Children's Rights vs Parents' Duties in a Free Society

[v_bachvarov]

Hello, friends,

 

I totally subscribe to the ideas of a free and 100% voluntary society.

There is only one single thing that bothers me and I kind of cannot find a satisfactory answer to this question.

 

In a free society kids should have the same rights as everybody else. This means, they should be free to take decisions for themselves, even if they parents don't like those decisions.

 

So if a 13 year old kid for example wants to have sex with a 40 year old (which in my opinion would be rape), the parents do not agree.

How would a free society deal with such a problem?

 

1. On the one hand the kid has the right to make their own decisions and the parents are not allowed to force them. So manipulative pedofiles can influence the kids and get them into bed.

 

2. On the other hand the parents have the right to raise their children and if they feel the children are in danger, they should protect them. But abusive parents may find excuse for forcing their kids and hurting them, but pretending to excercise their parent rights for protection. In some extreme cases parents may beat or circumcise their kids, stating that it is "for their own good".

 

So how would a free society decide when it is acceptable to protect kids from their parents? How to decide principally and not case by case, what are the criteria for prevention of child abuse without hurting legitimate parenting?

 

 

Right now I have only one suggestion - austersizing. If parents are abusive, society can simply reject dealing with them in any form. Their life would become so much harder that they would fix their behavior and return to normal life.

But this would not be sufficient in all cases. In some cases children might even get killed. How can this be avoided in a free society?

 

Thanks in advance,

V

 

[QueechoFeecho]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect that a 100% free and voluntary society would be without problems. 

 

If the best parent in the world wakes up tomorrow and decides to dress their kid as Justin Bieber, then it happens. 

 

I think there would be a lot more prevention in general though, not so much where Person A prevents Person B from harming Person C, but that the overall behaviors would be such that Person B would rarely have the desire to harm Person C in the first place.  That is a little pie-in-the-sky, yes, and it ignores that there would be a long [multi-generational likely] transition period from today's society to 100% free and voluntary, but every true step in that direction would by definition involve less coercion, force, violence, abuse, dishonesty, etc.

[v_bachvarov]

But I would like to see if there is principally defendable and reasonable position on this subject, or it must be always a compromise?

Because legal systems should be based on principles. If you choose compromise, then it always boils down to who is deciding what to compromise and to which degree.

[Liberty Bill]

A free society would have PDAs/DROs that would anticipate this issue and child abuse clauses would be standardized in all contracts, as well as statutory rape clauses (with perhaps a little wiggle room for personal preference, just as different states have different ages of majority today).