And, as I see it as a youth libber, therein lies the problem.

I do agree it is a problem. One reason I will homeschool is because I am a youth rights supporter.

And I think I speak for a significant portion of the community when I tell you how appreciative we are that you're willing to listen to and consider opinions and burgeoning political platforms that are not in harmony with the mainstream, Jack. You're certainly living proof that the youth liberation platform is not inherently adversarial to the institution of parenthood in and of itself, as many of the program's detractors--both outside and within the MAP community--have often contended. It's always been the expressed hope of youth libbers that in a future youth liberated society, parents will continue to play a major influence in the lives of their children in regards to providing love, care, and guidance.

I think the evidence suggests that the majority of parents today (certainly not including you) are either unwilling or emotionally incapable of such objectivity. As noted, many of them are influenced by their personal moralistic belief systems--including but not limited to the prevalence of conservative religions with a strong anti-sex component, particularly in America--or simply firmly believe that control is more important than objective safety.

I'd expect most parents to stick with the status quo, however a good portion would not and I am always in favor of removing power from the government. Mandatory reporting laws and the fact that even if I accept it as a parent, my daughter accepts it and her adult lover accepts it our opinions are still all overridden and it is bullshit. Remember I am not advocating this as an end all be all let's wash our hands and call it a day solution. Just a step.

I agree with the essence of what you say here, Jack. Part of the problem, to which you're a welcome exception at this point in time, is that the portion of parents who would not stick blindly with the status quo choose to remain silent at this time. This is understandable given the fear and concern over having their children forcibly removed from their home by government agencies, and this attitude by the government to consider all open-mindedness in this area from any caregiver to be considered "abuse" is certainly a problem that needs to be confronted and addressed.

This is why I think Epstein's proposal is a better compromise with society, and promises more objectivity without sending the message that children are the de facto property of their parents, which is inimical to the youth liberationist platform. Also, the Epstein-Dumas test does a good job, IMO, of directly addressing the concerns that society has about kids who may not have the merits to achieve emancipation at this time.

I do think it would be a better compromise for our side, the youth liberation side, I just think it would be harder to get society to accept. It's not that I am saying it's a bad idea when compared to the status quo, I just happen to be of the opinion that it is easier to implement my guardian approval idea. Still you have brought my attention to Epstein and I really like what I have been reading! Thanks for that.

You're quite welcome, Jack, and I again thank you for showing an interest in seeking out the available literature on youth lib and giving it a serious reading and consideration. What I'm hoping, based on your stance and concerns, is that a compromise within a compromise, if that makes sense, can be achieved: that both guardian approval and the Epstein-Dumas Test can be implemented and endorsed simultaneously. The former would work well for children who have parents whom are open-minded and good critical thinkers like yourself, while the latter could be an option for the children who, unfortunately, do not... and have to deal with parents who are virulently racist, emotionally abusive, unusually controlling, extreme religious fundamentalists, etc. Perhaps in this way, the portion of parents out there like yourself can be reached and encouraged to break their silence.

Additionally, the many parents out there who are likely "on the fence" about this issue could receive the stimuli they need to begin seriously looking into the literature and considering alternatives they are not often seeking out or exposed to at this time. Some within this portion of parents may be concerned that they are alone in thinking as critically as they do, and the greater visibility and voice of parents who are not in tune with blindly following the status quo may come as a very pleasant surprise for them, and thus spur them into breaking their silence.

The constant battle between parents and government agencies regarding which of the two "should" have more control.

I do like Murray Rothbard's idea. Of course given the man's views government wouldn't exist, thus power lies with the guardians, yet the child, when they can express the ability and desire to be their own being, can leave to live on their own or seek out another more respectful guardian at any age. If the youth decides to be on their own a test, like the one you describe, would be a good idea for letting people know the child has the ability to be on their own.

Agreed. And I thank you for mentioning Rothbard's work, as I will certainly be seeking out more of it!

I believe that in the future more and more parents will achieve the level of thought that you have and support youth liberation in large numbers, and if that happens before any equivalent of the Epstein-Dumas Test is established, then I would certainly shift my support to guardian approval.

So do you think that society will come to accept the Epstein-Dumas Test before accepting the idea of guardian approval? Or do you just have an issue with guardian approval because of our adult centric (in regards to power and freedom) society that disenfranchises youth severely and would rather see the test come first? I can definitely respect either position.

Most definitely, my concerns lie with the latter out of principle. Nevertheless, as noted above, I'm certainly not against supporting a combination of guardian approval and the Epstein-Dumas Test. This would allow kids who have open-minded parents to circumvent government interference with giving their approval if such interference was done solely on the basis of arbitrary factors that had nothing to do with the child's lack of merit, while at the same time allowing kids the option to take the Epstein-Dumas Test to prove if they have the merits to make their own decisions should it become necessary due to any circumstances, e.g., parents who refuse to give approval totally on the grounds of their personal religious beliefs or due to extreme ageist attitudes, government agencies insisting open-minded parents are "wrong," etc.

On the other hand, it would allow parents who have sincere, objective concerns that their children--particularly in the case of younger children--are not able to make competent decisions, the test could be used to prove that the parents are, in fact, correct and acting in the best interests of the child... much as the courts will occasionally act to declare an adult incompetent to make certain decisions based on reasonable, objective factors like extreme mental illness, alcoholism, etc.