PDA

View Full Version : The responsibility of parents




eugenekop
12-18-2010, 01:06 PM
What do you think should be the responsibility of parents in a libertarian society? Can parents not give their children food? What happens if they starve the children? What happens if the parents lose source of income and have mo money to feed the children? Will the state take the children away? Who will provide for the children and on whose money?

Thanks.

pcosmar
12-18-2010, 01:14 PM
What do you think?

Parents are responsible for their children. Period.

1000-points-of-fright
12-18-2010, 01:26 PM
What do you think?

Parents are responsible for their children. Period.

Not according to Murray Rothbard.

hazek
12-18-2010, 01:28 PM
Not according to Murray Rothbard.

What does he say on this issue?

1000-points-of-fright
12-18-2010, 02:12 PM
What does he say on this issue?

Government has no authority to force a parent to take care of their child. Whether the parent has a personal ethical or moral responsibility is a different issue that has nothing to do with the government or the law.

At least that's what I got out of my reading (actually, listening) of Rothbard's Ethics Of Liberty. Not sure I would go as far as he does in some areas.

low preference guy
12-18-2010, 02:14 PM
I think parents who abuse their children should have their kids taken away. But that's not something for the Federal Government to do. But I think local governments (county level, maybe) should define those standards and enforce them. It should happen very rarely.

pcosmar
12-18-2010, 02:18 PM
Government has no authority to force a parent to take care of their child. Whether the parent has a personal ethical or moral responsibility is a different issue that has nothing to do with the government or the law.

At least that's what I got out of my reading (actually, listening) of Rothbard's Ethics Of Liberty. Not sure I would go as far as he does in some areas.

I said nothing about the Government forcing anyone to do anything.

I said ,


Parents are responsible for their children. Period.

I am more interested in what the OP thinks and why he keeps posting these loaded "questions".

Trolling

Theocrat
12-18-2010, 02:19 PM
We should be careful to note that the responsibility of parents lies in a different realm of government than civil government. Some libertarians (particularly those influenced by anarchism) have this idea that children should be treated as total, autonomous individuals in the home as they would be out in society under a civil government. In other words, children should be treated as equals to their parents rather than subjects under their parents' God-given authority in the home.

That is why some libertarians argue, for instance, that principles like the Non-Aggression Principle have to apply in the same way towards children in the home as they would in public. If a child disobeys his parent and receives a spanking (even if the child never touched his parent), some libertarians would reason that is an act of aggression towards the child on the parent's part. They fail to see how discipline in the home is afforded to the parents in nurturing and training their children to be good (a failure of which makes the child more of a liability and danger to society when he leaves home).

So, the responsibility of parents, no matter what society they live in, should be to obey God's directives for training, correction, loving, and providing for their children, so their children will be assets to the world, living in righteousness and peace under God and with their neighbors.

FSP-Rebel
12-18-2010, 02:21 PM
I think more freedom and responsibility would foster better parents overall. The fringe will always exist but as LPG says, taking care of it as locally as possible would be the most beneficial. I can't imagine a woman would go through the pain of having a child and then not do anything she could (begging, seeking church help) to keep the child alive. Even in the most destitute of situations, most people would have a hard time not providing $5 or food to feed another person's child. If the problem persists, I imagine the local Lion's, Kiwanis club or church(s) would find a way to resolve the situation from deteriorating.

silverhandorder
12-18-2010, 02:28 PM
Parents are responcible for their children. However the question is what do we do in the instances of mistreatment. I support any individual that would intervene in defense of a child. In a libertarian society the court would side with the person who intervened in order to stop mistreatment.

In our case right now we can not do this legally and the state has usurped this function in the form of child services. Abolish childsevices and turn to common law.

eugenekop
12-18-2010, 02:45 PM
I think parents who abuse their children should have their kids taken away. But that's not something for the Federal Government to do. But I think local governments (county level, maybe) should define those standards and enforce them. It should happen very rarely.

But the government in a libertarian society doesn't have funds to raise children, so if the child is taken away, who will raise him, and on whose money?

Nate-ForLiberty
12-18-2010, 02:50 PM
The free market will bring about safe houses for abused/neglected children. How will the children know about it or get there? Family members, friends, whatever. "But this isn't a 100% effective". Neither is what the government is doing now. At least this way, they'll be in much better hands than if they were to be taken by the government.

Isn't this kidnapping?
Safe houses will have operating procedures just like all businesses. If a safe house abuses it's position in the community and just "takes" children, there would be an uproar from a heavily armed populace. I'd imagine that if a kid shows up at their door, they would be required to inform their parents.

Ideally, these would not be massive "camps" of children, but small community houses.

silverhandorder
12-18-2010, 02:52 PM
But the government in a libertarian society doesn't have funds to raise children, so if the child is taken away, who will raise him, and on whose money?

Trololololololololo

aravoth
12-18-2010, 03:10 PM
As a parent of two small children, one of which is special needs I can honestly say this.

I hate these stupid ass threads. The State doesn't do shit for families. Ever.... not... ever.

And they shouldn't. No one comes to your house to see if you are feeding the kids, and they shouldn't. No one checks to make sure you are changing diapers when the child shits thier pants, and they shouldn't. Becuase my kids are not the property of the god damn government.

Laws will never prevent abuse from happening, period. There is no such thing as pre-crime... yet. Does that mean a parent has a right to abuse thier kid? Hell no, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the family in a libertarian society will degenerate into a hellish, abuse ridden, morally bankrupt institution.

The State hates families. Why? Because families arise without state sanction, they form thier own social hierarchy, they develop thier own set of laws, and maintain thier own infrastructure. The development of the family is just about as anarchistic as you can get, and the State hates that shit.

Thats why they try to subvert it at every turn.

Moreover, I am always puzzeled why people think things would fall apart without the moral compass of the government. The same government that brought you 2 undeclared wars, water-boarding, homeland security, the patriot act, and TSA molestation are somehow all of the sudden, fit to "make sure" families are operating llike they are supposed to?

Fuck that.

awake
12-18-2010, 03:15 PM
Does one really think that people take care of their children (including feeding, clothing, and teaching them about life) because if they don't the law will arrest them? What a narrow sense of the world, almost robotic.

What you have now is the state kidnapping children and distributing them.

aravoth
12-18-2010, 03:26 PM
What a narrow sense of the world, almost robotic.

What you have now is the state kidnapping children and distributing them.

Almost like hell, it is robotic.

Heimdallr
12-18-2010, 03:36 PM
So far, none have you have addressed the question in a clear manner.

What if the parents stop feeding the kids? Make them sleep outside? etc. etc.

aravoth
12-18-2010, 03:39 PM
So far, none have you have addressed the question in a clear manner.

What if the parents stop feeding the kids? Make them sleep outside? etc. etc.

are you suggesting parents will stop feeding thier kids en-masse?

Nate-ForLiberty
12-18-2010, 03:41 PM
So far, none have you have addressed the question in a clear manner.

What if the parents stop feeding the kids? Make them sleep outside? etc. etc.

But this is not the question you are asking. What you are asking is, "What happens when someone finds out that a parent is abusing his/her children?".

The question, "What if the parents stop feeding the kids,etc?" is based on the predication that the government stops all of these types of situations from happening. It doesn't.

pcosmar
12-18-2010, 03:51 PM
So far, none have you have addressed the question in a clear manner.

What if the parents stop feeding the kids? Make them sleep outside? etc. etc.

My parents stopped feeding me at a little over a year old. (I was able to feed myself) And I slept outside often by my own choice.

What is your point?

Inkblots
12-18-2010, 04:27 PM
But the government in a libertarian society doesn't have funds to raise children, so if the child is taken away, who will raise him, and on whose money?

Eugene, you seem to be making unwarranted assumptions about what a 'libertarian society' actually is. The libertarian banner is quite wide. It runs the gamut from anarcho-capitalists who believe in no government at all (which seems to be what you think it means) through minarchists to Constitutionalists like myself, who want the Federal government to stay within the confines of the Constitution, but don't necessarily believe every competency denied to the Federal government couldn't be competently handled by state or local governments.

Heimdallr
12-18-2010, 04:33 PM
My parents stopped feeding me at a little over a year old. (I was able to feed myself) And I slept outside often by my own choice.

What is your point?

How should child abuse/neglect be dealt with without infringing upon our liberties? What if a child is being abused? How would we know?

guitarlifter
12-18-2010, 04:36 PM
Read this. It's VERY extensive in the talks about the libertarian ideology as it applies to children. It promotes the fiduciary model, which I tend to agree with, and it also discusses other models and their attributes or flaws in rebuttals. Check it out. It's a very good read.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn061.pdf

Nate-ForLiberty
12-18-2010, 04:37 PM
How should child abuse/neglect be dealt with without infringing upon our liberties? What if a child is being abused? How would we know?

how do we know in the society we have now?

low preference guy
12-18-2010, 05:58 PM
But the government in a libertarian society doesn't have funds to raise children, so if the child is taken away, who will raise him, and on whose money?

The government won't raise the child. In the worst case, he will be adopted or be raised by a private organization for unfortunate children. There will always be people willing to do that.

1000-points-of-fright
12-18-2010, 06:42 PM
Eugene, you seem to be making unwarranted assumptions about what a 'libertarian society' actually is. The libertarian banner is quite wide. It runs the gamut from anarcho-capitalists who believe in no government at all (which seems to be what you think it means) through minarchists to Constitutionalists like myself, who want the Federal government to stay within the confines of the Constitution, but don't necessarily believe every competency denied to the Federal government couldn't be competently handled by state or local governments.

I'll go even a step further and say that communism within a libertarian society is entirely possible. People always think that, for example, if the federal government suddenly got taken over by libertarians, everyone in the country would have to live as libertarians. Libertarianism means liberty. If you and a bunch of other people want to be communists... go for it. Just don't force anyone else to join you.

awake
12-18-2010, 07:01 PM
I'll go even a step further and say that communism within a libertarian society is entirely possible. People always think that, for example, if the federal government suddenly got taken over by libertarians, everyone in the country would have to live as libertarians. Libertarianism means liberty. If you and a bunch of other people want to be communists... go for it. Just don't force anyone else to join you.

Good post... Competing societal organizations with the common binding resolution - voluntary. The current crop of knuckle draggers won't let the libertarian experiment take place under voluntary conditions.

Nate-ForLiberty
12-18-2010, 07:07 PM
I'll go even a step further and say that communism within a libertarian society is entirely possible. People always think that, for example, if the federal government suddenly got taken over by libertarians, everyone in the country would have to live as libertarians. Libertarianism means liberty. If you and a bunch of other people want to be communists... go for it. Just don't force anyone else to join you.

The exception to this is that the Constitution stipulates that the States maintain a republican form of government.

axiomata
12-18-2010, 07:10 PM
I am in favor of a city, county or state run safety net for children.

pcosmar
12-18-2010, 07:30 PM
How should child abuse/neglect be dealt with without infringing upon our liberties? What if a child is being abused? How would we know?

What if
What if, What if ?
What if The child is not being abused, Only disciplined. Do parents have the right and responsibility to correct their child's misbehavior?

If you KNOW of a child being abused it is up to you and your conscience to do something about it.

Who defines abuse? What constitutes "abuse".?

1000-points-of-fright
12-18-2010, 09:15 PM
The exception to this is that the Constitution stipulates that the States maintain a republican form of government.

This is true. However, the OP's premise was a vague "in a libertarian society", not specifically the USA. That being said, I still think a city, county or even state could really push the envelope towards communism/socialism (or any other kind of -ism) and still maintain a republican form of government. Hell, isn't that pretty much what we're doing now?

Nate-ForLiberty
12-18-2010, 09:19 PM
This is true. However, the OP's premise was a vague "in a libertarian society", not specifically the USA. That being said, I still think a city, county or even state could really push the envelope towards communism/socialism (or any other kind of -ism) and still maintain a republican form of government. Hell, isn't that pretty much what we're doing now?

Only if the "republican" part of the government is just for show...like what we're doing right now.