Re: You missed my point

One thing I would like to know is how and when under your ideal scheme of things would you actually KNOW whenever situations arise where offspring's interests happen to conflict with their parents in which the parents over-ride their offspring? You need some kind of state AUTHORITY in the first place to be able to have the powers to intrude and investigate into such matters. Without such a state busybosy then there would be no way of actually having the authoritive powers of monitoring everyday household life. As long as there is no busybody state means that separatist parents like myself could therefore live completely isolated without being honed in on and "identified" as "oppressors" of our offspring. The only way it could be done would be to have surveillance cameras planted in every house, but again, by which authority would that actually be enforced? My question again is: Irregardless of whether there was a "state" or NO state, how can your socialist hordes actually MONITOR what individual parents are up to? How would you monitor if they are allowing their offspring the "rights" you speak of? It's one thing to idealise something, but another to actually put it into action.

I would never suggest that cameras be placed in every single house. Remember, in a socialist society, there would be no state at all. We cannot expect to know exactly what is going on in any given household, and we don't have to. If a youth wasn't happy in the household to the point where she didn't want to live there anymore, she could simply walk out of the house and go elsewhere, either to a youth residency facility, a democratic boarding school campus, or to the home of friends or other relatives. If her parents came after her with a shotgun and insisted she come home with them, and she made it clear to many witnesses that she didn't want to go back there, then everyone would know that there was a big problem going on in that household. It would be as simple as that.

Sorry Diss, but I have to completely disagree with this statement which I see as very self-contraditory as it stands at its face value, but probably it more represents a euphemistic attempt at justifying usurpation of parental powers by outside interference, while at the same time denying that it is expropriation.

It represents the idea that no one should have the right to control anyone else as long as the people in question weren't inflicting demonstrable harm upon other people against their will, or attempting to infringe upon the civil rights of someone else. Again, it's as simple as that--I am not sure how you read it.

If I refuse to allow my offspring to do a certain given thing, and you and your socialist friends come crashing into my house and say "Fuck you, but you're not allowing your offspring to do what they want to do.", then you ARE forcibly replacing my authority with YOURS. It's just plain logic that can NOT be denied.

Me and my socialist friends would never crash in on your home and force your offspring to leave with us against her will simply because we thought it was better for her to live elsewhere without even consulting her about the matter; if we did so, then we would indeed be engaging in a totalitarian act. But if your offspring sent out a communique by some means that she wanted out of that house but you were holding her there by force, and we were able to uncover enough good evidence that the communique was genuine, that would be a different story. Also, if your offspring left your house and told many people that she did not want to go back there, then you could also expect me and my socialist friends to find her some other place to live even if you insisted she come back to your home. It would not be a replacement of your authority with our own, but rather the bestowment of autonomy and self-authority upon your offspring in question.