John Singleton with Bob HowardRip Van Australia (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1977), pp. 283-86, under the heading “Young, The”.

It is a peculiar fact that many people who hate totalitarianism, fascism or dictatorships in the political world, seem to believe in them in their own homes. The relationships of parent to child, teacher to child and State to citizen have many similarities in our modern world. It is probably relevant to ask whether it is possible to alter the State-citizen relationships unless we first alter the parent-child, teacher-child relationships? All three are quite authoritarian, and take little (if any) notice of the rights of the various people involved. In particular, the rights of children are flagrantly violated in all three.

Children do have rights. They are, after all, human beings, and as such have precisely the same rights as all other humans. They are not “property”. They are people, and if they are treated as such — if their rights were recognised and respected — we would live in a far saner, healthier and happier world.

In the current situation, children are victims of the democratic numbers game. Arbitrary figures are plucked from the air for such things as school leaving age, minimum wages, voting age, and the age for legal responsibility. The fact that these ages only fit some people — hopefully a majority — and by no means all people, is the usual result of the misuse of democratic power. It is obvious that some people would be far better off out of schools much earlier than the minimum age permits, that many people would work if the wage levels could be lowered to a point where it is economically viable to hire them, that many people can’t cast an intelligent vote when they are over the eligible age, while others could, but aren’t allowed to because they are below the eligible age.

These examples all illustrate the inevitable results of trying to substitute the democratic numbers game for the logical use of fundamental principles as the basis for making decisions. In this sense, democracy persecutes minorities.

What happens then, if we analyse the situation of children, using the principle of individual rights as our guideline? The first thing to recognise is that all people — children and adults — have equal rights (unless by their own actions, they forfeit these rights — see Crime). As has been mentioned before (see Freedom), a situation in which children have all the rights, and parents none, is one of licence, not freedom. Conversely, when adults have rights and children none, the relationship is authoritarian. The proper situation is one where both adults and children, being equally human, have equal rights.

The most important of these rights, in order to determine the rules of the parent-child relationship, is the right of property. As has also been stated before, the right to property is the right of control over and disposal of property, and, in particular, gives the owner the right to determine the rule of use of the property. So while parents do not “own” their children, they do own the house, furniture, food, money, and other things that the children need and use to survive. For their part, the children “own” their lives, and those things they have earned, have been given, or have otherwise morally acquired. The important implications of this is that parents have the right to set the house rules and conditions. If they choose to reject them, and the parents refuse to change them, the children have the right to leave home and seek alternative arrangements.

It is argued that children are not capable of making this type of decision, and so, for their own good, it has to be taken out of their hands. It can with equal validity be argued that many adults are incapable of making particular economic, social or political decisions, and so these have been taken out of their hands. It is true in both cases that certain individuals will prove incapable, as expected. But in neither case is this a valid justification for the imposition of any form of authoritarian control, no matter how benevolent its inspiration. Every Hitler in history has, no doubt, at some stage, used that excuse, and used it sincerely.

Both adults and children have equal rights to their freedom, but freedom for both carries with it both responsibility and risk. All around us we can see where well-intentioned efforts to reduce risk “in the public good” have resulted in corresponding reductions in both freedom and individual responsibility. In the short and the long term, this is not doing anyone any favours.

As in many other areas of human activity, for better or for worse, there are times when plain human judgment has to be used. Quite obviously, when this is done mistakes are made. But these mistakes will be fewer in number and far less damaging in consequence if they are guided by sound moral principles rather than some nebulous idea of “the greatest good for the greatest number”.

An infinite number of possible situations can be thrown up to demonstrate the problems that will arise if the right of children to leave home is recognised. Similarly, an infinite number can be found to demonstrate what happens when this right is denied. Such a course achieves nothing. The fact remains that, as humans, children have equal rights and, no matter what problems arise, we are morally bound to recognise them. It is our contention that by doing so we will also reduce the problems. Because most parents do not want their children to leave home as a result of unhappy circumstances, there is an incentive for them to settle on rational, fair and relevant rules, and to communicate effectively with their children. The entire parent-child relationship will, in order to survive, have to be based on mutual respect rather than domination and exploitation.

Parents have to exercise judgement based on their knowledge of the individual children. They need to care about the children’s safety, and institute whatever safeguards are necessary to protect their children, for example, safety fences or covers on pools, secure cabinets for poisons and medicines, care with dangerous tools, instruments and weapons, and so on. Obviously, the emphasis here should be on making the material objects safe, rather than on restraining the child. For example, make the pool inaccessible with fences, rather than rely on physically and verbally restraining the child. Parents also have a responsibility to educate their children, at least to the point where the children are able to care for themselves. Too many parents rush into having children without a proper appreciation of the responsibility involved, and this tendency is made worse by the entire cultural, social, political, economic and sexual environment in which we live.

There will always be those parents who do abuse their children. The fact that these children can leave home will give them one possible out. If this is not possible, then outside help will need to be administered in some way — just exactly what is done and how it is done will depend on the particular circumstances. But in our efforts to help these children, we should not (but unfortunately do) fall into the trap of coercing all parents and all children. Surely we would be better off concentrating on those that need help while leaving the others alone? But no, in order to protect those few children with irresponsible parents, our society, for example, coerces all children into schools, with horrible tragic results.

Wage legislation and child labour laws prevent many children from obtaining part or full-time work. This is particularly so for disadvantaged minority groups. (Studies in the U.S.A. have shown that such legislation and laws bear particularly heavily on, for example, black Americans.) In a free market, children have the right to bargain with employers for work — and if our personal experience with children is any guide, they’ll drive a hard and fair bargain. If children were free to find part of full-time work, they would be gaining a very valuable aspect of their general education, learning about responsibility, enhancing their own self-respect, and sense of general efficacy, and reducing the burden on their parents.

The psychological spin-offs from treating children as people rather than property would be enormous. Many people despair about young people today. We find it amazing that they survive as well as they do. They suffer a generally exploitative and authoritarian home environment, an authoritarian and deadening school system, economic and legal discrimination, a generally twisted sexual society, and social discrimination in a multitude of ways. They have no legal outs, no recognised rights, and very few opportunities. They are denied work, the vote and freedom. In the face of all that, we should be thankful that they are as sane and tolerant as they are. And we should move immediately to take the screws off them by abolishing laws enforcing compulsory schooling, captivity at home, and discrimination in the work place.

Then, and only then, we might begin to earn their respect.