MAP Forum

One of the reasons why people don't think youth rights and freedoms are important is that youth is not a permanent characteristic of a person. It does not feel as if depriving children or adolescents of freedoms is taking advantage of another group of people. After all, every adult was once a child, so this "freedomless" state is considered to be a necessary stage of life. (I don't know if the argument has been conciously made but it appears to be an uncouncious rationalization.)

Now imagine a 19th-century-like society where every individual spent 90% of their life as a proletarian and the latter 10% of their life as a bourgeois. Is this any less exploitative than a society where 90% of people are proletarians all their life and 10% of people are bourgeois all their life? I believe not.

The domination of a segment of the population because of their age (and in different ways this happens to the elderly too) is of the same character as the domination of one gender or race over another, a realisation that will take ages for "the left" to get at. The belief that young people cannot make decisions for themselves is almost as patronising as the belief that women can't make decisions without their husbands. With the exception, of course, that there is a grain of truth, in that for example infants or toddlers cannot take care of themselves; or that one tends to take better decisions as one learns more about the world (people tend to learn with age more than they forget).

The idea of a "soul" that connects your life as a child with your life as an adult has been surpassed by the idea of "development". Your life as a child is only seen as a prologue of what you become as an adult, not as valuable by itself. Although it is true that people develop over time and childhood strongly influences adulthood, an adult is no more a "complete" human than a child. The most direct connection an adult has with the child they were is simply the memories, not a soul or a deterministic outcome.

As I wrote elsewhere, I think the current state of youth rights, solely focused on protection as opposed to freedoms, has to do with the types of jobs that are required in modern times. Many jobs are highly specialised and require people to be forced into the school system. Youth being free, especially economically, is incompatible with the system to the extent that jobs require qualifications that necessitate young people being forced to study. (This idea is at best a functional explanation and thus incomplete.)

In this world where preparing an individual for work takes so much time, you must live a long enough life or else it's not considered "fulfilled". Let me give another example of how we are being indoctrinated into this "protection" ideology at the expense of our freedoms. One of the most infuriating ideas that are being fed to us, whose sole purpose is to supress radical expression and promote individualism, but which people—especially young people—are buying without realising there even is an alternative, is that "your life is important", so live a healthy lifestyle, reach all the milestones, and don't put yourself at risk, even if it's for your freedoms. In reality, if your life is centered on working for an oppresive system, what is important about it? I don't say this in a sucidal way, but in a freeing way, memento-moris kind of way. Simone Weil's life or Schubert's life are no worse than Plato's or Cioran's, just because they died younger. This is just another way that people can deviate from the norm and that is considered "lesser" nowadays, a "failure".

Of course, the undergoing global reshaping, AI boom and climate crisis will change youth's position in ways no one can predict.

With this post I mostly wanted to focus on this idea that the connection of an adult to children because "I once was a child" is mostly ilusory and just a way to rationalise depriving them of freedoms.

Learning to undeny wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 6:00 pm [...] Now imagine a 19th-century-like society where every individual spent 90% of their life as a proletarian and the latter 10% of their life as a bourgeois. Is this any less exploitative than a society where 90% of people are proletarians all their life and 10% of people are bourgeois all their life? [...]

This is a very interesting analogy.

Learning to undeny wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 6:00 pm [...] In this world where preparing an individual for work takes so much time, you must live a long enough life or else it's not considered "fulfilled". [...]

Another good point. Massive shifts in the society and economy make it even harder to hit adult milestones that were traditionally hit much younger. For instance, in order to get a middle class job these days (or just one that pays a living wage), often an advanced degree is required, and other barriers delaying that 'full adult' social status. And whilst adults who are still in career training, or still living with parents, may be looked down on by generations who had things easier... Do we deny the legal autonomy of those young adults who must navigate a more labyrinthine system? Do we say they are incapable of understanding love, because the social system disparages them?

OnionPetal wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 6:16 pm And whilst adults who are still in career training, or still living with parents, may be looked down on by generations who had things easier... Do we deny the legal autonomy of those young adults who must navigate a more labyrinthine system? Do we say they are incapable of understanding love, because the social system disparages them?

We don't deny their autonomy legally, but we still infantilise young adults, and the difficulty of entering the job market these days is one of the underlying reasons why we do so, in my opinion. (Sorry, that link actually isn't about "young" adults.)

I agree with the argument and I would like to add two possible points for reflection.

Beyond specialized work, we are also dealing with jobs that are often sedentary. This might just be my impression, but the idea of having a child who in the future will work as a software developer, as opposed to working on a construction site, may lead one to think that physical exercise and the freedom of movement that comes with it are less necessary, and that it is therefore less necessary for the child to develop certain interests.

In the end, this is not very different from gender-related issues between males and females, where parents, at least in part, tend to encourage interests that are more consistent with the images they have of their children as adults. So it is not so much about being forced to study the subject (especially since real studying happens at university; before that it’s… I don’t know, I’m quite skeptical about the rest of the educational path, given that individuals more or less develop independently of their results. I’m not sure if I’m managing to explain what I mean).

On top of this, there is this kind of alarmism according to which children are made of glass, and any scratch will inevitably lead to cracks in adulthood. This is also a consequence of the habit of identifying childhood trauma as the cause of all individual problems, when in reality this is more of a method used to deal with problems (to rationalize them, to give oneself an explanation, and so on) rather than an actual fact.

That said, I still find it strange how individualism is criticized (and it is indeed “dominant,” or at least so in the Western imagination), when it is precisely because of my individualism that I want to consider young people as individuals. In other words, for me it is consistent with an individualistic view to grant freedom and rights to young people.

Not Forever wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 6:32 pm I agree with the argument and I would like to add two possible points for reflection.

Beyond specialized work, we are also dealing with jobs that are often sedentary. This might just be my impression, but the idea of having a child who in the future will work as a software developer, as opposed to working on a construction site, may lead one to think that physical exercise and the freedom of movement that comes with it are less necessary, and that it is therefore less necessary for the child to develop certain interests.

Right. The type of work also plays a role; it's not just specialization.

In the end, this is not very different from gender-related issues between males and females, where parents, at least in part, tend to encourage interests that are more consistent with the images they have of their children as adults. So it is not so much about being forced to study the subject (especially since real studying happens at university; before that it’s… I don’t know, I’m quite skeptical about the rest of the educational path, given that individuals more or less develop independently of their results. I’m not sure if I’m managing to explain what I mean).

I think I understand. But if the occupation of teens as a group was not school, then the university would lose most of the young students.

On top of this, there is this kind of alarmism according to which children are made of glass, and any scratch will inevitably lead to cracks in adulthood. This is also a consequence of the habit of identifying childhood trauma as the cause of all individual problems, when in reality this is more of a method used to deal with problems (to rationalize them, to give oneself an explanation, and so on) rather than an actual fact.

True, but I think this is just the ideological "mechanism" that justifies the protection of youth against their freedom. Not the underlying reason, if that makes sense.

That said, I still find it strange how individualism is criticized (and it is indeed “dominant,” or at least so in the Western imagination), when it is precisely because of my individualism that I want to consider young people as individuals. In other words, for me it is consistent with an individualistic view to grant freedom and rights to young people.

Freedom for youth is consistent with individualism, and I'm not really opposed to individualism (it depends on what sense); I should have said egoism. When people are expected to put their own interests and safety within this society before radical ideals that change society—and any expectation of how you should live your life would probably be against individualism, would you agree?—this form of egoism only promotes the status quo.

What do you think about education versus marriage? Do you think forcing a child to learn to read is undermining their freedom, or making them ultimately more free? Do you think think a minor who marries, is freer that a minor forced to learn to read?

PorcelainLark wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 9:37 pm What do you think about education versus marriage? Do you think forcing a child to learn to read is undermining their freedom, or making them ultimately more free? Do you think think a minor who marries, is freer that a minor forced to learn to read?

A child being forced to learn to read is a compromise: they are less free in the present but that will make them freer in the future. I am not saying their development does not matter, but that children are more than future humans. Reading is essential for most people, but you don't need to spend 15 years pretending to pay attention at school in order to learn to read and a couple of other essential things.

And certainly, a minor who marries is not freer in my opinion. Replacing education by a marriage (an institution which can be more oppressive) does not increase freedom. The goal of youth liberation should not be to expand the concept of marriage. (The same criticism is sometimes done to the gay movement, even though gay marriage improved the lives of many gay people).

I personally think that the goal is that the youth gain independence from both their family and the school system. Raising children and education would come from a wider community. Note that teachers nowadays have to follow the requirements of the state (or their employer in the case of private education), instead of focusing on the individuality of children. However, changing that would require reshaping society as a whole, and I don't pretend that this is achievable medium-term.

I intended to make a descriptive post rather than a prescriptive one. I think the balance is too much on protection these days, but perhaps the balance was too much on freedom and too little on protections / development in the past, I don't make a judgement here.

Learning to undeny wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 11:00 pm A child being forced to learn to read is a compromise: they are less free in the present but that will make them freer in the future. I am not saying their development does not matter, but that children are more than future humans. Reading is essential for most people, but you don't need to spend 15 years pretending to pay attention at school in order to learn to read and a couple of other essential things.

And certainly, a minor who marries is not freer in my opinion. Replacing education by a marriage (an institution which can be more oppressive) does not increase freedom. The goal of youth liberation should not be to expand the concept of marriage. (The same criticism is sometimes done to the gay movement, even though gay marriage improved the lives of many gay people).

I agree, but I find it hard to explain why forcing a child to learn to read is more liberating than letting them marry. Intuitively it makes sense, you're expanding their powers and choices by teaching literacy, and early marriage can lead to domination. Yet, I can also see that on the face of it, compulsory education can appear less liberatory than the right to marry.

I would argue that a significant portion of westerners, especially in the US and other deeply capitalist countries, believe (falsely) that they will one day be part of the capital-owning class, the 'temporarily-embarrassed millionaire' mindset if you will. I largely agree, although I think individualism is a good thing in general, it acknowledges the different needs of vastly diverse peoples and in recognizing our differences our alliances become more realistically bound and activism less focused on unnecessary sacrifices and more on strategy.

As a side note to the conversation on education and marriage, I don't think these things have to be either/or. A lot of people don't want to marry or want to wait for a while anyways, and plenty of people have gotten married while still going through the educational system, even if they have later plans of starting a family. In college it used to be relatively common for married couples to room together even. I would also argue that aside from certifications before starting potentially dangerous occupations (to one's self or others, like medicine), learning could be made way better by abolishing all the extrinsic incentives and grades that kill intrinsic motivation and make people chase after A's over deep understanding. That's not to say there shouldn't be a way of measuring how much a student knows at any level, but that it shouldn't be a limit on their future except in those circumstances I mentioned above.

The day marriage does not mean economic dependence, when all the parties can easily end it at any time and find housing and means of subsistence, when abuse inside the marriage is not normalised, is the day when I will not mind if it expands to include children. It is moving in this direction, but not quite there yet. But a freer marriage is possible for sure: at the risk of romanticising something I'm not quite acquainted with, the Haudenosaunee seemed to have freer marriage (and, incidentally, freer youth and a saner perspective of the environment; I would love to know their views on pedophilia, although it appears it "wasn't a thing").*

Putting yourself in one of the constrained types of relations that are allowed is partial freedom, although sometimes it is preferrable, of course. But why allow child marriage and not, for instance, group marriage? The latter seems to me like it has more liberatory potential and challenges social norms to a larger extent.

I don't know if children have to be forced to learn to read, but whoever is able to learn, almost always agrees that it was the right decision. Marriage is much more likely to be regretted, I feel. I put neither the freedom at the moment nor that "retroactive consent" on a pedestal, but the latter is at least an important practical indicator of the best decision.

If most of us agree that the school system was best for us, it's because we didn't really have an alternative. But at least reading is a skill that most of us want to have. (At the same time, however, it is important to keep in mind that the justification is not that reading is necessary in order to live adult life. That would be ableist.)

* Braiding sweetgrass (a book whose style I confess I did not enjoy) opened my eyes to what we can learn from some native American peoples (the author is Potawatomi, not Haudenosaunee), but it is sad because we are living in a different world, and so much has been lost and there is no way to translate it to the current situation...