Hardcore commy... Reminiscent of a young hitler speech where he says resistance is futile as the next generation is the states even if you won't join us! V scary schitt
It's not communist propaganda, it's along the same lines as the old African proverb "it takes a whole village to raise a child". Given that there is a large gap between the percentage of employers that have "must be able to read" as a job requirement and the percentage of people who can afford to educate their children privately, having a high quality public education system is one of those things that provides obvious benefits to society.
Verbatim from the video: "We have to break that idea that kids belong to their parents or their family, and recognize that kids belongs to whole communities". If you want to be a serf, you're welcome to it. And your kids too. No way the "whole community" (code word for The State) will decide how I raise my kids or live my life.
Can't seem to watch the clip, but I'm on a phone. Hope this is relevant. I have been telling people for years that they don't own their children but are the custodians for the government. This can be proved by. What happens if you do not look after them? The government wl take them and give them to somebody else to raise and pay them for it. The government will also dictate to you when and where you are going to take them. Ie school, vaccination. And the list goes on and on. Think about it. Hit there child and go to prison.
It is an interesting but very important question about who "owns" children. Although I have some (essentially minor) disagreements I think it is fruitful to attack the whole issue the way Rothbard did in Chapter 14 of The Ethics of Liberty. My short summary is that the mother is first and foremost the natural owner (father second) but in a legal sense is really a guardian who can give up or exchange their guardianship rights whilst the children themselves are gradually acquiring self-ownership as they grow up. At some point in the child's life (which can differ substantially between different children) if children do not like how their parents are treating them that they have an unconditional right to end their parents' guardianship at any age where they are physically capable of running away. Note that "ending their parents guardianship" does not mean "run away for ice cream" as people have taunted me before when I've raised this. At a bare minimum, it would require a knowledge of legal guardianship, an ability to support oneself, the capacity to navigate a legal system, and so on. Even then, until they are of a certain capacity their choices are typically limited to changing guardians, but as they get older that this right should include the right to strike out on their own or to take up with any foster parents who agree to take them in, and that neither parents nor the State have any right to force runaway children to return to the guardianship of any adult against the child's will. Quoting Rothbard directly: John Locke, in his Two Treatises on Government, p. 322, put it this way:
So how does my previous post relate to the video in the opening post? Essentially that irrespective of how societal norms "share" the upbringing of children (which is a real and valid thing), in the first instance the mother is always the principal individual responsible for choosing how children are taught and raised. The mother can obviously choose a plethora of ways including divulging responsibility to others. Importantly though the guardianship has obligations to respect the natural rights of the children including allowing their guardianship to be terminated by the child once they are capable of expressing a clear understanding of their rights. At no point does this fundamental theory of natural rights imply that "kids belong to whole communities". If anything children "belong" to their natural guardian(s). Consequently, to say that "kids belong to whole communities" is to say that natural rights do not exist. This is fundamentally the position of communism since communism is about the prohibition of private property and there is no property more private than a person's own self.
I agree with Rothbard on this. The child is just another person, and like all persons does (or at least should) own themselves. The parents are helping them out while they are unable to help themselves, and the child may, or may not, choose to repay their kindness (or non-kindness if that is the case) in whatever fashion they desire. Saying that either the parent or the society(which I agree is code for govt) owns the child is wrong imo. Although in our society today govt clearly thinks it owns all of us, and threatens us if we don't follow their ever changing rules. Hmmm, sounds like a bad parent. EDIT: it's socialism through and through. Whether the flavour is fascism or communism. Socialism as defined as "society" owning the means of production (ie, you).
I'm not sure that the word "belong" is being used in the context of "ownership". I think it's being used to refer to "being a part of" something, i.e. "I belong to this community" rather than "I am owned by my parents until I come of legal age to make my own decisions independently". The alternative to the argument the woman in the vid is making is to be in favour of denying people the opportunity to participate in their community on an equal basis to everyone else. Or more bluntly, if you give kids a shitty education, they'll end up with crappy jobs, live in crappy homes, have dozens of babies who in turn will grow up to to uneducated simpletons and the world will generally be a crappier place than it otherwise would have been. I do agree with the importance of natural rights, but I think letting kids grow up without a decent education that's appropriate for the world they're living means their right to equality isn't being respected. At the very least, I think children should get the same basic opportunities as other children and they decide for themselves when they adults if they want to clean toilets or pack boxes in a factory. If they do, it isn't because they were born into an underclass of peasants. (If anyone hasn't googled Melissa Harris-Perry yet, she's a college professor who has advocated for public education funding for a long time and has a particular interest in education for the poor and disadvantaged.)
I think this comes under the tag of "good intentions not always being the right thing". The reality is that public education, in Australia too, is a disgrace imo. It's barely changed in over a hundred years and the basics of it, rows of desks, whistles and bells is all very regimented which I think was what the system was originally designed for years ago, ie. churning out factory workers and soldiers. What's happening in free education, things like the Khan Academy for example, show much more potential than a system where the more money is thrown at it the worse it seems to get and there is very little incentive for innovation to match the new reality. Like any public system it gets stuck in a time warp. As for owning us, it's not blatantly said, but the reality is undeniable. What's the community? Is it the street you live on? The suburb? The city? The state? The country? I wouldn't consider 22 million people spread over millions thousands of miles a community. Public education is shitty and has been for decades. It's time to ask the reasons why and explore new options especially with new technology now available.
"In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by traditions, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk! "We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into Philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply. "The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm." Rev. Fred T. Gates General Education Board 1904 Board's Occasional Letter No. 1
Hands off my child you fecking communist. As I watched her I thought of this: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyenRCJ_4Ww[/youtube]
