m not disagreeing with you, AA, Im just not buying into the "follow the law because its a law" or divine right of authority schtick I hear alllllll the damn time. Not that you do, but when you say "Adults can be incarcerated for crimes and children can lose priviledges or violating rules. I don't have a problem with that.", who determines what is a crime, and what is a rule, or not? Whoever has the power (or appointed by someone who has power to make decisions about that for them) and through that power send people with weapons to force compliance.
Hopefully our democratic process determines what a crime is. And, it just seems that parents do have to limit a child's behavior for safety. I am a parent and discovered that through experience.
Now to address the philosophy. Have you ever read Max Stirner. I suggest going to Wikipedia and reading their article about him.
My personal philosophy is in line with what you are saying. As an atheist is it easy to draw the conclusion that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. These are only ideas made up by humans that have no reality in the external universe. It is also easy to draw the conclusion that there is no such thing as 'legitimate authority,' there are only different kinds of power. After all, where does 'authority' come from if not God? Anything one places over the Ego becomes a higher power, but without God that higher power is arbitrary. As for democracy, a slave to the majority is still a slave. What gives any person or group of people the right to tell another person or group what they can or cannot do? Extending that, you can conclude that rights are really only privileges that people in power allow those under that power to have. As privileges, they can be taken away (just ask the Bush Administration). This whole concept is the basis of anarchist thinking and that is why Max Stirner is often called the father of anarchy.
That said, we are human beings and if we presume we are just animals (no God) we must also realize that we are social animals. We depend upon each other for our well being and security (physical, emotional psychological). Humans are not adapted to living completely alone. Therefore, humans create societies. Throughout history, there have been egalitarian societies, but all societies have rules. Humans need some sort of rules to get along, it seems. So if we must have rules, then my rule number one is that; every human being deserves to be treated in a fair and humane way.
Programs violate my rule number one. They are neither fair nor humane.
Now how do we convince a Christian father that his son should be not be subjected to Anchor? How do we advocates of free will and self-determination go about convincing someone who believes in an absolute power, that determines what is absolutely right and wrong, that individuals should have the 'right' to dissent?
Can I do that by admitting my atheist/anarchist philosophy? Can I do that by announcing for me, my rights are those I take for myself and fuck all rules and authority?
The Anchor Dad wrote in terms that indicate for him, anarchy (as in anarchy = chaos) is not a valid option. For me, it is. But I sincerely doubt such a stance will influence anyone to remove a child from a program or convince them that programs violate a persons 'right' to self-determination. After all, did I not just say 'rights' don't exist?
