Raping Youth Power

How much can we take ?

I INTRODUCTION PART A
There is one oppressed group that has long been ignored. Normally,
rights are the rights to freedom; to do want you want to do without
interference from the government or other entities. However, with 
this group, many of their so-called “rights” are not the right to do 
what they wish, but instead to “protect” them. Protection has long 
been an excuse for tyranny. The group I am talking about is children,
or much more accurately, youth. They are however, oft called
“children”, which seems to be quite demeaning in the cases which the
people in question are not actually children.

II INTRODUCTION PART B
In this essay there are several issues I want to discuss. Firstly, 
people should not be discriminated based on age. This is as unjust as
discriminating based on race, sex, or similar. Many generalities can
be made based on age (which is also true of race and sex), but it
would be unjust to treat a youth differently simply based on their 
age. It may be true that most people of age seven are less intelligent 
than someone of age twenty-seven, but it would be an injustice to 
treat someone as dumb, when they are not, due to their age. Secondly,
I would like to make several points about parent-child relationship.
Thirdly, I will discuss forced education and other forms of slavery
that youth are required to endure. And finally, the right of youth to
engage in sexual activities will be discussed, a highly controversial
issue. I think the first issue has already been addressed enough, 
since it is such a simple issue, so I will go on to the second.

III THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
It is currently the case that parents have an enormous control over
people under the age of eighteen who are in their custody. Some
control is given to the State. But very little control is given to the
youths themselves. I do not think that the parent-child relationship
should be based on age whatsoever. Instead, I think it should be based
on dependency. Parents are required to fulfill the dependencies that
their offspring have on them since they are the ones who caused the
dependency in the first place. Or in the case of adoption, the person
agreed to a contract to take over the obligations that would otherwise
be required of the parents. It should be clarified, that by
dependencies, I primarily mean food and water. I am not certain
clothing should be required, since its necessity can be questioned.[4]
Medical care and proper protection from Nature is an obligation the
parents have, however. It could well be argued that in some instances
clothing is required for proper protection from Nature, however. Now,
it may seem that these simple requirements are a bit cold, but I
should note that these are only the base requirements, not necessarily
what the parent should do, only what the parents should be required to
do. I will reiterate that this should not at all be based on age.
Young children do tend to be unable to get food for themselves.
Because of this, the parents must fulfill the dependency. However, let
this not be based on age. It is possible the offspring of the parent
still is unable to feed itself by age twenty. The age is no
justification, however, for the parent not meeting this dependency.
The only way that the parent can relieve themselves of their
obligations is by transferring them to someone else, i.e., adoption.
Otherwise, they would have the obligations the rest of their life if
the offspring continues to require the dependencies be fulfilled by
someone besides themselves.

It should be noted that being given food is not a “right” of the
offspring, it is simply an obligation the parent is required to
fulfill because it is only a problem because of their actions (i.e.,
breeding).

A distinction should now be made between artificial and natural
dependencies. Parents have the obligations to fulfill both, but the
former should be eliminated. For example, in our current society (in
the USA), we have child labor laws. These laws make it difficult for
children to find jobs. Because of this, children rely on their parents
longer. This is an artificial longevity.

While the parents have these minimum obligations, they also have the
obligation to not take away their offspring’s freedom. For example,
if the offspring wants to watch violent movies, the parent shouldn’t 
be allowed to stop it. However, the parent is also not obligated to
obtain the movie. Perhaps, it could be acceptable for the parent to
require the offspring to go to its room, but regardless it should not
be barred from watching it. The rights of the offspring are more
important than the desire of the parents to control the offspring. The
offspring, like all people, has the right to freedom of speech and
self-ownership. Even if the violent movies were to harm the offspring,
it has the right to harm itself. It is questionable how harmful things
like movies with sexual or violent content are, anyways. And movies
with swear words are certainly not harmful.

Another important right that offspring should have is the right to
leave their parent or guardian. It may be a good idea to have
something like a Mutual Adoption Club (MAC) from Aldous Huxley’s
Island, in which several families agree to allow the people to stay
with them. So that, the offspring can leave at any time and go to
another family in the MAC. Although, it would be important to ensure
that the offspring could also choose to leave and not go to another
member of the MAC.

Once the offspring is no longer dependent on the parent, the parent is
free to kick it out. This could occur quite young. Although, even if
the offspring is not kicked out, it will likely choose to leave the
house closer to age eleven than eighteen, since puberty seem to be
around the point people want to leave their parents.

IV THE IGNORED FORMS OF SLAVERY PART A: HOUSE CHORES
Slavery is a problem of many groups, not just children (and not just
Negroes either), so child slavery as general topic will not be
discussed here. However, there are two forms of slavery that are
ignored and more relevant to youths rights — house chores and forced
education.

House chores have already been addressed to some extent, albeit
indirectly. As mentioned in Section III, I think the parent is
obligated to allow the offspring to have freedom. This includes the
freedom to not be enslaved. However, if the offspring is being forced
to do the chore, this presumably means it has the means to do it. In
which case, the parent is no longer required to do it for the
offspring. However, forcing the offspring to do these chores is still
impermissible. If the offspring does not want to get food for itself,
it has the right to make that decision. It will lead to the eventual
starvation of the offspring if no one else gives it food, though.

Forcing the offspring to, for example, clean its parents dishes, is
very impermissible. While the parent is not obligated to fulfill
dependencies the offspring can fulfill itself, which will presumably
lead to the offspring doing the work, or “chores”, itself, the
offspring certainly should not be required to do work for the parent.
That is slavery. Some might try to justify it because the parent makes
many “sacrifices” for the child. These are all “sacrifices” the parent
voluntarily made. And the parent made no contract stating that the
child would have to do things in return. And if by sacrifices, the
person simply means giving food et al. to the offspring, then that is 
an obligation the parent has. If the parents didn’t want to fulfill 
said obligations, they should have not breed. The offspring, however, 
can choose to do things for the parent if it wants, but these must be
voluntary.

V THE IGNORED FORMS OF SLAVERY PART B: FORCED EDUCATION
One of the most grave infringements on youths rights is them being
forced to work at so-called Public Schools. This forced labor is
euphemistically called “compulsory education”. Note that people rarely
will say “forced” or similar. People cannot choose to discontinue
their visits to these Schools unless they are eighteen years of age,
or are “educated” in some other government-approved manner. And of
course, being “educated” in some other manner is not the youths
choice, but one of their parents.

At these Schools the rights of youth are infringed upon on a regular
basis. They have their right to privacy, right to freedom of speech,
etc. infringed upon. Although, Free Speech is supposed to be a right
of students in the USA, this is not so in practice. Students have
to endure grave violations of their rights like unwarranted searches.
North Forest High School even requires students to wear transparent
backpacks after there was a school shooting.

Some of the particularly horrible infringements of youths rights in
Public School are criticized. People also frequently criticize
teaching science in Schools that is against their religion. But the
real problem is rarely criticized. Slavery is generally condemned, but
for some reason, in the form of forced education it is considered to
be fine. Perhaps, because Public School is allegedly to “help” these
people. The notion that Public School exists to “help” the youths that
attend it could very well be questioned, but regardless, it is not the
governments job to educate people. It is not the governments job to
require innocent people to be forced to labor.

People would be outraged if it was an “adult” who was being forced to 
go to school by the government. But I suppose most people do not care 
about what does not effect them. First they came… It is 
illogical to say one is fine, but the other is not.

It is true there are Private Schools, as well as an option to home
school. However, the decision to use one of these options is not the 
choice of the youth. Also, depending on the state, home schooling has
restrictive rules. The Private Schools also have to be
government-approved. While these options may be better, it is still a
gross infringement on the rights of the youth to be forced to be
educated at all. The States job is to protect the freedom of people.
Requiring someone to be “educated” is not freedom, just the opposite.
Yet people ridiculously say that “compulsory education” is a right! 
The “right” to be forced to do something! Quite absurd.

Of course, nothing I said would be controversial if it was said about
an “adult”. But the argument for forced education is that youths are
too dumb to make the right decision, and if we don’t force them 
to be “educated”, society will fall apart with a bunch of uneducated
buffoons running around. This is nothing but bourgeoisie lies. We
already have uneducated buffoons running around. And frankly, I
question how much forced education is doing that helps people be more
educated. While I admit that certain things early on might be learnt
in the Schools, I think it also likely true that Public School
conditions people to dislike education. When people think of
education, they think of being forced to do it. Idiots are unlikely to
care much about what they are taught in school, and will forget most
of it and just go on to work at some manual labor or other mindless
job. Intelligent people on the other hand, will be forced to waste
their times learning things they do not care about and will never use,
instead of learning the things they do want to learn. They will also
possibly be conditioned as noted earlier.

One could argue that basic education is something nobody wants to go
through, but I think this is bollocks. Learning English is something
that is done painlessly. And as for the rest of it, learning to read 
is all that is really required. This could easily be made fun if there 
is not enough motivation in the person already. Also, people could 
learn to read later on in life, it would just be more difficult.

I think it is clear society won’t simply fall apart. Perhaps one could
argue that society would still be worse, though. However, perhaps the
most important thing in a society is freedom. And forcing people to be
educated would be taking away freedom.

Even if society were to fall apart due to the radical policies I have
advocated for, I still think the policies carried out. If our society
depends on the lack of freedom for youths, then it is clearly not a
very good one.

VII CONCLUSION
Youths should be given the same rights as everyone else. They should
not be discriminated based on age. The parent-child relationship
should undergo a long-needed radical change in which the parents
obligations are based on physical needs, not age. And the offspring
should be allowed to leave at any time it wants to. Youths should not
be subject to domestic slavery, or forced education. They also have
the right to engage in sexual activities. Hopefully, I have convinced
the reader of all these things by writing this essay.