And now we see parentarchy coming back with a vengeance after it seemed to be on the wane. Exhibit A: Australia's social media ban, along with Florida's and others too.
In the 1970s with the (now long-forgotten by most) Youth Liberation movement, parentarchy did appear to be on the wane for a little while, until the 1980s moral panics that is, especially in the USA. And as they say, the rest is history....
Hi Jack. My comment, as promised, based on notes I jotted down to prepare for yesterday.
As noted during our live session, trusting our children and saying they have rights isn't the same claim. Does trust work this way? Francis Fukuyama wrote a definitive work on social trust entitled, simply TRUST and depicted social trust as the "glue" that holds societies together. How does social trust come about, in that case? Through observations of consistent interactions over a long period of time. We don't have that with children, obviously, but we can educate them in the traditional morals that have passed the test of time ("don't hurt people" "don't steal" "treat others as you'd prefer to be treated" and so on).
We all come into this world the same way: naked, helpless, crying. As small bundles of unrealized potential. What are the immediate conditions of life, or needs, that an infant must have if it is to live? Food and water; protection from harm; early nurturing that provides a sense of belonging and safety. I'm not sure what it means to say that the infant has a "right" to these. I wonder if our "rights" language is confused somehow.
Coming to where my discussions of such topics generally land these days: the *intrinsic value* of all persons. Since all persons have intrinsic value and all children are persons, then all children have intrinsic value (the AAA syllogism I mentioned during our talk). I would argue that intrinsic value applies to the unborn, since the unborn have the same human DNA as the born. If we separate intrinsic value from possessing a full set of human DNA, we start to get into trouble because we can exclude entire groups out of the moral community by fiat. Germany did that with the Jews; Chinese Communists with the residual "bourgeoisie" in their midst; America does it with the unborn.
To my mind, intrinsic value implies some do's and don't's:
- don't neglect an infant or a child.
- do no harm, physical or verbal.
- respect the child's personhood in an age-appropriate fashion
- do allow children to *explore their surroundings* assuming as much safety as possible
- don't allow them to come to harm, e.g., from wandering into a busy street.
I came up with a few more "oughts" I thought I'd share: parents *ought* to encourage:
- learning: including allowing children to do things with their hands, teaching them to read and giving them books (this was done with me), allowing regular interactions with adults assuming the adults are always trustworthy.
- learning what? Real states of affairs (e.g., the Earth goes around the Sun; crops grow in the spring, etc.) How A causes B. How actions have consequences. How discoverable natural principles govern the workings of the universe. All age-appropriate, of course.
- giving children chores to do, starting perhaps with simple things like helping to set the table for supper or drying the dishes afterwards, progressing to cleaning one's room, cleaning one's bathroom, as this teaches responsibility.
- teaching them to set goals, and how to organize objectives around them (objectives being day-to-day commitments that go in a particular direction such as doing one's math homework; goals being longer term, such as making an A in the course). How important is consistency, and developing good habits that are internalized and become automatic.
- teaching them to see all others as selves, like themselves, so they can better process and internalize the rule to treat all others as they'd like to be treated. (This is actually more basic than 'do no harm'.)
- consistent behavior, passed from parents who need to set examples as do other adults who interact with children and adolescents, will enable children to build trust by being trustworthy, because they're now on a path to responsible adulthood:
- able to care for themselves healthwise (I advocate primary prevention)
- able to seek out the necessary education to achieve goals (be lifelong learners)
- able to sustain their lives monetarily, assuming the money political economy lasts
- able to work with, and alongside, others even if those others disagree with them about some things, because they understand the distinction between what they can control and what they can't control.
That'll do it for now. Lengthy comment, I know. Responses welcome.
I will go into your comments and reply there in underlined form to differentiate me from you. OOPS, SUBSTACK DOES NOT SHOW UNDERLINED, SO WILL TRY TO SET MY COMMENTS OFF BY SPACING.
STEVEN
Hi Jack. My comment, as promised, based on notes I jotted down to prepare for yesterday.
As noted during our live session, trusting our children and saying they have rights isn't the same claim. Does trust work this way? Francis Fukuyama wrote a definitive work on social trust entitled, simply TRUST and depicted social trust as the "glue" that holds societies together. How does social trust come about, in that case? Through observations of consistent interactions over a long period of time. We don't have that with children, obviously, but we can educate them in the traditional morals that have passed the test of time ("don't hurt people" "don't steal" "treat others as you'd prefer to be treated" and so on).
----
JACK
What John Holt and Richard Farson are saying about parents not trusting their children has to do with how parents and adults in general unconsciously treat their children which is like pets or persons who have no self-determining/self-ownership rights. Most parents relate to their children as owned pets who they must control and make obedient. Parents do this because this is how their parents treated them. Holt, Farson, Thomas Gordon of PET and I want to stop this syndrome of visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children as Euripides put it.
I consider we should treat “Human Rights” (HR) as a Voluntaryist (all coercive collectives are unnecessary evils) does and that is, there is only one “Human Wrong” and that is morally we must never use first physical force against another human being or allow such to occur if possible unless it is to save human lives and we should apply HR to ALL AGES.
Human Rights (HR) are usually framed as protection against coercive governments to safeguard individuals’ freedom such as “free speech”, “right to a trial”, etc. Even though I do not recognize the moral right of any government to rule another since it transgresses the Voluntaryist Non-Aggression Principle (no first use of physical force against person or their property), I go along with HR as a way of protecting the individual from the government and as John Holt points out we should accord those younger ones we label “children” as having the same HR as older persons we label as “adults”.
If we define HR as “trusting” in another person of whatever age in the sense of granting them the same HR as we give ourselves that trust socially is (changing your metaphor) the lubricating oil that allows responsibly free individuals to get along at any age or degree of intimacy. Trust then stands for the Voluntaryist creed of everyone should be trusted with freedom and become responsible for it and the only time anyone can morally intervene/interfer with another (of whatever age) is to save a human life that may physically be imperiled.
Now how this applies to parents and their younger ones they have brought into this world and should be responsible for their care is a very complex issue that must be idiosyncratically addressed for each child and parent. But the central moral rule is: everything voluntary and do no harm—give the younger ones freedom and model your responsibility for this freedom and shape the environment to help the younger ones become responsible for their freedom.
------
STEVEN
We all come into this world the same way: naked, helpless, crying. As small bundles of unrealized potential. What are the immediate conditions of life, or needs, that an infant must have if it is to live? Food and water; protection from harm; early nurturing that provides a sense of belonging and safety. I'm not sure what it means to say that the infant has a "right" to these. I wonder if our "rights" language is confused somehow.
----
JACK--What should parents be held morally responsible for regarding a child they have brought into this world?
This is a core question and it should be founded on the ultimate value of the human individual as a self-determined, self-owned, self-authorized person who should never be sacrificed to any non-voluntary collective including the family/parents.
Parents do not have a “right” to physically spank/hit their children as most assume they do even if many nations have made such illegal or legal.
Worldwide, parents morally justify (if they even stop to excuse their physical abuse) spanking (differentiated from hitting them say in the face or wherever so that visual damage is done) often in terms of religion.
In terms of positive rights, what children should be morally given is the obvious physical things to meet their needs, food, shelter, etc. Why this should morally be the case is generally not addressed but I consider it comes back to that “intrinsic value” proposition of every human individual which obviously is not the case for humanity at large especially in times of war or armed conflicts between collectives.
----
STEVEN
Coming to where my discussions of such topics generally land these days: the *intrinsic value* of all persons. Since all persons have intrinsic value and all children are persons, then all children have intrinsic value (the AAA syllogism I mentioned during our talk). I would argue that intrinsic value applies to the unborn, since the unborn have the same human DNA as the born. If we separate intrinsic value from possessing a full set of human DNA, we start to get into trouble because we can exclude entire groups out of the moral community by fiat. Germany did that with the Jews; Chinese Communists with the residual "bourgeoisie" in their midst; America does it with the unborn.
To my mind, intrinsic value implies some do's and don't's:
- don't neglect an infant or a child.
- do no harm, physical or verbal.
- respect the child's personhood in an age-appropriate fashion
----
JACK
This is where the Voluntaryist parent should disregard the State’s “Age of Consent” so far as able and not be jailed and allow its younger persons self-ownership and self-determination at whatever age they declare themselves to be claiming such.
----
STEVEN
- do allow children to *explore their surroundings* assuming as much safety as possible
- don't allow them to come to harm, e.g., from wandering into a busy street.
I came up with a few more "oughts" I thought I'd share: parents *ought* to encourage:
- learning: including allowing children to do things with their hands, teaching them to read and giving them books (this was done with me), allowing regular interactions with adults assuming the adults are always trustworthy.
----
JACK
Here I hope parents would choose to homeschool their children and not send them to those penitentiaries of so-called learning.
----
STEVEN
- learning what? Real states of affairs (e.g., the Earth goes around the Sun; crops grow in the spring, etc.) How A causes B. How actions have consequences. How discoverable natural principles govern the workings of the universe. All age-appropriate, of course.
----
JACK
Montessori wise, let the young person decide what they want to learn and act as a “Resource For Your Source” in making available a wide range of materials which the Internet is great for.
----
STEVEN
- giving children chores to do, starting perhaps with simple things like helping to set the table for supper or drying the dishes afterwards, progressing to cleaning one's room, cleaning one's bathroom, as this teaches responsibility.
- teaching them to set goals, and how to organize objectives around them (objectives being day-to-day commitments that go in a particular direction such as doing one's math homework; goals being longer term, such as making an A in the course). How important is consistency, and developing good habits that are internalized and become automatic.
- teaching them to see all others as selves, like themselves, so they can better process and internalize the rule to treat all others as they'd like to be treated. (This is actually more basic than 'do no harm'.)
----
JACK
How all the above “teaching/disciplining” is done is crucial. As by Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) you negotiate with them about this ready then giving orders to do this and that. Discipline must come from the child not from the parent. Give them the power to control themselves, help them meet their needs AND your needs mutually BECAUSE they value your relationship.
----
STEVEN
- consistent behavior, passed from parents who need to set examples as do other adults who interact with children and adolescents, will enable children to build trust by being trustworthy, because they're now on a path to responsible adulthood:
- able to care for themselves healthwise (I advocate primary prevention)
- able to seek out the necessary education to achieve goals (be lifelong learners)
- able to sustain their lives monetarily, assuming the money political economy lasts
- able to work with, and alongside, others even if those others disagree with them about some things, because they understand the distinction between what they can control and what they can't control.
----
JACK
Consistent behavior as everything Voluntary and Do No Harm and be responsible for your freedom and give it to your younger ones so they can be responsible for it too.
----
STEVEN
That'll do it for now. Lengthy comment, I know. Responses welcome.
----
JACK
Thanks for your comments, hope my responses challenge.
And now we see parentarchy coming back with a vengeance after it seemed to be on the wane. Exhibit A: Australia's social media ban, along with Florida's and others too.
I do not think it was every on the wane, unfortunately.
Hope to have you mind join mine on Parentarchy.
In the 1970s with the (now long-forgotten by most) Youth Liberation movement, parentarchy did appear to be on the wane for a little while, until the 1980s moral panics that is, especially in the USA. And as they say, the rest is history....
Hi Jack. My comment, as promised, based on notes I jotted down to prepare for yesterday.
As noted during our live session, trusting our children and saying they have rights isn't the same claim. Does trust work this way? Francis Fukuyama wrote a definitive work on social trust entitled, simply TRUST and depicted social trust as the "glue" that holds societies together. How does social trust come about, in that case? Through observations of consistent interactions over a long period of time. We don't have that with children, obviously, but we can educate them in the traditional morals that have passed the test of time ("don't hurt people" "don't steal" "treat others as you'd prefer to be treated" and so on).
We all come into this world the same way: naked, helpless, crying. As small bundles of unrealized potential. What are the immediate conditions of life, or needs, that an infant must have if it is to live? Food and water; protection from harm; early nurturing that provides a sense of belonging and safety. I'm not sure what it means to say that the infant has a "right" to these. I wonder if our "rights" language is confused somehow.
Coming to where my discussions of such topics generally land these days: the *intrinsic value* of all persons. Since all persons have intrinsic value and all children are persons, then all children have intrinsic value (the AAA syllogism I mentioned during our talk). I would argue that intrinsic value applies to the unborn, since the unborn have the same human DNA as the born. If we separate intrinsic value from possessing a full set of human DNA, we start to get into trouble because we can exclude entire groups out of the moral community by fiat. Germany did that with the Jews; Chinese Communists with the residual "bourgeoisie" in their midst; America does it with the unborn.
To my mind, intrinsic value implies some do's and don't's:
- don't neglect an infant or a child.
- do no harm, physical or verbal.
- respect the child's personhood in an age-appropriate fashion
- do allow children to *explore their surroundings* assuming as much safety as possible
- don't allow them to come to harm, e.g., from wandering into a busy street.
I came up with a few more "oughts" I thought I'd share: parents *ought* to encourage:
- learning: including allowing children to do things with their hands, teaching them to read and giving them books (this was done with me), allowing regular interactions with adults assuming the adults are always trustworthy.
- learning what? Real states of affairs (e.g., the Earth goes around the Sun; crops grow in the spring, etc.) How A causes B. How actions have consequences. How discoverable natural principles govern the workings of the universe. All age-appropriate, of course.
- giving children chores to do, starting perhaps with simple things like helping to set the table for supper or drying the dishes afterwards, progressing to cleaning one's room, cleaning one's bathroom, as this teaches responsibility.
- teaching them to set goals, and how to organize objectives around them (objectives being day-to-day commitments that go in a particular direction such as doing one's math homework; goals being longer term, such as making an A in the course). How important is consistency, and developing good habits that are internalized and become automatic.
- teaching them to see all others as selves, like themselves, so they can better process and internalize the rule to treat all others as they'd like to be treated. (This is actually more basic than 'do no harm'.)
- consistent behavior, passed from parents who need to set examples as do other adults who interact with children and adolescents, will enable children to build trust by being trustworthy, because they're now on a path to responsible adulthood:
- able to care for themselves healthwise (I advocate primary prevention)
- able to seek out the necessary education to achieve goals (be lifelong learners)
- able to sustain their lives monetarily, assuming the money political economy lasts
- able to work with, and alongside, others even if those others disagree with them about some things, because they understand the distinction between what they can control and what they can't control.
That'll do it for now. Lengthy comment, I know. Responses welcome.
Hi Steven
I will go into your comments and reply there in underlined form to differentiate me from you. OOPS, SUBSTACK DOES NOT SHOW UNDERLINED, SO WILL TRY TO SET MY COMMENTS OFF BY SPACING.
STEVEN
Hi Jack. My comment, as promised, based on notes I jotted down to prepare for yesterday.
As noted during our live session, trusting our children and saying they have rights isn't the same claim. Does trust work this way? Francis Fukuyama wrote a definitive work on social trust entitled, simply TRUST and depicted social trust as the "glue" that holds societies together. How does social trust come about, in that case? Through observations of consistent interactions over a long period of time. We don't have that with children, obviously, but we can educate them in the traditional morals that have passed the test of time ("don't hurt people" "don't steal" "treat others as you'd prefer to be treated" and so on).
----
JACK
What John Holt and Richard Farson are saying about parents not trusting their children has to do with how parents and adults in general unconsciously treat their children which is like pets or persons who have no self-determining/self-ownership rights. Most parents relate to their children as owned pets who they must control and make obedient. Parents do this because this is how their parents treated them. Holt, Farson, Thomas Gordon of PET and I want to stop this syndrome of visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children as Euripides put it.
I consider we should treat “Human Rights” (HR) as a Voluntaryist (all coercive collectives are unnecessary evils) does and that is, there is only one “Human Wrong” and that is morally we must never use first physical force against another human being or allow such to occur if possible unless it is to save human lives and we should apply HR to ALL AGES.
Human Rights (HR) are usually framed as protection against coercive governments to safeguard individuals’ freedom such as “free speech”, “right to a trial”, etc. Even though I do not recognize the moral right of any government to rule another since it transgresses the Voluntaryist Non-Aggression Principle (no first use of physical force against person or their property), I go along with HR as a way of protecting the individual from the government and as John Holt points out we should accord those younger ones we label “children” as having the same HR as older persons we label as “adults”.
If we define HR as “trusting” in another person of whatever age in the sense of granting them the same HR as we give ourselves that trust socially is (changing your metaphor) the lubricating oil that allows responsibly free individuals to get along at any age or degree of intimacy. Trust then stands for the Voluntaryist creed of everyone should be trusted with freedom and become responsible for it and the only time anyone can morally intervene/interfer with another (of whatever age) is to save a human life that may physically be imperiled.
Now how this applies to parents and their younger ones they have brought into this world and should be responsible for their care is a very complex issue that must be idiosyncratically addressed for each child and parent. But the central moral rule is: everything voluntary and do no harm—give the younger ones freedom and model your responsibility for this freedom and shape the environment to help the younger ones become responsible for their freedom.
------
STEVEN
We all come into this world the same way: naked, helpless, crying. As small bundles of unrealized potential. What are the immediate conditions of life, or needs, that an infant must have if it is to live? Food and water; protection from harm; early nurturing that provides a sense of belonging and safety. I'm not sure what it means to say that the infant has a "right" to these. I wonder if our "rights" language is confused somehow.
----
JACK--What should parents be held morally responsible for regarding a child they have brought into this world?
This is a core question and it should be founded on the ultimate value of the human individual as a self-determined, self-owned, self-authorized person who should never be sacrificed to any non-voluntary collective including the family/parents.
Parents do not have a “right” to physically spank/hit their children as most assume they do even if many nations have made such illegal or legal.
Worldwide, parents morally justify (if they even stop to excuse their physical abuse) spanking (differentiated from hitting them say in the face or wherever so that visual damage is done) often in terms of religion.
In terms of positive rights, what children should be morally given is the obvious physical things to meet their needs, food, shelter, etc. Why this should morally be the case is generally not addressed but I consider it comes back to that “intrinsic value” proposition of every human individual which obviously is not the case for humanity at large especially in times of war or armed conflicts between collectives.
----
STEVEN
Coming to where my discussions of such topics generally land these days: the *intrinsic value* of all persons. Since all persons have intrinsic value and all children are persons, then all children have intrinsic value (the AAA syllogism I mentioned during our talk). I would argue that intrinsic value applies to the unborn, since the unborn have the same human DNA as the born. If we separate intrinsic value from possessing a full set of human DNA, we start to get into trouble because we can exclude entire groups out of the moral community by fiat. Germany did that with the Jews; Chinese Communists with the residual "bourgeoisie" in their midst; America does it with the unborn.
To my mind, intrinsic value implies some do's and don't's:
- don't neglect an infant or a child.
- do no harm, physical or verbal.
- respect the child's personhood in an age-appropriate fashion
----
JACK
This is where the Voluntaryist parent should disregard the State’s “Age of Consent” so far as able and not be jailed and allow its younger persons self-ownership and self-determination at whatever age they declare themselves to be claiming such.
----
STEVEN
- do allow children to *explore their surroundings* assuming as much safety as possible
- don't allow them to come to harm, e.g., from wandering into a busy street.
I came up with a few more "oughts" I thought I'd share: parents *ought* to encourage:
- learning: including allowing children to do things with their hands, teaching them to read and giving them books (this was done with me), allowing regular interactions with adults assuming the adults are always trustworthy.
----
JACK
Here I hope parents would choose to homeschool their children and not send them to those penitentiaries of so-called learning.
----
STEVEN
- learning what? Real states of affairs (e.g., the Earth goes around the Sun; crops grow in the spring, etc.) How A causes B. How actions have consequences. How discoverable natural principles govern the workings of the universe. All age-appropriate, of course.
----
JACK
Montessori wise, let the young person decide what they want to learn and act as a “Resource For Your Source” in making available a wide range of materials which the Internet is great for.
----
STEVEN
- giving children chores to do, starting perhaps with simple things like helping to set the table for supper or drying the dishes afterwards, progressing to cleaning one's room, cleaning one's bathroom, as this teaches responsibility.
- teaching them to set goals, and how to organize objectives around them (objectives being day-to-day commitments that go in a particular direction such as doing one's math homework; goals being longer term, such as making an A in the course). How important is consistency, and developing good habits that are internalized and become automatic.
- teaching them to see all others as selves, like themselves, so they can better process and internalize the rule to treat all others as they'd like to be treated. (This is actually more basic than 'do no harm'.)
----
JACK
How all the above “teaching/disciplining” is done is crucial. As by Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) you negotiate with them about this ready then giving orders to do this and that. Discipline must come from the child not from the parent. Give them the power to control themselves, help them meet their needs AND your needs mutually BECAUSE they value your relationship.
----
STEVEN
- consistent behavior, passed from parents who need to set examples as do other adults who interact with children and adolescents, will enable children to build trust by being trustworthy, because they're now on a path to responsible adulthood:
- able to care for themselves healthwise (I advocate primary prevention)
- able to seek out the necessary education to achieve goals (be lifelong learners)
- able to sustain their lives monetarily, assuming the money political economy lasts
- able to work with, and alongside, others even if those others disagree with them about some things, because they understand the distinction between what they can control and what they can't control.
----
JACK
Consistent behavior as everything Voluntary and Do No Harm and be responsible for your freedom and give it to your younger ones so they can be responsible for it too.
----
STEVEN
That'll do it for now. Lengthy comment, I know. Responses welcome.
----
JACK
Thanks for your comments, hope my responses challenge.