're all wrong because we're somehow not qualified to judge something.

[Devil's Advocate]

People should remember that the "property" of a child is always a gift until they are older and can perform productive labor and thus purchase something themselves. As a parent I wouldn't generally (with exceptions) take away something a child bought themselves, and would give them a lot more leeway, but baby toys are not "theirs" in any grown-up sense--i.e. in the sense that they can implement the property in a way that you do not approve.

As a parent, I see no conflict with children being fully righted with life, liberty & property (or pursuit of happiness); those rights being endowed at birth (or conception), and inalienable.  Were parents to act in such a way as to endanger their child, there's little doubt that the child's rights would be upheld and their parents' guardianship challenged.  Children own toys in the same sense their parents do; that playing with toys in a manner that endangers others warrents having those toys removed.

[StrictlyLogical]

Raise your kid to respect property rights:

 

Never tell them that something you gave them is theirs UNLESS it actually IS theirs. i.e. for non owned things, tell then they can "have" or "use" things, then you can later arbitrarily FORCE (order) them to share them or give them back.  For specific things you tell them they own (cherished teddy bear or the like) respect their absolute ownership of them. 

 

Of course ownership of a thing does not give the child the special permission not to go to bed (after handing it over) when playing with it!

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Children are themselves property of the parents. They have ultimate legal and moral control of a child insofar as they properly retain this right and do not violate the rights a child does have.

Absolutely not!

Property has no rights; a rancher has no such obligation to his cattle.  Stop and think about it: to call children the property of their parents is to call them categorically LIVESTOCK.

 

You can never own another human being, full stop!

 

Wow, all I can say is that there are a whole lot of non-parents responding to these :-).

Then you'll be delighted to hear my well-qualified opinion on the arcane secrets of poopy diapers. 

 

Children absolutely have property rights.

 

If my son were to start composing symphonies, the way young Mozart did, that music wouldn't be mine.  It wouldn't be my wife's or anyone else's, either; it would be his- in the same way and for the same reasons that my accomplishments belong to me.

This doesn't apply to anything at all, you say?

Well, what if he's busily stacking a monolith of blocks which another child suddenly wants to play with; would it be proper for the other child to take them?  What if he only stomped his feet and demanded to share- in some miniature altruistic tirade?

 

The underlying principles of property rights apply equally well to children.  Their implementation is different for obvious reasons (block towers cannot be owned in perpetuity) but this doesn't translate them into something completely different.

 

As for the majority of their actual, adult-type property, such as clothing and toys and blankets. . .

A child gets a gift, a kitchen set, when he is 18 months from a relative. After a while, he grows out of it and doesn't use it very often. He is now 4 or 5 years old and there is a niece of the parent that is turning 2 years old. For her birthday gift, the parent wants to give her his kitchen set. When asked, the boy says, "no, that's mine" and refuses to give it away. The parent gives it away anyway.

 

Is this moral or proper? Do children have property rights independent of their parents at this age?

I believe the principles involved in property inheritance are appropriate.

 

I would consider the child in this scenario to have a right to the kitchen set, but only a derivative right- specifically derived from the benefactor involved.  If he enjoyed or was even fond of the kitchen set I would not give it away, and as it's explained I would ask this other relative, first (the original owner).

 

In addition, property rights are the right to use and enjoy property, not ensure that it mildews properly in some forgotten corner.  I know that's counterintuitive and rubs against the entire grain of the rest of Objectivism, but here's the principle involved in my reasoning:

If you would not even realize it were X to vanish one morning, it isn't a crime to take X from you. . .  Any more than it's a crime to find a penny and pick it up.

 

And the principle of pennies, there, is also WHY block towers can't be owned in perpetuity.  At some point the builder will get bored and wander off somewhere, officially putting his monolith up for grabs.

---

 

So those are the major things involved in a child's ownership, I think: their property rights are derivative and the disposal of said property (which may involve decades of intricate plans for adults) tends to be much more limited.

And, considering that with respect to almost all of my son's belongings that benefactor is myself,  I always ensure to practice what I preach and ask myself for permission before making any crucial decision about them.

And by 'myself' I mean 'my wife'. 

Edited July 31, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Raise your kid to respect property rights:

 

Never tell them that something you gave them is theirs UNLESS it actually IS theirs. i.e. for non owned things, tell then they can "have" or "use" things, then you can later arbitrarily FORCE (order) them to share them or give them back.  For specific things you tell them they own (cherished teddy bear or the like) respect their absolute ownership of them. 

Indeed!

 

I'm amazed by the things most people teach their children.

Win at games- but not too often; allow yourself to lose sometimes.

Share your belongings- whoever wants it the most should get it.

Tell the truth- unless the truth is upsetting.

 

Children's television shows are especially bad; any of them which include any sort of morals.  Is it any wonder that everyone's philosophies are so screwed up, when they're spoon-fed such garbage literally from the time they're still being spoon-fed?

Edited July 31, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[CrowEpistemologist]

Everything's a logical fallacy with this guy. Even when it's just about a kid's toys, we're all wrong because we're somehow not qualified to judge something.

 

Everything's a straw-man attack with this guy...

[CrowEpistemologist]

If my son were to start composing symphonies, the way young Mozart did, that music wouldn't be mine.

 

 

In the context above within which I was speaking, a "child" meant somebody who was not yet engaged in productive work as would be compensated by the outside world. In this case, if I recall, a child actually maintains certain legal rights as well. As others here have mentioned, whenever you talk about "children", you are talking about a variable, context-driven line between "child" and "adult".

 

Now, short of any item with specific legal rights, everything else is given to a child by some sort of donor. These items, legally, belong to the parents, and morally as well. You might "pretend" otherwise to teach your child things, just like you might very well take something away from them if they misbehave. The concept of "ownership" here is contrived, however.

 

Now above my statement, "children are property" has been taken too literally--far more literally than I would have wanted. Obviously I didn't mean that children can be bought and sold like a car, etc. I merely meant that parents have full rights over what a child does, where they go, etc. etc. If they run away, they can call the police and have them return their child. Etc.

[mdegges]

Now, short of any item with specific legal rights, everything else is given to a child by some sort of donor. These items, legally, belong to the parents, and morally as well. You might "pretend" otherwise to teach your child things, just like you might very well take something away from them if they misbehave. The concept of "ownership" here is contrived, however.

 

Is it? Does this include gifts specifically given to a child (on his birthday, at christmas, etc)? Or money that he's earned by doing chores around the house? How about the items he buys with this money? Obviously parents can discipline their children and take away items that they believe are messing with their child's health (computer games), grades (computer games), social skills (computer games), & things of that sort. But if an item is specifically given to a child, I believe it belongs to him and him alone. As you said earlier, the reason these things can be taken away is because parents are guardians of their children and children live on their property and must abide by certain rules. But I don't see how this makes the idea of a child's ownership artificial.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Is it? Does this include gifts specifically given to a child (on his birthday, at christmas, etc)? Or money that he's earned by doing chores around the house? How about the items he buys with this money? Obviously parents can discipline their children and take away items that they believe are messing with their child's health (computer games), grades (computer games), social skills (computer games), & things of that sort. But if an item is specifically given to a child, I believe it belongs to him and him alone. As you said earlier, the reason these things can be taken away is because parents are guardians of their children and children live on their property and must abide by certain rules. But I don't see how this makes the idea of a child's ownership artificial.

 

Have you spent too long in the Nanny State to remember what real ownership means? :-) Real ownership means you can be naughty, unsociable, not eat what is healthy for you, belch in front of the relatives, and so on, and still do whatever the hell you want with your property. It means your property cannot be taken from your without due process. etc.

 

And yes, in some cases the US and in many places around the world, adults are treated like children...

[mdegges]

Hmm- Since we're discussing ethics and not just ownership, I wonder if it would be moral for a parent to strip his child of all his clothes, money, & other possessions, kick him out of the house, and send him out into the world with only the hair on his back the moment he turns 18. If children truly can't own anything of their own, I believe the answer would have to be yes. Would you agree?

Edited July 31, 2013 by mdegges

[CrowEpistemologist]

Hmm- Since we're discussing ethics and not just ownership, I wonder if it would be moral for a parent to strip his child of all his clothes, money, & other possessions, kick him out of the house, and send him out into the world with only the hair on his back the moment he turns 18. If children truly can't own anything of their own, I believe the answer would have to be yes. Would you agree?

 

You are mixing up ownership and possession...

[Craig24]

Children are themselves property of the parents. They have ultimate legal and moral control of a child insofar as they properly retain this right and do not violate the rights a child does have.

 

However, the question you might be asking might not pertain to the legal or even the (directly) moral: you may be asking for an opinion about good parenting. This isn't in the realm of philosophy, but certainly a good question.

 

In this case, my opinion is that you'd want to teach your child not to be dickish by keeping a toy they don't even play with or care about just to keep it from somebody else, and instead see the value in helping out somebody that you (and they) might care about and see them enjoy something. Teach them that things are not ends in themselves, but rather a means to and end, and a toy you don't play with has no value (and that clutter from a bunch of crap you'll never use is an anti-value :-)). Also, generosity, among people whom you care about, is a virtue. A good parent would teach their child this, I think...

 

I'm not a parent so I have no personal experience here or wisdom to offer.  I know some here are jumping down your throat, particularly over the use of the word 'property' to describe a child's relationship to their parents.  I think I know what you mean here but the word simply doesn't apply because the referents of the concept 'property' excludes any and all human beings.   

[Devil's Advocate]

Now above my statement, "children are property" has been taken too literally--far more literally than I would have wanted. Obviously I didn't mean that children can be bought and sold like a car, etc. I merely meant that parents have full rights over what a child does, where they go, etc. etc. If they run away, they can call the police and have them return their child. Etc.

"A child is a person and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term 'child' does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution." ~ http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/childrens_rights

 

Those would be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property); the point being that parents may not abuse their children because a child's rights are in some kind of trust until they come of age; a child's rights are recognized at birth.  The issue of who owns a child's possessions (property) seems trivial when considering the great responsibility parents assume in raising their children.  Children being regularly encouraged to share their toys and having their toys removed as punishment, reinforces the idea you present; that a child's possessions are the property of their parents.  That goes unchallenged primarily because a child (and their toys) reside on their parent's property, but just as renters don't lose possession of objects they bring onto the landlord's property, the objects children possess remain their property as well, subject to permission by the parent/landlord to keep them on-site.

 

The test of actual ownership comes when a parent's fitness is legally challenged.  I suspect in these cases a child's possessions follow the child, and not the parent.

[mdegges]

@Crow, here's my understanding of your position:

 

P: Children have possesions

P: Parents have full ownership of their children's possesions- (or in other words, children are not in full control of the items that they have)
C: Parents can choose to do whatever they want with their children's possesions (because they have full ownership)

 

It follows that it would be legal for a parent to "strip his child of all his clothes, money, & other possessions, kick him out of the house, and send him out into the world with only the hair on his back the moment he turns 18." Doesn't sound right at all.

[Devil's Advocate]

As for the majority of their actual, adult-type property, such as clothing and toys and blankets. . .

I believe the principles involved in property inheritance are appropriate.

Not so much, unless you consider all gifts/inheritance remain tethered as the property of the donor.

 

As parents of children, who having become adults now live elsewhere, our home remains filled with our children's possessions.  I don't consider them our property simply because our children have wandered off without taking them... yet...  Besides, I still enjoy playing with them sometimes... oops

[StrictlyLogical]

Indeed!

 

I'm amazed by the things most people teach their children.

Win at games- but not too often; allow yourself to lose sometimes.

Share your belongings- whoever wants it the most should get it.

Tell the truth- unless the truth is upsetting.

 

Children's television shows are especially bad; any of them which include any sort of morals.  Is it any wonder that everyone's philosophies are so screwed up, when they're spoon-fed such garbage literally from the time they're still being spoon-fed?

 

Very true. 

 

I like the "spoon fed" double reference!

[StrictlyLogical]

CrowEpistemologist

 

 

I think the question "do children have property rights..." is meant to be asked in view of philosophic fundamentals not with a view to what any actual STATE or NATION has deemed "legal" (by whatever arbitrary process they have adopted).

 

So...

Upon what basis does one decide, for a person of a certain age, who has come into possession of an item through their own productive work or by valid gift, whether or not it is also that person's "property" in view, specifically, of the "age" of the person?

 

 

Again, the question is asking for the reasons by which you arrive at your answer, not only "because the STATE told me so" or "because its in the constitution", "because its THE LAW" etc..

 

I am curious.

Edited July 31, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[CrowEpistemologist]

@Crow, here's my understanding of your position:

 

P: Children have possesions

P: Parents have full ownership of their children's possesions- (or in other words, children are not in full control of the items that they have)

C: Parents can choose to do whatever they want with their children's possesions (because they have full ownership)

 

It follows that it would be legal for a parent to "strip his child of all his clothes, money, & other possessions, kick him out of the house, and send him out into the world with only the hair on his back the moment he turns 18." Doesn't sound right at all.

 

Bad parents actually have the legal right to screw up their children worse than that, and there are countless ways it can happen. Fortunately it doesn't happen very often...

 

Also, understand that "18" is an arbitrary line, and some children can become real "adults" (with full legal rights) as young as 12 in some cases.

 

Oh, and sending a child outside naked is child abuse, and can be punished by prison...