Yet another Libertarian loony

[Suddenly]

Either point out ONE instance where I have claimed this or issue an immediate apology. I am getting SICK TO F*CKING DEATH of you liars.

Point out where I said you claimed it or admit you are

LYING

and apologize for calling me a liar.

This is the basis for most tax protestor garbage, although most have the sense to be more coy that to explain it in such direct language...

(By the way, weren't you the one awhile back who was trying to convince me that the 10th Amendment didn't really restrict the Federal government from using powers that weren't enumerated in the Constitution because it didn't use the word "expressly"?)

Not that I recall.

I've said that the 10th does not restrict the Feds from using powers that were enumerated in the constitution. This is something many people that scream about the 10th tend to miss, that if the power falls under some constitutional grant (commerce power for example) the 10th is irrelevant.

 

[Suddenly]

This guy's rhetoric makes him sound like a raving lunatic, but if you peel away the idiocy like calling DSS "criminals" and judges "despots", he does end up making a good point.

The procedure for removing a child from the home should be merged into the criminal justice system, since any abuse or neglect that justifies removing a child is also a criminal offense in its own right. The government should only be permitted to remove children from the home upon securing a conviction for abuse, neglect, molestation, whatever. That would fix the standard of proof at "reasonable doubt", where it ought to be, rather than the ridiculously low standard of proof required now. It also ensures due process.

Beyond what Earthborn pointed out there is a whopping problem with the enforcement of constitutional rights, most specifically the exclusionary rule. Under such a system it is possible that all evidence of abuse could be suppressed, say if a warrent is not obtained before search. While this suppression makes sense when in a criminal case context, as it is the state being punished for breaking the law, under your system such a ruling could condemn the child to an abusive enviroment.

The addition of the child with rights and interests to be protected creates a big problem when at the same time we need to protect the rights of the accused and society at large against rouge police activity. These rights would directly conflict.

 

[shanek]

Calm down Shanek... Be careful with your blood pressure...

I am calm, just very, very indignant, and I think justifiably so.

Suddenly attributes the claim to loony libertarians, so unless you think you are one it doesn't apply to you.

NOT true. He backed up what Skeptic had said, and Skeptic most certainly included me in that.

 

[shanek]

This guy's rhetoric makes him sound like a raving lunatic, but if you peel away the idiocy like calling DSS "criminals" and judges "despots", he does end up making a good point.

Why does it make him a lunatic to call criminals and despots what they are?

 

[RPG Advocate]

There are problems with that of course. If the parents are only suspected of child abuse and the investigation against them is running, it doesn't make much sense to leave the children with them. You can't allow any abuse to continue until the parent is convicted. Also many parents who abuse their children are themselves victims and can't be held fully responsible for the abuse. They are then likely to be found not guilty of any criminal intent. That does however not mean they are good parents and can take care of their children.

...

If there is reasonable doubt that the parents can't take care of the child without resorting to abuse, it probably isn't a good idea to return the child to them. It is different from crimes because it is not a one time event: if you have reason to believe that the parents have been abusive, you have reason to believe they will continue to be.

The problem here is that suspected does not equal proven. Legally, it should be assumed that no abuse happened unless it's determined by a trier of fact that it did. Your point about intent is a good one, though. The government has a compelling interest in removing children from abusive environments, regardless of the inent of the abuser. Perhaps a modification of my suggestion is in oder. Perhaps the determination of whether abuse occured should be subject to strict liability for purposes of deciding to remove the children from the home, but subject to means rea for other criminal penalties.

I agree that an abusive parent will likely continue to abuse, but we have to establish that abuse is actually happening before we can say that the parent is a continuing danger to the child. The best way to establish this is through a robust treatment of the facts.

Another difference is that the child is not taken away to punish the parents, but to protect the child itself. Apperently it is assumed that parents don't have a right to their children, but children do have a right to be protected. This right trumps all the rights a parent may have, whether that's a good idea or not.

My argument actually turns this logic on its head. I believe that children have a right to their parents, so you had better be damn sure that abuse has occured before you deny them that right. If you're lax in your requirement for factual substantiation, you run a grave risk of denying innocent children this fundamental right.

 

[shanek]

There are problems with that of course. If the parents are only suspected of child abuse and the investigation against them is running, it doesn't make much sense to leave the children with them.

Just as one can be temporarily deprived of liberty or property before a trial if there is a compelling reason to do so, one's kids might be taken from him and placed in foster care if there is a good reason to believe they would be put in danger by remaining with him. I don't have a problem with that. But that isn't even remotely what's happening.

Likening Child Protection Agencies to slave traders, organized crime or practices in the Soviet Union is probably a bit over the top

They're selling kids for adoption when the parental rights haven't even been terminated; what would you call that?

I would start by not requiring foster parents to pay for a child to remove all suspicion of a financial incentive to take away children.

I don't understand what you're referring to here.

It is different from crimes because it is not a one time event: if you have reason to believe that the parents have been abusive, you have reason to believe they will continue to be.

First of all, that isn't true, at least not all the time. Second, you can't take away someone's rights based on what you think they might do. Oh, wait, I know, it's "for the children." Right. Except that these children are suffering abuse in the foster homes...

Somehow it should probably be a good idea to define some law that gives children a right to their own parents and parents at least some rights to their children even if they are proven abusive. I don't really know how something like that can be organized.

I think every child should have the option at any time of having an adult competency test and hearing administered. If it is determined that the child is mature enough to be on his own and live his own life, then just like that he becomes an adult in the eyes of the law. A second tier beneath that might be whether or not the child is competent enough to choose his own caregiver, if his situation warrants it.

 

[Suddenly]

NOT true. He backed up what Skeptic had said, and Skeptic most certainly included me in that.

Is it embarassing to waive the bloody shirt and find out that was really ketchup?

 

[shanek]

I also happened to learn some of the Anna Mae He particulars, and they match in every way the rationale used by the judge to declare her abandoned. But lots of publicity was generated claiming that Anna Mae was 'stolen' by the racist system.

Anna Mae was considered abandoned because her parents had not had contact with her for four months. But they had been PROHIBITED from having contact with her, and during those four months they were going to court trying to get her back.

So, all someone has to do is trump up a charge against you, take your child away ("For his own protection!"), prohibit you from seeing him for four months (same reason given), and then they can just charge you with abandonment and take your child without even having to charge you with anything else to begin with.

And, you're okay with this?

 

[michaellee]

originally posted by Suddenly
On the other hand, with Loony Libertarianism we get claims like that at present there really is no income tax and the IRS is nothing but a giant illegal conspiracy because the word "liable" does not appear in the tax laws.

Frivolous argument.

 

[shanek]

Point out where I said you claimed it

The original point was that I and other Libertarians were lunatics (even if I was the "saner" one). Thaiboxerken asked why, and you came back with that. So I was included in your answer because I was included in the original claim.

Not that I recall.

Might have been someone else...would you agree that such a claim would be as specious as the tax protestor claim you mentioned?

I've said that the 10th does not restrict the Feds from using powers that were enumerated in the constitution.

Why would it?

This is something many people that scream about the 10th tend to miss, that if the power falls under some constitutional grant (commerce power for example) the 10th is irrelevant.

Except that the commerce clause, like the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause, are being actively misused to try and include things that clearly are unconstitutional. So be careful whom you use that response with.

 

[shanek]

Beyond what Earthborn pointed out there is a whopping problem with the enforcement of constitutional rights, most specifically the exclusionary rule. Under such a system it is possible that all evidence of abuse could be suppressed, say if a warrent is not obtained before search. While this suppression makes sense when in a criminal case context, as it is the state being punished for breaking the law, under your system such a ruling could condemn the child to an abusive enviroment.

But let's not forget that the biggest reason those things are restricted (aside from the whole liberty thing, which apparently few people are concerned with nowadays anyway) is because it taints the evidence. A warrantless search is much more prone to corruption, from just overzealousness if not downright tampering, wouldn't you agree? So that evidence is less reliable than evidence obtained in a controlled setting, with a clear warrant that sets out exactly what is being searched, and what they're looking for. Since the evidence is less reliable, it's the case that you now really can't know whether or not the guy is abusing his kids. So you actually increase the chances of taking the child away from a loving and supporting home, and (I have to say it again) putting him in a foster home where it is more likely that abuse will take place. And that's not even considering the abuse that's just inherent in taking a child from his parents in the first place.

 

[Earthborn]

I am calm, just very, very indignant, and I think justifiably so.

If you are really calm, then you should be able to make your point without calling people 'liars', 'bigots' or whatever. Even if such names are accurate, it won't help you make your point.

NOT true. He backed up what Skeptic had said,

He backed up what Skeptic said about 'loony libertarians'.

and Skeptic most certainly included me in that.

Did he? Where? He didn't mention you at all in this thread

Try to read what someone writes instead of trying to read between the lines. Makes life a lot easier: there will be a lot less to be indignant about.

 

[shanek]

Is it embarassing to waive the bloody shirt and find out that was really ketchup?

Whatever...answer straight: Do you or do you not consider me to be a "loony" Libertarian?

 

[shanek]

He backed up what Skeptic said about 'loony libertarians'.

Did he? Where? He didn't mention you at all in this thread

Again, he was responding to thaiboxerken's question about why Libertarians were considered "loony," an accusation that I most certainly was included in, even though I apparently am a "saner" loony.

Try to read what someone writes

Try to follow the context of a conversation.

 

[RPG Advocate]

Why does it make him a lunatic to call criminals and despots what they are?

Because the words "criminal" and "despot" imply some malicious intent. When these draconian laws were created, I bet the intentions of the politicians behind them were pure "Let's save more children by making it easier for the government to remove them from abusive homes!" Of course, politicians are notoriously ignorant of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Even if the problem is brought to the attention of legislators, what legislator is going to sponsor a bill to raise the government's burden of proof that could be painted by the opposition as "coddling child abusers"?

The solution? Elect Libertarians that are short on anti-government rhetoric and long on solutions for protecting liberty. Enact legislation and Consitutional amendments that reverse the trend of governmental expansion and place strong restrictions on the government's rights to interfere with individual liberty, as suggested above.

 

[shanek]

Because the words "criminal" and "despot" imply some malicious intent.

Do they? ALL crimes require intent? What about the "benevolent despot"?

When these draconian laws were created, I bet the intentions of the politicians behind them were pure "Let's save more children by making it easier for the government to remove them from abusive homes!"

And I'll bet that the intentions of many criminals were to do right for themselves or for their family, and that the intentions of many despots has been "the greater good."

The solution? Elect Libertarians that are short on anti-government rhetoric and long on solutions for protecting liberty.

And having talked with Stratton personally and heard his proposed solutions, I'd say he has 'em.

Enact legislation and Consitutional amendments that reverse the trend of governmental expansion

Why would we need Constitutional amendments for that? The Constitution ALREADY says they can't do it!

and place strong restrictions on the government's rights to interfere with individual liberty,

Aren't those restrictions already there?

 

[Earthborn]

Do they? ALL crimes require intent?

In order to be a crime according to the law, yes. You obviously haven't watched this, or you would have known that.

And having talked with Stratton personally and heard his proposed solutions, I'd say he has 'em.

I'd say: let's hear 'em!

Aren't those restrictions already there?

I would think that if they were already there and were functioning, we wouldn't have this conversation.

 

[shanek]

In order to be a crime according to the law, yes.

Accidental murder isn't a crime? Or, how can you intend to do an accident?

I'd say: let's hear 'em!

Basically, they're all about accountability. The reason why the system is so broken is that no one is accountable for their actions and no one is responsible for making sure the system works the way it's supposed to.

I would think that if they were already there and were functioning, we wouldn't have this conversation.

I said they were there; I didn't say they were being obeyed. If they're being ignored, what good would passing more do? We need accountability, and we need ways of punishing those who break the Supreme Law of the Land. Anything less is political anarchy.

 

[RPG Advocate]

And having talked with Stratton personally and heard his proposed solutions, I'd say he has 'em.

To show you what I mean about "counterproductive rhetoric", take this satement from Stratton's Issues page:

A corrupt government that is controlled from behind the scenes by socialist corporate elitists who have an agenda to undermine the family and individual freedoms.

As stated, this sounds like conspiracy-theory nonsense. Worse, he misidentifies the problem. Corporate boards have a fiduciary duty to return the most money to their shareholders. If they can lobby goverment to pass the Regulation of the Day that raises their profits, they will. I see no evidence that this behavior limited to Socialists, nor is there any evidence that the link is a vast conspiracy, rather than just self-interested corportate action.

The important thing is that no matter what the reason, corporate influence on government results in a loss of liberty and a prolifieration of big government. That's what Stratton ought to be focusing on. If I were running in his place, I would reword the quote above to:

The influence of large corporations on our government has an extreme negative effect on liberty, especially on the ability of small businesses to open and compete in the marketplace. This must be stopped.

No blame, no conspiracy theories.

In summary, I want to see more Libertarians of the "Our system is broken, for whatever reason. Let's work to fix it" variety, rather than the "Our government is a criminal conspiracy run by socialists that wants to hold its own citizens in bondage" variety.

 

[Suddenly]

Whatever...answer straight: Do you or do you not consider me to be a "loony" Libertarian?

You have your moments. I do not think you hold that specific belief w/r/t income taxes though, at least you don't seem to.