Feb
13
Stefan Molyneux in his book “On Truth-Tyranny of illusion[1] ” covered a whole lot idea of Voluntary and Involuntary relationships properly.
We also had an article by renegade division” here on same lines.[2]
The idea makes sense, if it is properly understood; otherwise, it can create further illusions.
The idea suggests, “You do not have any liabilities towards your parents”[2] because it is an involuntary relation for you, although for your parents, it is a voluntary relation, hence they have a certain duty towards you, which they accepted voluntarily.
As a matter of fact, it is right and basic principle of the concept of children right.
Yet, we should understand that there is no such written contract to be enforced on the parents. OK, accepted that it is their voluntary choice to have babies, and hence it is their rightful duty to take care of their babies, but we cannot force such duty for ever, and there remains a need to limit the right of children over parents.
That is, even children have only a certain degree of rights on their parents. Your parents have full liabilities to take care of you until you reach the Age of Consent.
That is, once you reach the Age of Consent[3] the parents can say you goodbye, it is their right, the right to disinherit. Furthermore, we have discussed that there can not be any fixed “Age of Consent”[3] , and any such question if arise then each case should be appraised independently without establishing any dogmatic law of “Age of Consent”.
Child Marriage
There is another twist in all this, parents are free to choose what sort of upbringing they provide to their children, one cannot force any sort of necessities on parents. As for example, one can suggest that providing health boosters like Bourn-vita or Complain, parents can remove any fear of malnutrition for their kids, yet there cannot be and should not be any law, which makes it compulsory for the every parent to provide Bourn-vita, Complain, Boost, or any other sort of tonic for their kids.
That is, although parents have duty towards their kids, the nature of duty is not forcible it is voluntary. Similarly, a couple may decide to send their kid to the best schools of their city to get education, other couple may decide for home-schooling, and some other couple may decide for alternative-education to provide certain skills to their kids.
In addition, there are child’s rights, which suggests that parents cannot make any such decision regarding their kids which essentially need a personal able consent of the child, as for example, if parents decide to marry their child, it is against the child’s right, child marriage is not proper, because it will be child’s freedom in future to decide for his/her sex partner when they will be able to make meaningful decisions with consent. Thus, although parents are free to decide how to grow up their kids there are certain restrictions in form of child’s rights.
Can Parents sell their Parental Rights?
Yet, if because of any circumstantial condition, a couple want to trade their parental rights over a kid to another couple fully or partially, can we stop it, or should we stop it? That is, if a couple want to sell or give their kid for certain/any reason to another needy couple who is ready to adopt a child is it legal?
Basically, any couple or single mother have this right, it is nothing different then the right of a woman to provide services as a surrogate mother, or as a foster-mother, mid-wife or second-mother.
Thus, although parents cannot force child-marriage, they certainly can decide to give their children to other couple/parents, just like Vasudev and Devaki decided to let Nand and Yashoda adopt their child Krishna.
Thus, we maintain that although parents or a single mother can sell their parental rights fully or partially to another couple according to a contract without worrying for child’s consent, they cannot arrange a child marriage. This is because of the fact that our relation to our parents is already involuntary, we cannot choose them, although a marriage is not an involuntary decision it is voluntary choice and hence, parents cannot enforce child marriage or even arrange marriage, although the children after growing up may opt for having an arranged marriage voluntarily.
Now one can raise the legitimate question that what will happen if this assumed right of parents to sell their parental rights and duties partially or completely to other couple is used to facilitate human trafficking or prostitution or child labor.
My question is, just as a parent can invigorate, exhort and inspire their kid to study and try to be an engineer, doctor, cricketer or teacher etc, if some parent decides to teach their child to be a belle dancer, or a bar dancer, an actor, a porn actor or even a prostitute, can we oppose it? Can we oppose if a couple want to teach their kid agriculture techniques, shoe-making, shopkeeping, trading, or sculptor making, or painting? How can we oppose it, and why should we oppose it?
I support the idea of freedom to kids, the idea of Montessori schooling[4] , but no law can stop the parents or peers to provide a certain taste to be developed in a child, which may/may not decide his/her future. It is parent’s voluntary choice to provide free healthy upbringing of the child, others can provide awareness and help voluntarily, there can be and should be no compulsion.
Since we cannot stop the original parents to induce certain tastes in their kids, nor it is our duty or right to interfere in anybody’s family, although we can make common statements, articles and advertises against anomalies, hence we can even not stop a couple to give off their kid to anyone who will facilitate such acts. Yet we can stop any paedophilic action based on individual case study of the issue to look for age of consent. That is, although a couple is free to trade off their parental right, child rights remain intact and protected.
Child Labour
Now there again erupts the question of child labor. If we can oppose pedophile actions and make laws against it, why cannot we make laws against child labour?
The issue is of the differentiation of various works categorized as per the risk involved.
We can make laws against child labor in dangerous or more risky zones of work, yet we cannot stop child artists from working, we cannot stop child painters, musicians, dancers, singers, actors, players etc from working, practicing, performing, that is their basic education. We cannot stop a child from working at a tea stall or a hotel or even at home. We can certainly stop a child to work in risky industrial works and other sort of risky works involved including sex-works, yet again, here also we will have to study each case with unbiased perspective to check for age of consent.
My intentions with this article are to raise the issue of freedom of parents about how to raise their kids, my intentions are to raise this issue towards the gender inequalities and issues of inheritance.
We have maintained that although parenthood is a voluntary relationship, parents are free to choose about how to grow-up their kids, kids do not have much to say about that yet, can children demand any inherent right in parental property?
The only right an Individual possess is right to live free, he cannot have any such right as to own a property without earning it or getting it freely gifted for him. Thus, parents possess the right to disinherit their child after a certain age of consent[3] .
I will discuss the Indian laws of inheritance and the parental right to disinherit in next addition and my intentions will be to raise the issue against son or daughter’s right to demand partition of parental property.
- On Truth-Tyranny of Illusion, Stefan Molyneux [↩]
- Tyranny of Involuntary Relations, Reason For Liberty [↩] [↩]
- Age of Consent, Reason for Liberty [↩] [↩] [↩]
- Montessori Schooling and Peer Pressure, Reason for Liberty [↩]
Related Posts
1 views15 Responses to “Parenthood and Freedom”
Leave a Reply
Smita Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 7:49 pmThis post is an eye opener for me. I have been reading all your posts but always feel inadequate to comment here :-)
As far as my views are concerned…I believe that once we are independent we should be left on our own. Parents toil for us for their whole life (am assuming that we a re lucky to have great parents). They don’t have to pay up for us for the whole life.
galeo rhinus Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pmthis conflict emerges only from a progressive-liberal paradigm, where one indulges in a “top down” view of society…
…I acknowledge that you do make an attempt to change the point of view, yet are a victim to the compulsions of finding a perfect design… that’s the paradox…
renegade_division Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 11:30 pm@Galeo Rhinus
Can you be a bit more specific in what you mean by the above comment?
galeo rhinus Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 11:51 pmIMO - only politcal systems can be designed top down… everything else should fall into place… including social systems…
…that’s exactly what freedom means… can you really say you are free if someone follows up with a question “wait… what you are doing with your freedom?”
so the question of say, child labor at home vs. at a factory - is an issue of a flawed polity - not failure of society…
Indic polity achieved industrial success in a decentralized structure… workers were self employed… with the family being the primary “help…” in this environment - a social conflict is not relevant… yet when the system crumbled - as Indians lost their economic freedom, it became an issue… a social issue as well… but can the solution be acheived if you look at the social problem in isolation?
Christianity and later progressive-liberalism was unleashed on India to “expose” India’s “social” ills - when in reality they were a result of loss of economic and political freedom… that was a distraction…
So if someone wants to address the “problem” of child labor - challenge the flawed polity… challenge a bad constitution…
…the progressive-liberal paradigm creates a distraction from finding the real solutions to freedom…
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:14 amI am not victim, nor I am for any compulsion of perfection, also I don’t consider a perfectionist as a victim, rather the perfectionist is the prime mover towards betterment, he is the source of evolution. You seem to be pessimist I guess.
About topdown paradigm, I do not think that you are clear about it.
Child Labour is not Indian problem alone, Europe faced the blames of child labor majorly after industrial revolution.
Just like molestation, certain works surely are dangerous for a child psyche, certain works surely need a consent from an able mind, and for such works, a child cannot and should not be forced. That is the idea. If you want me to give some examples, i can provide, yet I assume that you can get the examples of those certain works by yourself.
Maria Montessori roused against Hitler and defied him against forcing her young kid students to serve in German army.
galeo rhinus Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:23 amThat’s exactly the point… the issue is polity… European polity… in fact child labor was not a problem in India until India lost economic freedom…
the word victim - you obviously misinterpreted the meaning :-)
me a pessimist? that’s a first for me.. but I’ll take it
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:43 amIndia never faced industrial revolution and medical revolution attacking Indian shores with such huge surge as Europe faced.
Just 15 years before industrial revolution, people were dying of small pox and malaria, and suddenly all those penicillin and quinine were discovered and the dangers of mass deaths in Europe ended, malaria and small pox and other such disease remained a masss murderer In India for long period, and were removed by british help alone.
But in Europe, during those times of starvation plague and medical discoveries, parents died in large numbers because they were never immuned, and their children remain healthy cos they got immunitions and vaccinations, the number of orphans increased manyfolds, and because of starvation and plagues nobody was there to take care.
Industrial revolution provided food and chance for life to those orphan children who might have have died of hunger and cold if there was no new work for them which was provided by Industrial revolution.
India must feel fortunate that indians got touch of Europeans at right time, And those orphans who were latter used by communists to stage a show against capitalism and industrial revolution, and who might have died if there was not capitalism which saved their life, should be considered Lucky.
galeo rhinus Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:49 amGot in touch? You mean India was not in touch with the Europeans before the 15th century?
Oh right - I forgot - India was “discovered” by the Europeans :-)
Or perhaps you mean India must feel fortunate for being “ruled” by the English?
Perhaps it is the age old Choo-Choo Salute!
I hope it is not… that would be greatly disappointing :-(
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:53 amI never said that India was “discovered”, but which India you are talking about? the same India which was facing murderers on the name of religion?
Anyways you can keep cursing Europeans if it makes you feel better, it has nothing to do with the article, and the fact reamains constant, Industrial revolution and Medical revolution reached Indian shores with the help of Portuguese French spanish and britishers.
What india had were some butcherers like Aurangjebs, and then some impotents like bahadur Shah jafar.
if India lost to britishers it was Indian fault.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:58 amOne more thing galeo, I consider current rulers of india and Indian government also as culprit as the britishers were.
No difference, I can not acclaim My Birth Right of Self Governance even now.
Stop showcasing your nationalism, I am Individualist totally against the collectivist idea of nationalism. Here there is no britisher no indian no american no pakistani, all are individuals, standing against any form of government and collectivism.
Although it is observable that If colonizers and socialists might not have interfered with Indian sub-continent, there might have been chances of capitalism and libertarianism fully develop in India after the down-fall of feudalism.
Rathesh Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 2:59 amDon’t you feel national identity serve an important purpose in the world .It helps to bring aspiration,identity,ethinicity of a larger section of people under one umbrella. This is certainly useful as a system considering the fact that there are 6+ billion individuals.
Don Emmerich Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 3:46 amHey, I love you’re blog. Would you be interested in doing a link exchange — I’ll post a link to your blog on my blogroll and you post a link to my blog on yours. I’m a fellow anarcho-capitalist
Thanks,
Don Emmerich
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:32 pmThe same identity crisis caused Britishers to attack new lands and colonize, same nationalism was behind the wars of spain, portugal, brtian france and germany, same identity problem caused WW1 and WW2, same Identity problem caused Indo-Pak most grevious wars, and problems of terrorism, militancy and mass murders, same sort of identity crisis is engulfing Gaza strip since ages.
That nationalism identity is the root cause of most mass murders of history and current era.
Don’t you know the reality?
Monkey Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 12:03 amWhy is this so poorly written and essentially unedited? Is the author not a native English speaker? That would explain sentences like this: “The only right an Individual possess is right to live free, he cannot have any such right as to own a property without earning it or getting it freely gifted for him.”
Seriously… I tried to read this, but the grammar is so atrocious, I simply had to post this criticism before I leave. While I wish you the best of luck, perhaps an ESL tutor could help prepare your posts for publication in the future!
Unpretentious Diva Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 3:30 amLol seems, a primate monkey taught me alot!