This is a continuation of the listing and illucidation of the founding principles for an ideal government. This is an essential exercise for Latter-Day Saints to know how a government of liberty should be structured in order to safeguard freedom and individual rights against the judicial and legislative attacks that have eroded our inspired Constitution. If you haven't read Part I on defining fundamental rights, do so now here:

Foundation for an Ideal State--Part I

PRINCIPLE #2:

FAMILIES SHALL BE SOVEREIGN OVER ALL FAMILY AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS OR PRESENT AN IMMINENT, PHYSICAL THREAT TO THE LIFE OF INCLUDED CHILDREN

FAMILY SOVEREIGNTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OVER FAMILY AFFAIRS

There exists a natural covenant relationship between parent and child, beginning at conception, that is binding upon the parents and requires them to assume the ultimate responsibility for child care, safety, and education until the child arrives at an ability or desire to be responsible for himself.

In deference to the voluntary covenant relationship which generally involves the sacred act engendering a child, governments should never be granted power to intercede in the affairs of parents and children as long as parents are not proven guilty of gross cruelty or extreme negligence which threatens the life of the child, as clearly defined in constitutionally restricted law, and in no case against the will of the child, when that child is of sufficient age to express that will and understand the alternatives.

In order to preserve family sovereignty from the slow, steady encroachment of government, parents must have full discretion over the care of children unless they reach a point which we may easily describe as imminently and perniciously threatening to the life of the child (e.g. child beating that is life threatening). While children have many times had to suffer from the poor decisions of parents, that seems to be one of the necessary prices to pay for freedom.

To allow the government to scrutinize the decisions of parents at any lower level than imminent (not the mere possibility of) threat to life, is to allow the government total ultimate authority over instruction, safety, discipline, nutrition and medical care. In short, all children become "wards of the state" which, besides being impractical, is a violation of the fundamental rights of parents. The specter of uniform state guidance in the care and upbringing of all children only guarantees an intellectually sterile generation, devoid of moral values. Agents of the government may be knowledgeable as to the things of the world, but they will lack the understanding and moral courage to defend freedom and personal moral and religious values of the individual family.

As a fundamental premise, the state can only legitimately interfere in family affairs in protection of the right to life. A child, as long as he remains in a dependent relationship, living off his parents, does not, and cannot claim his other rights. To do so would make the parents or their property the slaves of the child. Those rights are synonymous with being an independent person, qualified for citizenship.

The child is free to declare his rights and become independent at any time he or she may be capable of meeting the qualifications of citizenship, but in doing so he can no longer claim his dependent relationship. The implicit reasoning behind this is based upon the child's superior standing as to the covenant nature of the family. In engendering a child, parents automatically create a binding obligation, which they cannot break without harming the object of their act---the child (this is also the principle argument against abortion). The child can dissolve the bond unilaterally since he had no choice in the act which brought him into existance and the covenant relationship with parents. The child does no legal damage to the parents by dissolving their obligation to care for him, so he or she is free to do so at any time. This concept does not attempt to make light of the emotional pain such separations may cause, only to indicate that disappointment and emotional pain usually cannot and should not be construed as adjudicable damage.

This aspect is worrisome to some families who have become accustomed to using the power of the state to compel a child to stay at home until reaching the legal age of maturity. Upon close examination, it is clear that the setting of an age for "maturity" or independence is quite arbitrary. There is no basis for it in principle. It's rather a legal convention of convenience. But, by handing over such powers to government determination, parents have unwittingly given justification to the state to enter into intrusive REGULATION of family affairs as to when children have become independent and when not allowed to exercise that independence.

I believe I can demonstrate, to those who are worried about children being enticed away into evil paths through the exercise of independence, that such true freedom is less likely to induce a child to leave and is more beneficial to family relations in the long term, but only if we possess a complete structure of covenant government as explain in this work, without a welfare system.

First, it must be remembered that, under these principles, there would be no permissive government welfare or social structure available to induce children to leave home and find a "free life." In a contractual government, every member of society would be required to have legal standing as a citizen, or be under a contract with a citizen, either as an employee or a dependent. The citizen would be responsible for the conduct and welfare of all non-citizen employees or dependents under his or her care. If a person wanted to establish independent citizenship, he would have to either sign the Constitutional covenant and become a citizen (obligating him to participate in citizen responsibility, including the payment of his share of legitimate taxes). Thus, leaving home would require a high degree of responsibility--not a welcome prospect unless the child was properly prepared or possessed some compelling reason to leave.

Given a high level of evil influences in a pluralistic society, most good parents would exercise their freedom to form covenant societies with other like minded people in order to shield their children from many of these harmful influences. In such a society, if there were sufficient justification for a child wanting to leave home, for protection, he would probably have little trouble finding refuge with other good people. On the other hand, a rebellious child would have difficulty finding refuge within a small covenant group of like minded, good people. If he or she chose the non-covenant world for a first try at independence, the child would find the world fairly harsh under the full weight of self-responsibility and citizenship that may require a hefty examination and certification of financial responsibility. These factors would hardly be conducive to leaving home except under proper preparation.

Remember also that any act of rebellion against a parent's wishes which do not constitute the limits of cruelty is a form of declaration of one's independence. Such rebellion automatically relieves a parent of the obligation of support. While this would be technically defensible, I doubt if many parents would jump at the chance to stop support so quickly. Even if they did, the child could always bring himself back under covenant protection by complying with the wishes of the parent, as long as such erratic behavior did not become a tool of manipulation. This definition diminishes the danger of so-called "children's rights." Equating rebellion with independence is important because it protects a parent against a tyrannical child who would otherwise go to state authorities to force his parents to provide his wants while he refuses to help around the house or obey normal parental demands.

But more importantly, it is better for parents to realize that THEY are responsible to ensure that they protect their developing children from influences that they deem harmful. Religious parents who allow their children to be constantly exposed to mindless television and the pervasive undisciplined bad behavior of public school children, or who live in an unsavory neighborhood, can hardly complain when their children develop problems. When parents rely upon the secular state to force their children to stay at home, the parents have either failed to properly attend to the upbringing of the child, or the parent's life is alien to the child (sometimes rightfully) or the child is simply innately rebellious--which does happen.

Even in the latter case of full rebellion, the child will more quickly learn the folly of his ways by becoming subject to life's consequences than by continual pampering at home. Certainly, constant parental permissiveness of slothful conduct and acceptance of rebellion is not a proper solution. Removing a tough teen from you home may be difficult to handle emotionally, but sometimes it is the only way that some children will learn. As in almost all areas of life, parents or individuals become better in their tasks when government does not attempt to secure them from their own errors. Government's only task is to prevent wrongful compulsion by others.

Lastly, one of the unique aspects of these principles is the final element which safeguards the family from intrusion by government. When there is a gray area concerning whether a certain family action is "life threatening" or "grossly negligent" and the state rules to take the children from the parents, the children can refuse to go with the state. More than any other safeguard, this effectively deters a state from declaring a family's religious beliefs as "gross mental cruelty" or spanking as "physical cruelty".

While I am aware of some cases of children who, even after child abuse, have desired to return to the parents, who are we to say that the child does not legitimately view life in an unknown foster home as a worse alternative than home? Often only one parent's care is enough to induce the child to stay in the home. So be it. In such cases, where a child prefers to stay at home, but where their is evidence of abuse by the other spouse, the government would have just cause to continue surveillance or even prosecute the bad parent. In view of the total picture, both for and against, I am convinced, that no normal child is such a glutton for punishment that they would not desire to leave after it becomes apparent that the parents are constant abusers. If the child is clearly and certifiable mentally deranged due to the abuse, the parents or parent responsible should go to jail and the child should be given over to proper private foster care. However, the simple act of desire to remain at home should never be allow as the sole determination of mental incompetency in the child. The final determination should be by a jury of parents rather than by government officials or psychologists.

This whole question would not be such a problem to adjudicate if there were not such an entrenched hostility in social working circles toward spanking and physical punishment in general. Many view any type of physical punishment as "cruel and unusual" and are constantly attempting to convince legislatures and courts to outlaw firm physical discipline. Since it is nearly impossible to distinguish in law between a justified spanking and what social workers persist in calling "child abuse", I prefer to defer, short of "imminent threat to life" to family sovereignty. I think the damage has to be fairly rough to qualify as abuse--enough to cause bleeding, deep bruising, intentional burns or broken bones and the like, to be viewed as imminently threatening. I say this not because I am a callous person, but because we must remember that there are numerous circumstances in which children do wild things themselves which result in these injuries, and if the standard is set too low, the parents become suspects of abuse, every time a child goes to the hospital for an accident.

There are also cases in which the parent is giving a well-deserved spanking and the rebellious child, in fighting back, may hit his head on something, or pull away and be injured without the intent of the parent. We don't want reasonable parents going to jail on an accident of mixed causes like this. Rabid anti-spankers will claim that the parent shouldn't have been struggling with or trying to spank the child in the first place. But when a parent is faced with really abusive children who prey upon their young siblings or in other ways severely threaten the order of the home, very strong action is required. Of course, I am of the opinion that if a parent has let things get this far, he or she has been way too permissive for too long anyway. But, parents must be free to take the full range of measures, short of physical harm, necessary to bring a tough teen into compliance. Remember, the potential for long term damage to children is small when the law allows a child to voluntarily leave at any time.

There are obviously some gray areas in this discussion, which will of necessity have to be left up to human judgment. What I have attempted to do here is to secure a firm base upon which parents can control, to the largest extent, their family affairs. It is said that tough cases make bad law. We all have qualms about any injustice being done to children, but let us be wise, and also realize the magnitude of injustice that is possible if we allow the state to exercise the type of social control over the family as occurs in other socialist societies. Some mistakes and suffering do occur in freedom, but they are always the exception when compared to the all-powerful state.

- - -

Joel Skousen is a political scientist, by training, specializing in the philosophy of law and Constitutional theory, and is also a designer of high security residences and retreats. Joel is the author of four books and publishes a weekly newsletter World Affairs Brief.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment