A Story of Youth Liberation - Free Download!
On March 6, 2001, Logan Feys (LF), founder of Individualist
Voice, chatted with George Justin Mallone
(GJM), president of Americans for a Society Free
from Age Restrictions (ASFAR), an organization that opposes
age-based laws and policies.
LF:
First of all, I'd like to commend you for taking up the issue of age
discrimination. It is a far-reaching social problem that startlingly few
people seem willing to address or even acknowledge. Your organization
does. What is the purpose of ASFAR?
GJM: ASFAR is a nationwide organization dedicated to the abolition of age-based restrictions. We pursue this goal through organization at the grassroots level against particular age-based restrictions, and we coordinate these efforts and continue to develop a comprehensive philosophy on the rights of young people at the national level, which has published various position papers and also publishes our bi-monthly publication, Youth Truth.
LF:
Is the position of ASFAR president a full-time job?
GJM:
No, but only because of the fine assistance offered to the President by
the ASFAR Board of Directors :-) Their
extraordinary efforts make dealing with the day-to-day business infinitely
easier.
LF:
How did you first become interested in the battle against age
restrictions?
GJM:
Since the time I was very young, I'd noticed that young people seemed to
be treated like second-class citizens, never taken seriously, their rights
constantly denied. This had always irked me, and so one day I decided to seek
out an organization that sought to change this situation. That's when I
discovered ASFAR :-)
LF:
Did you go through public schooling?
GJM:
Some when I was much younger. I
spent most of my primary education in private schools, though, and I home
schooled through my secondary.
LF:
Did the authority-based classroom environment, under which students are
segregated largely by age, help motivate you to oppose the age restrictions in
general?
GJM:
Oh, certainly. In addition to the ridiculous age-segregation, which no
doubt helps foment the artificial "class structure" you see at many
schools, I've also always wondered why happening to have the copy of the book
that contains the answers automatically endows one with the authority to order a
bunch of young people around like a sergeant in the army. Especially given that
those young people don't have a say about being there in the first place.
LF:
How old are you (if you don't mind me asking)?
GJM: No I don't mind, but be careful posing this question to some of our members, they'll start probing as to why this information is important to you :) Eighteen.
LF: In our society, the age of 18 is (like it or not) a very significant age. How does it feel to finally be a government-recognized “adult”?
GJM:
Anti-climactic :)
It sort of seems to underscore the
insanity of the whole situation. I remember on my 18th birthday, my youth-rights
supporting friends were jokingly asking me things like, "So, you must feel
endowed with the ability to make rational decisions in all aspects of life all
of the sudden, right?" And I'd say, "Well, excluding the decision to
drink or rent a car, of course!"
The fact is, I'm the same person I
was before turning 18. For me, the
most profound thing to happen was that I could finally say "Ah-ha!" to
those people who'd been telling me I'd "understand" the need for age
restrictions once I became an adult :)
LF:
How would you describe your philosophical views?
GJM:
I'd describe myself as an Objectivist, and naturally, a political
Libertarian.
[Note: Logan Feys offers his assessment of controversies
that have developed between Objectivists and libertarians in Libertarianism Reconsidered: An Objective Evaluation.]
LF:
What aspects of Ayn Rand’s novels or philosophy have you found to be
most applicable to the cause of fighting age discrimination?
GJM:
Her strong support of individual rights, her focus on being rational and
logical (which can be quite useful in the face of one's irrational enemies), and
her passionate rejection of the "cog in the wheel" way of viewing
human beings.
Whenever I get to know an ASFAR member who's feeling oppressed, whether at home or school, who fears that the individuality is being drilled out of them, I of course encourage them to seek emancipation or another legal remedy, if possible! Failing that, though, since that's not even an option in many states, especially since often the anti-individualism taking place is state-sanctioned, I try and introduce them to Rand's work, so that they can have some spiritual fuel for the fight. Anthem, in particular, can hit home especially hard, since many young people really do feel like they're little more than a number in today's society.
LF:
Are you ready for some tough questions?
GJM: About time, I say
:)
LF:
Do you think the youth rights movement in general suffers from
credibility problems as far as the general public and even the libertarian and
Objectivist movements are concerned?
GJM:
I think what happens is that oftentimes, the initial reaction to any
mention of ASFAR's ideas is "Oh, those [age restrictions] are for your own
good, you'll understand in time." People
often don't realize that there's a systematic way of viewing of the rights of
the child underpinning our ideals, and that we're far more then a bunch of
disgruntled young people upset that we can't drink or smoke or what have you.
ASFAR is opposed to age
restrictions on *principle*, and once people realize that, they take us more
seriously. I can't remember the
number of times I've gotten hate-filled anti-youth rights rants, and after
responding rationally and logically, have seen the sender of that message
drastically soften their words. Of course, that could also be due to the fact
that they weren't expecting any response, which is why I always make sure to
send one :-)
I believe that if we are rational, effective communicators of our message, and we don't get drawn into pointless personal attacks, but instead focus on our message and policy proposals, then in time we will bridge that credibility gap.
Now as far as the Libertarian and
Objectivist movements are concerned, let me first offer this disclaimer for our
non-libertarian members reading this: As everyone knows, ASFAR as a non partisan
organization, and not all of our members support libertarian policies. However,
a significant portion of our membership *is* indeed Libertarian (and
increasingly Objectivist as well), so it’s a valid question.
Honestly, I'd say that we have a much easier time communicating the
message to libertarians and Objectivists than we do the population at large,
simply because libertarians and Objectivists have generally already accepted the
concept that all individuals must be judged on the basis of their worth as
individuals, and not as statistics to be placed in categories. Combine that with
a strong belief in the stupidity of many government rules and regulations, and
it’s not much of a conceptual leap to arrive at a viewpoint consistent with
ASFAR's.
It’s not the only way to arrive
at such a viewpoint though: in addition to libertarians, many of ASFAR's members
are conservatives, liberals, moderates, and radical leftists (which, as you've
probably already guessed, can make for some fascinating discussion on our
discussion list :-) )
LF:
What do you think needs to be done in order to get people to think more
seriously about issues affecting young individuals?
GJM:
Many things. Firstly, I think ASFAR and other groups in the movement have
to focus on getting media attention on the most egregious and obvious violations
of youth rights; for instance, the existence of concentration-camp like
"Gulag schools" where children are tortured and brainwashed until they
break, or the forced drugging of children at even younger and younger ages for
showing the slightest signs of individuality and independent thought. These are
real and immediate threats to young people's rights (and minds!) every day, and
yet the media spends its time focusing on the evils of video games and
television. That needs to change.
While we're doing that, we need to
build up local chapters, get young people interested in the cause of youth
rights, and make sure that they're really dedicated to the cause, so that they
will continue working for the cause of youth rights well after they hit that
Magic Age of 18.
LF:
According to section 9.3 of ASFAR's Declaration of Principles,
"ASFAR supports the elimination of all age of consent laws. However, ASFAR
also supports initiatives to clarify the legal definition of rape to distinguish
between informed and uninformed consent." Should "adults"
therefore be legally permitted to have sex with "consenting" young
children?
GJM: The question entirely depends on whether the consent was informed or uninformed. In such cases where the child is young and there is a question as to the nature of the consent, I think the appropriate remedy would be to have a jury decide the issue of informed vs. uninformed consent. Doing these things on a case-by-case nature would be infinitely better for the rights of young people than choosing some arbitrary number and deciding that *that* is the age at which one can make such a decision.
LF:
To what extent should parents have the right to impose their own
restrictions and punishments on their own children?
GJM:
Another question that demands its own ASFAR position paper :)
Given that children are born into dependency on their parents, this
certainly creates a special class of parental rights exclusive to the
parent-child relationship. However, this class of rights has been defined in an
overly broad manner, oftentimes not taking into account the rights of young
people, to such a degree that the parental "right" to whip one's child
with a belt-buckle is recognized in many jurisdictions.
To add insult to injury
(literally), young people often cannot establish any independent legal standing
in court, or get themselves emancipated (a process which doesn't even exist in
many states, and in those that it does, oftentimes requires one be 16), or get a
job, or any other number of things that might allow themselves to function as
independent individuals. There's no "escape valve" in our legal system
for mature young people to assume the responsibilities of adulthood, nor are
their rights recognized to the degree that they should be when they *are* living
at home.
Sorry for the long-winded
response, but it’s necessary to place my answer in context, as there are many
inter-related factors... To answer
your question, parents need to be restricted from physically harming their
children. There is no reason why an act which would be considered assault when
done to anyone else should be considered "good discipline" when done
to one's own child.
Past that, it gets a little murky.
Personally, I would say that parents should respect their children's opinions,
not force any religious beliefs on them, etc., but you can't really enforce
that; if you tried to, you'd create this huge lumbering bureaucracy that would
probably end up doing much more harm to the rights of young people than it would
good. If youth were granted the ability to establish themselves as adults,
however, my concerns about parents violating their kids’ rights would be eased
somewhat, because the kids could just leave!
Which brings me to my final point
on this question: parents shouldn't have the right to interfere if their
children are trying to establish themselves as adults. Put in practical terms,
that means no grounding a young person because you found out they were going
down to the courthouse to get emancipated.
LF:
So if a child obtains "emancipation" from his or her parents or
legal guardians, he is then free to live in another household of his choosing or
to live on his own as a fully recognized "adult"?
GJM: Emancipation, as the name implies, would be the procedure one undertakes seeking full adult status as an independent citizen. There of course should be some procedure for a child to move to another household, but they definitely aren't the same thing.
LF:
Age restrictions are entrenched in the dominant values and institutions
of our society. Take the U.S. Constitution, for example. Article I,
section 2 stipulates that members of the House of Representatives must be at
least 25 years-old; Article I, Section 3 requires Senators to be 30; Article II,
Section 1 mandates that the president be at least 35; the 21st Amendment sets
the voting age at 18. Given that even our Founding Fathers thought age
restrictions were perfectly compatible with individual liberty, how do you
convince people otherwise?
GJM:
I have *tremendous* respect for our Founding Fathers, but they were far
from infallible. While a passion for freedom in their hearts guided them, and
was a primary concern when they set out to design a national system of
government, their fallibilities reveal themselves in areas where they didn't
exactly apply that concern for liberty consistently. Slavery and denying women
and non-landowners suffrage are a couple areas that come to mind.
It’s interesting, since there is
a quote from John Adams which addresses this:
"It is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and
altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of
voters; there will be no end of it. New claims will arise: women will demand a
vote; *lads from twelve to twenty-one will think their rights not enough
attended to* [emphasis added]; and every man who has not a farthing will demand
an equal voice with any other in all acts of state."
Quite prophetic, eh? Well, the first and third of his concerns have already come
about, as women and the poor can vote; ASFAR intends to continue working on the
second one, no matter how entrenched the opposition to us may be. After all,
we've already seen that no matter how entrenched something is, it can be
expunged from the national psyche in pretty short order, once people wake up to
the truth.
LF:
Some "youth rights" advocates seek to abolish not just age
restrictions per se, but all constraints on the behavior of young people.
To them, disobedience is an end in itself. Others demand that the
government provide young people with food, shelter, health care, and all of
their other "needs" so that they need not be dependent on parents.
How do you distinguish yourself from misguided activists who trumpet anarchy or
socialism in the name of "youth rights"?
GJM:
ASFAR's name gives it a certain amount of protection from being
pigeonholed as an advocate of this type of "youth rights." Since we're
Americans for a Society *Free from Age Restrictions*, this lets people know up
front that we're all about abolishing government violations of the rights of
young people, and not for pushing more government involvement into the lives of
young people.
I know the kind of folks you're talking about; some of them are ASFAR members, in fact. But when they join the organization, they know what they're getting into: they can support for and advocate whatever political positions they hold outside of the organization, but anything done in the ASFAR name has to be strictly within the realm of abolishing age restrictions and fighting for youth rights (and not their definition of "rights" either, but for certain, pretty much universally recognized rights, like the right not to be physically abused.)
To summarize, I think ASFAR's
fairly effective in maintaining an image independent from such "youth
rights" advocates. People don't assume we're advocating anarchy so much as
they assume that we're simply insane :-)
LF:
It's amazing to me how quickly people seem to forget about the lousy
treatment they received during their younger years. Oppressed children and
teenagers grow up to perpetuate the same system of age restrictions on a new
generation of young individuals. Have you given any thought to the
psychological reasons why "adults" come to accept and support
the very restrictions they once struggled against?
GJM: This is a bit out of my area, as I'm not much of a psychologist, but I've certainly given it some thought. I think there's several lines of thought that enter into what you're talking about. Firstly, there's that mentality that says "Well, I made it through and turned out good, so it wasn't so bad." This is perhaps true, but denies the fact that it *could* be better. Not to mention it ignores the fact that many people *didn't* turn out okay, including many people who use this line of logic and just have a hard time recognizing whatever mental scars they might carry as a result of being oppressed.
Secondly, there are those people
that support increasing oppression now because *they* did stupid things they
regret when they were young, and now want to stop their children from doing the
same thing. This course of action is based on many false premises, including: 1)
That you *can* control the actions of young individuals *all the time*
(depending on the omniscience of police officers as a substitute for trusting
one's children to take the right course of action).
2) That you *should* try to control the actions of young individuals all
the time (and apparently relegating that nasty notion of individual rights to
the trash bin). 3) That young people today will necessarily use their freedom as
stupidly as some members of the previous generation (no doubt, some young people
will, but to assume all young people will and make laws restricting the rights
of all young people based on that assumption is irrational in the utmost,
combining a ludicrous stereotype and a total disrespect of individual freedom on
one convenient package-deal).
LF:
What specific government laws are most in need of reform or abolition?
GJM: Emancipation laws, voting ages, laws governing the realm of parental rights (particular with respect to physical abuse and parents shipping their kids out-of-country to gulag schools), laws restricting young people from working or otherwise establishing financial independence (through banks accounts and credit cards), compulsory education laws, and laws restricting the freedom of movement/speech of young people (curfew laws, school uniforms, etc.).
LF:
And there’s Social Security, which deliberately takes money from the
pockets of workers (to the tune of a 12.4 percent employee/employer payroll tax)
for the purpose of handing it over to those who have attained the
government-approved retirement age. It
will only get worse for young people in the coming years as the number of
seniors rapidly increases. Would
you agree that Socialist Insecurity
is the most oppressive wealth-transfer scheme ever devised?
GJM:
Indeed. As a Libertarian I am opposed to all forms of coercive wealth
transfer, and Social Security is a particularly egregious example of that.
And while it's certainly beyond ASFAR's scope to deal with such issues,
or the scope of my position as ASFAR's president, on a personal level I fully
support efforts by various libertarian groups and think-tanks to abolish Social
Security. Especially since, to top
off its many other errors, Social Security is age-based!
LF: The abolition of all social age restrictions probably isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. What realistic short-term steps can be taken to chip away at age restrictions in the meantime?
GJM:
What's needed is more grassroots activism, more education on the issues,
and more focused, concerted efforts to bring attention to particular issues of
concern. While age restrictions might not go away for along time, I sincerely
believe that working together, those who support the cause of youth rights can
severely limit their scope and severity in the near-term.
And in the long-term, those age restrictions will fall to the dust heap of history. All the movement needs is time.