I was just rereading some Epstein today (dug up some of his "young people in action" highlights while talking with a young lad who has some sensible ideas about the world), and ran across a few examples of kids younger than 12 (presumably pre-pubescent) accomplishing some great stuff. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to grant kids rights where they've earned them, but I do maintain that it's a harder "sell" to the public.

Yes, it would be a harder "sell." And yes, pre-pubescents generally need more guidance. This is why we must proceed in steps. Kids under the age of 12 obviously have potential that is largely untapped in today's system, but was more evident in previous eras; it's unlikely that Leonard De Vinci would have achieved in today's world at such an early age what he did at age 7 in his own era, for example.

(I partly agree, but for reasons below, I think there are situations where partial granting of rights can put preteens into problematic and undesired conflict with their parents.)

Hey, how many people actually desire conflicts? (Don't answer that, please!). Anyhoo, that is something parents and the pre-teens in question are going to have to agree to work out between each other. Needless to say, I still think allowing individual kids to achieve what they can achieve, when they want to achieve them, is the better choice for a freedom-oriented society. Free societies do have many conflicts, and it's easy to balk at them overmuch until we take a close look at the alternative.

To some extent, I do accept this right to a type of ownership. It serves as a mechanism for the preservation of ideas, values, knowledge, and cultural practices that have been proven to be effective and useful in some way. Parents get the opportunity to pass on memes (real memes, not those silly internet ones ;-p) as well as genes to their offspring.

But sharing someone's DNA does not count as a biological stamp of ownership. No ideas, values, or cultural practices are inherently good or worthy of preservation, and the child should have the right as an autonomous individual to experience alternative ideas, cultures, and values than the ones supported by his/her 'rents. As for knowledge, that is great to pass on, but if only these two parents are allowed to decide what knowledge the child acquires, and at what pace or point in their lives, then this puts a huge bias on the quality or usefulness of that knowledge. Parents should be expected and even encouraged to teach their values to their kids, but there are other values out there that may possibly end up serving their kids better. Parents need to think of themselves as caregivers, not owners, and there is a huge difference between the two despite the apparent overlap of methodology at times.

This is, of course, a double-edged sword. One parent may teach their child to be accepting of diverse cultures and practices and to be a respectful steward of the environment, while another parent passes on racism, bigotry, and narrow superstitious beliefs (religion-related or otherwise).

Bingo. I am tempted to say "'Nuff said" to that, but Blackmyheart reminded me in an earlier debate today that "'Nuff said" is never enough.

In any case, accumulated knowledge and practice certainly accounts for some measure of the stability and progress experienced in society.

People do not have to own other people in order to pass on knowledge and practice, and society stagnates if only certain types of knowledge and practices are allowed to be passed on or utilized.

It also may actually account for diversity - if young children were more readily breaking from their parents' influence in some fashion, they'd be instead absorbing more of their values from an outside source, which would likely be the dominant culture. As an individual, I can retain my values for only about a human lifespan, and if I have no offspring, they vanish (unless I used some other form of meme transmission to pass them on).

Bingo again (you're winning big today, dude!). People shouldn't have offspring for the intended purpose of insuring that their ideas and values get carried on, and expect their kids--who are autonomous individuals--to harbor an obligation to adopt them and carry them on. This can only be done by choice; kids aren't brought into this world for the benefit of their parents. If someone wants to pass on their values, ideas, and memes, they need to consider becoming an author, musician, orBut by being able to pass on my values to my offspring, I can ensure that my values outlive me. And as a matter of equality, I can't deny the same right to other parents even if I don't agree with their values.But by being able to pass on my values to my offspring, I can ensure that my values outlive me. And as a matter of equality, I can't deny the same right to other parents even if I don't agree with their values. filmmaker rather than a parent to facilitate that purpose.

But by being able to pass on my values to my offspring, I can ensure that my values outlive me. And as a matter of equality, I can't deny the same right to other parents even if I don't agree with their values.

Here you are confusing a right for an expectation, and that is a form of power, not a right. Do I have some sort of right to expect any offspring I might have to adopt and carry on my values as a Wiccan? If they decide to exert their autonomy and choose not to, because they honestly feel Buddhism or atheism is more their speed as individuals, what then? It's not like I can send them back and replace them with more compliant children.

In fact I am quite sure that it is a major issue facing U.S. society today that those who are reproducing the most, and thus passing on their memes to offspring, are perpetuating cultural values (or lack of certain values) that affect various social problems (issues of education, poverty, gangs, drugs, etc.). And just because they break from their parents' direct influence doesn't mean they're in safer territory - the surrounding communities tend to propagate the same memes quite forcefully (low income parents of poor children may tell their children to stay in school and get good grades, but many of these kids end up in gangs, dropping out, etc. anyway).

This type of thing occurs on a nation-wide scale, and sometimes beyond those political boundaries.

So, it is clear that such children need some positive external influence to counteract the negative - and presumably from a young age - but how to do this? How are the children expected to, of their own accord, choose the values and influence of some other person over that of their parents'?

Trial and error is the only way possible.

Which situations are those? Who decides which situations require objectivity?

Any type of situation that involves the child making a choice that the parents can be expected to have a strong vested emotional interest in considering their own needs and desires in the situation, and will work against them making a truly fair assessment. This is the reason why hospitals do not allow surgeons to operate on or make important medical decisions for close family members. All truly fair decisions require a degree of objectivity.

If we deem parents unfit to teach their children to make good judgments, and if we deny parents the opportunity to impart their values which may influence judgement-making to their offspring, where are they learning those skills?

There could--and should, IMO--be a variety of places and individuals that children acquire guidance and values to assist them with their judgment in making decisions. Parents alone should not be allowed to be the only ones involved in the decision-making process because they are only two people, and their values may be based on things such as racism, sexism, and a strong moralism-based opposition to their kids making certain decisions irregardless of whether or not it would be the best one for the child in question.

It sounds like to ensure that children are truly free from bias while making decisions, we ought to have them taken away from parents and raised by the highly fictitious Impartial Panel of Objectivity. :-p

Such a community panel is highly fictitious only until we create it.

Btw, what is the difference between something that is "highly fictitious" and just plain old ordinary "fictitious?" Something is either fictitious or it isn't.

I'll concede this one, sort of. I think I agree, but can you share an example of this conflict of interest and how the child's autonomy alone would solve it? In every scenario that comes to mind for me, there is some other factor at play (usually money).

Example #1--A child wants to get a job at their local newsroom, but his parents forbid it because they simply do not want their son to have any degree of financial independence.

Example #2--A child wants to buy themselves a TV with money they earned from a job, but the parents refuse because as individuals they feel that watching television will expose their kids to the ideas of the Devil (or at least Pokemon).

One argument that is pretty relevant to all points here, that I made in my original post, is that at puberty, one can be sure that children have the maximum biological capacity for thinking and reasoning.

There are some adults who are unable to utilize this maximum capacity for thinking and training due to various factors.

And as you say, there are a number of ways for children to learn in a sex-positive society. Need their emancipation in regards to sex-related activities be prerequisite for these ways of learning to occur? I don't think so.

I fully disagree. You cannot fully learn anything unless you experience it firsthand, as opposed to simply reading or hearing about it.

And just how valuable is knowledge from experience for preteens in this scenario?

Depending on the subject and the individual kids in question.

Is it worth coming into greatly distressing conflict with their parents in order to obtain?

Only the child him/herself can decide that.

If 10yo Allie's right to mess around with Jorge is legally protected but her parents are angry about it but Allie still likes them otherwise and depends on them for lots of other physical and emotional needs, and can't (and sure doesn't want to) legally move out, how are they all supposed to resolve this?

Should it be the "right" of the parents to hold something over their kids like that?

Btw, just an observation, Furcie...I noticed that you never seem to get angry or even heated, no matter what anyone says to you, or how they say it. I think that's interesting.