HOME

Youth emancipation

Many of the laws that are passed to presumably protect young people actually rather serve the purpose of controlling them.

This is especially true for laws that do not allow young people to work and earn money on their own. For young people who opt out of their biological families, the choices for earning money legally are so restricted that the only alternatives to returning home are theft, prostitution, and drug dealing.

Laws that prohibit youngsters to earn a living outside of their families thus are instruments of pressure in the hands of parents and the state.

The same is the case for laws that do not allow young people to legally enter into contracts on their own. Young people who opt out of their biological families cannot rent a house or apartment; they have nowhere to stay, and thus have no alternative to living on the streets.

Some young people have good parents, and others have bad parents. Good parents recognize that from puberty, young people have a great impulse for designing their own lives. Parents have to understand this, and they have to withdraw from the lives of their children who develop their own personalities.

The worst parents are those who enforce their decisions upon their children who are growing up, against the will of their children.

Many young people during and beyond puberty are inclined to run away. Often, this inclination is legitimate. The will of young people ought to be respected. It is not correct to dismiss their wishes for designing their lives by themselves, claiming that young people are immature.

The campaign of the US government against child prostitution is hypocritical. The US government (and the legislative branch which it controls) itself is partially responsible for child prostitution and youth crime in the US, as well as for the fact that many young people enter the drug trade. The US government and legislature are partially responsible because they have shut down so many other options for young people to earn a living and to be adults.

And through the NGOs that are aligned with the US government, and through which the US has great influence on other countries, either directly or indirectly through the UN, the same policies are exported to other countries, even those where traditionally, young people between 14 and 18 or between 16 and 18 were considered young adults, not children.

As the UN are located on US soil, American NGOs have an easy time, lobbying, and virtually controlling, UN branches that concern themselves with cultural or educational policies such as the UNESCO and UNICEF. Strict standards against young people below the age of 18 (who are uniformly defined as children) have originated at these UN bodies and other US-based international organizations in which, typically, feminists and Christian fundamentalists are strongly represented.

Only in the world of drugs, prostitution, and crime, count 15-year olds (and even 13-year olds) as fully emancipated members of a community. Everywhere else, they are just children.

My proposal that young people from the age of 14 are given more opportunities to earn money on their own (and to prove that they are adults) has been replied to with the remark that young people should first avail of an education before starting to work.

But this reply reflects an old-fashioned idea about education as something a young person obtains as a block, before entering the workforce.

By contrast, I believe that anybody should be given the opportunity to further his or her education until one's death. I advocate that people start working early, so they will have an opportunity to earn money (outside of the foul career options of prostitution, crime, and drug dealing).

But I do not mean that young people should work full-time, unless this is their clear wish. Young people should have the option of working part-time, and of furthering their education part-time.

Actually, I advocate such an approach not only for youngsters, but for virtually anybody (including myself; I am well beyond 50, and I am still enrolled in university courses).

Fortunately, there is an ever increasing number of "open" universities for which no formal prior education has to be proven, and more and more universities offer distance programs (though an "open" university with campus classes should be chosen in most cases).

My point is: much of youth crime has its origin in the fact that teenagers from the age of 14 are still considered children, and treated as children, while the one thing they really, really want to be, is: adults.

Give them genuine opportunities to earn money, and treat them as young adults, and you will be surprised to what extent they will start showing responsible behavior. The traditional laws of many countries other than the US reflected this assessment in that they conferred the status of being "adult" upon every teenager, no matter how young, if he or she entered into a marriage.

Of course, such traditions undermine the agenda of feminazis and Christian zealots who crusade to have any person under the age of 18 perceived and treated as child, no matter whether the age is 7 or 17. But the real concern of feminists and Christian zealots is not the welfare of people under 18.

For both feminazis and Christian zealots, to keep those who are not yet 18 under control, allows them to mold their characters and to convert them to their ideologies. This should be recognized for what it is: an egoistic interest to have offspring who reflect their parents' preferences.

It is futile to argue that per se, parents know what is best for their children. Fact is that some parents know what is good for their children, and others do not. While good parents will make wise suggestions as to what their growing up children should do (and this should be encouraged), young individuals should have more rights to decide on their own.

Even when some of the decisions young people may take seem wrong to their parents, they may in fact be much more appropriate for the world a younger generation lives in than the outmoded templates their parents believe in.

Many men and women withdraw from public affairs and pursue an individual, often even secret, agenda of as much sexual satisfaction they can get because it appears to them that public affairs are utterly anti-sexual.

And because they see that all current schools of morality are in one way or another contrary to their sexual desires (the validity of which they do not want to deny), they consider themselves nihilists.

They are nihilists only “sort-off”. But actually, they do have a value system: optimal sexual satisfaction for themselves. They withdraw from public affairs only because no political movement represents them and would be conducive to their agenda. And anyway, they do not consider their private pro-sexual views capable of finding majority backing.

That they are not represented by any political movement is a pity, because their number is large enough to be a force to be reckoned with, if only they were organized.

And whether in the current world, radical pro-sexual policies would find majority backing is largely academic. Most people in any country are intellectually indifferent; they can be educated to adopt any ruling ideology, whether the ruling ideology is lunatic Christianity, faulty Communism, or the pro-sexual ideology that many of my articles are about.

Thus, worries about whether a pro-sexual ideology finds majority backing in the current world should not be a deterrent to activism. A dedicated intellectual elite, best organized along the principles of a Leninist party, could assume political power by other means than being democratically elected (though winning an election would be convenient). It then could initiate policies that liberate people sexually. Once liberated, and allowed to pursue sexual satisfaction, the people would, after being educated appropriately, support policies of sexual liberation.

My own activism consists almost entirely of writing articles and formulating an appropriate ideology. Organizing a political movement will have to be handled by others, independent from me. However, I will happily use my substantial web presence to report about such a movement. And I will encourage pro-sexual men and women to join it.

Who is against drugs (those that are currently classified as illicit)? Parents and governments.

Parents are against illicit drugs because they want their children to continue their (the parents') procreative strategy. This means, make their parents proud, and have children who then make their parents (and grandparents) proud.

Children who achieve nothing in life, and who themselves have no children, are a loss for parents. After all the efforts and costs it has taken to raise them: nothing.

From the perspective of a young adult, it may make perfect sense to choose a path of life that ends after a short career in extremely satisfying morphine and heroin with a gentle, painless death.

From the perspective of his parents, it's a waste. Parents gain nothing from a child that chooses this kind of destiny.

Sons may die as heroes in wars, defending their country or democracy. They may die as martyrs or suicide bombers for their religion, or in protest against foreign occupation. Great for the ego of their parents, and no waste at all. Or sons may be nothing special, but good procreators. As long as they have offspring, the more the better, they have fulfilled their most important purpose, which is: to give grandchildren to their parents.

This is why most people are vehemently against their children becoming addicted to hard drugs, but don't mind if their parents do.

Which, once more, proves that parents have children for mostly egoistic motives.

Governments are always against the kind of drugs, which, for precisely this reason have become illicit.

Drugs that are a viable option for young adults to lead an unproductive life followed by an early, painless death, are totally against the interest of governments.

As children, all members of society are a cost factor. They also bind part of the productivity of their parents who typically are in their productive prime. Once children are young adults, it's payback time. They are expected to work, earn money for themselves, and pay heavily into social security systems, be they formal or informal.

When young adults opt for hard drugs, they don't pay back. Not their parents, not society as a whole. In the contrary, they continue to be a cost factor. And a public order risk.

Governments are not against opiates and other drugs they have made illicit because these drugs would be bad for their users. These drugs have been outlawed because they are bad for the governments.

Look at the type of busybodies who typically make up the top of the executive and legislative branches of modern states.

These are people of a mindset easily unveiled. Theirs typically is an ideology that derives justification for their own lives from outside their own lives. They may understand themselves as agents of a specific religion, or as working for the social good, or another irrational entity. They work for social progress. At least that is what they claim (and even actually believe of their motives). Of course it is a lie.

These busybodies on all levels of government primarily derive satisfaction from interfering in common affairs. Because they assume they are of value to their social units, they feel able to attach a value to their own lives, which these lives per se do not have.

It's a particular brand of escapism that lands people in government positions (unless they are after opportunities for gains through corruption). They attempt to overcome their own fear of death by claiming (in their own minds) to be important parts of social structures that ideally persist eternally.

These busybodies typically cannot accept that other, more rational contemporaries prefer to just opt out. They cannot accept that young adults do not care about the social good, don't intend to have families, are not bent towards a successful professional live, but just want to take drugs, and die early.

**********

http://www.asiatour.com/agenda-young.htm
Jan Garanoz
Juhu Tara Road, Juhu,
Mumbai - 400049 India
Last updated: February 15, 2010