Libertarianism & social services

[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 Am The Scum]

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

 

[m-n-m]

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

 

[AvalonXQ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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

You mean it's all you need?

 

[megaresp]

...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]

You mean it's all you need?

Yes. Also, you give it a bad name.

 

[lomiller]

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]

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]

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]

Yes. Also, you give it a bad name.

One tries ones best.

 

[Beady]

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]

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.

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]

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.