Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Child Protection Agencies
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Child Protection Agencies (Read 4577 times)
LibertariCAN
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Freedom Forever

Posts: 593
Location: Canada
Joined: Jan 25th, 2013
Child Protection Agencies
Dec 8th, 2013 at 3:19pm
Print Post  
I'm interested in hearing your opinions on this question.

In a libertarian society would some sort of child protection group be necessary? No, of course I'm not talking about the kind of messes that exist today in the United States. But generally speaking on principle, is some sort of branch of the police force (doesn't necessarily need to be it's own bureaucratic agency) that specializes in child abuse etc. justified in a minarchist society? If not, would the claims of child abuse, molestation, or unsafe living conditions simply fall under the regular investigative duties of regular police officers?

Second area of questioning:

If it is found that parents are abusive or fundamentally unfit to parent (not providing child with food, or clean living conditions), what is the state justified in doing to right this injustice?
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4256
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Child Protection Agencies
Reply #1 - Dec 8th, 2013 at 3:44pm
Print Post  
You're clumping child protective agencies together with government, and you are assuming that only government could enforce the rights of children. Break down the question, and what you're really asking is: "Given that an entity that asserts a monopoly on violence in a given territorial area and extorts funds from the masses to sustain itself is necessary for the protection of children's rights, should this entity enforce children's rights through bureaucratic agency A or subA?" 

In a blog post, I explained:
Quote:
[T]he statement "people kill each other, so we need a government" is incomplete. Where is the connection between the "need" for government and people killing each other?  A closer to complete statement would be "people kill each other and government prevents people from killing each other; ergo, we need a government to stop people from killing each other." However, even this statement is taking factors as fact with no logical backing. In what circumstance is this statement referring to "people kill each other"? Is the statement referring to a society absent or present of a government? Furthermore, the word "need" denotes that the exclusive solution to people killing each other is a government. What, then, is a government? A government is an entity which claims a monopoly on force on an arbitrarily chosen geographical location which funds itself by extorting funds from the masses within its territory. This statement of "need" requires the necessary logic to back up that all other conceivable options to this system of "government" cannot possibly function as a better detriment to crime. In truth, it would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to logically come to the seemingly simple conclusion: "people kill each other, so we need government."


In order to determine that government is "necessary" for the protection of children's rights, you must show (1) sufficient logical and/or empirical explanations that government is a detriment to child abuse, and (2) that all other conceivable alternatives to government could not possibly remedy the problem.

In the statement, "Given that an entity that asserts a monopoly on violence in a given territorial area and extorts funds from the masses to sustain itself is necessary for the protection of children's rights, should this entity enforce children's rights through Bureaucratic Agency A or subA?" you should be first focusing and proving the "given," and then and only then can you focus on whether it should be Bureaucratic Agency A or subA.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LibertariCAN
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Freedom Forever

Posts: 593
Location: Canada
Joined: Jan 25th, 2013
Re: Child Protection Agencies
Reply #2 - Dec 8th, 2013 at 3:51pm
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Dec 8th, 2013 at 3:44pm:
You're clumping child protective agencies together with government, and you are assuming that only government could enforce the rights of children. Break down the question, and what you're really asking is: "Given that an entity that asserts a monopoly on violence in a given territorial area and extorts funds from the masses to sustain itself is necessary for the protection of children's rights, should this entity enforce children's rights through bureaucratic agency A or subA?" 

In a blog post, I explained:

In order to determine that government is "necessary" for the protection of children's rights, you must show (1) sufficient logical and/or empirical explanations that government is a detriment to child abuse, and (2) that all other conceivable alternatives to government could not possibly remedy the problem.

In the statement, "Given that an entity that asserts a monopoly on violence in a given territorial area and extorts funds from the masses to sustain itself is necessary for the protection of children's rights, should this entity enforce children's rights through Bureaucratic Agency A or subA?" you should be first focusing and proving the "given," and then and only then can you focus on whether it should be Bureaucratic Agency A or subA.


For sake of discussion I wanted to assume that a minarchist government would handle child protective services; and if they would indeed be doing so, how should this be executed and what would they be able to do?

I know that we don't need to immediately assume that government is going to take care of it, I didn't intend to imply that so if I did, I wasn't clear enough; I was simply framing this discussion to cause some that on this one issue.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4256
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Child Protection Agencies
Reply #3 - Dec 8th, 2013 at 5:03pm
Print Post  
LibertariCAN wrote on Dec 8th, 2013 at 3:51pm:
For sake of discussion I wanted to assume that a minarchist government would handle child protective services; and if they would indeed be doing so, how should this be executed and what would they be able to do?

I know that we don't need to immediately assume that government is going to take care of it, I didn't intend to imply that so if I did, I wasn't clear enough; I was simply framing this discussion to cause some that on this one issue.

It's like saying "should we sprinkle mystical fairy dust on the head, the shoulders, or both the head and shoulders in order to cure a disease?" It's an insignificant discussion because it relies on the false premise that mystical fairy dust cures disease. You first have to show that somehow mystical fairy does, indeed, cure disease; otherwise, discussing where to sprinkle the dust is useless.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Child Protection Agencies
Reply #4 - Dec 8th, 2013 at 5:04pm
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Dec 8th, 2013 at 5:03pm:
It's like saying "should we sprinkle mystical fairy dust on the head, the shoulders, or both the head and shoulders in order to cure a disease?" It's an insignificant discussion because it relies on the false premise that mystical fairy dust cures disease. You first have to show that somehow mystical fairy does, indeed, cure disease; otherwise, discussing where to sprinkle the dust is useless.

But... mah fairy dust...  Embarrassed
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Child Protection Agencies
Reply #5 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:03am
Print Post  
This is an interesting subject from an "inalienable rights of the person" and "contract law" perspective.

At birth a infant/child becomes a sovereign independent person and is not "owned" by the parent(s). That would violate the inalienable rights of the child as a person.

Of course "inalienable rights" for the infant/child also create some limitations. For exampe the child has a "right to eat" but not a "right to be fed" as that imposes an obligation upon another person.

Of course, either by accident or intent, historically this problem was understood so "guardianship" (whether by the parent(s) or another person) is established under statutory law as a voluntary contract obligation of the person. A mother, for example, can abandon the child at the hospital at birth under statutory law and the "state" becomes the legal guardian of the child and the "state" will find a voluntary guardian for the child. That could be either foster parent(s) or adoptive parent(s).

Because the "guardianship" is established voluntarily under the law the "state" has the authority to impose certain obligations upon the "guardian" such as the care and feeding of the child. If the "guardian" violates the provisions of the law then the guardian is in "breach of contract" the government can intervene to ensure the conditions of the law (contract) related to the welfare of the child are enforced.

Basically the "guardian" (parent or non-parent) has volutarily agreed to a contract where they will provide for the welfare of the child or will lose guardianship of the child if they fail to comply with the contract.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Child Protection Agencies
Reply #6 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:33am
Print Post  
This does bring up another issue that is related.

I consider the brainwashing of a child to be child abuse. Until a child develops the mental capacity to understand certain things and address a subject from a logical perspective where they can intelligently question what they're being presented with then they should not be "brainwashed" with propaganda by the legal guardian.

My greatest problem with this is the brainwashing of young children with religious beliefs before they're old enough to understand philosophy (which religious beliefs is a subordinate group). They're brainwashing the child and that, IMHO, is child abuse just like raising little "Nazi-racist" children.

There is a time and place for teaching "religion and philisophy" to a child and it is probably appropriate during the mid-teenage years and not before then. Prior to that it's just brainwashing of the child and, IMO, child abuse.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Child Protection Agencies
Reply #7 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 6:00pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 10:33am:
This does bring up another issue that is related.

I consider the brainwashing of a child to be child abuse. Until a child develops the mental capacity to understand certain things and address a subject from a logical perspective where they can intelligently question what they're being presented with then they should not be "brainwashed" with propaganda by the legal guardian.

My greatest problem with this is the brainwashing of young children with religious beliefs before they're old enough to understand philosophy (which religious beliefs is a subordinate group). They're brainwashing the child and that, IMHO, is child abuse just like raising little "Nazi-racist" children.

There is a time and place for teaching "religion and philisophy" to a child and it is probably appropriate during the mid-teenage years and not before then. Prior to that it's just brainwashing of the child and, IMO, child abuse.


How do you prevent brainwashing and even determine a proper definition for this? Virtually anything could be deemed as "brainwashing". What if I tell my kid that he needs to work hard and earn his own money. This could be viewed as "brainwashing" by Communists who wish that everyone owned things communally and not have to earn money - they just own it.

Another example, what if I simply tell my kid that I believe in a God and that going to church is necessary to save my soul. Is this really brainwashing? What if the parent REALLY believes this 100% without a doubt? To him not telling the kid about this is child abuse since the kid is condemned to hell.

Thus it's really in the eye of the beholder. If we had Theocrats in charge then I guarantee you that you would not like them being in charge of determining what is and is not considered brainwashing. Thus it's best to generally leave it out of the state's decision. So long as no one is abused, you should not be charged.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bourgeois
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Counterrevolutionary
, Principle Foe of Dennis

Posts: 4105
Location: Montana
Joined: Apr 9th, 2011
Re: Child Protection Agencies
Reply #8 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 6:23pm
Print Post  
So you guys don't think I should be allowed to raise my children as racialists/race realists?
  

"The government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer's teet until they have sore, chapped nipples."

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Child Protection Agencies
Reply #9 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 6:58pm
Print Post  
Bourgeois wrote on Dec 11th, 2013 at 6:23pm:
So you guys don't think I should be allowed to raise my children as racialists/race realists?

I don't see why you would want to. What benefits do they gain from being viewed as Psychotic?

But beyond that did you read my post?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Child Protection Agencies
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy