Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Libertarianism: What About the Children?
Why 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
Actually, I should have said that.
I might put it like this. Libertarianism doesn’t have a specific structure to cultivate the next generation of “individuals,” aka, children.
You make an interesting observation. I think it comes down to the absolutist nature of Libertarian as a governing philosphy. It stipulates that all rights and freedoms pertain to the individual. When in practical reality not all, though perhaps most, pertain to the individual. Some rights pertain to the family and even some rights pertain to the community. Radical individualism ignores family and community structures and needs which have to come at the expence of individuals.
I don’t quite follow this. What kind of “specific structure” did you have in mind?
Whether it’s “to tall an order” to expect parents to keep their kids off drugs is to some degree an empirical question. How much parents can do depends to some extent on the culture, and even insofar as increased drug addiction does reflect weak parenting, the fact is that family structures in many parts of America are weak right now. I do appreciate that drug enforcement has costs. But it looks to me like Mike’s argument is, “whether or not this will lead to significant increases in youth drug addiction isn’t our problem, because, parents” that makes me think that they are indeed too blasé about the needs of children.
Wrong. Libertarians are absolutists on individual rights as a way of reinforcing the things people choose to do collectively. Collective rights are almost always used to reduce liberty and this is why almost all of the collective rights in libertarian philosophy are negative rights. A “community” or “family” or “corporation” is in the end just a collection of individuals and those institutions are only as strong as the rights the individuals composing them posses. A strong emphasis on individual rights grants everyone the freedom to form the associations most beneficial to them.
This just smacks of nanny statism. People aren’t equipped to look after their families welfare so we have to do it for them. Why then is it ok to “protect children” in this way, but not through massive welfare? What happens when your worldview is not in power and the powers that be decide that what is best for families is sex education in kindergarten and education about same sex marriage for 3rd graders?
Rachel’s argument that “if government intervention leads to any decrease in youth drug addiction then whatever intrusive government is required to ensure that isn’t our problem, because, children” makes me think conservatives are indeed too blasé about the unintended consequences of government.
Would you agree that if I have to explain it, then my statement must be true?
No, I wouldn’t.
I’m honestly not sure what you have in mind and I think it would be much more constructive to ask you rather than speculate.
LOL. I’ll gladly explain myself but only if you agree that I’m right.
Classic.
Let me pose it like this. Can you tell me how libertarianism cultivates it’s next generation of individuals?
By each person/family doing what they believe is best for their children, and the children they interact with. But this isn’t “libertarianism,” it’s just people living their lives, pretty much as they do now.
Let me pose it like this. Why do we need a top down authoritarian “specific structure” to cultivate the next generation of individuals?
O, man, is this an outstanding point (and post). It cuts the legs from underneath some deep and widespread question begging behind much nonsense flying around these days.
Yeah, why outlaw crack, meth, heroin…
Of course I didn’t make anything like the argument Mike attributes to me. But I do think it’s kind of funny to throw up “nanny state” in response to an argument about the welfare of children. Children need some nannying. That’s the whole point “the critics” are making about libertarians: that they’re often insensitive to the needs of the properly less-than-fully-autonomous, aka children. You can try to use parents as a quick band-aid for the problem, just transferring individual autonomy to parental autonomy for minors. But that’s not really satisfactory, because parenting really isn’t autonomy-by-proxy; in a vicious and unsupportive culture it’s enormously difficult. And some people don’t even have parents, or have really bad ones. I’m not saying that it’s the government’s job per se to ensure that society is child friendly. But it’s an obviously important objective for which governmental action is relevant. We can’t just write it off as a non-issue if a legal change jeopardizes child interests.
I’ve told this story before, but my Grandfather was a pharmacist in Australia. In the 30s/40s/50s before the massive push to make all drugs illegal he used to supply the towns addicts with their fix. He knew who the cocaine, opium and heroin addicts were and he was able to make sure they didn’t overdose, used clean methods of delivery and most importantly didn’t turn to crime to fund their habits. He controlled it. All without government interference.
What happened after drugs were heavily criminalized? Everything went underground. Crime exploded. Diseases spread. Overdoses became more prevalent.
That’s why you don’t outlaw crack, meth and heroin…
(Merina, I’ll try answering this claim with a different argument than I used [can’t find the darned comment so I can link it] the last time you made it.)
This sounds to me similar to the Leftist notion that, if the government takes less taxes from you, it’s giving you something. (This is upside-down, inside-out, of course.) The assumed, baseline state is wrong. In the example I just cited, your property starts out yours, not the government’s. Likewise, underlying your assertion that having no law that refers to an action is an approval of that action, seems to be (something like) the assumption that the government has a right or power to make a pronouncement on everything in everyone’s life, and, therefore, if it does not, that amounts to an assertion of some kind about that action.
Not from the State they don’t. What State rules concerning children are really about is controlling parents. Why? Because advocates of those policies don’t like the way they are raising their kids. That’s all well and good as long as you hold power. Once you don’t other people get to dictate how you raise your kids and I’m sure we will hear all kinds of kvetching then about how the government has no right to nanny my kids. (See: education, sex). This ridiculous tug of war will go back and forth; why? Because you already lost the war when you conceded that it was the governments job to raise your kids.
No, it’s the principles. They come first, and apply to more cases.
Then I don’t understand what argument you are making against Libertarians. Libertarian Philosophy concerns itself with the individuals relationship to the state. If you aren’t arguing for government to ensure that society is child friendly what the heck is your problem with Libertarianism?
Saying a collection of people has some right or other is just a verbal shortcut, a term of art, that sometimes makes it easier to discuss things. Or, it’s a legal construct. The natural rights on which other rights are based, are possessed only by individual human beings. Collections of people do not exist (or if you’re doing philosophy, maybe they exist more weakly, or on some other, less-important plane of existence.)
Parents are more than just a quick band-aid though. (If a band-aid level influence were all parents had over their children, then how could bad parents make their children’s lives so miserable?)
But part of parenting is joining supportive subcultures which won’t be vicious to you and your children, no? A parent’s choice of neighborhood, school, and church does a lot to choose a child’s everyday culture. While choosing a neighborhood can be tough, especially since it depends so heavily on where the parents can find a job, many options for school and church presumably make it easier for parents to choose the right supportive subculture for their children.
Not that any subculture wholly protects a child from viciousness. Some viciousness is inevitable even among the pious and well-mannered. Controlled brushes with viciousness can help children learn to avoid worse viciousness later, though.
You caught that, didn’t you? What do you think I’m implicating by that?
Can you outline specific things government can do outside of outlaw drugs and upholding traditional marriage?
Government shouldn’t imagine itself able or responsible for ensuring all children’s well-being. Neither should it wash its hands entirely of the issue on the argument “that’s for parents to worry about, not us”. It’s not an all-or-nothing thing. Mike’s original post seemed to suggest that for him, jeopardizing children for the good of increasing adult autonomy was acceptable to him, “the price of freedom”, because it’s parental concern and not the state’s. To my mind, concrete questions about how a given change in our legal structure will affect minors are important to consider. And if you disagree on principle, then yes, it seems like you value adult autonomy above child welfare, aka “have trouble dealing with children.”
What are the specific changes you would like the government to make?
Ah, sarcasm, the last refuge of those with no argument.