Posted by Bruised at 3:06am Dec 28 '08You probably know about marijuana laws, and suicide laws, and laws on underage drinking, and curfew laws, and the recently repealed sodomy laws. But there's one kind of law on the books that isn't as well known about as it should be and doesn't get the discussion in liberal/libertarian/anarchist circles that it should.
Insubordination laws are laws that punish minors for disobeying their parents or legal guardians. These laws are passed at the state level. In some states, kids under 16 can be punished for this disobedience, while in some states these laws apply to anyone under the age of majority. If your parents tell you not to turn on the television and you turn it on anyway, you could soon find yourself in juvenile hall or jail.
Under insubordination laws, a parent could force his child or children to obey all sorts of crazy and pointless rules under the threat of punishment if they do not follow through. A father can make his children all march down the stairs every morning and line up in order like Captain von Trapp. They can make their kids touch their toes before going to bed at night, "because I say so". They can only let their kids eat jelly on even-numbered days of the month, because "parents are the boss".
And when a parent has rules against something like hitting a sibling or cutting class and his/her child is arrested for insubordination after breaking these, this sends the message that they are wrong because of the disobedience rather than malum seam. It wasn't wrong because your father told you not to, it's wrong because it's hitting, fool. People need to be taught to look at the inherent ethicality of actions, and growing up with rules against disobedience doesn't help foster that understanding.
Looking at the very etymology of the word "insubordination" makes it appalling that such laws exist. "Insubordination" comes from the Latin roots in- (meaning not, as in "incorrect" and "incomplete"), sub- (meaning under, as in submerge and subhuman), ordo, ordinis (meaning order, as in "ordinal" and "inordinate" and -ation (the abstract noun forming suffix, as in "creation" and "menstruation"). In other words, not placing yourself under another person in a hierarchy. People in a hierarchy are considered to be in the right or in the wrong based on what rank they are placed in rather than on whether what they are saying or doing is in the right or in the wrong. In other words, if a principal tells his student to throw away his lunch and waste food, we are supposed to believe that the principal is right because he is the principal and the student is the stodent, not wrong because he's suggesting to waste eood. We are supposed to believe that a whistleblower in the business is in the wrong for disobeying her boss, because the boss is always right and his "subordinates" (see, there's that word again) are always wrong. This is a perversion and contortion of morality.
Speaking of morality, insubordination laws can be used to enforce morally repugnant rules that run counter to modern Americans' most deeply held values. If a White parent has a rule against interracial dating, his/her teen can be arrested for breaking this silly onsubordination law if s/he goes out with an African-American. The criminal treatment of said teen would amount, in effect, to the government enforcing racism! I hope every single person on this forum finds this repulsive to his or her moral fiber.
And don't tell me that you parents provide the food, you pay the bills, you bought the house for your child, etc. so you can make any rule you want. Minors are kept in the house by runaway laws, not by a lazy unwillingness to start taking care of themselves and making themselves an income.
But if we get rid of insubordination laws, you ask, what will happen to parents' rules against things like stealing, truancy, spray-painting buildings, arson and joyriding? The answer is that these things are already illegal. If their children break a parent's rule against joyriding, they can be arrested because joyriding is illegal, not because Mom or Dad told them not to. You have nothing to fear if these laws are repealed. And much in the way of social justice to look forward to.
Insubordination laws are laws that punish minors for disobeying their parents or legal guardians. These laws are passed at the state level. In some states, kids under 16 can be punished for this disobedience, while in some states these laws apply to anyone under the age of majority. If your parents tell you not to turn on the television and you turn it on anyway, you could soon find yourself in juvenile hall or jail.
Under insubordination laws, a parent could force his child or children to obey all sorts of crazy and pointless rules under the threat of punishment if they do not follow through. A father can make his children all march down the stairs every morning and line up in order like Captain von Trapp. They can make their kids touch their toes before going to bed at night, "because I say so". They can only let their kids eat jelly on even-numbered days of the month, because "parents are the boss".
And when a parent has rules against something like hitting a sibling or cutting class and his/her child is arrested for insubordination after breaking these, this sends the message that they are wrong because of the disobedience rather than malum seam. It wasn't wrong because your father told you not to, it's wrong because it's hitting, fool. People need to be taught to look at the inherent ethicality of actions, and growing up with rules against disobedience doesn't help foster that understanding.
Looking at the very etymology of the word "insubordination" makes it appalling that such laws exist. "Insubordination" comes from the Latin roots in- (meaning not, as in "incorrect" and "incomplete"), sub- (meaning under, as in submerge and subhuman), ordo, ordinis (meaning order, as in "ordinal" and "inordinate" and -ation (the abstract noun forming suffix, as in "creation" and "menstruation"). In other words, not placing yourself under another person in a hierarchy. People in a hierarchy are considered to be in the right or in the wrong based on what rank they are placed in rather than on whether what they are saying or doing is in the right or in the wrong. In other words, if a principal tells his student to throw away his lunch and waste food, we are supposed to believe that the principal is right because he is the principal and the student is the stodent, not wrong because he's suggesting to waste eood. We are supposed to believe that a whistleblower in the business is in the wrong for disobeying her boss, because the boss is always right and his "subordinates" (see, there's that word again) are always wrong. This is a perversion and contortion of morality.
Speaking of morality, insubordination laws can be used to enforce morally repugnant rules that run counter to modern Americans' most deeply held values. If a White parent has a rule against interracial dating, his/her teen can be arrested for breaking this silly onsubordination law if s/he goes out with an African-American. The criminal treatment of said teen would amount, in effect, to the government enforcing racism! I hope every single person on this forum finds this repulsive to his or her moral fiber.
And don't tell me that you parents provide the food, you pay the bills, you bought the house for your child, etc. so you can make any rule you want. Minors are kept in the house by runaway laws, not by a lazy unwillingness to start taking care of themselves and making themselves an income.
But if we get rid of insubordination laws, you ask, what will happen to parents' rules against things like stealing, truancy, spray-painting buildings, arson and joyriding? The answer is that these things are already illegal. If their children break a parent's rule against joyriding, they can be arrested because joyriding is illegal, not because Mom or Dad told them not to. You have nothing to fear if these laws are repealed. And much in the way of social justice to look forward to.
Why I hate insubordination laws - Bruised