If children don’t want to go to school, they can get a job. What you are advocating is that children can live off their parents without having any obligations to their parents. Nonsense.
What I’m saying is pretty basic and your mischaracterization is useless. You are advocating conservatism, but I am not advocating socialism.
What is nonsense is to regard the relation as if it was a contract. It’s the same fallacy of socialists like Rousseau and his social contract, but applied to the family. Children signed NO contract so they have NO obligations except the natural obligation to do-no-harm.
But what I’m pointing out is that if children complain about something it is because something is wrong. And if children want to naturally do ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘C’ it is because those things are good for them. To cite children wanting to jump off rooftops as counterexample is just ridiculous diversion.
It’s not at all that simple, Juan. Philosophically, there’s no difference between my teaching my kids that freedom is the highest human aspiration and the neighbor teaching their kids that serving others is the supreme goal. If one indoctrination is evil, they both are.
If I teach my children that Christianity is a family tradition and they should follow it, I cannot complain if the neighbors teach their children that Islam is the faith they should follow, or agnosticism, or atheism. If you have the freedom to choose, you have that freedom - if you don’t, then your freedom is subjugated to whomever can make the decision about what your children will be taught about religion.
If one cannot teach one’s own children, who can? Would you allow parents to teach moral values, such as “murder is wrong” and “property rights must be respected”? How do you differentiate between those and “You must attend church services every week”?
So, you may say, parents should only have the freedom to teach verifiable fact to their children. This isn’t so simple, either. You may think that Marxism has been successfully refuted, but there are still plenty of avid Marxists around. Austrian economists point out the errors made by the Chicago economists, the Chicago economists think that the Austrian economists are making an error by declining to factor in something that can’t be avoided - government. Keynesian economists dispute both of them. Would such disagreement make teaching my children economics evil in your eyes? Would it be more or less evil, depending on which school I taught them?
I hold such indoctrination to be much less harmful than the circumcision or other body modifications that Len pretends he has an answer for. I was raised Catholic, and left that church in early adulthood. As an adult, anyone can (and very likely will) change their minds about what they were taught as children - or at least examine those teachings for validity. Body modification is, however, not easily reversible - I can’t take a simple medical procedure and have the benefits of a foreskin.
For what it’s worth, my religion has been a positive thing in my life. Having walked away from the religion I was raised in, I have not insisted that my children follow any religion - they’ve been allowed to sit out of any celebration they wished to, and I’ve gotten them the best information I could about other religions they wanted to know more about. As far as I can tell, they’re agnostics so far, though they still opt to participate in religious celebrations when they have the opportunity. This is, in my view, better than the “our way is the only way” indoctrination that I got as a child, and better than the “all religion is wrong” indoctrination that my son’s friend gets from his Atheist parents. But it’s not something you’re ever going to have wide social agreement upon, unless you reduce people’s right to choose - and I’m not ready to believe that you really want to do that.
Danno
I get what your saying: parents shouldn’t parent. But thats not really addressing the legal issue.
Are parent’s not in their rights to withhold television privileges to modify their children’s behavior?
Arguably so–but they also have no rights to be fed, clothed or sheltered. You’re contributing nothing useful to this discussion, except the (ahem) interesting idea that it’s OK to take children to bed, but not to take them to school.
–Len
No, you don’t get what I’m saying. And I’m not addressing any legal issue - there may be some misunderstanding there.
Rights have nothing to do with the problem. Can’t you see that the idea of ‘modifying’ people’s behaviour is flawed ? Why is parent ‘P’ so sure that, say, reading the bible is better than watching TV ? Can’t P leave people alone ?
Not any children I’ve ever known - and I’ve known quite a few. The toddler’s wanting to stay up long after they’re obviously sleepy is axiomatic. The child’s aversion to vegetables is also stereotypical (though almost all of the children I’ve known actually like vegetables). As a pre-adolescent, I did jump off the roof - there was a rope swing, so I survived, but to contemplate the danger I cheerfully ignored at the time gives me great pause today.
Rousseau was wrong - children are savages until they’re civilized. But to contend that children only want to do what is in their own long-term self-interest is to display very little understanding of childhood.
Danno
So ?
So food, clothing and shelter come with strings. Back under your bridge.
–Len
I don’t think like a socialist…I think like a parent. Why do you think childhood obesity is so rampant in the United States? Is it because there is a lack of government regulation? No, it is because parent’s are not enforcing good eating habits in their children. They are not forcing them to eat their vegetables. Their children whine and cry and ask for candy and soda, and the parent’s just give in.
I am not the most healthy person, so I encouraged my daughter from an early age to eat fruits and vegetables along with her steak. She now loves her salad, and is quite happy having a tomato as a snack instead of a cupcake…although she eats her share of sweets! 
Daddy can’t be that draconian!
But the trend in childhood obesity makes my point…children will not be healthy if left to their own devices. This is not because they are stupid. It is not because I enjoy imposing my will. It is because they do not…they CANNOT…know any better. This is not their fault, it is because they are inexperienced and do not have all the information they need to make a rational decision.
You CANNOT make the analogy between this and any political system. The government telling me how to think is NOT like me telling my daughter she needs to get to bed. I am an adult…a free agent…with a mind that is developed enough to make consentual decisions based on examination of variables. My daughter does not. She will, and one day she can become a free agent of her own and I will cease to make decisions on her behalf. But for now she goes to bed when I tell her.
Danno,
I’m not saying that parents should be forcefully prevented from indoctrinating ‘their’ children, but I do point out that such an indoctrination is not a good thing.
The idea that children must follow the religion of their parents, because it is the will of the parents that they do so, is very far from being a libertarian idea. As a matter of fact it is wholly conservative. Oh, since a child was born in a ‘christian’ house he’s supposed to become a ‘christian’ or else he can move out. Fine. Are we living in a really free society where children actually can change parents as they please ? Or is this you-are-free-to-opt-out-thing just a bluff on the part of parents ?
I wouldn’t say that teaching true things is the same as teaching any arbitrary belief. But even if what you teach is true and your children don’t want to listen, then, tough luck. ‘Trades’ of the kind : if you don’t read Ayn Rand or the bible you can’t watch TV are silly.
Children want to stay up late. What’s wrong with that ? Staying up late is a mortal danger ? You’ve argued that sex is not ‘dangerous’ even for small children - but other people seem to strongly disagree. What about eating vegetables ? Is eating too much candy a mortal danger ? Frankly these issues don’t really sound like a big deal do they ?
Actually Rousseau said that savages are nice people and civilization corrupts them. What I am saying is that children are way more sensible than their parents want to admit. And even in cases where they seem to be wrong, the parents don’t really know better.
Heh. The irony of it seems to be lost somehow…
I don’t know, just like you (provided it really is - I doubt it) But…have you seen this ?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder-joshua/snyder-joshua14.html
"The ubiquitous high fructose corn syrup replaced sugar and became the sine qua non of the modern American diet, leading to today’s “obesity epidemic,” "
Because if people cling to the “state” for fear of being unprotected it’s completely different. If the parent is not forcing the child under their parantage, the fact that the child might prefer being under the parent than being an orphan is a matter of voluntary preference.
That may be true in a free society, but…
Apart from sheer force and the fact that it benefits special interests, the state exists because some people think they know better than others, and so are entitled to give orders - for the common good of course That’s by definition paternalistic government.
And that’s the same excuse parents provide for their actions - they claim to know better. Oh, and if they don’t, they pay the bills anyway, so they have the ‘right’ to dictate what children should learn, eat, do, etc.
Children can leave their parent’s house anytime they wish because we live in a truly free society, right ?
Libertarianism is a legal framework, its not a lifestyle or a culture. What else is there to talk about?
No. People actively seek out others to instruct them in better ways of doing things. The market succeeds because it provides positive reinforcement for moral behavior.
Teaching children about voluntary relationships and exchange is an important life lesson. Adults do not have the privilege of doing whatever pleases them.
Sorry - I fear I’ve been unclear. What I’ve been trying to say is that such indoctrination is almost inevitable - and I would view a total lack of indoctrination as being neglect. Whether it’s a good thing or not would depend a lot on what they were being indoctrinated with, wouldn’t it? One of the toughest, most stringent bits of indoctrination that children go through is “urination and defacation should be done here, rather than in your pants or on the floor” - and I’ll be very surprised if you don’t see the value of that, to the children themselves and society as a whole.
Libertarian shares some with Conservative, and some with Left-wing. From my understanding, Libertarian ideals hit a very solid grey area in this - indoctrination of the children is not ideal, but anyone preventing the parents from doing so is even worse. When dealing with religion, it’s even worse - many Libertarians fairly froth at the mouth (as do I) at the abuses of Church Rule in history and today, but even worse is the idea of any authority making a particular faith mandatory or prohibited. Various paths are better or worse than others, but there is no clear “this way is best” that you’ll get a majority to agree with, much less a consensus.
In anything resembling a free society, the children are free to opt out at adulthood - with their feet. In any society, some families are more effective at this - others, less. My understanding of the Libertarian ideal is that no outsider may interfere with a family unless harm is being done that is not easily reversible.
Most “true” things are arbitrary beliefs, once you’re away from science and mathematics. You may be convinced, you may (or may not) convince your children - but there is no objective proof. I KNOW that individual liberty is more to be desired than a society in which the individuals exist only to serve the state - but any Marxist thinks I’m insane, and I’m very unlikely to be able to convince them otherwise.
To force a viewpoint, philosophy, or faith upon a child who resists it is worse than futile - such things are accepted freely, or not at all. If you can’t convince your child that improving their education is a wise choice, or that it’s a bad idea to rot their brain with television, then you need to learn how to talk with your children - mostly, they do accept reason when it’s presented clearly. (My kids don’t watch TV, voluntarily - Ayn Rand would bore them to tears, but other stuff is available, and I’ve been able to pull enough examples out of current events to convince them that economics is worth knowing, even if there are other things to do that are more fun.)
To a degree, I agree with what’s been said here - my children, living under my roof, must at least examine what I wish to show them. In a spirit of justice, I must acknowledge their right to disagree with me (even the 2-yo, about bedtime) - and, to raise effective, free adults, I must allow them the freedom of their convictions when they’ve shown enough understanding of the consequences, and are willing to live with the consequences of their actions. This is where I parted company with Len - he may allow them to follow their own convictions, because if their convictions differ from his, they’ve been brainwashed, and he can step in to stop it. Even the idea that they may choose an option he disagrees with enrages him so much he refuses to admit it can be possible.
Libertarianism is not the easy path, nor is it always clear. Few paths of parenting that I respect are.
No - but it is unwise, particularly if they have school to attend. Letting children stay up late occasionally does no harm - at least, it hasn’t done any notable damage to my kids. I grudgingly let my daughter stay up later than I think is wise - she can’t sleep earlier, and I recognize that this can happen - she’s unlikely to lie to me. I urge naps, to keep her from getting too sleep-deprived, and she takes them. Not ideal, but workable. However, I’ve done volunteer work at her school - and the kids who stay up until 2am, arrive at school late, and nap through their first two classes are common. This isn’t mortal danger, but it’s certainly not good.
Nonconsensual sex is always psychologically dangerous, at any age. The sex acts that children are likely to agree to and enjoy are also remarkably unlikely to do them any damage - they’re far more likely to drive sex-repressed people into conniptions - and their reactions often do, indeed, harm the children.
Very few people have been harmed by eating too many vegetables. [;)] A strict vegetarian diet, however, I’d object to, and monitor closely - usable protein is remarkably important in the developing years.
No, though large doses of sugar are remarkably bad for both brain development and general health. For that matter, circumcision (even the female sort) isn’t a mortal danger - but I’d object strenuously. Dangers come in degrees, as do freedoms. Not all dangers to be avoided are mortal dangers. (Juan - you’ve been watching Len argue too much - I hope the overstatement thing isn’t rubbing off.)
There are, frankly, very few “big deals” in parenting - it’s the dozens of little deals, day in and day out, that are required to do the job you volunteer for when you agree to bring a human into this world. (But we’ll talk about the parent-child contract another time).
Yes, you’re right - he romanticized savages, and never understood that they behave savagely. One can only wish that he could walk down the wrong street of any modern city and meet some of those “noble savages” for an education.
It has seemed that way to me on occasion, too - after all, I rose above my upbringing, and the horrid, stupid things I’ve seen parents do to their children have given me nightmares. The situation is certainly not ideal.
On the other hand, very few situations are ideal - and the only thing I can think of that would be worse than the stupid things people do to their children would be someone else thinking they had the right to interfere. I draw my line at physical harm - at that, the child has a right to be rescued, if they so desire, at terms they agree to. If they want to be rescued because Dad won’t pop for a hotel suite for Prom night, or the parents insist they get a part-time job, they’re welcome to any sympathetic ear they can find, but they’ll be on their own as soon as they want to be - until then, they should just deal.
(For those of you who think it’s absurd of me to consider circumcision ‘physical harm’ - is there any other piece of the body that it’s okay to cut off without an illness making the removal important to health? Why this one exception? If this exception is okay, why not others?)
Danno
I most strenuously disagree. It may be a philosophy upon which a legal framework could be based, but I’m unaware of that legal framework being in use anywhere. It does, however, remain a philosophy.
Now, adherence to a philosophy has a lot of effect upon one’s lifestyle and culture. A libertarian is much more likely to be a fan of Firefly - a Statist, Star Trek: TNG. A statist isn’t going to read Atlas Shrugged for the fun of it, or Stranger in a Strange World. A statist will trust their kids’ history text, trusting it to be accurate - a libertarian is much more likely to read it and find other sources to present a balanced view.
I can generally tell, just from watching someone read a newspaper, whether they they believe a statist or libertarian philosophy. It’s so much more than a legal framework - and I cheerfully acknowledge how important a legal framework can be.
Danno, feeling fervent
It ain’t a subject for debate. Libertarianism is a legal philosophy, where the non-aggression principle is the beginning and end of all just laws. It is not a moral philosophy, because non-aggression, though moral, is not the whole of morality–there are also matters of honesty, fidelity and altruism that are distinctly moral, but not legal, principles. I.e., dishonesty is immoral, but honesty cannot be enforced.
You might extend non-aggression to include overcoming aggressive impulses in your psyche, so that you do not even desire to make others obey you. You might apply it to business, and empower all your employees to vote on all decisions. You could even attempt to structure a community on that principle, forming some sort of voluntarist commune. And you might see those things as aspects of your devotion to libertarian philosophy–but they’re not. Exactly as Jon said, libertarianism is a legal philosophy, not a lifestyle or culture. And it’s not a psychological or religious philosophy either, nor a theory of business management or anything else.
So what? That doesn’t incorporate Firefily into libertarianism itself. You’re a bit confused.
–Len
The cause of the obesity epidemic is the government’s backing of low-fat (thus high-carb) diets as healthy (even for diabetics, which is the height of ridiculousness). This has caused the average number of calories consumed to shoot up over the last 3 decades (after being stable the previous century) by about 400 per person per day. The mechanism is that increased carb intake results in increased insulin levels results in stronger hunger pangs throughout the day.
I followed a low-fat diet for 18 years, which works but hunger is your constant companion. I’ve followed a low-carb diet for the last 3 years, and I’m never hungry because copious amounts of protein and fat are so filling that you naturally reduce your caloric intake.
A strict vegetarian diet is fatal (essential vitamin B12 is found only in meat, vegetarians must supplement or die). It’s a completely unnatural diet for human beings, who are pretty obviously carnivores with the ability to eat other stuff if necessary.
It’s remarkably important for adults too, who are generally quite protein deficient (particularly since the nutritional modern wisdom is to eat a lot of carbs, which never come with protein, unlike fats which often do). Every person on this board would see a marked improvement in their health simply by drinking a protein shake every morning (they make them remarkably delicious now, 20 years ago they tasted like mud, if you could find them at all).