I read this today, about a young girl who was forcibly sent to a “re-education” camp for gay teens, and while I completely agree with the post & the advice given at the end, it gets me thinking.
I’m very libertarian, and therefore I tolerate (grudgingly at times) a very wide array of behaviors from others that I personally find objectionable even though they don’t cause me any direct harm, and that includes bad parenting. Sure, most bad parenting causes some harm, in some way or another (we are all a bit damaged because our parents weren’t perfect), but for the most part it’s no more damaging than living with a smoker.
But where do you draw the line? When does bad parenting cross over from being standard human error into “you need to be not allowed to raise your own kids”. I know some people who think us gun owners should have our kids taken away unless all of our guns are fully disassembled and locked in a vault (preferably off-site from the home), and clearly I think that is a bit extreme. However, what about the parent who owns guns, doesn’t lock them up, and is negligent about teaching firearms safety? Is the parent who spanks equal to the parent who punches, bruises, or breaks bones? Some say yes. Is the parent who is emotionally damaged (& thus passing on that damage to their kids) as bad as the parent who gets off on destroying their kids emotionally? How do we tell the difference? What about the mom in the linked article? Is she being a good, although misguided parent, or is she outsourcing her abuse?
How do we objectively qualify what is abuse & what is just life not being fair?
I thought you were going the other way. GLAD just highjacked a comdian’s career because they didn’t like jokes he made – in his act! The PC Police just bagged his (because he has a network show so he can’t tell them to f*ck off like any regular comic would).
I guess I don’t like bullies of any kind.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/tracy-morgan-accused-of-making-homophobic-comments-at-nashville-show/2011/06/10/AGvF6cOH_blog.html
MRS,
You are at the cusp, as a libertarian, of answering your own question.
In a libertarian society, do girls like this fall through the cracks, or do they find succor from someone who takes an interest in their plight?
This goes back to someone’s description of two libertarians walking down the street (was that Tam?) having a nice stroll. One notices the neighbor’s garbage can has tipped over, and he rights it, puts the garbage back in, and secures the lid. The other, while they were there, notices the street drain is clogged and unclogs it. They saw two problems, and fixed the problems, and continued walking down the street. This is the way they deal with things. Their entire world, at the time of their stroll, is the street.
Now let’s say Bob and Frank get into a real discussion. Bob says Gina, the crazy lady down the street, has gone of the deep end. She sent her daughter off to a re-education camp because her daughter is gay and has gay cooties. Or something. He looked into it. The girl was essentially kidnapped in her own home and shipped to Utah.
Frank stops in his tracks. He’s met that girl, she’s his kids’ babysitter. That girl is the sweetest thing. She doesn’t need reduction, and she certainly should not be abused, by her parents or anybody else!
Frank turns around and starts walking back to his house. Bob pauses and opens his mouth, but then closes it. He knows what Frank is going to do. He goes home and starts packing the 4×4.
Bob and Frank fix this problem. They do whatever it takes.
Now, here’s the crux of it all. Is Bob and Frank right? Are they making value judgements not supported by facts? Are they vigilantes? Is Bob and Frank fixing this problem anarchy?
And that’s the rub. When collectivism is removed from the social contract between people, everybody is dealt with on his or hers merits. Every single person. “You need to be not allowed to raise your own kids” is exactly right. Bob and Frank decided to that.
The morality of a child abused by her parents by proxy is clear. To not rescue the babysitter is to sacrifice her on the altar of collectivism. This is the society we have today, and it’s wrong.
Wow I have never felt such a great rage before until after reading that…
Excellent, thought provoking post. And yes, there are times where someone must intervene for the sake of the innocent. Particularly children. But who gets to make that call? I say the woman in the article should not be trusted to raise children. She participated in abuse by proxy which is no different than personally administering the abuse. But how does the libertarian draw the line at what is abuse and what is just a different way of raising your children? Is it right to even set an arbitrary line? I think this is where the libertarian idea of small government comes into play. In my mind, it’s what separates libertarians from anarchists. There should be laws that protect personal liberty and way to enforce them in a just manner. The small government should be members of the community that would come together to deal with this type of situation. They should not be professional politicians, rather regular folks with regular roles in the community. I’m talking the town barber, post man, and farmer Joe down the way.
It’s a difficult situation with no clear cut answers, but we can strive to find the right balance of preserving liberty and protecting those that cannot protect themselves.
More on this: