The GENERATOR

YEq's central axiom is that all people, including youth, are "equal". Legally, this means that youth and adults should be treated identically by the law. Socially, it means that individuals should make an effort to ensure that there is no difference between how they interact with youth and how they interact with adults.

The wrongness of treating people as property is contrasted with the rightness of consent: that which is consensual is ethical. Legally, this means that youth must be able to leave situations (e.g. the family, a school) when they no longer consent to the treatment they are receiving. Socially, it means that adults should make a special effort not to feel entitled to arrangements that youth have not agreed to -- particularly command/obey relationships.

Since youth and adults should be treated identically, the essential act of oppression is viewing youth and adults as different, and then treating youth differently than adults.

...Advocates of YEq also tend to hold a negative view of treating adults in some way differently from youth. On an interpersonal level, treating people all the same means treating each one as a unique individual: that is, without any reference to their age (or other physical markers). This ideal is sometimes referred to as being "age-blind". [Compare to "color-blind" and "gender-blind", in the discourses of the African-American and women's movements respectively.]

Laws such as these make youth second-class citizens. Winning equal legal rights may or may not first require winning social equality -- that is, mainstreaming the view that youth and adults are equals. However, once youth gain the power to vote, it is expected that their collective force in society will force adults to treat them with respect.

The United States' adult supremacist governing structure has been created in the image of the family: adult have absolute power to control youth.

With respects to youth, the government exists foremost to (1) legitimate parents' right to child-ownership. It articulates parents' right to control and use force, and it mediates in custody disputes between child-owners. Furthermore, the government also acts as (2) a union of parents, creating laws that enact their collective will upon youth as a group (e.g. via curfews).

The government, however, stakes a claim upon youth that transcends parents' private ownership of youth. To some extent, it views all persons within its boundaries to as human property belonging to itself. Coming from this perspective, (3)the government treats youth as collectively-owned property, a resource belonging to all adults that must be managed (c.f. compulsory schooling). The government's perceived mandate to manage its human property is also the justification for (4) regulating child-owners and setting minimum standards of decent child treatment (i.e. child abuse intervention).

[While sometimes perceived as a conflict between parents' rights and children's rights, YPow views state intervention in family situations as a actually a conflict between the parents' and the governments' interests in owning youth as property.]

In popular discourse, stereotypes are likened to mental photographs that a person has of what members of a group are like. Stereotypes are generalizations about members of a group that may have some basis in fact or may be based on misconceptions -- but they tend to be uncomplimentary.

Prejudice (according to popular discourse) is acting towards someone based upon pre-judgment.

It is in the nature of the mind to create generalizations/stereotypes; it is an aspect of learning about the world around us. However, because no individual ever matches your expectations in all ways, stereotypes are inherently unfair. To be ethical, we must work against our own impulses to act in ways that pre-judge people, we must seek to recognize stereotypes within ourselves and "unlearn" them.

Because of the selfishness motive, adultism can be reinvented at any moment. For the most part, however, parents and adults inherit their beliefs about youth from tradition. They grow up in a society that teaches that it is adults entitlement and obligation to be in control.

While youth, especially in their early years, need assistance to survive, the command/obey relationship extends far beyond simple assistance: it views disobedience as an offense, sees respect for authority as an end unto itself, and claims violence as a sometimes necessary tool for obtaining compliance.

Because adults' claim to authority is so expansive, a great deal of effort has been made to rationalize adult power. Generally speaking, YPow views misconceptions about youth and negative media coverage as propaganda, propping up the status quo and justifying further curtailing of the few personal freedoms that youth do enjoy.

Freedom is equated with having legal rights. If young people have the same rights as adults, then they are not free. Freedom for young people will be achieved once youth have won a list of political battles. A number of noted YEq authors have expressed the sum of necessary legal (and sometimes social) rights for freedom in the form of a "Bill of Rights" document. [...Again, referencing the nation's founding documents.]

Youth are free at present, regardless of what adult laws say. For instance, a young person sitting in a school classroom may at any moment stand up and leave the building. The problem with this is that adults will try to stand in the way of this youth exercising their freedom -- both immediately, and in the form of punitive consequences.

Youth should, to the greatest extent possible, follow their own will. If their will can be accomplished covertly, by breaking the rules and not getting caught, there is nothing wrong this option. However, the ultimate aim of YL is to reorganize society so that adults do not stand in youths' way to begin with.

[Some YEq activists may see an ongoing need for youth participation in the enforcement of civil rights. However, I have yet to encounter these voices.]

YPow views the nation's laws as in state of flux, constantly being battled over by various interest groups. In the battle for youth rights, YL activists should anticipate fighting battles to resist new anti-youth laws more often than battles to win actual progress. The opponents of YL are numerous and very active. Laws that we win have every chance of being overturned later; protecting the ground we've won so far is an accomplishment in itself.

According to YPow, there is no endpoint for the YL movement. Justice is not a permanent state; there must always be actual youth at the negotiating table, representing their interests. Because there are so many different issues for youth to monitor (e.g. city hall, media defamation, police activity, court cases, etc.), justice is likely to remain a haphazard affair, depending greatly upon small cadres of activist giving attention to their fairly narrow pet issues.

YEq tends to focus on civil liberties, that is, young people's right to do things. In essence, it seeks governmental permission for youth to do the things that adults do: vote, drive, drink alcohol, go out at night, etc.

In essence youth are still property -- property does not have "civil rights". Youth must win the right to self-possession, essentially to own themselves. This means that Youth Liberation at present is essentially a matter of property rights.

Until the principle of self-ownership is fully recognized, YL should focus on creating exit freedom -- means for youth to remove themselves from harmful situations at will, without the requirement of being represented by an adult advocate. This may take the form of social services (e.g. public transport, shelters, scholarships) -- or it involve breaking adults rules (e.g. hitting back, running away, safe-housing each other, setting up underground networks).

[This bit might dovetail with a discussion about the necessity of youth voices in Youth Liberation. If anyone can see what's right, then adults can advocate just as well as youth. Not so if what matters is being in control of your own destiny.]

[I also think I want to say something here about how YEq focuses on utopian visions to the exclusion of fighting to right wrongs. It is less adversarial, more of a bridge-builder.]

[YEq doesn't identify parental tyranny as a problem. It doesn't discuss abuse of power at all. The only "wrong" is the lack of rights. It doesn't deal with violations, only utopian privileges. ...Equality and inequality are viewed as static states, rather than dynamic -- it doesn't deal with acts of power -- only with the potential to do acts. There's no analysis of decision-making except where the vote is concerned. People are treated as independent, not having authority over one another.]

Activism is a matter of leveraging key adult decision-makers; persuading decision-makers may be a matter of creating a situation where it is too uncomfortable to not change, rather than about friendly discussion. [There may be a difference of opinion about whether reason is a stronger force of change, or a squeaky wheel.]

Whereas YEq lets adults set themselves as the standard of normalcy, which youth must then match in order to "deserve" rights, YPow criticizes adults for being less deserving of power than they claim.

To the extent that YPow communicates with adults, it tends to be with potential allies, rather than attempting to convince hostile audiences. YPow tends to view the battle lines as already having been drawn, leaves less room for bringing potential swing votes over to our side.

[YEq tries to raise the status of Y to that of adults, asking to be allowed to share power; YPow tries to remove power from adults, claiming that their authority is illegitimate. An issue of attitudes toward adult power?]

Because adultism is caused by misconceptions, all that a person needs to do in order to be a part of YL is argue in favor of its ideology. To whatever extent adults may have more experience articulating the ideology of YEq, they may be somewhat better suited to act as spokespersons.

Although it runs contrary to the spirit of Youth Liberation, in theory YEq has no objection to a YL movement that is directed entirely by adults, without any youth participation whatsoever. So long as the end result is winning rights for youth, this is acceptable practice.

Adults are not prohibited from assisting youth activists; however, their participation is viewed with suspicion. Adults have material and intellectual resources of value to youth activists. Nonetheless, cultural training makes even well-meaning adults likely to take over youth-run projects.

Adult allies are welcome in the YPow movement if they observe an etiquette of monitoring how they communicate, abstaining from votes, and not taking pay for their work. [Actual rules of etiquette are likely to vary from group to group.]

Even at the earliest stages there should be means for youth to remove themselves from harm at will, with as little outside intervention as possible.

[Perhaps what I am going for in this section is really how each philosophy deals with infancy?]