Where do we stand on parental rights anyway? Most of us are in favor of more rights for children but does that mean less rights for parents?

First off, to answer this question fairly, one has to know what the questioner means by "rights." As I've often said, rights should not be confused with power. If, for example, the person in question is free to say "no" to something, but is not allowed to say "yes," then that is not a "right" at all, but an imperative that should never be mistaken for a genuine right (though they have at times been referred to as "negative rights"). There is a difference between parental rights and parental power. Let's get that straight right off the bat, and always be willing to call a spade a spade, and not create euphemisms to sugarcoat the reality of anything (e.g., referring to torture as "enhanced interrogation" or the killing of innocents in war as "collateral damage").

That said, parents should have the same rights as youths in a youth-liberated society. They have the right to be free from assault from younger people in a situation that doesn't involve or merit the need for self-defense; youths should never have the "right" to form groups and harass adults for the fun of it, nor antagonize adults for no good reason, nor attempt to infringe on the right of any parent or adult to express freedom of speech.

In their house, they have the right to live comfortably without their emancipated kids playing the radio so loud that the parents cannot sleep; or constantly bring "friends" into the house who are thieves, disrespectful to the house and some or all who live in it, etc. Parents have the right to privacy, so their kids have no right to try to open their snail mail without permission, hack into their e-mail accounts, eavesdrop on their private convos, etc.

If the parents own the house, they have a right to ask their emancipated kids to put some money they may be earning into the running of the household (this would actually benefit the kids in many ways too, of course). Parental rights mean the kids do not have the certified right to do literally anything they please in that house if what they are doing happens to disrupt the lives, comfort, and professional work of the parents, or may cause damage or value depreciation of the home.

Moreover, parents have the right to expect being given respect out of consideration for the fact that, as human beings, they deserve at least a a degree of it depending on how they themselves act. Parents should expect to receive all due respect if they are clearly willing to give it to others no matter their age or position in society.

Speaking for myself, I would say sometimes yes. For instance I think it's horrible that if an abused minor runs away, the authorities' default response is to drag them back their abusive parent(s). I would like to see the minor appointed and attorney and given a chance to make their case that they would be better off on their own. But that's not even a pedophile issue, just a human rights issue.

Full agreement.

More broadly, I think a decent system for handling important life decisions effecting minors would have to give the parents (together), the minor, and the State each one vote. Two out of three wins. This could apply to things like education, medical treatment, housing, employment, and of course sex. If the parents split their vote (e.g. in a custody dispute) I would give the minor's choice more weight than the State's (it is their life after all), so I guess you could say the minor has 1.5 votes or something.

What you propose above is certainly better than the totally arbitrary system we have now, or arguments over whether the parents or the state should have the greater power over kids, which totally dismisses the idea of liberation. The problem, however, is in trusting all parents to be capable or willing to give a truly objective opinion when they vote. This is why I support Robert Epstein's Epstein-Dumas Test of Adulthood to determine the capability of any given minor to be awarded either limited or full emancipation. For such an important decision, the youths in question deserve to request a totally impartial and objective committee to make the decision based on good empirical evidence, not based on emotion or any type of moral or political agenda that doesn't consider liberation.

I don't actually have any idea how representative my thoughts are of what others here think. I'd be interested to find out.

I hope this helped :-)