You talk about things going on in the privacy of people's homes; what about people who beat their children? If you're an atheist, you believe that people are just material, not created by God, and thus the parents (the physical creators of the children) can do whatever they want with them. But if you believe that children are to be protected, to what moral standard do you appeal to take them away from their parents?
Where does this type of thinking come from? I'm a Libt. and believe strongly in charity and social responsibility. I don't think thay Libt's are especially anti-charity, except perhaps Randian/Objectivists.
I do have serious issues with govt enforced donations though.
Perhaps I can step in and defend my libertarian brethren here. The above strikes me as either a very confused caricature of their views, or a misunderstanding of basic libertarian philosophy.
I'll take it point by point:
Well, if you're a libertarian, there's no reason to ban polygamy, is there?
HV, you're okay so far. The libertarians of my acquaintance would agree one hundred percent. The heart of modern libertarianism is this simple thesis: the actions of consenting, rational adults should be their own business, unless those actions result in harm to others. If three or more people of sound mind and mature years choose to enter into a polygamous arrangement (can't quite call it "marriage" myself), they ought to be free to do so.
What if a guy has seven wives and 36 children, living paycheck to paycheck, and then he dies and the state gets stuck with supporting the children?
This is where HV's ratiocination begins to appear a bit frayed around the edges, I'm afraid. He began with "polygamy" and instantly conflated the issue with that of "polygamous parents".
Most libertarians I know are sharp enough to immediately draw that distinction. There is a profound difference, legally and philosophically, between being a childless spouse and being a parenting spouse.
Another party enters the social arrangement with the conception of a child. That party is a human person with certain irreducible protectable rights, or so would say nearly any randomly selected libertarian.
It is easy, and fairly stupid, to pick the most dubiously extreme argument that the looniest imaginable libertarian theorist might come up with, and parody it. (Liberals do this to conservatives all the time, and it's not any more fair or sensible a tactic when they resort to it.)
The majority of real-world, non-theoretical libertarians recognize that the world does not consist entirely of consenting, rational adults. The primary and obvious exceptions are children. And most real-world libertarians are prepared to admit that there must be measures in place to ensure the well-being of children who are subjected to the decisions of the adults around them.
I do know libertarians who are perfectly prepared to allow Christian Science parents to deny their children medical care unto the point of lethality. I don't know very many such libertarians. Perhaps one percent of the LBTs with whom I am familiar. Not a representative sampling.
So let us consider the case of some fellow who wishes to practice polygamy. That's between him and his, er, polyspouses, says the libertarian. Whatever they want to do with and to one another, so long as it stays consenting-adults-only, is okay.
But let us suppose that benevolent state of affairs changes, and the gentleman and his (whatevers) proceed to bear more children than they are capable of providing for in the event of his death.
Okay, now that is the point at which the sphere of rational-consenting-adult-contractors impinges on that of small persons who are not adults, who are not consenting parties to the arrangement into which they are born, and who don't have the means to leave it or seek legal redress on their own.
That is regulatable conduct, says modern libertarianism (a judgement with which I am in agreement). The nonsignatories introduced into the household contract, namely the children, have rights which may easily be invaded or abrogated by the adults who sired them.
Note that the case of a monogamous couple who have more children than they are able to handle is logically similar.
The key issue here isn't polygamy. The issue is whether adults can or should make provision for children's well being (regardless of the type of household arrangement from which those children are produced).
And believe it or not, libertarians worry and talk a lot about that exact issue, and have thought it through pretty well.
I have discussed the subject of children's care repeatedly with libertarian friends, and their general position has been that children are a protectable special case.
Kids need feeding, clothing, doctoring, housing, schooling, and love. Love is unfortunately beyond anyone's purview to regulate, but the rest reduce to financial matters: grub, overalls, medicine, roofs and books are all purchaseable commodities in a market economy. The only question is making sure that the arrangements are made and the bills get paid.
One way to handle the matter would be to simply require a prospective parent to show that he (or she, or they, or what have you) has made contractual advance provision for the care of his young.
An example would be a life insurance policy, of a nominal value sufficient to see one child through to maturity and independence. That would be wrapped in a binding trust, which stipulated who would control the money, and direct the child's rearing, in the event that the parent were to predecease the child's age of independence.
Simple. Clean. Contractual. Implemented via free-market agencies. Nongovernmental except for the requirement that the contract exist. Very libertarian.
There are issues beyond the parent becoming a decedent that need to be seen to, but most reasonably foreseeable problems can be handled in the same style, with advance planning and prior financial commitments.
In the straw-man case described above, in which Mr. Polygamy decides that he wishes to have more children than he is able to make provision for, he would find himself restrained from doing so, until such time as he (or his whatevers) could show sufficient means.
That would not be a case of the state contravening libertarian dogma by interfering with consenting adults. It would be a case of the state protecting the interests of persons who don't qualify as consenting adults. Very different to a libertarian.
Mr. Polygamy may do whatever odd and silly things he and his cohabitants desire to, so long as that children don't enter in. Once children do so enter in, the rules change.
Please don't construe the above as an argument on my part that there are no grounds on which polygamy could or should be prohibited. It was not my intention to argue that tack.
And I think that rational arguments against polygamy from a social-conservative viewpoint can and should be constructed. But the above is just a sloppy rabbit punch at imaginary libertarian views on the matter, nothing more.
I mean, if you're a libertarian why would you give any charity to these people because of their "voluntary" decisions?
There are plenty of reasons for a libertarian to give charity to people, even if those people are in a mess because of having made decisions which that particular libertarian might disagree with.
Pity, for example. Feelings of shared humanity. Religious imperatives (yes, Victoria, there are devout libertarians.)
For that matter, someone might make charitable provision simply because they found the sight of children on the street to be aesthetically distasteful.
For that matter, a conservative has equally good grounds to do the same. Or a liberal. Anyone, actually. People's reasons for being charitable, or not, do not map with especial fidelity onto their political orientation.
A libertarian would argue that he or she should not be forced involuntarily to provide such charity, which is a different matter.
I won't take up that contention, but will content myself from pointing out that again, there's a confusing conflation of cases occurring here.
But if you don't want to help such people, then either the state has to do it or they starve in the street.
My false-dichotomy detector is sounding. It is not a choice between A or B; there are other obvious options, the most obvious of which is that minimally intrusive policy, consistent with libertarian doctrine, can prevent the situation from occurring in the first place. If no wrong exists, no remedy is required.
You talk about things going on in the privacy of people's homes; what about people who beat their children? If you're an atheist, you believe that people are just material, not created by God, and thus the parents (the physical creators of the children) can do whatever they want with them. But if you believe that children are to be protected, to what moral standard do you appeal to take them away from their parents?
It's not my place to argue atheists' political and/or social views for them, but methinks that HV is being no more fair or accurate in his characterizations of their views than he has been with the libertarians.
I'll leave it to any atheists who might wander into the thread to rebut his presumptions.
Regards, MainStreet