Argh. I hate this.

[Guest]

Of course, fathers can stay with the mom and child at their pleasure and contribute voluntarily. Forcing them to causes many negative consequences.

I like that idea under one condition: a man who fathers a child and doesn't want to have anything to do with it should be neutered  to prevent him from putting any future burdens on society.

"Society" should not be burdened by anything. That (collectivism) is the disgrace. It would be solely the mother's job to raise the child. If she could persuade others to help voluntarily, great!

[Stand_watie]

"Society" should not be burdened by anything. That (collectivism) is the disgrace. It would be solely the mother's job to raise the child. If she could persuade others to help voluntarily, great!

That would pretty well describe the family situation of matriarchal africa and american welfare projects. How do you think those are working out? Great!

[mr.v.]

As an almost 15 year old kid, I love having my constitutional rights taken away from me.

where does the constituion give kids any rights?
Even as the founding fathers drafted the constitution they were beating their children with tree-switches...Sometimes they left independence hall just to give a stiff boot to their childrens' butts as they were granting felons freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Just be glad children have an amazing amount of rights this day and age. If this were ancient greece (a "democratic" society) you would have been legally molested by 30-40 guys when you turned 10...but maybe one of them would have bought you Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as a symbolic "reach around".

[jefnvk]

If this were ancient greece (a "democratic" society) you would have been legally molested by 30-40 guys when you turned 10...but maybe one of them would have bought you Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as a symbolic "reach around".

Huh?

[Guest]

"Society" should not be burdened by anything. That (collectivism) is the disgrace. It would be solely the mother's job to raise the child. If she could persuade others to help voluntarily, great!

That would pretty well describe the family situation of matriarchal africa and american welfare projects. How do you think those are working out? Great!

Why are you ignoring that I said that I advocate no welfare (where strangers are forced by the state to pay for other peoples' needs)? American projects are state subsidized.

[Stand_watie]

...Why are you ignoring that I said that I advocate no welfare (where strangers are forced by the state to pay for other peoples' needs)? American projects are state subsidized.

It's nice that we wouldn't have to subsisidize welfare, but that hardly alleviates the problem of kids not having fathers.

[Guest]

...Why are you ignoring that I said that I advocate no welfare (where strangers are forced by the state to pay for other peoples' needs)? American projects are state subsidized.

It's nice that we wouldn't have to subsisidize welfare, but that hardly alleviates the problem of kids not having fathers.

Not every "problem" can be solved by laws.

[Stand_watie]

Not every "problem" can be solved by laws.

Indeed. In this case you've proposed we change a status quo of thousands of years with (I presume) a law taking away a father's rights and responsibilities to his children.

[Guest]

Not every "problem" can be solved by laws.

Indeed. In this case you've proposed we change a status quo of thousands of years with (I presume) a law taking away a father's rights and responsibilities to his children.

No, with the repeal of laws forcing fathers to act in certain ways. Different cultures already experiment with childrearing duties. The US's method isn't really working out all that well, anyhow: witness 50% divorce rate, questions on punishing child criminals, SS#s required on driver's licenses to track "deadbeat dads", constant abortion debates (with bombings), murders over custody disagreements, paternity suits, talk about getting everyone's DNA, restraining orders, etc.

 I am an anarchist so all I'm saying is that it is worth a try to consider children the property of the women that gave birth to them as the best way of dealing with children and their legal implications. These would include crime/punishment, support, abortion and divorce/custody. Up until a certain age or level of development the mother is responsible for the actions of the child. After that, the child is responsible.

[jefnvk]

So why not make the father the sole parent with responsibilities?

[Guest]

So why not make the father the sole parent with responsibilities?

Because there is never any disagreement about who the mother is?

 The mother could sell/give her property to others, of course, including the father.

[Stand_watie]

Not every "problem" can be solved by laws.

Indeed. In this case you've proposed we change a status quo of thousands of years with (I presume) a law taking away a father's rights and responsibilities to his children.

No, with the repeal of laws forcing fathers to act in certain ways. Different cultures already experiment with childrearing duties. The US's method isn't really working out all that well, anyhow: witness 50% divorce rate, questions on punishing child criminals, SS#s required on driver's licenses to track "deadbeat dads", constant abortion debates (with bombings), murders over custody disagreements, paternity suits, talk about getting everyone's DNA, restraining orders, etc.

 I am an anarchist so all I'm saying is that it is worth a try to consider children the property of the women that gave birth to them as the best way of dealing with children and their legal implications. These would include crime/punishment, support, abortion and divorce/custody. Up until a certain age or level of development the mother is responsible for the actions of the child. After that, the child is responsible.

Could you provide me with any examples of societies that have fewer rights and responsibilities of fathers regarding their children that you believe do it better?

[Guest]

Indeed. In this case you've proposed we change a status quo of thousands of years with (I presume) a law taking away a father's rights and responsibilities to his children.

No, with the repeal of laws forcing fathers to act in certain ways. Different cultures already experiment with childrearing duties. The US's method isn't really working out all that well, anyhow: witness 50% divorce rate, questions on punishing child criminals, SS#s required on driver's licenses to track "deadbeat dads", constant abortion debates (with bombings), murders over custody disagreements, paternity suits, talk about getting everyone's DNA, restraining orders, etc.

 I am an anarchist so all I'm saying is that it is worth a try to consider children the property of the women that gave birth to them as the best way of dealing with children and their legal implications. These would include crime/punishment, support, abortion and divorce/custody. Up until a certain age or level of development the mother is responsible for the actions of the child. After that, the child is responsible.

Could you provide me with any examples of societies that have fewer rights and responsibilities of fathers regarding their children that you believe do it better?

No. I am trying to think of possible solutions for the complaints mentioned by the person who started the thread. The solutions are based on the idea that a stateless society would have less institutionalized coercion and more individual liberty.

[brimic]

The solutions are based on the idea that a stateless society would have less institutionalized coercion and more individual liberty.

Only if the local warlord allows it.

[Guest]

The solutions are based on the idea that a stateless society would have less institutionalized coercion and more individual liberty.

Only if the local warlord allows it.

He has to sleep sometime.

[RevDisk]

Hey, you think it's bad at age 15, well, legally I'm an adult (18) but guess what? I can't drink, buy a handgun, etc. That's probably my biggest pet peeve. If you're going to define someone legally as an adult, give them all the rights and privileges of an adult.

Hey, when I was 18, the government gave me access to handguns, automatic weapons and tracked vehicles.  Yet, they said I wasn't trustworthy to drink or own handguns.   The same govt that gave me a belt fed 40mm freakin automatic grenade launcher claimed that I was not responsible enough to own a .22 plinking pistol or pick up a six pack after work.   Sigh

Uh...   Yep, makes perfect sense.

[mr.v.]

Hey, when I was 18, the government gave me access to handguns, automatic weapons and tracked vehicles.  Yet, they said I wasn't trustworthy to drink or own handguns.

Yeah...but they figure it's okay for a youngster to operate a 40mm grenade-launcher so long as someone with a gruff, authoritative voice is constantly informing he or she that this person is a "snot-nosed little maggot" whom he can "crap bigger th'n"