Libertarianism: What About the Children?

 

delilahWhy does libertarianism seem to insufficiently care about children? It appears to only be concerned about the rights of adults while brushing off the consequences to children.

At first blush, this is a legitimate complaint. In libertarian world, there would be — for instance — easier access to harder drugs, which will lead to inevitable child/drug interactions. Obviously, it’s in our interest to minimize this, and what better way to minimize child/drug interaction than simply minimizing the amount of drugs?

The problem is this neglects the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, no one cares about a child more than their parents. Among all the rights of adults, the right (and responsibilities) of adults to their children is paramount, and the rights of good parents must be protected before we worry about the consequences of poor ones. Libertarians believe state authority is no replacement for parental authority. Instilling necessary morals into children can only be accomplished by their parents, families, and other close responsible adults.

Some people believe parenting is hard enough without extra temptations. They fear that, despite their best efforts, drugs will find their way into their children. Libertarians see this as a risk inherent to a free society. People differ greatly in the things they find objectionable and permissive, and the best thing to do is remain neutral, lest the government have the power to tell us what we can eat, for whom we must bake cakes, and from whom we are allowed to obtain medical care.

Does this mean there will be tragic stories that could have potentially been avoided under a more restrictive society? It does. But it also means that parents will unquestionably understand the state will not be there to do their job for them; a service that is largely a fiction, and one that causes immense harm.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 74 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    The Tarahumara Indians of Mexico live amongst the cliffs of the Copper Canyon.  There they run up and down the cliffs like goats, from a young age.

    When the first Spaniards arrived, they were astounded by the feats of the Tarahumara children, and remarked that they ran along the cliff walls as if it was nothing.  They were amazed that any of the children survived.  And yet, apparently, falling from the cliffs was not one of the threats to the Tarahumara children.

    Or there’s Tori Allen.  Her missionary parents took her to Africa, where she learned to climb trees with her pet monkey.  At age 4. When she returned to the US, she quickly became a national champion climber.  “At 13, she held all four major domestic titles in rock climbing.”  Competing against grown women.

    Or compare the drinking culture of France and the United States: in France children learn to drink responsibly with their parent.  Binge drinking is not the norm.  In America, parents who attempt to raise their children to be responsible drinkers, as they do in France, are tossed in prison.  Binge and surreptitious drinking is the norm.

    The notion that protection makes you safer is one of the great myths of the Progressive age.  In many cases, protecting a child makes them less safe, as they never develop the skills that a free human would, and they’re permanently handicapped.

    • #1
  2. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    The social climate that we all inhabit is not limited to our family.  We swim in a sea of mores and understandings about life that affect our children no matter what we teach them.  Why do you think we pay close attention to what they are taught in school?  It’s ridiculous to pretend that other people don’t have a great influence on our children.  And legalizing something is putting a stamp of approval on it.  It is not neutral.  Leaving something in the shadows of the law might be neutral, or even de-criminalizing, but legalization puts a whole different face on things.

    It looks like your daughter is very young now, Mike, but she will not stay that way, and your influence will wane rapidly when she starts going to school.

    • #2
  3. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Merina Smith:

     Leaving something in the shadows of the law might be neutral, or even de-criminalizing, but legalization puts a whole different face on things.

    First, it’s not obvious there’s a hard-and-fast distinction between legalization and decriminalization. Wikipedia , which isn’t the worst place to look up the common understanding of a term, says decriminalization removes some penalties and legalization most or all penalties, “most or all” being a kind of “some”.

    Second, the way some people describe decriminalization, it sounds as if it may get the state even more involved than legalization. For example, these people say an act is decriminalized when it’s punishable by fines or requires a permit:

    if prostitution is decriminalized, then individuals engaged in the business would need to have an official approval from the government in order to operate OR be fined if they are caught doing it.

    The government has an obvious interest in both the fine-collection and permitting process, so under this definition of decriminalization, decriminalized acts don’t retreat into the shadows, but instead draw even more government interest than acts neither generating special fees for the state nor requiring a permit from it.

    • #3
  4. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Merina Smith: It looks like your daughter is very young now, Mike, but she will not stay that way, and your influence will wane rapidly when she starts going to school.

    That’s a truism. It’ll be my daughter’s responsibility to make good choices. I don’t expect the government to make things better for her. We shouldn’t even have public school, so it’s the government ruining things from the get go.

    • #4
  5. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Mike H: We shouldn’t even have public school, so it’s the government ruining things from the get go.

    Why shouldn’t a political community decide it wants to provide a place to educate the children of that community?

    • #5
  6. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Klaatu:

    Mike H: We shouldn’t even have public school, so it’s the government ruining things from the get go.

    Why shouldn’t a political community decide it wants to provide a place to educate the children of that community?

     Because it’s a utter failure.

    • #6
  7. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Mike H:  Because it’s a utter failure.

    I assumed your objection was principle based.
    Are you saying successful public schools are OK?

    • #7
  8. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Klaatu:

    Mike H: Because it’s a utter failure.

    I assumed your objection was principle based. Are you saying successful public schools are OK?

    They’re ok as far as they go. I mean, even successful public schools are working from a flawed socialist structure, and current schools are more about extended intelligence and diligence sorting rather than education. “Successful” schools owe more to their breeding stock than much else. They could be much more successful at education if it was geared toward the individual child’s interests and abilities and I would expect a free market to offer ingenious new ways to accomplish that.

    • #8
  9. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Mike H:

    Klaatu:

    Mike H: Because it’s a utter failure.

    I assumed your objection was principle based. Are you saying successful public schools are OK?

    They’re ok as far as they go. I mean, even successful public schools are working from a flawed socialist structure, and current schools are more about extended intelligence and diligence sorting rather than education. “Successful” schools owe more to their breeding stock than much else. They could be much more successful at education if it was geared toward the individual child’s interests and abilities and I would expect a free market to offer ingenious new ways to accomplish that.

    There are a number of private school and home schooling options available in the market.  Your original comment seemed to suggest there is something inherently bad about public schooling, not simply there are better options.

    • #9
  10. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Klaatu:

    Mike H:

    Klaatu:

    I assumed your objection was principle based. Are you saying successful public schools are OK?

    They’re ok as far as they go. I mean, even successful public schools are working from a flawed socialist structure, and current schools are more about extended intelligence and diligence sorting rather than education. “Successful” schools owe more to their breeding stock than much else. They could be much more successful at education if it was geared toward the individual child’s interests and abilities and I would expect a free market to offer ingenious new ways to accomplish that.

    There are a number of private school and home schooling options available in the market. Your original comment seemed to suggest there is something inherently bad about public schooling, not simply there are better options.

    I thought it wasn’t controversial on Ricochet to say the public school system is largely a sham. While I might not believe it’s technically moral to force people to pay for public school whether or not they use it, it does serve a curtain utilitarian good and I’m not going to pretend that doesn’t exist.

    • #10
  11. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Mike H:

    Klaatu:

    There are a number of private school and home schooling options available in the market. Your original comment seemed to suggest there is something inherently bad about public schooling, not simply there are better options.

    I thought it wasn’t controversial on Ricochet to say the public school system is largely a sham. While I might not believe it’s technically moral to force people to pay for public school whether or not they use it, it does serve a curtain utilitarian good and I’m not going to pretend that doesn’t exist.

    There is a difference in arguing public schools generally perform poorly and they should not exist.  I agree with the former but reject the latter.

    • #11
  12. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Klaatu:

    Mike H:

    I thought it wasn’t controversial on Ricochet to say the public school system is largely a sham. While I might not believe it’s technically moral to force people to pay for public school whether or not they use it, it does serve a curtain utilitarian good and I’m not going to pretend that doesn’t exist.

    There is a difference in arguing public schools generally perform poorly and they should not exist. I agree with the former but reject the latter.

    On the other hand, as long as public schools exist, and continue to draw tax dollars to provide a free-seeming education, they will continue to crowd out better schooling methods. To me, that crowding out is immoral.

    Research done in third world countries suggests it’s possible to have a variety of private schooling options that are affordable even for the very poor. As long as expensive-but-free-seeming public schools crowd the market, though, private schools tend to act like pricey cartels.

    Moreover, I’ve noticed that public schooling shifts the locus of responsibility for parents, even well-educated, well-meaning parents, away from ensuring their own children’s education.

    • #12
  13. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Klaatu: There is a difference in arguing public schools generally perform poorly and they should not exist.  I agree with the former but reject the latter.

    Kevin Williamson has had a good take on this in recent Mad Dogs & Englishman podcasts.

    I’m slightly paraphrasing, but he argued that it’s one thing for government to decide that a certain public good must be provided (i.e., primary education) and yet another for it to be the sole or default provider of that public good.  It would be, he said, as if we had federally-run farms and grocery stores to provide the food for food stamps.

    • #13
  14. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    I’m also deeply skeptical that any well-operated public school — and there are many — would suffer from being privatized.

    Final thought: while I agree that public schools are probably a bad idea, I’d be more than happy to favor simply reducing their monopoly and increasing competition in the near-to-mid-term.  Long term, though, I’m wholly with Mike.

    • #14
  15. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake: On the other hand, as long as public schools exist, and continue to draw tax dollars to provide a free-seeming education, they will continue to crowd out better schooling methods. To me, that crowding out is immoral.

    While many people lament the quality of public schools in general, I am often struck by the number of people who simultaneously believe their local public school is an exception.  I’m not certain public schools crowd out private alternatives because they are seemingly free but because a large number of people are generally satisfied with them.

    • #15
  16. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Here, here Mike. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    • #16
  17. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Merina Smith: The social climate that we all inhabit is not limited to our family.  We swim in a sea of mores and understandings about life that affect our children no matter what we teach them.  Why do you think we pay close attention to what they are taught in school?  It’s ridiculous to pretend that other people don’t have a great influence on our children.  And legalizing something is putting a stamp of approval on it.  It is not neutral.  Leaving something in the shadows of the law might be neutral, or even de-criminalizing, but legalization puts a whole different face on things. It looks like your daughter is very young now, Mike, but she will not stay that way, and your influence will wane rapidly when she starts going to school.

     This school of thought its the justification used for every leftist intervention into our lives.

    • #17
  18. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: Final thought: while I agree that public schools are probably a bad idea, I’d be more than happy to favor simply reducing their monopoly and increasing competition in the near-to-mid-term.  Long term, though, I’m wholly with Mike.

    I am not a supporter of the public school system, my kids generally attended Catholic schools.  I am a very big supporter of vouchers.  My objection to Mike’s comment was what I took to be the principle behind it, similar to that expressed by Fred in another thread regarding public parks.  There is a difference in saying x is a bad idea and saying x is improper or immoral.

    • #18
  19. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Jamie Lockett:  This school of thought its the justification used for every leftist intervention into our lives.

    That does not mean it is never valid.

    • #19
  20. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Klaatu: I am a very big supporter of vouchers.  My objection to Mike’s comment was what I took to be the principle behind it, similar to that expressed by Fred in another thread regarding public parks.  There is a difference in saying x is a bad idea and saying x is improper or immoral.

    Fair enough.

    As a general rule, though, I’d say that it’s improper or immoral to do something through government unless the private sector can be shown — or reasonably expected — to be incapable of it.  Put away, government’s purpose is to do through coercion what cannot be done effectively otherwise.  That’s a pretty short list for me.

    That said, running public parks is so far down my priority list as to essentially not be there.

    • #20
  21. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Klaatu: That does not mean it is never valid.

     The problem with this line of thinking is that you won’t always hold the power. Once you allow government to have a hand in something you have to allow for the fact that it won’t be administered in ways you like. You no longer have a principled ground to stand on in saying government can’t regulate it that way – you’re just arguing over the details.

    • #21
  22. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Klaatu: I am a very big supporter of vouchers. My objection to Mike’s comment was what I took to be the principle behind it, similar to that expressed by Fred in another thread regarding public parks. There is a difference in saying x is a bad idea and saying x is improper or immoral.

    Fair enough.

    As a general rule, though, I’d say that it’s improper or immoral to do something through government unless the private sector can be shown — or reasonably expected — to be incapable of it. Put away, government’s purpose is to do through coercion what cannot be done effectively otherwise. That’s a pretty short list for me.

    That said, running public parks is so far down my priority list as to essentially not be there.

    Fair enough.

    I am not of the opinion that all government action in a republic involves coercion.  That is where I differ with libertarians. 

    • #22
  23. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Jamie Lockett:

    Klaatu: That does not mean it is never valid.

    The problem with this line of thinking is that you won’t always hold the power. Once you allow government to have a hand in something you have to allow for the fact that it won’t be administered in ways you like. You no longer have a principled ground to stand on in saying government can’t regulate it that way – you’re just arguing over the details.

    The details are what matters.  

    • #23
  24. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Klaatu: I am not of the opinion that all government action in a republic involves coercion.  That is where I differ with libertarians. 

    What’s an example of where it doesn’t?  I may be blanking on something, but — generally — government action is either directly coercive, or the means of funding it are. That’s what taxes do.

    For the record, I don’t mean to imply that all coercion is evil or impracticable.  I’m all for coercing/punishing people who defraud or directly harm others.  I’m also willing to apply it in the service of some public goods, such as national security (though I may object to specific policies pertaining to it).

    • #24
  25. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Klaatu:

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:  as long as public schools exist, and continue to draw tax dollars to provide a free-seeming education, they will continue to crowd out better schooling methods.

    While many people lament the quality of public schools in general, I am often struck by the number of people who simultaneously believe their local public school is an exception.

    My parents moved to a town they could barely afford because it allegedly contained one of the best public school systems in the country. Evidently they believed these schools would be an exception. Their children, though, who actually had to attend the darn things, beg to differ.

    Our parents were determined to find satisfaction within the public schools because of the huge sunk cost they incurred by moving into the district. In order to “get the good” out of that sunk cost, they figured they shouldn’t have to pay anything extra to advance their children’s education. Better to spend time, energy, and heartache fighting the system to get it to deliver the now-“free” goods it promised them than to consider more effective non-“free” alternatives.

    I doubt my parents were unusual in this.

    • #25
  26. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    In other words, by sending their children to a well-regarded (and, via taxes, very expensive) public school, my parents’ concern shifted from efficiently educating their children by any means necessary to getting the most out of the entitlement they had been promised, the “free” education any child in the district should expect as if by right.

    • #26
  27. Rachel Lu Member
    Rachel Lu
    @RachelLu

    Haven’t had a chance to read all the comments, but I’m confused by a post that claims to argue that libertarianism doesn’t sacrifice the interests of children, and then argues (as far as I can see) that jeopardizing children is just the cost of freedom. So, I’m feeling confirmed in my view that libertarianism often isn’t that sensitive to the needs of children. Hypothetically, how many of our libertarians would revise their views on drug legalization if the evidence indicated that the harm to kids was significant? And how many just conclude prima facie that whatever the risk, it’s just “the price of freedom”? That’s the interesting question.

    • #27
  28. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Rachel Lu:

    Haven’t had a chance to read all the comments, but I’m confused by a post that claims to argue that libertarianism doesn’t sacrifice the interests of children, and then argues (as far as I can see) that jeopardizing children is just the cost of freedom. So, I’m feeling confirmed in my view that libertarianism often isn’t that sensitive to the needs of children. Hypothetically, how many of our libertarians would revise their views on drug legalization if the evidence indicated that the harm to kids was significant? And how many just conclude prima facie that whatever the risk, it’s just “the price of freedom”? That’s the interesting question.

    Libertarians trust and respect parents to keep their children safe, even those with different value structures, more than most people. We don’t see trusting parents to find their own way to handle things, like drugs and children, as being too tall an order.

    • #28
  29. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Rachel Lu: Hypothetically, how many of our libertarians would revise their views on drug legalization if the evidence indicated that the harm to kids was significant?

    At a certain point, I’d switch sides, so long as the costs of prohibition can be shown to be less.

    • #29
  30. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Rachel Lu: Hypothetically, how many of our libertarians would revise their views on drug legalization if the evidence indicated that the harm to kids was significant?

    At a certain point, I’d switch sides, so long as the costs of prohibition can be shown to be less.

    For me, the cost of prohibition would have to be much less. It’s one of those things where I’m not sure if there are any real world examples, but there are probably a couple. As the danger/desirability of a drug increases, the likelihood of people wanting to use it decreases. What’s the point of outlawing a drug that people aren’t going to want to use anyway?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.