children belonging to society

[danyboy27]

do you think childrents belong to their parents, or they belong to society?
both the concept of state and non state can be applied in that Question so anarchists can post without feeling unconfortable with it.

from a pure biologic stance, parents are only the biological entity that have the purpose to create more men and women. Why should they be the PROPERTY of their parents after all, why not when they are born send them in community center where the whole society could teach them and be able to interract with them, so they will benefit from the whole society instead of having 1 narrow minded view of the world, this would make them better society member with a verry rich life education

[Anti Freedom]

do you think childrents belong to their parents, or they belong to society?
both the concept of state and non state can be applied in that Question so anarchists can post without feeling unconfortable with it.

from a pure biologic stance, parents are only the biological entity that have the purpose to create more men and women. Why should they be the PROPERTY of their parents after all, why not when they are born send them in community center where the whole society could teach them and be able to interract with them, so they will benefit from the whole society instead of having 1 narrow minded view of the world, this would make them better society member with a verry rich life education
How can society, a group with heterogenous people who have heterogenous preferences own anything? What we will get is not society owning things, but a "representative group" from society owning things, ya know, some form of government. And if you ask me if the government owns children, I will say no. Ya know why? That opens the door for totalitarianism. As that gives the government the absolute right to teach children whatever lie that the government wants to teach on a universal level, which is by far more dangerous than different individuals teaching different ideas, even if all of those ideas are just as wrong. After all, even if parents teach one very wrong stance, that very wrong stance will be forced to adapt when faced with the world. However, if "society" teaches one very wrong stance, there is nothing by which for this stance to be judged, and I hardly have any confidence in the epistemology of *any* group, and would actually want a pluralistic society in it's methodology, and like Feyerabend's notion of "epistemological anarchism"*, by allowing for the development of multiple paths and necessitating a denial of an overarching control over thought.

Not only that, but to be honest, the reason I'd say that the parents should be the ones to control the child are the following:

1) Parents took the initiative to make that child for their own purposes. Parents typically are parents because they want to be parents. There are cases where somebody forgot a pill or rubber, and did not want to get an abortion, but generally, parenting is the reward for pregnancy.

2) No other being is more fit to be the parent than the parents. This is a general rule, not a case-specific one. Parents feel devotion towards their children by virtue that those children are theirs, whereas others might not be the same. Parents also are individuals, not representatives of a collective, thus allowing the practice of methodological pluralism.

3) Organization of society to raise children would be authoritarian in nature, as it would have to remove the children from the parents whether the parents agreed to it or not, and it would have to organize itself in a manner such that it can represent *all* members. And teach according to the specifications of *all* members, without engaging in thought control over the children.

*Note: epistemological anarchism is not related to the anarchist movement, but rather is an idea by philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, who is noted for arguing that science is a specific ideology.

[Bud Struggle]

My kids belong to themselves first, then to me to take care of.

Society be damned, as far as I could see. I and they will use society as we see fit.

[danyboy27]

but the current concept of family is a bourgeois concept.
you own children, so you can give them the values you want, the education you want, the video game you decide, give them the food you want, its your children, like a puppet.

also, parent should not own their children, that a egoistical way to see the things, childrens represent the future of society, they should belong to society, when they will be in majority they will decide what to do, but until then they are belonging to society.



i want to mention that if you dont like the word state or the notion of state, you can replace it by community, in order to do not have anarchist trashing my topic.

[Anti Freedom]

but the current concept of family is a bourgeois concept.
I never defended the nuclear family, I defended the notion that parents own the child. Nor do I care about some distinction between "bourgeois" culture and other culture, I don't care *what* culture is followed, so long as it is by consent of the parents.


you own children, so you can give them the values you want, the education you want, the video game you decide, give them the food you want, its your children, like a puppet.
Yes, absolutely. Otherwise it is other people who own children, so they can give them the values they want, the education they want, the video game they decide, the food they want, it would be their children, like a puppet. The issue here is that if I give my children over for their ownership, then they will own *all* of the children, thus meaning all children will have the values they want, the education they want, the video game they decide, the food they want, which to me seems like the potential beginnings of an authoritarian rule, and a means by which to control culture and thus the methodologies used by society.


also, parent should not own their children, that a egoistical way to see the things
Yes, and shame on the egoist who only thinks of himself.


childrens represent the future of society, they should belong to society, when they will be in majority they will decide what to do, but until then they are belonging to society.
If children represent the future of society, then they assuredly must not be owned by society, but rather scattered to the wind to be later brought together to comprise society. Society is not advanced by homogeneity, nor is it advanced by centralization, but instead diversity and decentralization are more important.



i want to mention that if you dont like the word state or the notion of state, you can replace it by community, in order to do not have anarchist trashing my topic.
I don't care about the state, the community, or anything else like that. I still argue my position that control by the larger would result in slavery to the biases of that original larger group.

[Plagueround]

but the current concept of family is a bourgeois concept.
you own children, so you can give them the values you want, the education you want, the video game you decide, give them the food you want, its your children, like a puppet.

also, parent should not own their children, that a egoistical way to see the things, childrens represent the future of society, they should belong to society, when they will be in majority they will decide what to do, but until then they are belonging to society.



i want to mention that if you dont like the word state or the notion of state, you can replace it by community, in order to do not have anarchist trashing my topic.

Children are not capable of being fully autonomous early on and need guidance and help. This is not to say they are unthinking robots, but they do need to be taught how the world works. I am entirely comfortable with "violating my child's autonomy" by grabbing him if he's about to run out into the street, (politely) taking things from him in a store and placing them back on the shelf, or not allowing him to play with the large assortment of chemicals people keep under their sinks. What should be discouraged is the authoritarian and demeaning parenting that many people use, approaching their duty as a parent as a prison guard or police figure. There will always be a need for a certain amount of "authority" over those that are not yet capable of taking care of themselves. The problems the family unit faces these days is more a lack of respect for a child's ability to process these situations and grow to understand them without talking down to them, yelling at them, or hitting them.

As for the notion that children should not be influenced by their parent or guardian, but rather society...I think that ignores the diversity of human thought. A communal society does not mean the end of different approaches, thoughts, and attitudes toward living. If anything I would agree with Oscar Wilde and say a society under socialism would be more diverse and individualistic. You are not going to have a set standard for society to raise a child by. Certainly the consensus society has on certain matters would deter most people from abuse, as it does now, but the notion that doing away with family units would eliminate the complex relationship between guardians and children ignores human diversity too much.

I have a feeling that a society under socialism or communism would not see the end of the family unit so much as an extension and furthered development of it, where we view more and more people as part of our family or community. Simply because children are not confined to one style of guardianship does not mean that some won't choose to primarily live with one person, and others may prefer to "bounce around". Again, children are every bit as diverse as the rest of us.

[danyboy27]

i advocated the children to be raised and educated by the communities and society beccause it would be fair, if a man share share his work/physical effort to the whole society he should share his biological creation has well, there is no reason why he should be the only one teaching him values and way of thinking, its a community/society concern, if the parent is able to give more knowledge/values to his children than another children would have, it would create a inegality, and you dont want innegality inside society do you?

[Elliot_R]

no parents created the children so they should be raised by their parents, they are the property of their parents. if they did make them, they would not be alive and thus nobody else could raise them

[Anti Freedom]

i advocated the children to be raised and educated by the communities and society beccause it would be fair, if a man share share his work/physical effort to the whole society he should share his biological creation has well, there is no reason why he should be the only one teaching him values and way of thinking, its a community/society concern, if the parent is able to give more knowledge/values to his children than another children would have, it would create a inegality, and you dont want innegality inside society do you?
I don't think that people should share their work with the whole of society, but rather that it would work better for people to get what they earn.

Not only that, but biological creation isn't the same thing as wealth.

There is a reason why he should be the major source of values and a means of thinking though. I have stated this reason multiple times: diversity, methodological pluralism, and to remove social controls over education.

If a parent is able to give more knowledge/values to his children, then why not have that parent be a teacher or some form or variety? That would solve the problem of better teaching while still allowing people to not have their children be taught by that better teacher. In any case, there is no such thing as "better values" (I don't know what you mean by more), nor is there any good way to assess what knowledge necessarily is, as to be honest, everyone has a bit of knowledge that nobody else has:

"But a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation." - Friedrich Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in a Free Society

Some may attack me for using Friedrich Hayek, a laissez-faire economist, but his work "The Use of Knowledge in Society" is a good argument for decentralization and a work I would heartily commend to anyone. I mean, even giving up Hayek, my point of methodological pluralism in pursuit of knowledge still has some value, as if there is no absolute methodology, then a mass teaching of things, such as methodology, can lead to an indoctrination on matters of methodology, which is problematic for a free society or for the pursuit of knowledge.

Frankly, if put to the test, I put freedom and individuality above any equality. There is no virtue to a realm of equal robots, nor is the world of Harrison Bergeron, where all men are weighted down for the sake of equality, anything but dystopic. This is not to make a statement on the relationship of freedom, individuality and equality in societal structure, only that equality at the cost of individuality is not a bargain.

[danyboy27]

only that equality at the cost of individuality is not a bargain.

yea, but supressing individuality would make the world peaceful,equal,everyone would eat. by saying individuality is important at the same time you are spreading the bourgeois concept of individualism, individualism created this capitalist societry, dont forget that.

[Anti Freedom]

yea, but supressing individuality would make the world peaceful,equal,everyone would eat. by saying individuality is important at the same time you are spreading the bourgeois concept of individualism, individualism created this capitalist societry, dont forget that.
I really actually *still* promote individuality in the face of that. If I am not free, then everything else is meaningless.

Look, I don't care about anti-capitalism, I don't care about "bourgeois culture", I don't care about any of these deified ideas you have put above yourself and made yourself a servant to, I care about my freedom, my uniqueness, my being, and my ability to do as I please. If this means that I am a capitalist, then I throw in my lot with them gladly, if this means I am an anarchist, then I am their fervent ally, even if it means I am a fascist, I stand upon individuality; I am not going to be owned and controlled by your gods.

[Plagueround]

no parents created the children so they should be raised by their parents, they are the property of their parents. if they did make them, they would not be alive and thus nobody else could raise them

Even if the parent is proven to not be fit to raise that child? Even if they beat them and allowed people to have sex with their children for money? (That was actually the case with 4 foster children my ex-girlfriend's family took in, including the 3 month old). What about the numerous healthy and functional adults that were raised by grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, or even someone who was adopted by a person completely unrelated to them? I don't think you've thought this through so much as you wanted to give a contradictory answer.

[Plagueround]

i advocated the children to be raised and educated by the communities and society beccause it would be fair, if a man share share his work/physical effort to the whole society he should share his biological creation has well, there is no reason why he should be the only one teaching him values and way of thinking, its a community/society concern, if the parent is able to give more knowledge/values to his children than another children would have, it would create a inegality, and you dont want innegality inside society do you?

Making people think the same is not equality. You're confusing diversity with inequality. A society that allows children to more freely interact with the adults around them would still offer children the same opportunities. An attempt to stifle people's day to day interaction in the name of "knowledge equality" would simply end in authoritarianism. It would also discount people's abilities to absorb knowledge differently than others.

[danyboy27]

Making people think the same is not equality. You're confusing diversity with inequality. A society that allows children to more freely interact with the adults around them would still offer children the same opportunities. An attempt to stifle people's day to day interaction in the name of "knowledge equality" would simply end in authoritarianism. It would also discount people's abilities to absorb knowledge differently than others.

they would not think the same, nobody can think the same, but in the model i proposed below, i clrealy indicate that the peoples from the community will be equally able to transmit knowledge to childs.

[Anti Freedom]

they would not think the same, nobody can think the same, but in the model i proposed below, i clrealy indicate that the peoples from the community will be equally able to transmit knowledge to childs.
No such thing as equal transmission. There are variations in clarity, teaching effectiveness, charisma, organizational ability, extroversion, criminality and so on. Not only that, but there will be variance in any community on what is good and what is not good, and turning children into a public good actually makes addressing these matter much more political, something which should be avoided. As well, in any lesson plan, there is some element of coherency and completeness, and frankly, there is the issue of what should be focused upon, and how to make sure that the focused upon skills are taught, and there is no agreement on how this all should be handled, the current system is a fuck-up on that matter. Finally, methodological plurality is best promoted by heterogeneity in teachings, and methodological plurality is important for promoting knowledge and thought in a society, if only by upsetting preconceived notions and forcing each generation to work out intellectual problems on their own grounds.

[Plagueround]

they would not think the same, nobody can think the same, but in the model i proposed below, i clrealy indicate that the peoples from the community will be equally able to transmit knowledge to childs.

Right, but when you say "raised and educated" by the community, people already do that. In a communist society I would see that expanding. However, I do not think people should underestimate the close bond and exclusive learning experiences one can get from a parent or guardian. I guess what I'm getting from you that concerns me is this: Are you suggesting a child should at some point be taken from a parent and raised in a community home of some kind to encourage fairness?

[danyboy27]

basicly i started that tread to see how you guy would react to this, and frankly i am quite impressed of your attitude toward this particular problematic, i was really not expecting that kind of comments, and frankly i feel a profound relief.

i dont believe in that bullshit, i was just shitess scared that someone might agree with that here.

[Plagueround]

basicly i started that tread to see how you guy would react to this, and frankly i am quite impressed of your attitude toward this particular problematic, i was really not expecting that kind of comments, and frankly i feel a profound relief.

i dont believe in that bullshit, i was just shitess scared that someone might agree with that here.

I figured, along with many of the posts you've been making, that you were more so playing Devil's advocate. There are some here who believe the traditional family unit would wither away, but I don't know of many that actually advocate forcefully taking people's babies away. I can certainly say that if it came down to that, you would find me fighting it.

[danyboy27]

I figured, along with many of the posts you've been making, that you were more so playing Devil's advocate. There are some here who believe the traditional family unit would wither away, but I don't know of many that actually advocate forcefully taking people's babies away. I can certainly say that if it came down to that, you would find me fighting it.


haha, its just i am trying to make connections between severals thing that have been said here and more harsh, parallel exemples.

many people said in a topic about arbortion that the foeutus was just a parasite, an egg at best, and i wanted to know how far people would go with that kind of thinking, i mean, when he out of the body of the women, that just a bigger parasite right? that basicly what i tried to understand, if morality and ethics would move that far in order to make society an equal one.

hopefully, nobody buyed that bullshit.

[Elliot_R]

obviously there are limitations like the parents shouldn't beat their children or sell them for sex or anything but in most cicumstances the parents should raise their children and not the community. the children will ultimately come to his own opinions that are a oconstruction of other instituitions aside from his parents, so i dont know why know children shouldn't be raised by them in a more traditional sense. would hate to be raised by the community, to be honest.

[Rascolnikova]

People belong to themselves.

As a society, we should do what we can to ensure that people who are incapable of looking after themselves are well supported till that changes.

So far, the state does a spectacularly bad job of raising children in every case I'm aware of. There should definitely be resources about so that older children, especially teenagers, have options for looking after themselves when their parents are doing/have done a shitty job.

One of the thing people--especially children--need most, though, is other people who love them. I don't see families going away.

[Anti Freedom]

People belong to themselves.

No, they all belong to me. I just allow them to have themselves for my amusement, and because trying to assert my possession of these people can be a nightmare.