Re: The great irony for parental control advocates

"I am talking about within a modern, industrialized society, not a primitive hunter-gatherer society, but since you brought it up, I will go with this. Read on.

If a child moves into a "community of people who sympathized with their desire to leave the parents"... which one would it be? Another existing hunter-gatherer family? Well, what do they gain by supporting someone else´s child?

They may gain an extra hand in hunting and gathering, as strength in numbers is important in such primitive societies. But a hunter-gatherer society is not relevant to our present situation. The situation is very different with a society that has not gained a measure of control over nature and one that has."

Erm, hunter-gatherer society is highly relevant because it is a known stateless society.

Technically, farming and herding are also a measure of control over nature. Stateless farmers and stateless herders also exist. But there is no known industrialized stateless society.

"In more primitive societies, children are generally not forced into dependence on their parents for nearly as long as they are in our post-industrial society, and are raised to become independent as quickly as possible, and to participate in the running of the tribal unit as soon as they are reasonably able to do so. So children often had more options in such societies than they do today, where their dependence is artifically extended many years beyond what it would naturally be, and where kids under a certain arbitrary age are denied any participation in the running of society. "

False dichotomy.

Servants, apprentices and slaves participate in the running of the tribe/village in a certain sense, yet they are also very clearly dependent.