Freedom = Responsibility
Many of us have made the title argument. I would treat it as an axiom at this point, yet the government and socialist do not.
I have used an argument on my children with some success. "You are a teenager. You are in between an adult and a child. One day you'll be an adult. It is ok with me if you want to behave like a child, and have me take care of thing, and you do as I say. It is also ok with me if you want to behave as an adult, take care of things yourself, and act responsibly. However, you can not have it both ways. Each day, you should consider which one you want that day, and that's the way we'll do it, but no inconsistencies."
This causes interesting looks, some self-reflection, and generally good results for a period of time, because it is not an ultimatum. It is clearly fair, and it leave them the choice.
It seems this line of discussion, treating children/teens like adults as possible, and responsibility being proportional to freedom, would resonate with even the most liberal.
Why then can they not abstract this logical position to the greater society?
Separately, if you begin a discussion in agreement on common ground, and transition to the broader, societal discussion, you have a much better chance of connecting and affecting the thought of the other party (liberal, middle of the road or yet undecided (e.g. youth)).
What does the Gulch think of the logic for teenagers, and more importantly using the concept to bring around undecided peoples tempted by altruistic socialism or other?
I have used an argument on my children with some success. "You are a teenager. You are in between an adult and a child. One day you'll be an adult. It is ok with me if you want to behave like a child, and have me take care of thing, and you do as I say. It is also ok with me if you want to behave as an adult, take care of things yourself, and act responsibly. However, you can not have it both ways. Each day, you should consider which one you want that day, and that's the way we'll do it, but no inconsistencies."
This causes interesting looks, some self-reflection, and generally good results for a period of time, because it is not an ultimatum. It is clearly fair, and it leave them the choice.
It seems this line of discussion, treating children/teens like adults as possible, and responsibility being proportional to freedom, would resonate with even the most liberal.
Why then can they not abstract this logical position to the greater society?
Separately, if you begin a discussion in agreement on common ground, and transition to the broader, societal discussion, you have a much better chance of connecting and affecting the thought of the other party (liberal, middle of the road or yet undecided (e.g. youth)).
What does the Gulch think of the logic for teenagers, and more importantly using the concept to bring around undecided peoples tempted by altruistic socialism or other?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
It might be a little late to start teaching responsibility to teenagers. By that time they have figured you out and lie and cheat expertly. At an early age I got stories about honesty and owning up to what I did wrong. Stories like Washington and the cherry tree and Lincoln and responsibility with borrowed property are good at least in my case. Then my parents would, if it was something really bad, talk it over with me and did not act like great authority figures. My parents seemed to be honest and never seemed to argue, They just did what was responsible for raising us seven kids with the most responsible part being shelter, clothing, food, not forcing us into some irrational religion, and not too much physical loving of us. We all grew up as helpful people. Some were atheists and others found religion.
As for Debbie Downer, can that crap. I must have hit a nerve. You cannot just equate concepts with completely different definitions and expect not to sometimes be called on it.
I guess you just deal with teenagers by example and do exactly what when they don't do their homework or chores and show up for ice cream? Give them ice cream and do their chores to give them an example?
Thanks very much. How about some positive contribution.
BTW, I struggled with a title that wasn't a paragraph, thinking the same thing about the "equation". Lighten up Francis and read the message. It was more about a means to convince socialists. What are your ideas on doing this, or are you already gulched or just giving up?
Just teach the little ones by example and not put some kind of policing into the mix. They will get enough of that in public or private schools.
...or are you just referring to adults not having it both ways? Clearly true.
back from one to the other from day to day. There
are certain things children cannot and should not be
held responsible for, even if they, in their childish
imaginations, think they are adults.--But the basic principle as regards the citizen: if you want
to be free, you have to be responsible for your
own life, and not expect others to take care of
you--is valid.
If you want something you must give something up to get it.
As a parent to younger children (up to age 16) I would put up half the money for what they wanted/needed and they could work for the other half.
When they got jobs, I made it clear that (except for meals and a home) they had to pay their own way through life by working toward their own goals.
They are in their 40's and are doing fine.
Unfortunately, college left a "leftist" mark on one of them.
Choose your educational system wisely. Having schooling that backs up your parenting will have a profound effect.
Irresponsibility = Slavery
If you do not take responsibility then someone else will take it for you along with your freedom.. Ayn Rand wrote Fountainhead about it.
The worse part is how many want to be slaves as Bernie showed.
Beyond that fror every right even the ones you think you have that don't exist there is a concurrent responsibility.
They travel in pairs and you can't have one without the other - unless your name is Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. As they have so consistently proven over the decades.
Agree, very young children need to first be taught they can make a decision, and then need to live with it. Different stage of development.
Unruly adults pose a problem especially for Objectivists, should they be ignored, jailed, hanged or counseled? Most Anglo legal systems define minors, idiots etc as deserving special treatment.
My opinion: Objectively for a host of reasons...let me count the ways:
1 They have not the ability to integrate that information with the bigger picture.
2 They are living within themselves at this stage, living in the brain. they may have a great connection to their mind but don't know how to use it on a consistent basis. Many, teenagers And adults have this problem.
3, given number 2, they don't think others can control themselves, they are biased by their own observations but can't see that perhaps others need the same life lesson that you have given your teenager.
4 Living with your peers.
5 In spite of your efforts, they are taught to listen to their teachers...a good lesson I learned, well after my school years is; if you trust a teacher or a mentor then you say...Ok...but can you explain to me, why that is...then check it out yourself...the go back and present your argument if you have one.
So, the first key, might be related to number 1, in so much as, you may have to give them the big picture. It's a great lesson you have given them. it will stand the test of time; so by showing them the Big Picture, at least it will start the wheels turning. At that point, you can only hope that, 'That' road, most traveled, will have the least resistance.
Perhaps, after that lesson, while presenting another some time down the road, ask them, how that might relate to the bigger picture, society or to civilization. (maybe you have to train them not just in logic but teach them how to use their mind.