The State, the Family, and You

clairefontaine

Here in today's online magazine Reason, is a report of a an infant being removed by CPS [State controlled social workers and no there are no other kind] because her parents use legally sanctioned medical marijuana.

link here: http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/28/seized-six-month-old-infant-returned-to

I have been trying to find some sort of answer to where the libertarians stand on state interference as regards to the family but all I have been able to find are silences are refusals to any position on it. So maybe it could be teased out here.

First of all here are some of my assumptions about libertarianism. Libertarianism focuses more on independence and the individual, whereas conservatism focuses far more on the family. Both are right and both are wrong , which is why I can't resolve this quagmire myself. On the one hand, children are not independent, they are entirely dependent and compose a fairly substantial portion of the population, which is why I would lean towards conservatism myself, until of course it comes to things like circumcision and other such insanities families impose on their children in the same of religion or state backed child abuse, and then I find myself not being able to take a position on it. When I hear the above case of the child being taken away because her parents use medically legal marijuana I do revert back to my position that social workers are the finer instruments of fascism.

Secondly, when I say family, I include all sorts of families of all sorts of shapes and sizes, from the traditional nuclear family to the more eccentric extreme mormom sects, to the Amish and to the sperm donors who change their mind. See here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/jason-patric-sperm-donor_n_3745820.html

I'd also like to consider divorce, child support, the family courts as well when teasing out the libertarian perspective on the state and the family, what role if any they should play in deciding the fate of children and their caretakers. I've heard some say, the government doesn't have the right to to take your money in a court and I've heard others say, well you don't have the right to steal from your children. I've seen lawyers bankrupt families in courts and yet I still feel they are necessary, despite seeing a lot of their decisions as ultimately subjective and random.

So I'm putting this in US politics, because I think it is a uniquely American dilemmna. Please keep it here.

Amerika

I think it’s a government overreach. They don’t take away kids whose parents have alcohol in the house. If the state doesn’t believe someone can be responsible when using medical marijuana, they never should have passed such a law.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sin_city

Libertarians believe in small government. Divorce would not come into it because Libertarians don't believe that the state should be involved in marriage.

I don't think the state should get involved with anyone's family. They should not have any funds to do so in the first place.

Family should sort out family problems.

clairefontaine

sin_city wrote: »

Libertarians believe in small government. Divorce would not come into it because Libertarians don't believe that the state should be involved in marriage.

I don't think the state should get involved with anyone's family. They should not have any funds to do so in the first place.

Family should sort out family problems.

So essentially abolish the family courts?

What about immunisations and questionable religious practises on children?

Black Swan

MOD NOTE:
The OP has requested that this thread remain in the US Politics forum. I see no problem continuing this discussion here in US Politics.

sin_city

clairefontaine wrote: »

So essentially abolish the family courts?

What about immunisations and questionable religious practises on children?

In this instance marijuana would not be illegal in a Libertarian system.

Surely another member of the family could get involved?

Religion is child abuse in many people's mind but we don't outlaw it.

We (society) cannot protect everyone.

Where does the power of the family courts stop?

Once institutions like this are set up their power only increases.

Corkfeen

sin_city wrote: »

In this instance marijuana would not be illegal in a Libertarian system.

Surely another member of the family could get involved?

Religion is child abuse in many people's mind but we don't outlaw it.

We (society) cannot protect everyone.

Where does the power of the family courts stop?

Once institutions like this are set up their power only increases.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't make the best effort to protect the vulnerable. Children are extremely vulnerable and your reasoning would allow for things such as FGM to occur because it should be up to the family.

20Cent

sin_city wrote: »

Libertarians believe in small government. Divorce would not come into it because Libertarians don't believe that the state should be involved in marriage.

I don't think the state should get involved with anyone's family. They should not have any funds to do so in the first place.

Family should sort out family problems.

So what happens to a child in an abusive family?
Tough luck?

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

So what happens to a child in an abusive family?
Tough luck?

The standard answer to any gaping logic hole in libertarian philosophy: the free market will decide.

Governments no.1 job is supposed to be to to protect the most vulnerable in society. That includes children, the elderly, disabled, terminally I'll etc. . To propose that the government stay out of family life is completely non sensical.

The vast majority of child abuse and abuse of the elderly occurs within the family unit.

We should work towards building better institutions not talk of abolishing them.

clairefontaine

I have much simpatico for the libertarians but I find this is a gaping whole that is nigh impossible to find an answer to.

I hate social workers, even the idea the government can have them at hand, and yet the idea that divorced or split families can always work it out themselves is somewhat romantic.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

I hate social workers, even the idea the government can have them at hand, and yet the idea that divorced or split families can always work it out themselves is somewhat romantic.

Yet when a kid in the UK dies of neglect or starvation, or broken bones and abuse - then social workers get blamed

It's a thankless difficult tightrope of a job and I don't envy anyone who has it or has to make such difficult decisions

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

I have much simpatico for the libertarians but I find this is a gaping whole that is nigh impossible to find an answer to.

I hate social workers, even the idea the government can have them at hand, and yet the idea that divorced or split families can always work it out themselves is somewhat romantic.

Notice how you're still not getting any specifics from our libertarian sympathizers? Vague pronouncements about the scope of government without any practical plans.

It seems to me that they confuse "The State", which they hate, with "Society" which they also seem to hate but a little less.

Rand Paul is also an enthusiastic opponent of a woman's right to choose, and was also courting the christian right a few weeks ago with a fiery speech about the threat to Christianity from Islam.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

Notice how you're still not getting any specifics from our libertarian sympathizers? Vague pronouncements about the scope of government without any practical plans.

It seems to me that they confuse "The State", which they hate, with "Society" which they also seem to hate but a little less.

Rand Paul is also an enthusiastic opponent of a woman's right to choose, and was also courting the christian right a few weeks ago with a fiery speech about the threat to Christianity from Islam.

My understanding of Ron Paul's position is that he is against abortion, is pro life, but also thinks its up to the state to decide.

I'm surprised about the ISlam speech. I thought much of the reason conservatives and Tea parties don't like him is they feel he thinks the whole Islam threat is blown out of proportion.

I would love to hear a statement from the Pauls,or any libertarian, on the subject of NAMBLA.

Brian?

clairefontaine wrote: »

My understanding of Ron Paul's position is that he is against abortion, is pro life, but also thinks its up to the state to decide.

That's pretty much it. He's fine with government interference as long as it's started government and not federal.

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yet when a kid in the UK dies of neglect or starvation, or broken bones and abuse - then social workers get blamed

It's a thankless difficult tightrope of a job and I don't envy anyone who has it or has to make such difficult decisions

I suspect the answer is freedom comes with a cost and this is one of them.

Problem with the philosophy if independence, children are not independant. Proble, with individualism vs collective good wrapped up in the vaccination issue.

At the same time I don't support Ireland's Children's Rights Act because the state automatically has more rights than the parents do.

As for the courts, where is the accountability of judges?

I don't have a perfect answer. I just want to get some kindof handle on where they stand with it, including things like NAMBLA.

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So, the libertarian view would think that a 13 year old boy could have a sexual relationship with a 50 year old man or woman and they should be free to be able to do that without the parents seeking prosecution?

Or that their fourteen year old daughter can get an abortion without parental consent?

This seems rather liberal? Are libertarians socially liberal?

Brian?

clairefontaine wrote: »

This seems rather liberal? Are libertarians socially liberal?

To be true libertarians they should be. The Libertarian laissez faire philosophy applies to more than economics.

Socially libertarians have more in common with far left anarchic socialists than the traditional right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

Brian? wrote: »

The standard answer to any gaping logic hole in libertarian philosophy: the free market will decide.

Nonsense, and frankly, an outright lie. Libertarianism is primarily about individual rights, and the protection of and addressing violations of such rights. The free market is quite irrelevant to that, and this doesn't represent any 'gaping hole' or logic in the the least.

If a child is being endangered/abused in a family, under libertarian philosophy, its rights are being violated. The free market has zero to do with that.

Are you sure you know what libertarianism is? It doesn't appear you do.

Governments no.1 job is supposed to be to to protect the most vulnerable in society. That includes children, the elderly, disabled, terminally I'll etc. . To propose that the government stay out of family life is completely non sensical.

Libertarianism makes no such proposal.

The vast majority of child abuse and abuse of the elderly occurs within the family unit.

We should work towards building better institutions not talk of abolishing them.

All of that is utterly irrelevant to the tenets of libertarianism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem lies in what constitutes abuse and neglect.

I call circumcision abuse, the rest of the country calls it the right to practise your religion.

Some people call homeschooling abuse.

This is the fuzzy wuzzy part of the ideology.

Mjollnir

clairefontaine wrote: »

The problem lies in what constitutes abuse and neglect.

I call circumcision abuse, the rest of the country calls it the right to practise your religion.

Some people call homeschooling abuse.

This is the fuzzy wuzzy part of the ideology.

How is that a 'fuzzy wuzzy' part of the ideology, any more so than any other?

What you cited as an example applies to manifold political philosophies and outlooks. Libertarianism is no different.

InTheTrees

SO Libertarians approve of state bureaucracies to protect Children but not the elderly and disabled?

??

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

SO Libertarians approve of state bureaucracies to protect Children but not the elderly and disabled?

??

A classic libertarian stance would be children have the free will to engage in sexual acts with adults. They can probably sit on juries too.

It would also suggest that under first ammendment rights, child pornography should be legal.

I'm not sure it wants government intervention with kids either, if you take a classical stance.

What I would like to see is a libertarian record on voting when it comes to enforcing child pornography laws.

Secondly, things like pot. I cant see how you can legalise it without increasing government forces and powers, considering its the cartels who are robbing the dispensaries and the cops will need new technologies and laws for things like DUIs. In a way it means more government, not less.

It's confusing.

Mjollnir

clairefontaine wrote: »

A classic libertarian stance would be children have the free will to engage in sexual acts with adults. They can probably sit on juries too.

There is nothing particularly libertarian about that notion, nor is it by any stretch 'classic libertarianism'. The ignorance here is astounding.

Libertarianism provides both for gov't and the protection of right and, as such, also provides the ability for society to determine a legal age at which such activity is permitted to avoid violating the rights of the child. It's the same concept behind contractual law.

Libertarianism isn't some comic book "Do whatever the hell you want whenever the hell you want to to whoever the hell you choose to" political stance.

It would also suggest that under first ammendment rights, child pornography should be legal.

Really? OK, how does 'classic libertarianism' suggest that? Please be very specific.

I'm not sure it wants government intervention with kids either, if you take a classical stance.

It sounds like you're not entirely sure what any sort of libertarianism is, let alone 'classical libertarianism'.

What I would like to see is a libertarian record on voting when it comes to enforcing child pornography law.

Secondly, things like pot. I cant see how you can legalise it without increasing government forces and powers, considering its the cartels who are robbing the dispensaries and the cops will need new technologies and laws for things like DUIs. In a way it means more government, not less.

It's confusing.

It doesn't mean even one iota of more gov't.

If it were legalized (and it is in many places now) why would gov't 'forces and powers' need to be increased?

And in a fully legal environment, there is no economic incentive to rob dispensaries. Tell me, how many liquor stores get robbed of their liquor by rum-runner syndicates? And why don't they?

And why would 'new technologies' be necessary for anything?

Driving under the influence of ANY drug that effects driver control is currently illegal, regardless of the legal status of the intoxicant. It would change nothing about DUI enforcement.

Nothing confusing there that can be addressed with a little rational thought.

clairefontaine

You need new technologies to detect THC levels.

You need to expand employment on Liquor boards to decide on levels of intoxication as well as enforcement.

You need more authority to stop the cartells from robbing the dispensary.

By the way I support legalisation, but noting it comes with its own government expansions.

PLenty of medical dispensaries are already getting robbed by cartels.

Youre right I dont understand alot, that's why I'm asking questions. Didn't realise that was a crime.

Mjollnir

clairefontaine wrote: »

You need new technologies to detect THC levels.

No, you don't. The law makes allowances for officers on scene to determine obvious impairment.

You need to expand employment on Liquor boards to decide on levels of intoxication as well as enforcement.

That doesn't make any sense.

You need more authority to stop the cartells from robbing the dispensary.

The cartels are the major players, involved in importation primarily, and high level distribution. In a legal environment, they disappear. There is no way for them to exist.

By the way I support legalisation, but noting it comes with its own government expansions.

But, of course, it does. Before drugs were illegalized (at least, in the US), there was no gov't body to regulate them.

PLenty of medical dispensaries are already getting robbed by cartels.

Really? Name them. I work in law enforcement, in Los Angeles, and have never seen any evidence of this. It's waaaaaay below their level.

Youre right I dont understand alot, that's why I'm asking questions. Didn't realise that was a crime.

It's not.

clairefontaine

I suspect much of current libertarianism is inspired by Ayn Rand, whose booksales of "Atlas Shrugged" reached enormous proportions in 2008 after the bubble burst in the US, and as she had pretty much predicted everything that happened drew more admirerers. And fair dues to her for calling it. It's kind of funny to me that Greenspan was in her little circle once upon a time.

Anyhow, as astute as Ms. Rand was, Ms.Rand wrote before divorce and single parenting became so commonplace, and choosing not to have children herself, perhaps the enormous part of the dependent population were simply left out of her scope because they were not in her life.

I don't see a problem with addressing this hole in the philosophy.

joseph brand

clairefontaine wrote: »

The problem lies in what constitutes abuse and neglect.

I call circumcision abuse, the rest of the country calls it the right to practise your religion.

Some people call homeschooling abuse.

This is the fuzzy wuzzy part of the ideology.

Afaik, a Libertarian doesn't care what anyone else does, so long as they leave him/ her alone to their own devices. (so it's a lot more popular amongst the 'well off')

While you can enjoy the freedom of a cannabis joint, the libertarian can blithely dump toxic chemicals into a pristine lake/ river/ ecosystem. (they don't care for the EPA)

Here's the main tenets of Libertarianism:



I can't understand why the working class would support libertarianism ,but some do:

clairefontaine

You notice the rise of libertarianism came about in the 1960s with the rest of the hippies, and after Nixon created all this alphabet soup. The Libertarian party was officially formed the same year Nixon was electe, 1972. If the alphabet soup had not been expanded and created I doubt very much we would have a libertarian growth.

Now the two main figureheads of popular libertarianism if you notice are southern, so they will have a conservative influence. A Californiannor northeaster libertarian, would seem to me to be very socially liberal, and would alienate much of rh GOP. I would absolutely no show support for a libertarian who backed up NAMBLA for example.

Blue collar Americans, with the exception of Italian Americans were often democrats, but Clinton turned the party from an underdog, pro union party into one obsessed with gender politics, thus alienating the blue collar roots of former democrats.

The problem too is the government tends to do things very badly. Take child support for example. Libertarians might argue that the state does not have the right to take the money of an adult and give it to another. Someone else will call this stealing from your children. The US government will also take your license and your passport if you do not pay up what a court has ordered you pay. While some libertarians will support the need for family courts, others might say confiscating a drivers licence and passport transgresses against civil liberties and does not hel the child in getting child support.

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

While you can enjoy the freedom of a cannabis joint, the libertarian can blithely dump toxic chemicals into a pristine lake/ river/ ecosystem. (they don't care for the EPA)

No they can’t. Dumping of toxic chemicals into the water is a crime and should be controlled by law enforcement. What we hate… as an example, is when I wanted to put a small 1 foot bridge over an 8 foot creek on MY PROPERTY just to get from on side to another… I would have had to submit applications and get approvals from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the Department of Environmental Resources, the Bureau of Land Management, the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Department of Homeland Security. I would never have gotten approval. Instead, in one afternoon I put up a little plank drawbridge. Let them come get me!

clairefontaine

Amerika,

This is funny, but not funny. Up near me are radioactive swallows. They are radioactive because of a government nuclear programme from way back, but the swallows are on the protected species list from the EPA so no one can kill them and as a result are spreading their radioactivity.

Mjollnir

joseph brand wrote: »

Afaik, a Libertarian doesn't care what anyone else does, so long as they leave him/ her alone to their own devices. (so it's a lot more popular amongst the 'well off')

While you can enjoy the freedom of a cannabis joint, the libertarian can blithely dump toxic chemicals into a pristine lake/ river/ ecosystem. (they don't care for the EPA)

Here's the main tenets of Libertarianism:



I can't understand why the working class would support libertarianism ,but some do:

You are conflating libertarianism with the platform of the Libertarian Party, two very different things.

In small 'L' libertarianism, 'blithely' dumping toxic chemicals into a pristine lake/ river/ ecosystem will get you sued into the poor house, since by doing so you have clearly violated the rights of whoever owns that ecosystem, be it the public or a private entity.

And what you cited are not 'the main tenets' of libertarianism or Libertarianism. They are planks in a (now) outdated political platform.

Libertarianism works on the non-aggression principle, and everything flows from that.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

This isn't exactly rocket science, people.

joseph brand

@Mjollnir:

From reading threads on this forum and others, as regards libertarianism, there is a lot of confusion about its core principles.

A while back, I figured it seemed like an ideology formed in the interests of the upper classes, the top 10%. I've read nothing since to dissuade me, including the above link.

Ron Paul was popular all over the internet during the presidential race, due to his calls for a reduction in; US bases worldwide and defence spending. Compared to the other GOP hopefuls, he pleaded like a tree-hugging hippie who wouldn't even harm a fly. This part of him I liked.

But, his online popularity crashed when his libertarian views (shared by Ayn Rand) became known. No doubt he could chat with Paul Ryan over their common interest in the 'pursuit and protection' of man's selfishness.

Does anyone have any idea why the bottom 80-90% of Americans should be libertarians?

clairefontaine

joseph brand wrote: »

@Mjollnir:

From reading threads on this forum and others, as regards libertarianism, there is a lot of confusion about its core principles.

A while back, I figured it seemed like an ideology formed in the interests of the upper classes, the top 10%. I've read nothing since to dissuade me, including the above link.

Ron Paul was popular all over the internet during the presidential race, due to his calls for a reduction in; US bases worldwide and defence spending. Compared to the other GOP hopefuls, he pleaded like a tree-hugging hippie who wouldn't even harm a fly. This part of him I liked.

But, his online popularity crashed when his libertarian views (shared by Ayn Rand) became known. No doubt he could chat with Paul Ryan over their common interest in the 'pursuit and protection' of man's selfishness.

Does anyone have any idea why the bottom 80-90% of Americans should be libertarians?

Well its mostly poor and working class boys being sent into war to make money for the war profiteers.

Ron Paul wanted to get more isolationist, he wanted to make better friends with Iran, and stop the nation building.

If we stopped the nation building, wed also slow down the military industrial complex and we wouldnt be killing off all our young men in these money making wars for the war lenders.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well its mostly poor and working class boys being sent into war to make money for the war profiteers.

It's not the 1940's. These people volunteered. Someone somewhere always makes money from war or conflict.

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's not the 1940's. These people volunteered. Someone somewhere always makes money from war or conflict.

Do you know that every American male between the ages of 18-26 has to register with conscription in case the draft is re-activated?

Yes these people volunteered because they have fallen for the heroic rhetoric, the honor, the yadda yadda and the promises of good training and education. I respect them, but I think the government sees them as useful idiots.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

joseph brand wrote: »

@Mjollnir:

From reading threads on this forum and others, as regards libertarianism, there is a lot of confusion about its core principles.

Indeed. That's clearly evident in this thread.

A while back, I figured it seemed like an ideology formed in the interests of the upper classes, the top 10%. I've read nothing since to dissuade me, including the above link.

Then perhaps you haven't understood what you've read. It has nothing exclusive about it to any particular social or economic class.

Ron Paul was popular all over the internet during the presidential race, due to his calls for a reduction in; US bases worldwide and defence spending. Compared to the other GOP hopefuls, he pleaded like a tree-hugging hippie who wouldn't even harm a fly. This part of him I liked.

But, his online popularity crashed when his libertarian views (shared by Ayn Rand) became known. No doubt he could chat with Paul Ryan over their common interest in the 'pursuit and protection' of man's selfishness.

LOL! Paul Ryan is in no rational analysis a libertarian. Not even remotely.

Ayn Rand was and is a crappy example of libertarianism. She was an objectivist. In fact, she hated libertarians with an emotionally unhinged fervor.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

Does anyone have any idea why the bottom 80-90% of Americans should be libertarians?

More personal liberty.

Again: this isn't rocket science.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes these people volunteered because they have fallen for the heroic rhetoric, the honor, the yadda yadda and the promises of good training and education. I respect them, but I think the government sees them as useful idiots.

Doesn't matter why they do it, it's their choice.

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

Doesn't matter why they do it, it's their choice.

It was their choice only after Vietnam. Before then it was not their choice.

And yes, it very much matters why they do it.

Its approaching Veterans Day here. We will be getting all the honor and the glory talk over here.

The kindergarteners and the elementary school students will be bringing in photos of their fathers in the military, some of whom will still be away, and the imprinting starts, hearts and minds...get them young to get it glorified, to make it heroic. They will not be presented as suckers or victims, but as heroes.

So that next generations, having had their hearts and minds captured young, will be ripe for the picking, recruiting.

clairefontaine

Mjollnir wrote: »

Ayn Rand was and is a crappy example of libertarianism. She was an objectivist. In fact, she hated libertarians with an emotionally unhinged fervor.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

More personal liberty.

Again: this isn't rocket science.

That's a very interesting article. Thanks for that.

I think I read on wiki that Alan Greenspan was one of her disciples.

20Cent

clairefontaine wrote: »

That's a very interesting article. Thanks for that.

I think I read on wiki that Alan Greenspan was one of her disciples.

He was a member of her "collective" and names her as one of his big influences.

joseph brand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes. Yes I am. Obviously he had his libertarian support base. But there were many left wing liberals who got 'giddy' when he spoke about America easing off on the war machine. He was correct, for many reasons and I too, admittedly wondered "who the hell is this Republican who talks sense and isn't using the word 'Jesus' every other sentence?" (He did shy away from proclaiming his 'god given right' to run for POTUS). Pity that his GOP rivals weren't as honest.

As I said, there's confusion about what libertarianism is, and when some more of Paul's ideas became public, people had second thoughts. How close was he in the race? Barely in the running iirc.

clairefontaine

joseph brand wrote: »

Yes. Yes I am. Obviously he had his libertarian support base. But there were many left wing liberals who got 'giddy' when he spoke about America easing off on the war machine. He was correct, for many reasons and I too, admittedly wondered "who the hell is this Republican who talks sense and isn't using the word 'Jesus' every other sentence?" (He did shy away from proclaiming his 'god given right' to run for POTUS). Pity that his GOP rivals weren't as honest.

As I said, there's confusion about what libertarianism is, and when some more of Paul's ideas became public, people had second thoughts. How close was he in the race? Barely in the running iirc.

No. Most people, even the Che Guevara t shirt wearers down at NYU knew Ron Paul was a libertarian.

Plenty of Jewish republicans too. No need to be so prejudicial with the Jesus talk.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

http://nypost.com/2013/11/07/psychologist-called-dad-unfit-parent-for-refusing-son-mcdonalds-suit/

And here we have a great example of the unaccountability of the judiciary and family courts.

A court appointed psychologist calls a father an unfir parent for refusing to give his child McDonalds.

And the psych/social workers are essential instruments in this legitimised corruption.