Post: #1

I think that families will be better off when teenage men are given freedom to work, sign binding contracts, come and go as they please, and fulfill the other responsibilities of adulthood; and when teenage women are allowed to marry.

In the manosphere, we often hear people remark at what bondage a man is in when he is forced to take care of his offspring for 18 years. Men fight endlessly in the family courts for custody of their kids, since they don't want to lose the ability to see them until they reach the age of 18.

What if, instead, young people were emancipated at an earlier age, such as 12 or 14 or, as libertarians would advocate, whenever they choose to emancipate themselves? A man with an 11-year-old son might choose to not fight his wife for custody, since the kid is soon going to be set free to be with whomever he wants anyway, by the time the case is decided. Think of all the legal fees and the emotional toll that would save, for all parties involved.

Teenage men often get into trouble with the law because they have all the hormones and much of the intelligence of adults, yet few productive activities to channel their energy into. They are taught in school about their future careers, but their studies would probably be more meaningful and interesting to them if they were also doing work that was relevant to their studies.

By their teens, a lot of men already have some idea what their passions are, and what they want to do when they graduate. For example, by middle school, I was already signing up for business electives, and eventually became an accountant. I think now, how much better would it have been if, in my early or mid-teens, I'd been able to start working as an accounting clerk and begin advancing through the ranks while taking evening classes directly related to my profession, rather than spending so much time being forced to read the works of Shakespeare and calculate the cotangent of angles, and earning no income.

It's no secret that the sexual hierarchy favors alphas more than ever. Alphas in their teens and 20s use their social dominance to bang most of the high school and college girls while penniless betas in that same age group look on helplessly with dismayed jealousy and frustration. Betas need all the early start they can get in order to even the playing field. If they can start the process of making money and progressing in their career track in their early teens, taking on more and more advanced responsibilities, they have a chance of becoming a mature and financially stable provider sooner in life.

A man's 20s are in many ways the most important decade of his life. Those are the years when, in many respects, he is at the height of his physical and intellectual powers. Studies show information processing speed peaks earliest, around age 18 or 19, and short-term memory is strongest at about age 25. Yet in our society, which overeducates (and/or miseducates, teaching them a bunch of useless knowledge and politically correct propaganda) and underworks teenagers, a man in his 20s is often just getting started at an entry-level internship.

If a man starts his career earlier, he will have more years of productivity in his life, and can spend more time at the peak productivity that comes with experience, or reach a higher peak. He will produce more real wealth (i.e. more and better goods and services) over the course of his life. It will become more feasible for a single-income household to have the same quality of life as a dual-income family. Not only that, but if teenage men are able to work, they will be able to financially contribute to their families, further reducing the need for their mothers to work.

As for teenage women, they too have raging hormones that need to be directed into productive channels (viz. marriage and children) in order to keep them out of trouble. They should be getting married to a financially stable man (which there will be more of, after teenage men are liberated to enter the workforce) and moving out of the home, so that they will not be a financial burden on their parents. This will further reduce the need for mothers to work, since they won't have their teenage daughters hanging around, eating their food, taking up space in their house (which requires a bigger house and therefore a bigger mortgage, and more income to make the payments) and asking for cars, clothes, smartphones, etc.

There will be less conflict between daughters and their parents when young women's focus is shifted from consumerism to being happy, thrifty mothers, and when it is husbands rather than parents who are taking on the role of providing for young women's needs and wants. Young women who want a new red Acura should be looking for a responsible husband with a successful career, rather than pestering mommy and daddy. Parents bring this bratty behavior on themselves by pressuring their daughters to go to high school and college, rather than marrying them off to a suitable provider.

As more young women are diverted away from school and the workplace into the homes of loving husbands, there will be fewer cars and school buses clogging up the roads, the environment will be cleaner, children will be healthier (because of younger women's lower risk of genetic defects) and better cared for, crime rates will go down (as children are better-supervised and their energies are channeled into more more productive uses), there will be fewer divorces (as women, absent from the workplace, have less opportunity to be tempted into extramarital affairs, and less incentive to break up the marriage they're financially dependent on). Society will, generally, be happier and healthier, as civilization becomes more compatible with human biological imperatives.

The age of majority needs to be either drastically lowered, or eliminated altogether. Keeping young people shackled to their parents and the public education system is causing untold misery and destroying families. It isn't keeping children safer; it's putting them at risk of birth defects; of having to live in broken homes; and of being tempted, out of boredom, into crime, drug use, out-of-wedlock sex, and many other vices. We're facing a demographic collapse that makes it impossible to maintain our population without bringing in immigrants. We're losing some of our competitive edge against rapidly developing nations that have stronger families, partly because they have fewer restrictions on young people's putting their youthful energies where they will be most productive in the workforce (in the case of men) or the home (in the case of girls).

We should seize the opportunity the transnational alt-right revolution presents to accomplish a comprehensive agenda for saving western civilization, that will include youth liberation as a necessary and important step for realizing our vision of a better world.

Post: #2

How old are you Jean ValJean?

The answer will greatly change my response.

Post: #3

(02-06-2017 12:10 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  How old are you Jean ValJean?

The answer will greatly change my response.

I'm 36, but I've been interested in youth liberation since at least my early 20s, when issues like age restrictions for pot smoking hit my radar (since I was a legalization advocate). I started getting involved in politics (joining political organizations, sending letters to the editor, writing political essays, attending party rallies, etc.) before I was old enough to vote.

I'm also in a situation where I'll have to wait till my daughter turns 18 before she'll have a right to have any kind of relationship with me, since I chose to relinquish parental rights rather than keeping fighting in court to try to get custody.

Post: #4

Check out your company, Jean.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/09/the-sex-sla...y-epstein/

Quote:Alison told Recarey that she visited Epstein hundreds of times. She said he had bought her a new 2005 Dodge Neon, plane tickets, and gave her spending money. Alison said he even asked her to emancipate from her parents so she could live with him full-time as his “sex slave.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

Quote:Rodham began a year of postgraduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[58] Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973.[59] Discussing the new children's rights movement, it stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals"[60] and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but instead that courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis.[61] The article became frequently cited in the field.[62]

Quote: During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center,[45] learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).

which was authored by: Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud, and Albert J. Solnit.

edit:

Quote:What if, instead, young people were emancipated at an earlier age, such as 12 or 14 or, as libertarians would advocate, whenever they choose to emancipate themselves?

Thanks for making the connection to your Liberal/libertarian ideology explicit.

Post: #5

The worldwide age of a child becoming a full adult with rights and responsibilities was 25 until the western countries brought it down to 21 and then again down to 18 in sucessive waves in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.

This was done soley to break family bonds, making corporations more rich by making people more selfish, encourage sex without children, promote abortion, vilify teen pregnancy as an evil rather than a blessing, promote feminism, and destroy healthy marriages between men and women.

The more you lower that age, the worse society will get.


Our ancestors chose the age of 25 as the age for a man to be considered an adult to be listened to and respected for a very good reason.

Post: #6

(02-06-2017 08:48 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  Our ancestors chose the age of 25 as the age for a man to be considered an adult to be listened to and respected for a very good reason.

As it turns out, there's actually a biological reason for this: the prefrontal cortex does not complete its growth until roughly the age of 25. That part of the brain handles impulse control, goal planning and organisation. The brain's reward system also becomes highly active around the start of puberty, receding to a normal adult level around 25. This overly active reward system causes adults under 25 to seek out uncertain situations to find out whether they might be rewarding.

Consider: what are the rough ages of the 200-odd Antifa thugs arrested over the rioting in Washington?

If biological data doesn't convince you, let's try good old for-profit mercantile activity in the real world. Insurance companies invariably charge much higher premiums for drivers under the age of 25 rather than 21. Let's bear in mind that these insurance companies do not have any ideological commitment to keeping drivers off the road until 25; they are driven by profit, actuarial tables, and massive statistical analyses -- not principles. And the reason they do it is simply because while your reflexes might be at their peak just out of your teens, your decisionmaking capacity generally is not. Under the age of 25 you are simply put not a good bet for an insurance company, because the company's general thrust is to hang onto as many premiums as it can collect; that's the way an insurance company makes a profit.

I think children were (and are) being pushed towards adult rights and responsibilities for similar reasons as feminism was pushed on the West: because the system in the West needs more consumers. (Compare SEA, where child labour is still endemic: that's because, as third world countries with not a lot of mechanised, automated production, they need more producers than they do consumers.) As The Last Psychiatrist says, is anyone really surprised that the moment women entered the workforce was exactly the same moment that it became necessary for women to be in the workforce in order to pay the bills?

Less job opportunities for young kids has little to do with the fact there are child labour or age of majority laws. It has much more to do with how globalisation and easy migration steals away jobs from citizens, and the fact that as the economy gets more advanced, low-paid labour is less needed and the problem of the young underclass gets worse, not better.

Let's consider things in a cold, capitalist, one might even say libertarian way: faced with a choice between:

(1) a teenager with parents that care about him and therefore over whom you have little influence, who must be taught over at least a couple of years to do a job; and
(2) a twentysomething immigrant whose residency in the US depends on him kowtowing to your every demand as an employer and who at least can do the basic job you're asking him to do

--as a cold capitalist who espouses free choice, curing all ills by natural market forces, and therefore discounting loyalty, which of these two is the more appealing applicant?

Minimum wage also factors into this decision: consider the same capitalist knowing that he must pay the same wage to choice (1) and (2). Who is the more attractive choice?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #7

I'll just respond to Different T and Mercenary in one post.

(02-06-2017 07:38 PM)Different T Wrote:  Check out your company, Jean.

Yes, there are feminists and leftists who support various forms of youth liberation. There are also feminists and leftists who want to impose more restrictions on young people. An example is femiservative state senator Jill Vogel, who advocates a host of feminist ideas (such as making it a felony for men who have a restraining order against them to possess a gun) and is very proud of her bill that prohibits women under 18 from getting married.

There are plenty of libertarians in the Red Pill movement, so it's hardly a disqualification. Roosh has described the Austrian School book Economics in One Lesson as an economic red pill work, and some RoK writers describe themselves as libertarians.

(02-06-2017 08:48 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  The worldwide age of a child becoming a full adult with rights and responsibilities was 25 until the western countries brought it down to 21 and then again down to 18 in sucessive waves in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.

This was done soley to break family bonds, making corporations more rich by making people more selfish, encourage sex without children, promote abortion, vilify teen pregnancy as an evil rather than a blessing, promote feminism, and destroy healthy marriages between men and women.

The more you lower that age, the worse society will get.

Our ancestors chose the age of 25 as the age for a man to be considered an adult to be listened to and respected for a very good reason.

When was the age of 25 set? Clearly, it wasn't universal in ancient times, because Alexander the Great succeeded to the throne at age 20, and Josiah became king of Judah at the age of 8.

If we want to go back to early American constitutional law, not only was there an age requirement, but only property owners were allowed to vote. That's similar to how homeowners' associations are set up, where property owners, but not people living with them, are allowed to vote. I'm sure that system has its merits, but in the end, it's just a social experiment that future generations are free to learn from and either accept or reject. The fact that a given system is in place during a time of great progress doesn't mean it's the optimal system; the progress could have been in spite of it, rather than because of it.

Men in their early 20s have launched businesses that became Fortune 500 companies. Men in their late teens are also entrusted with the responsibility of carrying weapons in foreign lands and fighting on behalf of their country, which was why the voting age was lowered in the first place. Should investors not have given Mark Zuckerberg venture capital, because of his youth? Should we increase the minimum age at which men can join the Army, in recognition of teenagers' immaturity?

Young people need to be given some meaningful responsibilities in order to grow and prepare for the adult world. Otherwise, they're going to become bored and discontented, and wreak havoc. Life is short; assuming the average person lives to be 75, the years up till age 15 already amount to one-fifth of their lifespan, and young people are understandably impatient to go out into the world (or, in the case of women, into the home of a loving husband), and explore what life has to offer an adult. Young women have only a small window of beauty and fertility, and young men have only a limited number of years when they're at the height of their powers, so there's no time to lose.

Yes, the older generation has the wisdom of experience, but new ideas will tend to come from the younger generation of men. If only the old men are listened to and respected, our society will tend to stagnate. Ideas should be judged on their own merits, rather than being dismissed because of the age of the person putting them forth.

To get due respect, you have to give due respect. Young people whose opinions are automatically dismissed by their elders because of their youthfulness will tend to stop listening to their elders, and pay attention to what their contemporaries are saying instead. When this happens, both the young and the old miss out on the opportunity to learn from each other.

Efforts by the older generation to control the younger generation in ways that aren't warranted provoke rebellion as young people do what they want the moment their parents' back is turned, or the moment they're given the freedom to go out on their own. They harbor resentment against their elders for how they were treated, which causes a breakdown of intergenerational cooperation, which in turns creates more opportunity for the state to step in and say that it is the only answer to the problems of young and old people.

Ideally, young and old people should work together in families and in the workplace. We should have three-generation households that serve as a bulwark against any need for state assistance in taking care of those who are too young or too old to take care of themselves. Countries like the Philippines are proof that it is possible to have both freedom for young people (in the sense that they can enter the workforce, and come and go without being supervised by their parents or teachers at all times like they are in the U.S.) and strong family values and morality.

What are the demographics of the alt-right and the manosphere? Is this a movement of old men, or is mostly fairly young men who have decided that the feminist and leftist values their parents taught them are not working? I think it's the latter, and I think they're right to think for themselves and reject bad ideas, regardless of the source. (Donald Trump may be old, but he relies heavily on the intellect of his younger staffers, and perhaps his daughter as well.)

Post: #8

(02-06-2017 10:25 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  When was the age of 25 set? Clearly, it wasn't universal in ancient times, because Alexander the Great succeeded to the throne at age 20, and Josiah became king of Judah at the age of 8.

Primogeniture does not prove maturity. Alexander and Josiah succeeded their fathers at young ages mainly because each of said fathers had been assassinated. History is replete with examples of child kings and queens: invariably they are ruled over by regents because it's understood they don't have the judgment to actually run the kingdom. Josiah in particular is recorded as not making drastic changes to the Jewish religion until he was 18 years into his rule, thus 26. Alexander had literally the finest teacher in the world -- Aristotle the philosopher -- until he was 16, and inherited his father's well-organised army and bureaucracy. History does not record either of these boy-kings as acting without copious amounts of advice from their advisers, who might well have been the real decisionmaking geniuses behind the throne. Outliers do not prove a general rule.

(02-06-2017 10:25 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  Men in their early 20s have launched businesses that became Fortune 500 companies. Men in their late teens are also entrusted with the responsibility of carrying weapons in foreign lands and fighting on behalf of their country, which was why the voting age was lowered in the first place. Should investors not have given Mark Zuckerberg venture capital, because of his youth? Should we increase the minimum age at which men can join the Army, in recognition of teenagers' immaturity?

If men in their early 20s have launched businesses that became Fortune 500 companies without any change to the age of majority laws as they stand, why is there a need to lower them further?

More relevantly: Zuckerberg is highly likely to have stolen the idea for Facebook, as The Social Network indicates. He also did not get off the ground without Peter Thiel's half a million dollars in venture capital. It is also very unlikely that Zuckerberg managed to get Facebook up and running without a great deal of input and shepherding from his board and the other investors in it. Not to mention that Facebook is Zuckerberg's only business attempt. An outlier does not prove the general rule.

As for young men in armies: that's part of the reason they have this thing called military discipline. Generals for centuries back have recognised that young soldiers generally don't make good decisions for themselves, so military discipline holds that following orders is paramount. Young people are in the army because they're in the best physical health of their lifespan, not because their decisionmaking capacities are respected.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #9

(02-06-2017 10:25 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  Efforts by the older generation to control the younger generation in ways that aren't warranted provoke rebellion as young people do what they want the moment their parents' back is turned, or the moment they're given the freedom to go out on their own. They harbor resentment against their elders for how they were treated, which causes a breakdown of intergenerational cooperation, which in turns creates more opportunity for the state to step in and say that it is the only answer to the problems of young and old people.

Letting the state come in and sort out these punk kids? Sounds like a plan!

Post: #10

(02-06-2017 09:48 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As it turns out, there's actually a biological reason for this: the prefrontal cortex does not complete its growth until roughly the age of 25. That part of the brain handles impulse control, goal planning and organisation. The brain's reward system also becomes highly active around the start of puberty, receding to a normal adult level around 25. This overly active reward system causes adults under 25 to seek out uncertain situations to find out whether they might be rewarding.

So what do you see as the proper role for people under 25 in our society? What responsibilities can they be entrusted with, and what responsibilities can't they be entrusted with? What use are they to make of their biological drive to explore, learn, and experience life?

It seems to me that the arguments you make are irrelevant to teenage women, since in a patriarchal society, a young woman's father can choose the man that she is to marry, and the man that she is to marry may be many years older than she is. So whether she marries or not, the man who will be taking care of her will have a fully developed prefrontal cortex.

This is better than putting teenage women in public schools, where they can mingle with, be seduced by, and get pumped and dumped by a series of alpha badboys who are lacking in prefrontal cortex development.

Quote:I think children were (and are) being pushed towards adult rights and responsibilities for similar reasons as feminism was pushed on the West: because the system in the West needs more consumers. (Compare SEA, where child labour is still endemic: that's because, as third world countries with not a lot of mechanised, automated production, they need more producers than they do consumers.) As The Last Psychiatrist says, is anyone really surprised that the moment women entered the workforce was exactly the same moment that it became necessary for women to be in the workforce in order to pay the bills?

If the west needs more consumers, and SEA needs more producers, why would they both go for the same solution of giving young people adult rights and responsibilities (i.e. encouraging them to enter the workforce), unless the producers and consumers are one and the same?

But if producers are also consumers (as they have to be, since people can only spend what they make, and people will tend to spend what they make), then the two tend to cancel each out. They produce goods and services, they consume goods and services, and we're right back where we started before they existed, except that each additional producer and consumer creates more scope for specialization and division of labor, and the wealth of the nation increases because of the law of comparative advantage.

Quote:Less job opportunities for young kids has little to do with the fact there are child labour or age of majority laws. It has much more to do with how globalisation and easy migration steals away jobs from citizens, and the fact that as the economy gets more advanced, low-paid labour is less needed and the problem of the young underclass gets worse, not better.

Let's consider things in a cold, capitalist, one might even say libertarian way: faced with a choice between:

(1) a teenager with parents that care about him and therefore over whom you have little influence, who must be taught over at least a couple of years to do a job; and
(2) a twentysomething immigrant whose residency in the US depends on him kowtowing to your every demand as an employer and who at least can do the basic job you're asking him to do

--as a cold capitalist who espouses free choice, curing all ills by natural market forces, and therefore discounting loyalty, which of these two is the more appealing applicant?

Minimum wage also factors into this decision: consider the same capitalist knowing that he must pay the same wage to choice (1) and (2). Who is the more attractive choice?

Yeah, the producer will obviously choose in these circumstances to hire the immigrant who accepts less than minimum wage, but that's not a critique of libertarianism, because libertarians oppose government-imposed immigration restrictions and minimum wages. In a libertarian society, the immigrant would in many ways be on a more level playing field with native born citizens, because the state would not be giving either of them an advantage over the other.

I know the alt-right isn't down with free immigration, but libertarianism offers other ways of keeping harmful immigrants out, such as by allowing private property owners to discriminate against prospective tenants, employees, etc. on whatever bases they choose. There would be no equal opportunity or affirmative action laws. For example, if an airline wanted to say, "For security reasons, Muslims will not be allowed on our planes," they could do that. Private citizens and companies acting in this way could make a country very unwelcoming to certain kinds of immigrants.

Post: #11

(02-06-2017 11:49 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 09:48 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As it turns out, there's actually a biological reason for this: the prefrontal cortex does not complete its growth until roughly the age of 25. That part of the brain handles impulse control, goal planning and organisation. The brain's reward system also becomes highly active around the start of puberty, receding to a normal adult level around 25. This overly active reward system causes adults under 25 to seek out uncertain situations to find out whether they might be rewarding.

So what do you see as the proper role for people under 25 in our society? What responsibilities can they be entrusted with, and what responsibilities can't they be entrusted with? What use are they to make of their biological drive to explore, learn, and experience life?

It seems to me that the arguments you make are irrelevant to teenage women, since in a patriarchal society, a young woman's father can choose the man that she is to marry, and the man that she is to marry may be many years older than she is. So whether she marries or not, the man who will be taking care of her will have a fully developed prefrontal cortex.

This is better than putting teenage women in public schools, where they can mingle with, be seduced by, and get pumped and dumped by a series of alpha badboys who are lacking in prefrontal cortex development.

I'm not required to define what I see as the proper role for people under 25 in our society. It's your proposition to gut age of majority laws as I understand it; defend that proposition from scrutiny.

That aside, if age of majority laws are to be heavily reduced or eliminated altogether, it necessarily results in women being independent of their parents and therefore freely able to reject parents and marriage at a much earlier age. You can't on one hand say "You're free as an independent woman as from the age of 13; go work wherever you want and earn money however you want" and then condition that with "But only if you marry a 15 year old."

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #12

I think these things would be better solved by giving the parents authority to send or not send their children into a certain activity. For example, if a father wanted to send his 11 year old son to another city to work as an apprentice, earn money and live alone he could (and probably should), but the 11 year old would still remain his son and under his authority, and couldn't change his apprenticeship or marry without his father's approval until being 18 or whichever maturity age.

I believe that's how our society actually used to work not so long ago?

Our problems don't come from giving children enough authority, but from not giving them enough duties and guided activities.

Post: #13

(02-06-2017 09:48 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 08:48 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  Our ancestors chose the age of 25 as the age for a man to be considered an adult to be listened to and respected for a very good reason.

As it turns out, there's actually a biological reason for this: the prefrontal cortex does not complete its growth until roughly the age of 25. That part of the brain handles impulse control, goal planning and organisation. The brain's reward system also becomes highly active around the start of puberty, receding to a normal adult level around 25. This overly active reward system causes adults under 25 to seek out uncertain situations to find out whether they might be rewarding.

Consider: what are the rough ages of the 200-odd Antifa thugs arrested over the rioting in Washington?

If biological data doesn't convince you, let's try good old for-profit mercantile activity in the real world. Insurance companies invariably charge much higher premiums for drivers under the age of 25 rather than 21. Let's bear in mind that these insurance companies do not have any ideological commitment to keeping drivers off the road until 25; they are driven by profit, actuarial tables, and massive statistical analyses -- not principles. And the reason they do it is simply because while your reflexes might be at their peak just out of your teens, your decisionmaking capacity generally is not. Under the age of 25 you are simply put not a good bet for an insurance company, because the company's general thrust is to hang onto as many premiums as it can collect; that's the way an insurance company makes a profit.

I think children were (and are) being pushed towards adult rights and responsibilities for similar reasons as feminism was pushed on the West: because the system in the West needs more consumers. (Compare SEA, where child labour is still endemic: that's because, as third world countries with not a lot of mechanised, automated production, they need more producers than they do consumers.) As The Last Psychiatrist says, is anyone really surprised that the moment women entered the workforce was exactly the same moment that it became necessary for women to be in the workforce in order to pay the bills?

Less job opportunities for young kids has little to do with the fact there are child labour or age of majority laws. It has much more to do with how globalisation and easy migration steals away jobs from citizens, and the fact that as the economy gets more advanced, low-paid labour is less needed and the problem of the young underclass gets worse, not better.

Let's consider things in a cold, capitalist, one might even say libertarian way: faced with a choice between:

(1) a teenager with parents that care about him and therefore over whom you have little influence, who must be taught over at least a couple of years to do a job; and
(2) a twentysomething immigrant whose residency in the US depends on him kowtowing to your every demand as an employer and who at least can do the basic job you're asking him to do

--as a cold capitalist who espouses free choice, curing all ills by natural market forces, and therefore discounting loyalty, which of these two is the more appealing applicant?

Minimum wage also factors into this decision: consider the same capitalist knowing that he must pay the same wage to choice (1) and (2). Who is the more attractive choice?

I think with good reason why there are different age requirements for tasks and jobs as wells as responsibilities existed back in medieval and ancient times.

One can be old enough to marry but not old enough to be a priest and so on and so forth.

Although it can be said that mental maturity in the can be influenced by the environment and by the responsibilities that people carry.

And I read an interesting article on this topic along with an interview with a man who thinks we are giving our youths less responsibilities than we used to and why he thinks that may be a bad thing:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles...hing-teens

Pre-industrial societies seem to give such youths more responsibilities.

Post: #14

(02-07-2017 02:34 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I think these things would be better solved by giving the parents authority to send or not send their children into a certain activity. For example, if a father wanted to send his 11 year old son to another city to work as an apprentice, earn money and live alone he could (and probably should), but the 11 year old would still remain his son and under his authority, and couldn't change his apprenticeship or marry without his father's approval until being 18 or whichever maturity age.

I believe that's how our society actually used to work not so long ago?

Our problems don't come from giving children enough authority, but from not giving them enough duties and guided activities.

Even in olden days, the master housed, fed, and generally parented the apprentice. An 11 year old in 1765 was still an 11 year old and had to be taken care of by an adult.

This reminds me of the story Johnny Treman.

As for the OP:

Quote:I'm also in a situation where I'll have to wait till my daughter turns 18 before she'll have a right to have any kind of relationship with me, since I chose to relinquish parental rights rather than keeping fighting in court to try to get custody.

I think the real issue here lies with this. Generally during the divorce, the court wants children to have a relationship with both parents. Are you telling us that you 100% cannot have a relationship with your daughter?

Let's hear more background on this.

Post: #15

(02-06-2017 10:25 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  Yes, there are feminists and leftists who support various forms of youth liberation.

Libertarians bitch about the State never considering the externalities of their policy. Libertarians also claim, that in many instances, many supposed externalities create situations that are very profitable for certain individuals or corporations and are actually the primary reason the policy was implemented in the first place, eg. pot laws.

Libertarians are also quick to talk about the worthless-ness of good intentions and call others "useful idiots" of the State.

edit: look how you have to reframe the discussion to encompass "apprenticeships," "3 generations under one roof," "life in a patriarchy," etc. for your perspective to make any sense. Yet you claim this thread is about "youth liberation."

Post: #16

(02-07-2017 04:21 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  As for the OP:

Quote:I'm also in a situation where I'll have to wait till my daughter turns 18 before she'll have a right to have any kind of relationship with me, since I chose to relinquish parental rights rather than keeping fighting in court to try to get custody.

I think the real issue here lies with this. Generally during the divorce, the court wants children to have a relationship with both parents. Are you telling us that you 100% cannot have a relationship with your daughter?

Let's hear more background on this.

Seems like it is even older:

Quote:I've been interested in youth liberation since at least my early 20s, when issues like age restrictions for pot smoking hit my radar (since I was a legalization advocate). I started getting involved in politics (joining political organizations, sending letters to the editor, writing political essays, attending party rallies, etc.) before I was old enough to vote.

Post: #17

(02-07-2017 04:21 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 02:34 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I think these things would be better solved by giving the parents authority to send or not send their children into a certain activity. For example, if a father wanted to send his 11 year old son to another city to work as an apprentice, earn money and live alone he could (and probably should), but the 11 year old would still remain his son and under his authority, and couldn't change his apprenticeship or marry without his father's approval until being 18 or whichever maturity age.

I believe that's how our society actually used to work not so long ago?

Our problems don't come from giving children enough authority, but from not giving them enough duties and guided activities.

Even in olden days, the master housed, fed, and generally parented the apprentice. An 11 year old in 1765 was still an 11 year old and had to be taken care of by an adult.

This reminds me of the story Johnny Treman.

As for the OP:

Quote:I'm also in a situation where I'll have to wait till my daughter turns 18 before she'll have a right to have any kind of relationship with me, since I chose to relinquish parental rights rather than keeping fighting in court to try to get custody.

I think the real issue here lies with this. Generally during the divorce, the court wants children to have a relationship with both parents. Are you telling us that you 100% cannot have a relationship with your daughter?

Let's hear more background on this.

A general historical perspective is a good thing to have in regards to many issues. Many people faced social issues that we are facing now.

In many instances the Ancient and the Medieval peoples are wiser. But sometimes they are simply wrong.

Youths certainly have greater responsibilities and rights in pre-industrial societies and they are certainly more mature in mindset and behavior. But one can only stretch it so far.

As your example amply demonstrates.

Post: #18

(02-07-2017 08:19 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 04:21 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 02:34 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I think these things would be better solved by giving the parents authority to send or not send their children into a certain activity. For example, if a father wanted to send his 11 year old son to another city to work as an apprentice, earn money and live alone he could (and probably should), but the 11 year old would still remain his son and under his authority, and couldn't change his apprenticeship or marry without his father's approval until being 18 or whichever maturity age.

I believe that's how our society actually used to work not so long ago?

Our problems don't come from giving children enough authority, but from not giving them enough duties and guided activities.

Even in olden days, the master housed, fed, and generally parented the apprentice. An 11 year old in 1765 was still an 11 year old and had to be taken care of by an adult.

This reminds me of the story Johnny Treman.

As for the OP:

Quote:I'm also in a situation where I'll have to wait till my daughter turns 18 before she'll have a right to have any kind of relationship with me, since I chose to relinquish parental rights rather than keeping fighting in court to try to get custody.

I think the real issue here lies with this. Generally during the divorce, the court wants children to have a relationship with both parents. Are you telling us that you 100% cannot have a relationship with your daughter?

Let's hear more background on this.

A general historical perspective is a good thing to have in regards to many issues. Many people faced social issues that we are facing now.

In many instances the Ancient and the Medieval peoples are wiser. But sometimes they are simply wrong.

Youths certainly have greater responsibilities and rights in pre-industrial societies and they are certainly more mature in mindset and behavior. But one can only stretch it so far.

As your example amply demonstrates.

Should be considered as well that most people would die a lot earlier too, i'd want to get married and have several children too!

OP, let's hear the real reasons why youth liberation is a thing. What happened during the divorce?

Post: #19

(02-07-2017 12:35 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 08:19 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 04:21 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 02:34 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I think these things would be better solved by giving the parents authority to send or not send their children into a certain activity. For example, if a father wanted to send his 11 year old son to another city to work as an apprentice, earn money and live alone he could (and probably should), but /jscripts/edi...ion.gifthe 11 year old would still remain his son and under his authority, and couldn't change his apprenticeship or marry without his father's approval until being 18 or whichever maturity age.

I believe that's how our society actually used to work not so long ago?

Our problems don't come from giving children enough authority, but from not giving them enough duties and guided activities.

Even in olden days, the master housed, fed, and generally parented the apprentice. An 11 year old in 1765 was still an 11 year old and had to be taken care of by an adult.

This reminds me of the story Johnny Treman.

As for the OP:

Quote:I'm also in a situation where I'll have to wait till my daughter turns 18 before she'll have a right to have any kind of relationship with me, since I chose to relinquish parental rights rather than keeping fighting in court to try to get custody.

I think the real issue here lies with this. Generally during the divorce, the court wants children to have a relationship with both parents. Are you telling us that you 100% cannot have a relationship with your daughter?

Let's hear more background on this.

A general historical perspective is a good thing to have in regards to many issues. Many people faced social issues that we are facing now.

In many instances the Ancient and the Medieval peoples are wiser. But sometimes they are simply wrong.

Youths certainly have greater responsibilities and rights in pre-industrial societies and they are certainly more mature in mindset and behavior. But one can only stretch it so far.

As your example amply demonstrates.

Should be considered as well that most people would die a lot earlier too, i'd want to get married and have several children too!

OP, let's hear the real reasons why youth liberation is a thing. What happened during the divorce?

Then the question one can ask is. Is the recent few centuries of socially extended childhood more beneficial or harmful?

Have we veered away from harmony with our biology in doing so to our detriment or is this a much improved version on how life should be lived?

Or are past forms or the principles behind them more beneficial even in our modern context?

Post: #20

It might be best to abandon this thread due to poor choice of thread title, since "youth liberation" is most commonly understood to mean that both boys and girls should be emancipated. Actually, I favor setting boys free, but the kind of "liberation" I have in mind for girls is that they should be allowed to get married (with parental consent) in their teens, rather than forced to stay with their parents. The reason I call it "liberation" is that women often feel freer to do what they want when they're married and away from parents, than when they're living under their parents' roof. For example, they can have fulfill their urges to have sex and babies without it being considered fornication and bastardry.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the question of whether biologically adult women should be forced to remain under the guardianship of their fathers till they marry; I'll move that discussion over to Women Must Have Their Behavior And Decisions Controlled By Men.

(02-06-2017 10:47 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Primogeniture does not prove maturity. Alexander and Josiah succeeded their fathers at young ages mainly because each of said fathers had been assassinated. History is replete with examples of child kings and queens: invariably they are ruled over by regents because it's understood they don't have the judgment to actually run the kingdom. Josiah in particular is recorded as not making drastic changes to the Jewish religion until he was 18 years into his rule, thus 26. Alexander had literally the finest teacher in the world -- Aristotle the philosopher -- until he was 16, and inherited his father's well-organised army and bureaucracy. History does not record either of these boy-kings as acting without copious amounts of advice from their advisers, who might well have been the real decisionmaking geniuses behind the throne. Outliers do not prove a general rule.

Every ruler gets copious advice from his advisers, though. Trump is still a genius even if he listens to Steve Bannon. Likewise, with the Zuckerberg example, every entrepreneur has other people helping him. Being able to listen to opposing views from advisers and make good decisions, or write code that works, could still be a significant achievement. Oh yeah, I forgot, for those who believe in the Bible, there was also the example of 12-year-old Jesus astonishing everyone at the temple with his understanding and answers (Luke 2:47). But he might be an outlier too.

(02-07-2017 01:46 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I'm not required to define what I see as the proper role for people under 25 in our society. It's your proposition to gut age of majority laws as I understand it; defend that proposition from scrutiny.

That's right, answering is totally optional. I didn't mean to imply that if you don't answer, I win the argument and therefore should get to have my way.

(02-07-2017 04:21 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I think the real issue here lies with this. Generally during the divorce, the court wants children to have a relationship with both parents. Are you telling us that you 100% cannot have a relationship with your daughter?

Let's hear more background on this.

My wife left me, told me that she'd miscarried, and then got a restraining order against me (which I didn't fight in court, because I figured, "What's the point; the relationship is over and we don't have kids or anything"). Then we divorced. We were able to get the divorce quickly, because in the divorce papers, we stipulated that we didn't have any kids.

Then she killed herself, and I got a call from CPS saying that before my wife had died, she had had a daughter, and then gone into a psychosis that led to CPS taking the daughter away from her. When they asked about paternity, she had named me as the father. (Paternity was later confirmed by DNA testing.) The daughter had been placed in the custody of my wife's adoptive parents.

CPS then turned their focus on me, and brought up the restraining order as evidence of my abusive tendencies. Plus I had a psychiatric history and criminal record. I got to meet my daughter once, in a CPS-supervised visit, at the very beginning of the case. Then they said that as a condition of being allowed to visit her again, I would need to get a psychiatrist's approval; that didn't happen till the case was almost over.

They gave me a list of 9 objectives (domestic violence treatment, mental health treatment, etc.) I was going to need to complete over the next several months, without any guarantee that when that was over, I would be given custody. At any rate, the psychiatrist ended up recommending against my having custody (although he was fine with the idea of supervised visitation, and even encouraged it), so the state moved for termination of parental rights.

At that point, I was at a disadvantage because while all this had been going on, I hadn't had custody of my daughter, and therefore I wasn't able to say that we had been bonding and that removing her from me would be harmful to her. Quite the opposite; the state was able to say that she had bonded with her adoptive parents, and that removing her from them to give her to me would be harmful to her. They said that she was calling them "mommy" and "daddy," and that they were the only parents she had ever known (aside from her biological mother, who was dead).

I saw the writing on the wall, and opted to relinquish parental rights rather than keep trying to get custody. There's not a lot you can do in these cases, once the psychiatrist has made a recommendation against you, especially if there's not a good prognosis for treatment to be successful, or not enough time for treatment to be successful before the case is scheduled to be closed. (By law, they have to designate a permanent home for the child within a certain timeframe.)

Due to the relinquishment, I no longer have any visitation rights. My daughter (legally, she's not considered my daughter anymore, but I'm not sure what else to call her) is, however, totally free to see me once she reaches adulthood, if she chooses. My attitude about these types of situations is, it should just be left up to the criminal justice system to deter child abuse and neglect; we don't need CPS to proactively try to prevent it based on shrinks' concerns about what might happen in the future.

Having swallowed the Red Pill since then, I wouldn't again choose a wife who had a history of severe mental problems, but back then, my thought was, "We've both been labeled mentally ill, so let's join together and it'll be us against the world." The problem is, mentally unstable women are more likely to turn on you and make false accusations, and then it's her and the world vs. you.

Post: #21

I suppose I get where you're going with this, but there's no way an 11 (or even a 13/14 year old) should be on their own like you suggest. Lack of physical and mental maturity issues alone would prove disastrous I believe.

Post: #22

There was a post recently on RoK, The United Nations' Push for "Children's Liberation" Is a Ploy to Reduce Parental Authority. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been around for awhile, with almost all countries in the world having ratified it, yet children still don't seem much closer to being liberated. If anything, there's a push to take away kids' freedoms, by raising the driving age above 16, raising the smoking age above 18, raising the marriage age to 18, restricting the ability of kids under 16 to use Internet sites that require personal data, instituting curfews on minors, etc.

There's not much of a constituency for giving kids more autonomy. Feminists don't really want to give kids the right to make their own decisions; they would rather recognize "children's rights" but put the state in charge of exercising those rights. So for example, as Recommendation 6 in NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda for Children and Families notes, family courts will put a guardian ad litem in charge of advocating for the child's interests, but if the child says "I want to be with my dad" and the GAL thinks that wouldn't be in the child's interests, the GAL will argue to the court that the kid should not be with her dad. The effect of this is that in, say, Child Protective Services cases, there are at least two parties to the case fighting against the dad -- the county attorney (representing the government) and the GAL (representing the child). That's in addition to the mom, if she decides to fight against the dad (as may happen, if she thinks that will give her a better chance of being allowed to be with her kids).

With regard to the CRC, Convention on the Rights of the Child: Would Ratification Impact American Kids? notes:

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law Wrote:Ratification by the U.S. is unlikely to substantially impact the rights of children for two reasons. First, U.S. law is already consistent with most of the Convention's elements. Apart from the Constitutional provisions, U.S. federal law provides similar protections for children. For example, federal child-labor statutes, which protect children’s safety when they work, are consistent with Article 32 of the Convention. Also, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act helps protect children from child abuse as the Convention requires. Since children are already afforded these rights, ratifying the Convention is unlikely to augment those rights further.

Second, where the Convention is inconsistent with U.S. law, the Convention’s provisions are not likely to alter the rights of children because the U.S. Senate has typically ratified human-rights treaties with RUDs that render them non-self-executing. It has been argued that this practice is meant to keep U.S. judges from adjudicating local human-rights conditions under international standards. Article 37 of the Convention, which prohibits sentencing children to death or life imprisonment without a possibility of parole, was one area in which U.S. laws directly contravened the Convention. It was not until 2005 that the Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons, ruled the execution of juveniles unconstitutional. Similarly, it was not until 2012 that the Supreme Court, in Miller v. Alabama, ruled the sentencing of juvenile to life without the possibility of parole unconstitutional. The U.S. could ratify the convention with inconsistent provisions; however, as a non-self-executing treaty, the U.S. can choose to implement only parts that are consistent with domestic laws while inconsistent provisions remain ineffective absent domestic legislation.

So the CRC seems to be mostly a non-issue.