Youth Rights & The Libertarian Party
A Brief History of Revisions to the “Children’s Rights” Plank
--
Lowering the voting age has become a movement growing in popularity in recent years, mostly within progressive circles. A large number of Democrats in office support lowering the voting age to 16. This opens up a wider conversation on the topic of youth rights. What many are unaware of, is that youth rights is a rather traditionally libertarian set of positions, long forgotten.
Libertarians are known as being an enemy of taxes, and being in favor of freedom, even when its unpopular. If you can work and pay taxes as a minor, but not vote, you are essentially experiencing taxation without representation. The main argument is that you should be an adult in order to vote — but when is that determined, and by whom? The government? We all know that the age of majority is an arbitrary number, as you don’t magically become a whole human being upon your eighteenth birthday. We also know that the government is not even consistent with this, allowing different rights to fluctuate at various ages between 16 and 25. This also varies between states in the US, and between different countries in the world.
So if the government does not correctly or efficiently define adulthood, what does? Some will argue brain development, in which scientists believe completes at around the age of 25. Factually, we know that people of all ages have been able to provide for themselves, while many people well over the age of 25 do not. What about those with mental disabilities? Do they have less rights because they lack certain developments? That would be absurd. Many of the founding fathers were under the age of 25, some even under the age of 21. The argument that you are not an adult under 25 is a moot point, because even absent of historical arguments, anyone making the claim that the age of adulthood should be raised would mean you approve of the government taking away rights that people already have. This is very clearly a stance that would find itself at odds with those whom favor liberty.
Currently, we use psychological evaluations to determine many things, such as competency for minors to seek emancipation, or whether they should be prosecuted as adults for crimes they have committed. We do this both in favor of, and against young people, but ultimately, one can argue that it is in the benefit of them if seen as a preservation of their legal rights.
“Young people pay taxes (including $730 million in income tax in 2011) and have no say on how that money is spent.” — National Youth Rights Association
As stated by The National Youth Rights Association, “Arguments against lowering the voting age can be used to disenfranchise adults, too.” There is no criteria, beyond age, in which the right to vote is given. One would not need to have any rationale or understanding of politics to be eligible to vote. In terms of allowing minors to vote, there is even a constitutional argument to be made — in that the 26th amendment prevents the voting age from being raised, but not lowered.
2020 Presidential Candidates Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan, Eric Swalwell, Seth Moulton, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, and Vermin Supreme all support lowering the voting age to 16. Of these, candidate Vermin Supreme is a member of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party, specifically, had some very strong pro-youth stances for about 20 years. Directly within their National Platform as a core issue.
Children’s Rights (1978-1982)
We believe that “children” are human beings and, as such, have the same rights as any other human beings. Any reference in the Platform to the rights of human beings includes children.
The first iteration of the “Children’s Rights” plank asserts that the entirety of the National Platform is applicable to minors. However, one can easily see how this is problematic and can be misconstrued by individuals with bad intentions. The second and third version fixed this language, as well as fleshed out certain issues in particular to touch upon.
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS (1984–1994)
Children are human beings and, as such, have all the rights of human beings.
[Added in 1992]: We recognize that children who have not reached maturity need guardians to secure their rights and to aid in the exercise of those rights. We hold that guardianship belongs to those who most love and value the child and his or her development, normally the parents and never the state.
We oppose all laws that empower government officials to seize children and make them “wards of the state” or, by means of child labor laws and compulsory education, to infringe on their freedom to work or learn as they choose. We oppose all legally created or sanctioned discrimination against (or in favor of) children, just as we oppose government discrimination directed at any other artificially defined sub-category of human beings. Specifically we oppose ordinances that outlaw adults-only apartment housing.
We also support the repeal of all laws establishing any category of crimes applicable to children for which adults would not be similarly vulnerable, such as curfew, smoking, and alcoholic beverage laws, and other status offenses. Similarly, we favor the repeal of “stubborn child” laws and laws establishing the category of “persons in need of supervision.” We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any crime. We seek the repeal of all “children’s codes” or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people. We further favor the abolition of the juvenile court system, so that juveniles will be held fully responsible for their crimes.
Whenever parents or other guardians are unable or unwilling to care for their children, those guardians have the right to seek other persons who are willing to assume guardianship, and children have the right to seek other guardians who place a higher value on their lives. Accordingly, we oppose all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services or those forcing children to remain in the custody of their parents against their will.
Children should always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood.
The additions to this plank assert that:
- Youth should have rights if their maturity can be reasonably determined.
- Children should never be “owned” by the state in any capacity.
- Minors have just as much of a right to work as adults.
- Compulsory education infringes upon the freedom of young people.
- Ageism has no place in government policies.
- Libertarians should seek to abolish the juvenile court system, while also getting rid of laws that criminalize people based on age.
- Guardians should be able to transfer guardianship.
- Young persons should be able to seek out alternative guardianship.
- There should be no restrictions on private adoption.
- Minors should be able to self advocate on behalf of their right to legal emancipation.
The Children’s Rights plank was removed from the platform in 1994. In 2000, a plank titled “Families and Children” was added. Which shifted the focus away from child’s rights and instead towards child welfare. It still defends children to an extent, but is tame in comparison to the former plank.
Families and Children (2000)
We believe that families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. We believe that government involvement in traditional parenting responsibilities has weakened families and replaced family-taught morals with government-taught morals.
Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government, unless they are abusing the children. We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger.
Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood.
Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship. Accordingly, we oppose all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services. In particular, we call for the repeal of all laws restricting transracial adoption.
A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly. We oppose laws infringing on children’s rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews based on age.
We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any crime. We call for repeal of all “children’s codes” or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.
Breakdown:
- The plank states that the government should have zero involvement in family matters, except in cases of abuse.
- What are “family-taught morals” as opposed to “government-taught morals”? Strange phrasing that I can’t help but feel has conservative bias.
- The community can advocate on behalf of a minor via the court system, in cases of abuse, and rightfully so.
- More opposition to child endangerment, as well as stating that parents have a moral obligation to seek out guardianship for their children if they are unable (or unwilling) to provide for them.
- The plank is in opposition to laws restricting transracial adoption, which is likely to have been an issue at the time of its writing.
- The stance taken in the previous plank was “Children are human beings and, as such, have all the rights of human beings”, and became “A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.” This language infers that it supports a distinction between rights and welfare.
- In similarity with the former iteration of this plank, it calls for an end to laws restricting child labor, as well as being against educational mandates and curfew laws. However, it notably removes things such as mentions to smoking, drinking, emancipation, and more.
At the next convention in 2002, a majority of the text is cut, as was the case with the entire platform, and was not exclusive to this particular plank. It reads as follows:
Families and Children (2002–2004)
We believe that families are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion, and that parents have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
Every single mention of youth autonomy and welfare has been rendered nonexistent at this point. The Portland Platform Plank Massacre of 2006 occurred shortly after, and it was not until 2016 that this plank was brought back, in the form of “Parental Rights”. It went from “Children’s Rights”, to “Families AND Children”, to “Parental Rights”. All forms of support for youth rights in the National Platform can be considered dead going forward. There was very little change from 2016 to 2018, just a slight variant in phrasing.
Parental Rights (2016)
Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.
Parental Rights (2018)
Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected.
It is rather unfortunate that the untimely demise of the Children’s Rights plank occurred prior to these movements becoming more prominent in mainstream politics. The Libertarian Party prides itself on being for the rights of everyone, while willfully embracing statism in some circumstances. Speaking of statism (and anti-statism), there is a long history of youth liberation theory among anarchist philosophers, that many also tend to forget. Contributions to these ideas are not limited by political party nor philosophy, and never were. Youth rights should not be a partisan issue, though it IS an anti-authoritarian one.
Ultimately, those who claim to be anti-authoritarians should be making it known that children, teenagers, and young adults are not the property of their parents, and never should be. Parents should strive to be providers and caretakers, rather than authoritarian figures. A peaceful worldview is focused on consent in all things, and that includes treating young persons accordingly and giving them the tools they need to excel in life. Allowing them to thrive without interference from the state, maximizing their freedoms within their realm of understanding, and supporting young people’s capabilities is certainly worth supporting.
