Disclaimer: Any references I link in this blog isn’t an endorsement nor a sponsorship as I do not get paid to reference anyone. These blogs are for personal use and any information I write or link I share is specifically for educational purposes. Thank you and enjoy.
Ok so this blog took a long hot minute!!! A few months to be exact! So, just to recap, in my last blog I made it pretty clear that the 2 (being anti-establishment and a parent) are not synonymous with one another as parental guidance ends when your children are old enough to be on their own, which isn’t and sound be dictated by the State. Whereas, the government doesn’t let go from birth to death. They do as they see fit to gain more power, without consequences, to make sure you obey and comply. That’s more than being an authority, that’s tyranny…. anyway, new blog.
I want to be very clear that I believe in Parental and caregiver responsibilities. It is my perspective that parents are caregivers as well as caregivers can be next of kin or adoptive (non-biological) and are to be given the same title of parent in the discussion of this blog. We have natural responsibilities to take care of and provide for our children. Protection, food, shelter, education, life lessons, medical decisions. To have fun and make sure you do right by your children by every means to help them grow to be strong-minded, compassionate, intelligent, independent individuals. To say it takes a village, which is the battle cry of the State, is an unfair, cruel and controlling situation as the idea is to undermine the responsibilities out of the hands of the parent(s). Unless of course, we consent or volunteer to accept/give help which is different than letting any government entity deciding what’s best for your family all together. You don’t want anyone undermining your parental guidance to make these decisions for you and your children. So why do we let the system trick us? We have rights… don’t we?
So, what are your Parental rights? Well, it is important to know that parental rights differ by state. According to the law, parental rights go hand in hand with parental responsibilities. Your rights can refer to several things such as physical custody, legal custody (2 different things), rights to make medical decisions, right to enter contract, right to pass property and right to visitation. Each state has their own interpretation of what this all means and how ever strict or limited the standards are set.
Taking a closer look, in my research, I stumbled on this 2014 article written by Jeffery Shulman published an article titled Does The Constitution Protect A Fundamental Right to Parent? This piece is informative in where you stand in this country as a parent more than the state you live in, but on a federal level. I feel I should express that I’m not a constitutionalist (if you haven’t gotten that gist already), but I decided to include this portion for anyone who is and I would implore you to read closely and try to reconsider. Here’s why:
- The right to parent free of state interference is NOT backed by the constitution
- Custodial authority is not a natural right but derivative of the State
- Parental rights are considered (not protected) under the federal constitution as fundamental by the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments and aren’t absolute nor are they enumerated.
- No supreme court has ever held parental rights as constitutional or fundamental.
- The trust model was built on a Lockean Principles, that the child is the one with fundamental rights to appropriate parental care. Which is true, however, take careful consideration that Locke believed in Representative Government not a tyrannical one.
- Another Lockean Principle that is part of the trust model as well, is that the child is to be destined to become a member of liberal constitutional order, while parental duty in a liberal society was assumed to have no rights to do as they see fit based solely on private determination. (So you get raised ri become a member of liberal society only to be stripped of parental rights as an adult)
- From the seemingly modest outcomes of the supreme court and due process cases such as Meyer vs Nebraska and Pierce vs The Society of Sisters, as the State was able to acquire power and has used these examples to gain more, we would do well to be careful what we advocate for constitutionally as they required that ONLY the state not restrict the rights of the parents even though it is backed by the constitution to do so.
There was something else I stumbled on. How would you feel about a treaty being put together to take away your natural responsibilities as parents, as if to say they know what’s better for your child, than you do? For instance the U.N proposed a Convention of Rights of the Child what does this entail?
My take on this? You can’t beat how they make it sound. Those benefits could be amazing as it appeals to the “better care taking of your children”. In this situation, you don’t have a say in how they go about it, your taxes pay for it, and if you disapproved of it, it wouldn’t matter. It’s mandatory whether you like it or not. It is a direct interference with parental responsibility which is exactly in accordance with parental rights and again, the state decides what those standards are. As Dr. Potter said, that may be the U.N but America ratified this treaty and is absolutely backed by Article 6 of the constitution. Towards the end of the video he advocated for fighting for your rights through the use of the State and I just want to make it clear just how dangerous that is. The more you ask from them they’ll take twice as much from you, if that isn’t evident already. In the words of Lorenzo Kom Boa Ervin “When we defer to politicians, we just tighten the slave chains a little bit more.”
The popular question when transitioning into the anti-establishment spectrum will often be “but what about child abuse in a libertarian or anarchist society? Wthout the State who will hold bad parents responsible?” Well let’s talk about it. Child abuse is a whole other subject, I do not discredit it but I will say that I do not feel this emotional topic should have (or ever had) any premise to government “protection”. Child abuse is a very serious matter, it is tragic and often government involvement makes things worse, especially for parents who never actually did anything wrong but made a mere decision that the State disagreed with. Their interpretation of abuse is too broad, therefore being able to use any reason under any law to make any decisions to interfere and separate families with use of the programs such as CPS and DCF, as well as many others like it. No matter how many children you think they’ve helped, they’ve hurt a considerable amount more. Why? Because funding, like with all government programs are done in such a way that if they get an X amount of dollars for their agency for 1 year, then they must use the whole thing, or they don’t get the same amount or increase for the following year. Their sole agenda is generating more revenue through, manipulation, force, falsifying documents to get kids into foster homes, and keeping families in court while facilitating systematic programs for obedience to their masters. And they will do anything to get you, the parent, out of the picture. The more children they can take, the more programs they can use. And the more programs they can impose, the more money they will receive. The child is the one that gets hurt in all of this, and the parents suffer. The State itself is directly responsible for creating the problems. This insures that all State laws are there to protect the State’s corruption, more than to protect the children who are being abused.
What kind of problems?
- Single parent families. The welfare system has a greedy hand in creating them as single parent families are more prone to abuse and enables the state to take your kids away.
- The Public education system makes a vulnerable situation for kids being bullied and careless of the well being of the child. Often the school takes no responsibility and will involve the State to absolve themselves of any wrong doing. And you’ll be automatically put on the hook as teachers and staff are State workers and less likely to be held accountable.
- Tax hikes. As your take home decreases both parents (if it’s a 2 parent home) have to work often leaving the children in the hands of abusive babysitters. Again, according to the State, the fault is yours more so than the babysitters’.
- The government themselves has shown a primary example of how violently they handle situations. In recent events it’s police and even ICE. Don’t get me started on the military industrial complex and it’s wars. We as a race have a tendency to mimic and live what we learn, the State wants parents to be a perfect example for their children, so why aren’t they?
- Every government program is a set up that has never actually been better to help anyone with anything besides collect the money and leaving us as a statistic on the poverty line. Which coincidentally can be cause to take your children away for being too poor.
- Poverty, abuse and negligence are often passed down and increase in numbers over time. To get yourself out of it takes a toll on the mind and body. So we can say that they are directly responsible for our peace of mind. Or piece of mind, how ever you look at it. And their forms of rehabilitation aren’t meant to make you better.
- Government agencies also have reunification programs, which seems harmless but not in cases where children are allowed to go back to truly abusive homes where they later wind up in a body bag. It is heard of to little and happens too often.
- If you were ever a victim in the system either as a child due to parental abuse, or as an adult due to spousal abuse, the State is required to make a case to keep an eye on your kids. No matter how much you comply with the State, if you decide to have children as an adult or even long after your abusive spouse is out of the picture, you still have to jump through more hoops. All because they fear you may become abusive as your parents or spouse. They never let go. So you the victim are now guilty until proven innocent.
This video by Carlos Morales, a former CPS Investigator, has hit the nail on the head and for the whole playlist click here. He has recently retired from LegallyKidnapped.net but the information is still up.
That quote from Adolph Hitler was shocking to say the least. Not the fact that he said it, but the fact that the sentiment has become more true today than when it was written. The guise of helping children through the State is advocated heavily through those who are supposed to represent us, and that we the people fall for it. To say that we need a system that would force good parents obey and comply to their corruption without consent, is to say that we are indeed guilty until proven innocent. You wouldn’t entrust your children to a regular criminal so why an official criminal? And yet, those who make, protect and serve, and represent the laws are some of the biggest offenders with the highest acquittal rate. They have no one to check them except themselves which is how corruption can continue with an extreme oversight, and ZERO accountability. Who do they answer to when we the people keep advocating for rights for them to abuse? Who do they answer to when they legally violate our rights? The problem is people still think they answer to us. But how is it that we stick it to them? By voting? That’s crap. The children are the ones that matter, that statement isn’t wrong.
An Important Contemplation
Creating a society without the State would be the goal here. After all, this doesn’t mean no rules, just no rulers. To do this I feel that getting rid of the system that pursues in it’s corruption who add more problems on top of the founding problem, will eliminate the majority of causes that promote abuse in the first place and bring a moral and more educated society together. All of the other unnecessary problems that the State was creating won’t be there. Which leaves the one and only problem from square one that we should’ve had the focus on all along. After all not all parents are abusers and they shouldn’t be punished for the wrong deeds of others which is what happens in a centralized society.
One concept that hardly anyone ever considers is that, children are self-owned. While temporarily entrusted with their parents, we do NOT own them, and we are required to respect that as individuals. It’s our responsibility as parents to teach them and to see to it that we’ve taught them well enough to be on their own, in the world outside of our homes, that doesn’t change. Abuse (verbal, emotional, and physical) and negligence is contradictory to everything anarchism stands for, as it will scar independent (thoughts and actions). Negligence disables their capacity for openness, compassion and love, their ability to work with others, and coping mechanisms necessary to move forward in life. And the younger the individual is exposed to this evil, the worse off they will be. Education is the primary goal for a peaceful society as having a better knowledge of your surroundings leads to better solutions to problems. The goal being, voluntary solutions as opposed to coercion. Thus, abuse and negligence have no place in a Stateless society. One can only hope that as time goes on, the stigma of negligence and abuse will be long forgotten.
It’s hard to hear, but there is never going to be a perfect happy utopia where things like this never happen, but we can always do better. And we will do much better than we do in the system we live in today4.
Well I’m tapped. As a parent I speak from concern. As an anarchist, I speak in the language of freedom. If you do not understand these concepts or you have something you would like to share, feel free to comment.
I do like ending blogs with quotes so I’ll post this here.
“‘Why do you not say how things will be operated under Anarchism?’ is a question I have had to meet thousands of times. Because I believe that Anarchism can not consistently impose an iron-clad or method on the future. The things every generation has to fight, and which is can least overcome are burdens of the past, which holds us all in a net. Anarchism, at least as I understand it, leaves posterity free to develop its own particular systems, in harmony with its needs. Our most vivid imagination can not foresee the potentialities of a race set free from external restraints.”
– Emma Goldman in Anarchism and Other Essays, Preface