Child liberationists insist that the emancipation of children requires granting them rights of self-determination. Defenders of the 'caretaker thesis' urge that a child's interests are served by a denial of the rights of self-determination and the exercise on the child's behalf by a caretaker. This chapter discusses the presumed contrast between an atomistic and communitarian ideal of society. The hegemony of rights discourse is subjected to criticism from a variety of angles and sources. Three further strands of criticism relevant to the case of children are: rights talk has a certain all-or-nothing character which exacerbate the modern tendency to keep the worlds of adulthood and childhood separate; rights talk is morally impoverished and neglects an alternative ethical view of the world, in which the affectionate, caring interdependence which ideally characterises the parent-child relationship assumes an exemplary significance. Ascribing rights to children rests on a misunderstanding both of rights and of the nature of childhood.