Libertarianism & social services

Undesired Walrus · 14th July 2011, 10:01 AM

I'm interested to know the Libertarian position on social services. Do Libertarians believe that the state should have the right (and/or responsibility) to monitor, supervise and in some cases remove the children of parents haven't lived up to what is expected of them? Do they regard it to be the role of the state or private enterprise?

I Am The Scum · 14th July 2011, 10:03 AM

The free market is like love. It will find a way.

m-n-m · 14th July 2011, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

The free market is like love. It will find a way.

AvalonXQ · 14th July 2011, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I'm interested to know the Libertarian position on social services. Do Libertarians believe that the state should have the right (and/or responsibility) to monitor, supervise and in some cases remove the children of parents haven't lived up to what is expected of them? Do they regard it to be the role of the state or private enterprise?

My libertarian position is that the state has the right to do this, yes.

The extension of this is that the state also has the right to tell you if you are permitted to have and raise children at all. There is no "right" to unrestrained reproduction in a society with limited resources.

TraneWreck · 14th July 2011, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

My libertarian position is that the state has the right to do this, yes.

The extension of this is that the state also has the right to tell you if you are permitted to have and raise children at all. There is no "right" to unrestrained reproduction in a society with limited resources.

I sort of agree with the substance of your claim, but that sounds like exactly the opposite of libertarianism. That would give the state broad and massive powers, much greater than what it holds now.

AvalonXQ · 14th July 2011, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by TraneWreck

I sort of agree with the substance of your claim, but that sounds like exactly the opposite of libertarianism. That would give the state broad and massive powers, much greater than what it holds now.

Libertarianism isn't actually about the level of government power as it is about the scope of government action.

For instance, our current society might be very lax when it comes to enforcing laws against tresspassing, fraud, and violent crime. A government that enforces these things extremely severely, but also has no drug laws and has privatized roads and utilities, might have "more power" in some absolute sense but still be more within the scope of libertarian ideals.

The OP happened to touch on one of the areas where I believe a libertarian government still has the right to interfere greatly, which is to say the protection of minor children (and, to go further, the production of those children).

A libertarian government isn't necessarily "less" government than today. It's just that today's government is involved in so many areas that libertarians find impermissable, that reducing government interference in those areas is the primary thrust of a lot of libertarian thought and action.

Humes fork · 14th July 2011, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Libertarianism isn't actually about the level of government power as it is about the scope of government action.

For instance, our current society might be very lax when it comes to enforcing laws against tresspassing, fraud, and violent crime. A government that enforces these things extremely severely, but also has no drug laws and has privatized roads and utilities, might have "more power" in some absolute sense but still be more within the scope of libertarian ideals.

The OP happened to touch on one of the areas where I believe a libertarian government still has the right to interfere greatly, which is to say the protection of minor children (and, to go further, the production of those children).

A libertarian government isn't necessarily "less" government than today. It's just that today's government is involved in so many areas that libertarians find impermissable, that reducing government interference in those areas is the primary thrust of a lot of libertarian thought and action.

This is obviously correct. A small government is not necessarily a weak one.

AvalonXQ · 14th July 2011, 12:14 PM

Basically, I see government control over reproductive choice to be an example of "gatekeeper" behavior.

The government gets to have a say into whether a citizens "enters" the society (in this case by being born), but once the citizen enters, she has the full rights and protections of the society, which can no longer be taken away from her -- and, in fact, must be affirmatively assured by the action of government.

So, knowing that this potential birth is going to be another citizen to protect and police, the government needs to realistically evaluate the added burden and make a decision.

Suddenly · 14th July 2011, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I'm interested to know the Libertarian position on social services. Do Libertarians believe that the state should have the right (and/or responsibility) to monitor, supervise and in some cases remove the children of parents haven't lived up to what is expected of them? Do they regard it to be the role of the state or private enterprise?

Going by Michael Badnarik's (The 2004 LP Presidential Candidate) constitutional class, the only way the state can monitor, supervise, etc. is if the parents have a marriage license because if you get a marriage license that means the state owns your children.

Other than that, no.

As I recall he had the sense to leave that little morsel out of his book, but he did say it during the class I watched. Pretty funny stuff.

TraneWreck · 14th July 2011, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Libertarianism isn't actually about the level of government power as it is about the scope of government action.

[...]

A libertarian government isn't necessarily "less" government than today. It's just that today's government is involved in so many areas that libertarians find impermissable, that reducing government interference in those areas is the primary thrust of a lot of libertarian thought and action.

Obviously we will disagree on a lot of the details, but once again, you seem to be advancing a novel version of libertarianism. The basis of libertarianism has always been a defense of (what they view as) individual rights and liberty:

Quote:

As promoted by the United States Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the belief that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. The typical description given is that no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

You're clearly welcome to your own political doctrine, and I agree that this is an area the state should be able to intervene on kids' behalf, but that is by far not a popular stance among self-described libertarians. Notice that it is the libertarians who are, for example, up in arms about Michelle Obama's VOLUNTARY dietary standards and anti-obesity campaign.

Libertarians are feverishly rejecting the idea that the state should be able to suggest a more healthy lifestyle, I don't see how they would be down with allowing the state to take their kids and do whatever was necessary to offer them a "proper" upbringing.

megaresp · 14th July 2011, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

The free market is like love. It will find a way.

You mean it's all you need?

megaresp · 14th July 2011, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...knowing that this potential birth is going to be another citizen to protect and police, the government needs to realistically evaluate the added burden and make a decision.

I await (with no small degree of fascination) your detailed criteria for approving or denying the conception/birth of any given child by any given set of parents. Naturally said criteria must also govern unwanted and/or unexpected conception.

I Am The Scum · 14th July 2011, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by megaresp

You mean it's all you need?

Yes. Also, you give it a bad name.

lomiller · 14th July 2011, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by TraneWreck

Obviously we will disagree on a lot of the details, but once again, you seem to be advancing a novel version of libertarianism. The basis of libertarianism has always been a defense of (what they view as) individual rights and liberty:

I tend to agree with you. While the state stepping to to protect minors may be compatible with Libertarianism the notion that the state can step in proactively and decide who can and can't reproduce certainly is not.

Beady · 15th July 2011, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

A libertarian government isn't necessarily "less" government than today. It's just that today's government is involved in so many areas that libertarians find impermissable, that reducing government interference in those areas is the primary thrust of a lot of libertarian thought and action.

Alright, try this one. During the 2000 election campaign, the one immediately following Vermont's adoption of Civil Union, the Vermont Libertarian gubanatorial candidate (a neighbor of mine) stated that he was against civil unions because the state had no right to govern interpersonal relations. I never could get him to explain further. To me, it sounded like rather than extending legal protection to a formerly unprotected class of citizen, he refused to acknowledge the the state's right to extend that protection, thus leaving those citizens unprotected.

AvalonXQ · 15th July 2011, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Beady

Alright, try this one. During the 2000 election campaign, the one immediately following Vermont's adoption of Civil Union, the Vermont Libertarian gubanatorial candidate (a neighbor of mine) stated that he was against civil unions because the state had no right to govern interpersonal relations. I never could get him to explain further.

I can't understand how a libertarian could oppose civil unions without also opposing marriage licenses.

megaresp · 15th July 2011, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Yes. Also, you give it a bad name.

One tries ones best.

Beady · 15th July 2011, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I can't understand how a libertarian could oppose civil unions without also opposing marriage licenses.

Oh, he opposed them, too. He figured marriage was basically a financial arrangement, so far as the state is concerned, and a business contract should be good enough for *any* relationship. Seems to be picking nits, to me, since I don't see the practical difference between a marriage contract and a business contract; a contract is a contract.

In 2000, though, Vermont's Civil Union law was brand-new and there was a (very slight) chance it could be rescinded. Marriage laws, however, have been in place world-wide almost since the dawn of time, and no one stands a realistic chance of having them repealed. Since you couldn't repeal the one, why be against including gays under the same or a similar umbrella? It looked, then and now, as if the Libertarians were participating in a religiously-inspired agenda.

In a larger context, though, I don't understand the rational of opposing civil marriage/union licenses. Marriage has been a civil relationship since, well, forever, to all intents and purposes, and most laws rely on precedent. I'm not aware of any religions that oppose civil marriage laws, neither am I aware of any laws in the developed world where a religiously-sanctioned marriage is not recognised by the state. I can tell you from personal knowledge that the United States government recognizes any marriage (or divorce) that is considered legal in the jurisdiction in which it occurred. Basically, all it is, is a recognition by the government of the legal relationship between a couple.

Segnosaur · 15th July 2011, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Beady

Oh, he opposed them, too. He figured marriage was basically a financial arrangement, so far as the state is concerned, and a business contract should be good enough for *any* relationship.

In that case he's being consistent... he wasn't "against extending marriage to include homosexuals", he was against all marriage, and (possibly) didn't want to extend the definition of marriage when it should be removed all-together.

Quote:

In a larger context, though, I don't understand the rational of opposing civil marriage/union licenses.

Well, I can see one or 2 reasons. For example, government-defined "civil marriage" is defined to be a one-on-one relationship. A libertarian might find that too restrictive (e.g. its a restriction on a person having multiple spouses, or similar 'group' situations, if that's what they choose). A couple married under government-ruled marriage could in theory end up with more advantages (e.g. tax breaks, etc.) than those with a contract-defined group relationships.

Not that I necessarily agree with that... I'm just trying to state why a Libertarian might feel the way they do.

Segnosaur · 15th July 2011, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I'm interested to know the Libertarian position on social services. Do Libertarians believe that the state should have the right (and/or responsibility) to monitor, supervise and in some cases remove the children of parents haven't lived up to what is expected of them? Do they regard it to be the role of the state or private enterprise?

I'm not a libertarian, but I assume that they'd agree to at least some mechanism to remove children from households that were "dangerous" (e.g. in cases of child abuse.)

Remember, being a libertarian is not the same as being an anarchist... one of the tenants of being "libertarian" is that you believe at least some government should exist to provide "law and order". Since beating on a child is supposedly against the law, removing them from such an environment is acceptable.

But that's just a guess.

mumblethrax · 15th July 2011, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Basically, I see government control over reproductive choice to be an example of "gatekeeper" behavior.

The government gets to have a say into whether a citizens "enters" the society (in this case by being born), but once the citizen enters, she has the full rights and protections of the society, which can no longer be taken away from her -- and, in fact, must be affirmatively assured by the action of government.

So, knowing that this potential birth is going to be another citizen to protect and police, the government needs to realistically evaluate the added burden and make a decision.

Does it follow that compulsory termination of pregnancies where a fetus has been diagnosed with a disorder that will significantly burden the state (say, Down syndrome) is legitimate policy to libertarians?

Beady · 15th July 2011, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Not that I necessarily agree with that... I'm just trying to state why a Libertarian might feel the way they do.

My problem with it is that the abolition of marriage (as we know it) simply isn't going to happen; it's one of the bedrock institutions of pretty much every society. So why base your actions on an impossibility?

And here's something that strikes me as a real paradox: Libertarians are generally allied with fundamentalist Christians under the Republican banner. Fundamentalist Christians (at least, the ones I know) see civil unions and gay marriage as a direct threat to family values and traditional marriage, while Libertarians supposedly wouldn't have a problem with gay marriage if they could do away with traditional marriage. AFAIK, though, neither side has a problem with the other. Seems to me that either someone hasn't thought it through, or is being just a tad hypocritical.

Segnosaur · 15th July 2011, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Beady

My problem with it is that the abolition of marriage (as we know it) simply isn't going to happen; it's one of the bedrock institutions of pretty much every society. So why base your actions on an impossibility?

Well, perhaps because they believe that if they decide to compromise, then there's absolutely no chance of the changes they want getting made.

Quote:

And here's something that strikes me as a real paradox: Libertarians are generally allied with fundamentalist Christians under the Republican banner. Fundamentalist Christians (at least, the ones I know)...

They are?

If I remember correctly, here in Canada the Libertarian party often throws its support behind the Marijuana party.

lomiller · 15th July 2011, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Beady

My problem with it is that the abolition of marriage (as we know it) simply isn't going to happen; it's one of the bedrock institutions of pretty much every society. So why base your actions on an impossibility?

I don’t think he was for the abolition of marriage. Rather he most likely thought that it’s a social institution that government shouldn’t be involved in.

Skeptic Ginger · 15th July 2011, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

My libertarian position is that the state has the right to do this, yes.

The extension of this is that the state also has the right to tell you if you are permitted to have and raise children at all. There is no "right" to unrestrained reproduction in a society with limited resources.

Is it consistent with Libertarians to tell someone how many kids they can have?

You do know your solution is a fail if the kids come first, then the need for social services develops second.

AvalonXQ · 15th July 2011, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Is it consistent with Libertarians to tell someone how many kids they can have?

As an extension of the State's role in protecting people from each other, yes.
In other words, parenting by definition is an interaction between two people, one of whom has no ability to consent to the interaction. Possession and dominion over another human being is not a basic right the way life, liberty, and property are.

Skeptic Ginger · 16th July 2011, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

As an extension of the State's role in protecting people from each other, yes.
In other words, parenting by definition is an interaction between two people, one of whom has no ability to consent to the interaction. Possession and dominion over another human being is not a basic right the way life, liberty, and property are.

Something tells me your version of Libertarianism is unique.

theprestige · 16th July 2011, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Something tells me your version of Libertarianism is unique.

So, when you debate the principles and tenets of Libertarianism, which ones do you choose to debate? How do you justify your choice?

AvalonXQ · 16th July 2011, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Something tells me your version of Libertarianism is unique.

Applying libertarian principles to this issue in this way is unusual, yes, but not unique.

The entire family situation, from child-rearing to abortion, is one area where libertarians are not in very good agreement with each other anyway.

Few experienced libertarians would be particularly surprised by any position on this subject, including mine.

Skeptic Ginger · 16th July 2011, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

So, when you debate the principles and tenets of Libertarianism, which ones do you choose to debate? How do you justify your choice?

I have read their political platform pages for the most part. They are supposed to be based on some kind of consensus.

It's worth noting Avalon agrees his version is "unusual".

Beerina · 16th July 2011, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

The free market is like love. It will find a way.

It got us from single cells to humans. I wouldn't be so quick to toss it out the window in favor of something else.

corbin · 16th July 2011, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

As an extension of the State's role in protecting people from each other, yes.
In other words, parenting by definition is an interaction between two people, one of whom has no ability to consent to the interaction. Possession and dominion over another human being is not a basic right the way life, liberty, and property are.

The mere act of having a child does not constitute the aggression of one party to another requisite for the libertarian to desire state intervention.

Raising the child poorly does, but merely having the child does not violate the non-aggression principle.

If anything, such a draconian measure represents the state's "possession and dominion" over individuals. There are ways to deal with global energy problems that don't involve the wholesale auctioning-off of individual freedom and massively centralized control schemes.

Undesired Walrus · 17th July 2011, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

It got us from single cells to humans. I wouldn't be so quick to toss it out the window in favor of something else.

And Human 'regulation' gave us the breeds of dogs we see today in a small window of the time it would have taken without.

Beerina · 17th July 2011, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

And Human 'regulation' gave us the breeds of dogs we see today in a small window of the time it would have taken without.

Free, voluntary humans.

If nobody had bread a dog from a wolf-like thing before, and somebody suddenly thought to try it, the government would regulate it out of existence as cruel, no doubt.

You're not helping your case any.

Undesired Walrus · 18th July 2011, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Free, voluntary humans.

If nobody had bread a dog from a wolf-like thing before, and somebody suddenly thought to try it, the government would regulate it out of existence as cruel, no doubt.

You're not helping your case any.

With all due respect, I believe that's a diversion from the matter at hand, which is using the power of natural selection to support free market ideology. I countered that with the fact that 'regulated' artificial selection produces the same results unguided natural selection could produce in far less time.

timhau · 18th July 2011, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Yes. Also, you give it a bad name.

Stop! In the name of free market.

Beady · 18th July 2011, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by Beady

My problem with it is that the abolition of marriage (as we know it) simply isn't going to happen; it's one of the bedrock institutions of pretty much every society. So why base your actions on an impossibility?

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Well, perhaps because they believe that if they decide to compromise, then there's absolutely no chance of the changes they want getting made.

But that's my point. Compromise or not, the abolition of the civil recognition of marriage (ie marriage licenses) and all that goes with it *is* an impossibility. Not only are Libertarians blind to the fact that they are wasting their energy on such an issue, they also don't seem to appreciate the damage they are doing to their credibility.

Originally Posted by lomiller

I don’t think he was for the abolition of marriage. Rather he most likely thought that it’s a social institution that government shouldn’t be involved in.

Yes, but tell me: *How* do you seperate government from marriage? If you reduce marriage to nothing more than a social contract, how do you impose, say, survivor rights? What about family housing for the military? What about divorces, if married couples are denied access to the courts?

That last is another issue: to grant the court's authority over divorce is to inherently admit that government can regulate marriage to an arguable degree. To deny the courts that authority is to deny an entire class of citizens access to legal redress. Again, it seems to me that the Libertarans are engaged in another lose-lose situation.

To me, the fundamental flaw in viewing the marketplace as self-regulating (as if it were somehow subject to the scientific method) is the refusal to acknowledge that it is designed and operated by human beings, who are fundamentally flawed. Humans almost always seek self-serving short-term answers to long-term problems. To paraphrase Barbara Tuchman, corporations always work against their own interests. General Motors, et al, almost went under because they refused to acknowledge the changing world; IBM had problems in the home computer market because they figured they could tell the public what the public wanted; need I mention Enron, the banks, etc?

If we could plug the marketplace into computers and let it run on cold logic, it might work, but it won't work as long as human intervention is possible. I don't see much chance of that happening as long as human nature is a factor.

NoScotsman · 18th July 2011, 09:48 AM

With the Greens/Libertarians, diversity of opinion demonstrates an inconsistent and incomplete political philosophy; whereas, with Republicans and Democrats, diversity of opinion demonstrates strength, diversity, and inclusion (i.e., the "big tent" philosophy).

Beat · 18th July 2011, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

It got us from single cells to humans. I wouldn't be so quick to toss it out the window in favor of something else.

You aren't serious about this, are you?
It's evolution, not the free market.

14th July 2011, 10:01 AM	#1
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,894	Libertarianism & social services I'm interested to know the Libertarian position on social services. Do Libertarians believe that the state should have the right (and/or responsibility) to monitor, supervise and in some cases remove the children of parents haven't lived up to what is expected of them? Do they regard it to be the role of the state or private enterprise?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

14th July 2011, 11:12 AM	#3
m-n-m Scholar Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 106	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum The free market is like love. It will find a way.
m-n-m Scholar Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 106

14th July 2011, 11:15 AM	#4
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus I'm interested to know the Libertarian position on social services. Do Libertarians believe that the state should have the right (and/or responsibility) to monitor, supervise and in some cases remove the children of parents haven't lived up to what is expected of them? Do they regard it to be the role of the state or private enterprise? My libertarian position is that the state has the right to do this, yes. The extension of this is that the state also has the right to tell you if you are permitted to have and raise children at all. There is no "right" to unrestrained reproduction in a society with limited resources.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

14th July 2011, 12:09 PM	#6
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by TraneWreck I sort of agree with the substance of your claim, but that sounds like exactly the opposite of libertarianism. That would give the state broad and massive powers, much greater than what it holds now. Libertarianism isn't actually about the level of government power as it is about the scope of government action. For instance, our current society might be very lax when it comes to enforcing laws against tresspassing, fraud, and violent crime. A government that enforces these things extremely severely, but also has no drug laws and has privatized roads and utilities, might have "more power" in some absolute sense but still be more within the scope of libertarian ideals. The OP happened to touch on one of the areas where I believe a libertarian government still has the right to interfere greatly, which is to say the protection of minor children (and, to go further, the production of those children). A libertarian government isn't necessarily "less" government than today. It's just that today's government is involved in so many areas that libertarians find impermissable, that reducing government interference in those areas is the primary thrust of a lot of libertarian thought and action.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

14th July 2011, 12:14 PM	#8
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Basically, I see government control over reproductive choice to be an example of "gatekeeper" behavior. The government gets to have a say into whether a citizens "enters" the society (in this case by being born), but once the citizen enters, she has the full rights and protections of the society, which can no longer be taken away from her -- and, in fact, must be affirmatively assured by the action of government. So, knowing that this potential birth is going to be another citizen to protect and police, the government needs to realistically evaluate the added burden and make a decision.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

14th July 2011, 10:03 AM	#2
I Am The Scum Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,549	The free market is like love. It will find a way.

14th July 2011, 11:56 AM	#5
TraneWreck Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 6,414	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ My libertarian position is that the state has the right to do this, yes. The extension of this is that the state also has the right to tell you if you are permitted to have and raise children at all. There is no "right" to unrestrained reproduction in a society with limited resources. I sort of agree with the substance of your claim, but that sounds like exactly the opposite of libertarianism. That would give the state broad and massive powers, much greater than what it holds now.

14th July 2011, 12:11 PM	#7
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,367	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Libertarianism isn't actually about the level of government power as it is about the scope of government action. For instance, our current society might be very lax when it comes to enforcing laws against tresspassing, fraud, and violent crime. A government that enforces these things extremely severely, but also has no drug laws and has privatized roads and utilities, might have "more power" in some absolute sense but still be more within the scope of libertarian ideals. The OP happened to touch on one of the areas where I believe a libertarian government still has the right to interfere greatly, which is to say the protection of minor children (and, to go further, the production of those children). A libertarian government isn't necessarily "less" government than today. It's just that today's government is involved in so many areas that libertarians find impermissable, that reducing government interference in those areas is the primary thrust of a lot of libertarian thought and action. This is obviously correct. A small government is not necessarily a weak one.

14th July 2011, 12:23 PM	#9
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montani Semper Liberi Posts: 2,645	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus I'm interested to know the Libertarian position on social services. Do Libertarians believe that the state should have the right (and/or responsibility) to monitor, supervise and in some cases remove the children of parents haven't lived up to what is expected of them? Do they regard it to be the role of the state or private enterprise? Going by Michael Badnarik's (The 2004 LP Presidential Candidate) constitutional class, the only way the state can monitor, supervise, etc. is if the parents have a marriage license because if you get a marriage license that means the state owns your children. Other than that, no. As I recall he had the sense to leave that little morsel out of his book, but he did say it during the class I watched. Pretty funny stuff.
	__________________ Visit ElbowJobertski.com for all your fine comic literature needs, that is assuming all you want is on that site. It probably isn't, but so it goes.

14th July 2011, 12:33 PM	#10
TraneWreck Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 6,414	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Libertarianism isn't actually about the level of government power as it is about the scope of government action. [...] A libertarian government isn't necessarily "less" government than today. It's just that today's government is involved in so many areas that libertarians find impermissable, that reducing government interference in those areas is the primary thrust of a lot of libertarian thought and action. Obviously we will disagree on a lot of the details, but once again, you seem to be advancing a novel version of libertarianism. The basis of libertarianism has always been a defense of (what they view as) individual rights and liberty: Quote: As promoted by the United States Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the belief that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. The typical description given is that no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism You're clearly welcome to your own political doctrine, and I agree that this is an area the state should be able to intervene on kids' behalf, but that is by far not a popular stance among self-described libertarians. Notice that it is the libertarians who are, for example, up in arms about Michelle Obama's VOLUNTARY dietary standards and anti-obesity campaign. Libertarians are feverishly rejecting the idea that the state should be able to suggest a more healthy lifestyle, I don't see how they would be down with allowing the state to take their kids and do whatever was necessary to offer them a "proper" upbringing.

14th July 2011, 12:51 PM	#11
megaresp Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In me head Posts: 517	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum The free market is like love. It will find a way. You mean it's all you need?

14th July 2011, 12:55 PM	#12
megaresp Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In me head Posts: 517	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ ...knowing that this potential birth is going to be another citizen to protect and police, the government needs to realistically evaluate the added burden and make a decision. I await (with no small degree of fascination) your detailed criteria for approving or denying the conception/birth of any given child by any given set of parents. Naturally said criteria must also govern unwanted and/or unexpected conception.

14th July 2011, 03:14 PM	#13
I Am The Scum Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,549	Originally Posted by megaresp You mean it's all you need? Yes. Also, you give it a bad name.

14th July 2011, 04:31 PM	#14
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,872	Originally Posted by TraneWreck Obviously we will disagree on a lot of the details, but once again, you seem to be advancing a novel version of libertarianism. The basis of libertarianism has always been a defense of (what they view as) individual rights and liberty: I tend to agree with you. While the state stepping to to protect minors may be compatible with Libertarianism the notion that the state can step in proactively and decide who can and can't reproduce certainly is not.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,872	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

15th July 2011, 03:49 AM	#15
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ A libertarian government isn't necessarily "less" government than today. It's just that today's government is involved in so many areas that libertarians find impermissable, that reducing government interference in those areas is the primary thrust of a lot of libertarian thought and action. Alright, try this one. During the 2000 election campaign, the one immediately following Vermont's adoption of Civil Union, the Vermont Libertarian gubanatorial candidate (a neighbor of mine) stated that he was against civil unions because the state had no right to govern interpersonal relations. I never could get him to explain further. To me, it sounded like rather than extending legal protection to a formerly unprotected class of citizen, he refused to acknowledge the the state's right to extend that protection, thus leaving those citizens unprotected.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

15th July 2011, 06:39 AM	#16
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Beady Alright, try this one. During the 2000 election campaign, the one immediately following Vermont's adoption of Civil Union, the Vermont Libertarian gubanatorial candidate (a neighbor of mine) stated that he was against civil unions because the state had no right to govern interpersonal relations. I never could get him to explain further. I can't understand how a libertarian could oppose civil unions without also opposing marriage licenses.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

15th July 2011, 06:56 AM	#17
megaresp Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In me head Posts: 517	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum Yes. Also, you give it a bad name. One tries ones best.

15th July 2011, 09:26 AM	#18
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I can't understand how a libertarian could oppose civil unions without also opposing marriage licenses. Oh, he opposed them, too. He figured marriage was basically a financial arrangement, so far as the state is concerned, and a business contract should be good enough for any relationship. Seems to be picking nits, to me, since I don't see the practical difference between a marriage contract and a business contract; a contract is a contract. In 2000, though, Vermont's Civil Union law was brand-new and there was a (very slight) chance it could be rescinded. Marriage laws, however, have been in place world-wide almost since the dawn of time, and no one stands a realistic chance of having them repealed. Since you couldn't repeal the one, why be against including gays under the same or a similar umbrella? It looked, then and now, as if the Libertarians were participating in a religiously-inspired agenda. In a larger context, though, I don't understand the rational of opposing civil marriage/union licenses. Marriage has been a civil relationship since, well, forever, to all intents and purposes, and most laws rely on precedent. I'm not aware of any religions that oppose civil marriage laws, neither am I aware of any laws in the developed world where a religiously-sanctioned marriage is not recognised by the state. I can tell you from personal knowledge that the United States government recognizes any marriage (or divorce) that is considered legal in the jurisdiction in which it occurred. Basically, all it is, is a recognition by the government of the legal relationship between a couple.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

15th July 2011, 09:59 AM	#19
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Originally Posted by Beady Oh, he opposed them, too. He figured marriage was basically a financial arrangement, so far as the state is concerned, and a business contract should be good enough for any relationship. In that case he's being consistent... he wasn't "against extending marriage to include homosexuals", he was against all marriage, and (possibly) didn't want to extend the definition of marriage when it should be removed all-together. Quote: In a larger context, though, I don't understand the rational of opposing civil marriage/union licenses. Well, I can see one or 2 reasons. For example, government-defined "civil marriage" is defined to be a one-on-one relationship. A libertarian might find that too restrictive (e.g. its a restriction on a person having multiple spouses, or similar 'group' situations, if that's what they choose). A couple married under government-ruled marriage could in theory end up with more advantages (e.g. tax breaks, etc.) than those with a contract-defined group relationships. Not that I necessarily agree with that... I'm just trying to state why a Libertarian might feel the way they do.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

15th July 2011, 10:59 AM	#20
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus I'm interested to know the Libertarian position on social services. Do Libertarians believe that the state should have the right (and/or responsibility) to monitor, supervise and in some cases remove the children of parents haven't lived up to what is expected of them? Do they regard it to be the role of the state or private enterprise? I'm not a libertarian, but I assume that they'd agree to at least some mechanism to remove children from households that were "dangerous" (e.g. in cases of child abuse.) Remember, being a libertarian is not the same as being an anarchist... one of the tenants of being "libertarian" is that you believe at least some government should exist to provide "law and order". Since beating on a child is supposedly against the law, removing them from such an environment is acceptable. But that's just a guess.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

15th July 2011, 11:06 AM	#21
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,062	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Basically, I see government control over reproductive choice to be an example of "gatekeeper" behavior. The government gets to have a say into whether a citizens "enters" the society (in this case by being born), but once the citizen enters, she has the full rights and protections of the society, which can no longer be taken away from her -- and, in fact, must be affirmatively assured by the action of government. So, knowing that this potential birth is going to be another citizen to protect and police, the government needs to realistically evaluate the added burden and make a decision. Does it follow that compulsory termination of pregnancies where a fetus has been diagnosed with a disorder that will significantly burden the state (say, Down syndrome) is legitimate policy to libertarians?

15th July 2011, 11:07 AM	#22
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Not that I necessarily agree with that... I'm just trying to state why a Libertarian might feel the way they do. My problem with it is that the abolition of marriage (as we know it) simply isn't going to happen; it's one of the bedrock institutions of pretty much every society. So why base your actions on an impossibility? And here's something that strikes me as a real paradox: Libertarians are generally allied with fundamentalist Christians under the Republican banner. Fundamentalist Christians (at least, the ones I know) see civil unions and gay marriage as a direct threat to family values and traditional marriage, while Libertarians supposedly wouldn't have a problem with gay marriage if they could do away with traditional marriage. AFAIK, though, neither side has a problem with the other. Seems to me that either someone hasn't thought it through, or is being just a tad hypocritical.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

15th July 2011, 12:27 PM	#23
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Originally Posted by Beady My problem with it is that the abolition of marriage (as we know it) simply isn't going to happen; it's one of the bedrock institutions of pretty much every society. So why base your actions on an impossibility? Well, perhaps because they believe that if they decide to compromise, then there's absolutely no chance of the changes they want getting made. Quote: And here's something that strikes me as a real paradox: Libertarians are generally allied with fundamentalist Christians under the Republican banner. Fundamentalist Christians (at least, the ones I know)... They are? If I remember correctly, here in Canada the Libertarian party often throws its support behind the Marijuana party.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

15th July 2011, 12:51 PM	#24
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,872	Originally Posted by Beady My problem with it is that the abolition of marriage (as we know it) simply isn't going to happen; it's one of the bedrock institutions of pretty much every society. So why base your actions on an impossibility? I don’t think he was for the abolition of marriage. Rather he most likely thought that it’s a social institution that government shouldn’t be involved in.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,872	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

15th July 2011, 09:40 PM	#25
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,633	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ My libertarian position is that the state has the right to do this, yes. The extension of this is that the state also has the right to tell you if you are permitted to have and raise children at all. There is no "right" to unrestrained reproduction in a society with limited resources. Is it consistent with Libertarians to tell someone how many kids they can have? You do know your solution is a fail if the kids come first, then the need for social services develops second.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 15th July 2011 at 09:42 PM.*

15th July 2011, 11:05 PM	#26
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Is it consistent with Libertarians to tell someone how many kids they can have? As an extension of the State's role in protecting people from each other, yes. In other words, parenting by definition is an interaction between two people, one of whom has no ability to consent to the interaction. Possession and dominion over another human being is not a basic right the way life, liberty, and property are.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

16th July 2011, 12:32 AM	#27
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,633	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ As an extension of the State's role in protecting people from each other, yes. In other words, parenting by definition is an interaction between two people, one of whom has no ability to consent to the interaction. Possession and dominion over another human being is not a basic right the way life, liberty, and property are. Something tells me your version of Libertarianism is unique.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

16th July 2011, 12:37 AM	#28
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,671	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Something tells me your version of Libertarianism is unique. So, when you debate the principles and tenets of Libertarianism, which ones do you choose to debate? How do you justify your choice?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,671

16th July 2011, 06:53 AM	#29
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Something tells me your version of Libertarianism is unique. Applying libertarian principles to this issue in this way is unusual, yes, but not unique. The entire family situation, from child-rearing to abortion, is one area where libertarians are not in very good agreement with each other anyway. Few experienced libertarians would be particularly surprised by any position on this subject, including mine.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

16th July 2011, 04:30 PM	#30
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,633	Originally Posted by theprestige So, when you debate the principles and tenets of Libertarianism, which ones do you choose to debate? How do you justify your choice? I have read their political platform pages for the most part. They are supposed to be based on some kind of consensus. It's worth noting Avalon agrees his version is "unusual".
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 16th July 2011 at 04:31 PM.*

16th July 2011, 05:33 PM	#31
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum The free market is like love. It will find a way. It got us from single cells to humans. I wouldn't be so quick to toss it out the window in favor of something else.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

16th July 2011, 07:10 PM	#32
corbin Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 396	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ As an extension of the State's role in protecting people from each other, yes. In other words, parenting by definition is an interaction between two people, one of whom has no ability to consent to the interaction. Possession and dominion over another human being is not a basic right the way life, liberty, and property are. The mere act of having a child does not constitute the aggression of one party to another requisite for the libertarian to desire state intervention. Raising the child poorly does, but merely having the child does not violate the non-aggression principle. If anything, such a draconian measure represents the state's "possession and dominion" over individuals. There are ways to deal with global energy problems that don't involve the wholesale auctioning-off of individual freedom and massively centralized control schemes.
corbin Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 396

17th July 2011, 03:50 AM	#33
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,894	Originally Posted by Beerina It got us from single cells to humans. I wouldn't be so quick to toss it out the window in favor of something else. And Human 'regulation' gave us the breeds of dogs we see today in a small window of the time it would have taken without.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

17th July 2011, 04:40 AM	#34
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus And Human 'regulation' gave us the breeds of dogs we see today in a small window of the time it would have taken without. Free, voluntary humans. If nobody had bread a dog from a wolf-like thing before, and somebody suddenly thought to try it, the government would regulate it out of existence as cruel, no doubt. You're not helping your case any.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

18th July 2011, 02:20 AM	#35
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,894	Quote: Free, voluntary humans. If nobody had bread a dog from a wolf-like thing before, and somebody suddenly thought to try it, the government would regulate it out of existence as cruel, no doubt. You're not helping your case any. With all due respect, I believe that's a diversion from the matter at hand, which is using the power of natural selection to support free market ideology. I countered that with the fact that 'regulated' artificial selection produces the same results unguided natural selection could produce in far less time.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945