I am certain that the way forward is in de-legitimizing authoritarian, violently coercive, human institutions and empowering voluntary negotiated solutions to problems which respect the humanity of the people involved to the utmost.

I might humbly suggest that the way to delegitimize harmful institutions is to build better ones. I mean, if community-based schools based on equality and discovery are a good option (and I certainly think they are), why not fuckin’ build one? Even the state won’t stand in your way. Oh, sure, it’ll impose some requirements that seem stupid, but they’ll also provide roads, fire departments, and cheap shit made by brown slave labor, so it’s not all bad.

You can’t trust the state to do this work, but you also can’t sit around waiting for the Revolution To Come and sweep It all away. It doesn’t work like that.

At least in Canada, the state has coercive rules about education. Children between the ages of 5 and 16 must be enrolled in and attend a school that is recognized as such by the province in which those children live. Alternatively, they can be homeschooled, if the parents write a letter to the local school board notifying the board of their intention to homeschool their children. That policy is relatively recent, though—it came into effect in 2002, and prior to that, homeschooling families could be inspected by representatives of the school board for evidence of satisfactory compliance with educational standards.

One of the educational standards of the Ontario school system is that children be taught either English or French. They may receive additional instruction in any language—Ojibway, Cree, Ukranian, Klingon, Japanese, whatever—but they need to receive a certain level of instruction in the official languages of the country in which they reside.

A number of very conservative Mennonite families found this overly restrictive. Seems they wanted to be sure that their female children spoke Pennsylvania Dutch almost exclusively, and had only a smattering of English or any other actual language of commerce. So they moved to Mexico while all their kids were school-aged, returning to Canada when the kids were too old to be affected by Ontario’s repressive laws.

Of course, in both Canada and Mexico, the Mennonite families lived in Mennonite communities where their values are respected and traditions upheld—where nobody sees it as at all problematic if the daughters are unable to call 911 in case of an emergency, or seek legal or social assistance, or run their own businesses outside their communities. The community takes care of its own, don’t you know.

There was a family came to help with the tomato harvest: Dad, one teenaged son, two teenaged daughters. The son spoke some Spanish and some English, the dad spoke both reasonably fluently. The daughters couldn’t function in English or Spanish (we mostly spoke Spanish in the greenhouses, because most of the migrant workers were from Mexico—that’s a whole ‘nother story), so their dad had to translate all of their instructions into Pennsylvania Dutch. He asked me to teach the family some English, but they didn’t want to take classes with the Mexicans whom I taught in the evenings [eyeroll]. So we did a lunchtime class for the Mennonites, but I stipulated that I was not going to exclude any of their co-workers who wanted additional English practice.

I spoke with the daughters, using a combination of their minimal English and my abysmal German. One liked making dresses. The other wanted to get married so that she wouldn’t have to do farm labour anymore. They had never read any books that were not Bible stories. They could not conceive of doing anything other than getting married and having kids as soon as possible. They had no opinions of what kind of person they wanted to marry. As far as I could tell, and I realise that the language barrier and the fact that I was a complete stranger to them meant that I really have no hope of knowing what they really thought or felt, these young women had learned that there was no possibility of any other future beyond marriage. And they were going to be as dependent on their husbands as they were on their father.

So, you know, I’m not real big on the idea that a community will step in to ensure that children have access to choice and information. I’m not convinced that these girls would have been worse served by the coercive public education system, which would have coerced them into learning at least one language that is spoken outside their communities, and enough math to handle their own finances, and some tools for functioning outside their communities, if in the fullness of time they should find themselves wanting to choose a different future from that permitted by their communities. Because right now, they don’t have access to that choice. Nobody was going to let them negotiate their own educational choices. The scope for negotiation didn’t exist for these girls.

I’m not convinced that the power dynamics of the public education system would have been any more overwhelmingly stacked against these girls’ parents than their parents and communities are stacked against them. At least at primary school, they’d have learned how to dial 911.

Yet, in the absence of a state, aren’t you making children the property of their parents? Because most children (and many in abusive or neglectful situations) clearly don’t have the ability (or even just the sense of entitlement) to just walk away from their parents, right? Your model seems to say, “I refuse to interfere with parents,” but its result is “children have no rights not granted them by their parents.”

Children will always be the people most likely to be exploited in a society due to the power disparity inherent in all their relationships. Between the ages of say, 6, and 18, however, children have agency and the ability to express preferences. In the absence of a state, these preferences *might* at least find expression. In the presence of the state–at least the current and all historical states–one adult, usually a parent, is given “guardianship” of the child. If the child seeks asylum elsewhere, s/he is returned to the parent. If s/he begs and pleads for alternative living arrangements, s/he is returned to the parent. If the parent does anything other than openly torture the child, s/he is the de facto owner of the child.

Because nobody is ever going to be there to help a kid who’s in a bad spot.

Everybody, especially outside the immediate family, is legally powerless to do so, unless they want to follow the road to build a case to spring the child into the state foster care system. This is a) difficult and b) of questionable benefit since the state foster care system is fraught with rape and abuse as well. (BTW, I am not going to sit in judgment on somebody who uses the state to remove a child from a dangerous situation. Currently, it’s the only available course of action.)

I understand that there are (very very rarely) exceptions: grandparents can, sometimes, exercise some legal authority under very special circumstances.

You may answer with the mythical catch-all of “community,” but
1) can you show me evidence of any model that works or has worked like this?

Damn, you caught on to my catch all solution! No I can’t show you a model that works. To my knowledge no model has ever worked at all–at least not sustainably. My position is that this will always be the case so long as we accept that violence of the powerful over the weak, and not negotiation among equals, is the method by which challenging social problems should be solved.

2) who’s to say that many communities won’t simply adopt a belief different from yours, that parents do own their children and can do whatever they like? certainly much of human history has recorded people believing and acting this way.

You say “much.” What part of human history is excepted from this thinking? Why shouldn’t people believe and act this way when we’ve legitimized and enshrined the principle of “might makes right,” in all of our human institutions?

3) if a community pressures a parent to “be better” or somehow to give the child independence or to another family, and that abusive parent refuses, what is the community to do? how does it help that child? — PA Marc

[and, back on the topic of education]

But those aren’t free, and neither is physically getting to them free, as the facilities provided by public schools and the transportation to them are. Which brings us back to square one–if your parents won’t provide it, and there’s no public school system, the kid simply has no way to learn it. — Lisa KS

These are excellent questions and the short answer is that I don’t know how these situations can be best addressed.

How to go about addressing a particular situation in a non-absolutist, non-violent manner requires context which only people in situ have. Who are the families of the abused child and the one who wants to study chemistry? Who are their friends? Who are the parents peers, coworkers, pastors, and friends? Where do they work? Where do they shop and recreate? Who are the respected members of the community where they live? What educational institutions exist around them and do they have an interest in healthy, educated children? What businesspeople exist that may want to foster a climate of peaceful commerce and learning?

Can we imagine that all of these people might be able to come up with some way to address these issues as equals of the people causing and finding themselves victims?

I’m not a utopianist, I am very realistic, IMO, about human nature–which is why I oppose the institutionalizing and worship of overwhelmingly assymetrical power dynamics. I am certain children will suffer in a stateless society, and I don’t have answers to every question (this is not a dispersion on yous guys’ few and relevant questions). I am certain that the way forward is in de-legitimizing authoritarian, violently coercive, human institutions and empowering voluntary negotiated solutions to problems which respect the humanity of the people involved to the utmost.

I agree that any law made by any governing body does, at its end, use violence for coercion. That is the final end result of a continued refusal to obey any law. Backing up to educational resources outside of schools, you say:

“For those students interested in chemistry or other lab-based sciences, resources and avenues of satisfying their curiosity can be found. Many homeschooled students, for example, attend community college courses in their later (13-18) education.”

But those aren’t free, and neither is physically getting to them free, as the facilities provided by public schools and the transportation to them are. Which brings us back to square one–if your parents won’t provide it, and there’s no public school system, the kid simply has no way to learn it.

You say:

I entirely agree that people do not have a “right” to their children. Unfortunately the state (and their legions of guys with guns) enforce laws that make children, in essence, property of the parents.

Yet, in the absence of a state, aren’t you making children the property of their parents? Because most children (and many in abusive or neglectful situations) clearly don’t have the ability (or even just the sense of entitlement) to just walk away from their parents, right? Your model seems to say, “I refuse to interfere with parents,” but its result is “children have no rights not granted them by their parents.” Because nobody is ever going to be there to help a kid who’s in a bad spot.

You may answer with the mythical catch-all of “community,” but
1) can you show me evidence of any model that works or has worked like this?
2) who’s to say that many communities won’t simply adopt a belief different from yours, that parents do own their children and can do whatever they like? certainly much of human history has recorded people believing and acting this way.
3) if a community pressures a parent to “be better” or somehow to give the child independence or to another family, and that abusive parent refuses, what is the community to do? how does it help that child?

Community accountability processes provide models for communities coercing individuals into participating, being accountable, and honouring the community’s wishes, without any threat of violence. — Violet

If I could be in more than 100% agreement, I would be. I would hesitate to call such processes “government,” but that’s a minor semantic point. If we agree on that as a possible definition of government, then I retract my claim that all government requires violence (and my opposition to being governed by all possible models

Antigone,
I understand that social workers are not gunmen and that they are often rescuing children from terrible circumstances–I believe them to be motivated by the very best instinct humans possess: protection of the innocent.

If you do not obey the demands of the social worker, however, it is a fact that a legion of heavily armed men (and women) will be dispatched to your residence. I’m not even claiming this is wrong (not in this line of discussion anyway), but it is the initiation of violence–that’s undeniable.

I entirely agree that people do not have a “right” to their children. Unfortunately the state (and their legions of guys with guns) enforce laws that make children, in essence, property of the parents.

You don’t have a “right” to people, not even your children. You have responsibilities towards your children. If you don’t meet those responsibilities, the child is taken to someone who will.

I’m speaking of this assuming you’re not taking the kids away for racist reasons.

About 60% of children in the foster care system are children of color (as of about ten years ago; I’m not sure about more recent statistics). Do we need an official program for it to qualify as racism?

But the position that governments could exert any control at all without the threat of, not just violence, but massive, overwhelming, disproportionate violence is unsustainable. At least, I’ve not heard a valid argument to that end–I am interested in hearing your reasoning.

Community accountability processes provide models for communities coercing individuals into participating, being accountable, and honouring the community’s wishes, without any threat of violence.

There’s still the question: what do you do if the abusers just don’t care, refuse to participate, and maybe leave? I don’t think that problem is fatal, if it happens infrequently enough and restorative justice still produces better results overall, but it’s definitely a point that requires work.

You may hold the position that violence is necessary because you want to force people to do things you think are good. But the position that governments could exert any control at all without the threat of, not just violence, but massive, overwhelming, disproportionate violence is unsustainable. At least, I’ve not heard a valid argument to that end–I am interested in hearing your reasoning.

And the difference in reasoning for the kidnapping (in your response to Vi) has no bearing on whether or not it’s violent–the same is true for any violation of a person.