Rights of Minors versus those of Parents

[Icarian Decoding]

I've been thinking about alot things currently, and I am wondering what is the appropriate setting to the rights of minors, to those of the parents. As far as I can read into US and UK law, the parents literally own the Child until they turn 18/21, save those minors who are emancipated. Is it just me, or does this seem wrong?

I would not deny the parents their right to council their children, and to moderate their children in their lives, so that they can become the parent's ideals of what is a "Normal" and "Socially Adjusted" being, but where does this cross the line of brainwashing, and slavery?

For instance, under US Law, a minor is not allowed to leave the house until they are 18[1]. Unless emancipated, which would require a draw of resources from the child, and the fact it is very difficult to become emancipated in the first place, a minor is under the control of the parent. I don't believe this is fair, because at age 16, I believe that most can easily support themselves. Wouldn't it make sense for a child to have the option to leave at a much earlier age?

Second, a child, while online is under the roof of the parent, they have no rights to freedom of information[2]. While I can understand why porn sites, and some of the more brutal sites, such as Lemon Party and Goatce are censored, why are many sites such as those related to Anarchism, Satanism, the Occult, Advanced Computer Security issues, etc, banned. [3, 4, 5] This seems not only tyrannical, but the dumbing down of society. If a child is not presented with the ability to view the material, how can they learn/make up their minds about certain subjects? I go to great lengths to keep my information safe, and to learn as much as possible. How can I do this if my ability to see information is revoked?

Third, when a child is under the protection of a parent, they have no right to privacy. This has been exemplified by the presence of "Youth Behavioral Camps" [6, 7, 8, 9]. The parents of the minor have the ability to send their children to bootcamps, where they cannot leave. It is ironic, that some of the toughest men and women who sign up to join the marines, cannot make it through bootcamp. Yet they force so-called "Troubled Minors", right into these situations. I believe that this is not only wrong, but cruel.

What are your opinions? Should minors have more rights, or less?


1. http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/quest425.htm
2. http://www.copacommission.org/commis...nologies.shtml
3. http://peacefire.org/censorware/X-Stop/
4. http://peacefire.org/censorware/Net_Nanny/
5. http://peacefire.org/censorware/BESS/
6. http://teenliberty.org/Newstories.htm
7. http://www.school-survival.net/direc...s_and_schools/
8. http://www.alternet.org/story/31000/

[CptSternn]

First, I think the drinking age of 21 is unfair in the states. If yer old enough to die fer yer country and go to prison, then having a beer after work shouldn't be illegal.

As far as rights, they are more restrictive in the states, but thats due to less parental involvement due to workers rights and the policies that govern businesses there.

In the EU, more specifically the UK and Ireland, every month gets one national holiday. Some have 2. If there isn't one, then then a Monday is designated as a 'bank holiday' and all businesses are closed and everyone is off. Many pubs close as well.

In the states the only holiday most get off paid is Christmas and some people get Thanksgiving, but thats it.

Also, here we get 4 months vacation and unlimited sick time every year for full time workers. Also, working more than 8 hours in one shift means the next day you cannot work more than 4 in a shirt. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is workers get much more time off here, meaning they spend it with their families/children in most cases.

Because of this, you don't have many of the problems like you find in the states, you don't have need for things like 'V' chips, and you don't have laws forcing libraries to 'filter' content.

One thing I always liked is the schools here don't have cafeterias. During lunch the kids can go home, go to the local chippers, and hit local resturants. They are given a full hour for lunch, like workers, and come back to school after. Businesses here take lunch @ 1PM while schools do lunch @ noon. Just another example of giving kids more responsibility at a younger age and by doing so helping them to grow without all the 'laws'.

Another great tool wer have in the UK and Ireland is the ASBO (pronounced like it looks as-bow). These can be issued to anyone between the ages of 12-24. If you go out, keep acting up (i.e. vandalism, theft, fighting, etc.) the police will take you to court and have an Anti Social Behaviour Order issued against you. Then whenever you are out in public the police can give you a breathalyzer if yer under 18, check yer pockets for any contraband, enforce a curfew, enforce school attendance (they will come pick you up and drag you to school), and at any time your loitering and maybe not breaking the law but causing problems they can take you home to yer parents and enforce a home curfew until the next day.

We have less laws and even less enforced here when it comes to kids, but with ASBO's, the judicial system in conjunction with the parents keep kids in line.

-S

[WolfMoon]

Is it just me, or does this seem wrong?

It's completely fair, considering what a financial drain children are.

The truth is, kids are the possesion of their parents til they can take care of themselves. The parents are completely responsible for the child:

1. Going to school

2. Being clothed, fed, bathed

3. Staying away from drugs( do you really think no one gets punished but you if the cops catch you with paraphernalia?)

I could go on, but I have to beat a child.


Baring a responsibility as great as having children isn't all fun and games. Parents don't delight in the fact that they 'own' you. You are an investment.

And investments have to be protected.

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

And investments have to be protected.

Wasn't there some 60's-era movie where the parents said something like this, and the kid screamed into the phone "I am not an investment!" I kinda liked that. Reminded me of the clarion call of "I am not a number!"

It has to do with the Struggle for Recognition (one of the Five Human Potentials referred to in the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory, look it up), and in essence, the upshot is that if a minor chafes at the controls they are under... speak up! It isn't like parents are these stoic machines that cannot interact with you! Christ, have a bitch, open a dialogue, is that a hard concept?

And about being old enough to die but not to drink - armed forces personnel are able to drink when their CO is present, so that's a non issue, because it means they can drink if they're defending or working in that capacity, but some punkass smoking pot behind the gym every afternoon isn't quite of the same calibre to warrant a legal drink, in my opinion.

I had another rant all typed out at this point, but I deleted it because I'm feeling bummed out now. Fucking debates - if people would simply talk to one another, none of this would be a goddamn problem.

And those bootcamps! Grr... I'm off to rant about those.

[WolfMoon]

Sobeh, that comment was tongue-in-cheek.

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

Sobeh, that comment was tongue-in-cheek.

Oh I suspected as much, which is why I didn't get all uppity.

[chloegoth]

I think the danger with allowing minors more rights is that not every minor is going to be responsible to use their rights wisely, hence ruining it for those who do. Case in point: government-inforced curfew. There was a point in time during which curfews were not inforced, and some idiot ruined it for everyone else.

My parents were super-strict when I was growing up, but now that I'm on my own, I sometimes wish that I could have somebody be responsible for me again. Besides, certain priveledges are much more enjoyable if you have to wait for them, and often I find that they come with responsibilities that I could quite do without.

[Queenofdarkness57]

Children in Lebanon are very free, in general. For instance, teenagers can buy cigarettes and alcohol from any store, without showing an ID. But, we get our driving license when we hit our 18th year. I don't think children should be given more rights, parents who gave birth to you, educated you, took care of you are responsible for you. If a 16 year old wanted to move out of his house, how could he afford renting the place? He will eventually leave school, and find himself a job. The aim of stating rights is to IMPROVE the world, not the complete opposite.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

Excellent point, Santerea.

Another thing- is anyone else concerned about the rising driving age?

Several years ago, if you were 15 you could get your permit, and 16 your license. IF you were in extreme circumstances, such as getting to school from rural areas or working on a farm, you could get a restricted license at 14.

Now you have to be 16 for a permit, if you are in school and passing, or have a before dark or before ten p.M curfew, etc., depending state to state, you can get a restricted license at 16 or 17, with the ability to obtain a full license at 18. Many states have just raised the age to 18, period. I can understand wanting someone in control of a life threatening machine to be old enough to be legally responsible for themselves, but it is another example of sending people into the world even more unprepared. I would rather the so-called adults on the road with me had a least a couple years of experience before being turned loose, and parents can regulate that much better than the overnment, in my opinion.

Also, I know many people for whom driving is a necessity before 18, some whose paycheck helps feed the family, or even their own household. How are you supposed to hold down a job in summer, or after school? Besides, in today's culture, a vehicle or the ability to use one is an important gradual step in learning how to be on your own. If you don't get that experience until you're 18, how can you progress toward much?
If your parents can protect you from the outside world until you ar e in your twenties, pay for college, etc., then great for you. But for many of us, that hasn't been an option. I was working, had my own home, and then got married before my senior year of school. I cannot imagine how I could have supported myself without the ability to drive.

[CptSternn]

I think driver licensing should be allowed to anyone who can pass the test.

For example, in Ireland, we didn't even HAVE drivers licenses until a couple years ago. Even now, you can legally drive without one due to a legal loophole.

If you sign up to take the test, you get your provisional license (like your learns permit in the states). You can drive with this just like a normal license, as long as you have another adult in the car. If you pass your test, you get your full license. If you don't, you still keep your provisional, until you pass.

So, if you fail, just don't take it again and you keep your provisional forever and as long when you get pulled over you have an adult in the car your totally legal. Kinda crazy, but I know dozens of lads who merely signed up, got their provisoinal, and never even bothered to show up for the test.

But I am getting off topic. The thing was, old men complained when the licenses came out they said 'we have been driving since cars were invented, so why do we need licenses 50 years later to drive the same car we have been driving for 50 years?'

Good point. Tis why I think if you can pass the test you should get the license at any age, and if you have 5+ year experience in any place driving that you should get your license without having to take any tests.

But thats just my opinion.

[WolfMoon]

I don't think they should be raising the age for getting a licsense.

Hell, next they'll be raising the legal drinking age to 25, and instead of 18 you won't be an adult til 20.

Man!

[Corpus_Draconis]

I agree with emeraldlonewolf on the driving age. It could also be applied to the drinking age. If it's lowered to 16 or so, when the kids get out of highschool or out of the home, they aren't like "YAY!! BOOZE!!!" and do the whole binging thing. It would be better to get over that stage earlier than later, especially when the parents can keep an eye on their kids and make sure they're OK.
And anyway, people often start drinking when they're 15 or 16 anway (at least here), sometimes earlier.

My friend's parents have an interesting approach to drugs. They say "If you're gonna do them, bring them home so we can make sure it's the good stuff." This does two things: one, it takes the rebellion aspect right out of it, and two, it means that my friend's at home where, if anything goes wrong, help would be readily available. Also, it means that she's not out doing something like wandering the streets while high, getting hit by cars, ***** by guys, having sex with random guys, or getting into other such trouble.
This friend of mine is one of the most anti-drug people I know.

This pisses me off: "What would you expect a runaway to say who left the school without permission?" Wills asked.
If he ran away, shouldn't that tell you something about what's going on there? We learned about those in a class that I randomly attended on my spare last year, and there are kids who kill themselves because of them. Once they found a trail of blood going down the hallway of the dorm, and out the door and through the snow. Some guy had slit his wrists and gone outside and died. Those things are fucking horrible. If you want your kids to be emotionally balanced or not troublesome, spend time with them, be supportive, and be accepting of them. I like England's idea with the holidays. They sound really good. It would also, I think, help cut down on the work-your-self-to-death-all-the-fucking-time-at-the-expense-of-your-health-and well-being attitude. What about France, where they spend a couple hours for lunch? Or Spain? They're uch more relaxed than we are... So much stress is not good. *adds to list of reasons to move to Europe*

FUCK! What is wrong with North America?

Edit: They let us say the f-word but not the word for sex-without-permission? *narrows eyes in confusion* It's an issue to be dealt with, not covered up like it doesn't exist...

[Corpus_Draconis]

Ahhh, I see. Makes sense. Thanks.

[Icarian Decoding]

Alright, I am somewhat agreeing with what you are saying, but the drinking age and such really doesn't change my views too much.

...

That was confusing...

Anyway, when people run around and say, "Omg! You can't drink beer because you're underaged", the most likely arguement I hear is, "Because we don't want you to get hurt". I say fuck them. Let me drink beer. You see, my view is this: If a parent wants their child not to drink, then they should stop the child. If the child really wants to drink, let them drink, and get drunk. If they die, who gives a shit?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Obviously not a fan of kids, huh?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Corpus_Draconis

My friend's parents have an interesting approach to drugs. They say "If you're gonna do them, bring them home so we can make sure it's the good stuff." This does two things: one, it takes the rebellion aspect right out of it, and two, it means that my friend's at home where, if anything goes wrong, help would be readily available. Also, it means that she's not out doing something like wandering the streets while high, getting hit by cars, ***** by guys, having sex with random guys, or getting into other such trouble.
This friend of mine is one of the most anti-drug people I know.

My parents have the same rules. I myself have never done any more than experimentation - all of which was at home and with my parents present. They weren't exactly ecstatic about it, but they knew I'd have experimented anyway even if they forbade it.

My sister on the other hand has taken advantage of these rules. She's been an avid user of a number of substances for many years, but thanks to my parents' tolerance she's never been in a dangerous situation with her various recreational activities.

I think the driving age should stay at 18, but there should be exceptions for minors who are earning money or who live a long way from their schools, etc. The drinking age, however, I think should be a few years earlier than the driving age. Responsible drinking should be learned before driving.

[Icarian Decoding]

Originally Posted by Xnguela

Who gives a shit? Cute, disillusionment. However, just because you don't give a shit doesn't mean that the people close to the person who dies don't give a shit.

I'm not advocating a minimum drinking age, I just think that's a very poor argument.

Yeah, it was poorly worded.
What I am trying to get across is this: When kids go off and do stupid shit, let them. I know I'm responsible enough not to kill myself. If they want to get fucked up the ass by doing something stupid, let them. If they want to get hammered off their ass, drive drunk, and kill themselves, let them.

Why should I let some moron, ruin my fun?

[Cicero]

Although the accidents that can happen when teenagers get a little too off the rails are tragic, I sometimes can't help but think of them as "natural selection". Because of that, I can see where Icarian is coming from.

[Queenofdarkness57]

What I am trying to get across is this: When kids go off and do stupid shit, let them. I know I'm responsible enough not to kill myself. If they want to get fucked up the ass by doing something stupid, let them.

If they want to get hammered off their ass, drive drunk, and kill themselves, let them.

You can't just say that. Teenagers are still kids, it's very normal that they mistakes, and that's why they have parents or guardians. Their role is to protect them, teach them how to avoid these mistakes. They don't know that what they're doing is wrong, they think they're having a good time!

I know I'm responsible enough not to kill myself.

I know I'm responsible, too. But what about the others? The ones who can't think properly and don't care about the consequences of their actions. Don't they have the right to live? Should adults leave them on the streets and watch them being killed?!

[CptSternn]

Wow, once again, I say something here, and the next day it pops up in national news articles...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNew...524620-ap.html

But anyway, yeah the holdiays in the UK/Ireland are brilliant. I mean, they force family participation.

These laws are part of the EU's new constituion and are being adopted by all EU nations. For example I may have mentioned the fact every month has at least one national holiday, sometimes two, that everyone gets off. Also, four weeks vacation for full time employees and as much sicktime as needed. It's little things like this that help keep families close, and allow for more parental supervision and involvement.

The raising of various age laws is merely a cop out for a nation that invented the 'V' chip. Parents who are not involved want more laws to govern their kids so they don't have to. Let the state handle my kids, I have a life to lead. Tis sad.

[chloegoth]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

Yeah, it was poorly worded.
What I am trying to get across is this: When kids go off and do stupid shit, let them. I know I'm responsible enough not to kill myself. If they want to get fucked up the ass by doing something stupid, let them. If they want to get hammered off their ass, drive drunk, and kill themselves, let them.

Why should I let some moron, ruin my fun?

The whole point of having laws like that is that some kids don't have parents who teach them what to do and what not to do. I admire the fact that you have the self-control and common sense to do the right thing, but if someone has not been taught that some things are really bad ideas, then the responsibility, ultimately, falls to the state (that is, the government). Like any responsible adult (that is, if we look at the state as the final adult in this sort of situation where the parents are absent or not responsible for their children), the state lays down rules. I agree - it's frustrating for those of us who have been taught responsibility, but these sort of laws exist for all age groups. And often, parents will become angry at the government for "letting" their children do stupid things (and sometimes sue). It's just the state's way of covering their asses. I think that responsible people are in the minority, in most cases. As someone once put it to me - individually, people are smart. Put them together, and they get really stupid, really fast.

[Sobeh]

The goal of the State is the propagation of its people. Laws reflect this basic principle, in that they are all designed around the dictum 'your rights stop where another's rights begin'. Driving drunk is fine, except for the fact that it puts you into a situation of high potential for harm, and most importantly, it is a choice that puts others in a high potential for harm. Any time a choice you make has consequences others will feel, the State has a right to step in.

[WolfMoon]

Sobeh, you sum things up nicely.

I wish more people would use such 'common' sense.

[Sobeh]

Well, thank you! I am nothing if not skilled with parsing words.

[CptSternn]

Just found out today, because of new laws they are trying to pass, that in Ireland you can join the military at age 16. So now, some political leaders want the legal age of adults to be lowered to 16 along with the drinking age.

Thought that was kinda kewl. They are arguing if you are old enough to fight and die for your country and drive a car, you should be able to get a pint and vote as well.