Anonymous asked:

"I think the key problem is the idea of ownership of the child." I see what you're getting at here, but I think it's pretty heavily misguided. Insofar as children can't take care of themselves, *someone* has to own them, and I trust the average parent to do that significantly more than I trust the state to do that - the state being the de facto owner of the child if parents are cut out of the picture.

ranma-official answered:

I don’t think the concept of complete ownership of the child, or any human, is necessary. It is enough that parents bear full responsibility for the child and all of their actions. For example, death due to malnourishment because the child refused to eat would still be the fault of the parents.

Remember, it used to be legal and within the window for parents to make their children get a job (labor, not chores) while being entitled to all of its profit.

Remember how I wrote about “mommy makes me go to church” implying a history of abuse? Remember what I said about Russian communists being very concerned that the state will come in and take their children away just because they abuse them?

We need better orphanages and social services, not more locked down families. Jesus, everyone except triggeredmedia figured out that divorce is good because it gives failing families an out. Juvenal justice is the same thing.

[mitigatedchaos]

@anon  here, have this alternative take that should be less dangerous than “parents own their children”: 

https://mitigatedchaos.tumblr.com/post/158444654232/the-trustee-model-of-child-care