Posted on 02/18/2004 2:38:00 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad
Reason magazine has published the letter below in its March issue. This letter is in response to Cathy Young's article in the December issue: http://www.reason.com/0312/co.cy.divorcees.shtml . They also published, in the February issue, an article on paternity fraud, "Injustice by Default: How the effort to catch 'deadbeat dads' ruins innocent men's lives," by Matt Welch: http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml . This article does not question the claim that there is a serious problem of "real" deadbeat dads. My more extended response to Young was published in LewRockwell.com (a site with over 24 million hits monthly) in December: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville3.html .
Reason seems to realize something is wrong, and they are willing to investigate its more egregious and obvious manifestations. But they are unwilling to question the fundamental assumptions and claims of the government or to engage in a deeper inquiry into what is really going on here or the long-term causes. This is unfortunate, because other libertarian publications, such as Liberty and Lew Rockwell.com, are leaving them behind.
Stephen Baskerville **********************************
reason magazine, March 2004, p. 6.
Letters
Divorcees and Social Engineers
Cathy Young bends over backward to be fair in "Divorcees and Social Engineers" (December), and as usual she mostly succeeds. But we may be missing an opportunity to probe deeper into a perversion of government power without precedent in our history.
Young characterizes some of my views as "extreme." But my argument that government's ever-expanding family machinery has developed a vested interest in removing children from their fathers was recently documented in Political Science and Politics, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Political Science Association not known for airing extremist opinions. The argument is in fact a commonplace of political science: Bureaucracies often perpetuate the problem they are created to address.
My charges are corroborated by a feminist insider. In the October issue of the same journal, St. Olaf College political science professor Jo Michelle Beld confirms that the livelihoods of child support officials depend on broken homes, that these same enforcement officials set the child support levels they collect, and that "high child support orders, in combination with other child support enforcement policies, have a negative effect on contact between non-custodial parents and their children."
Perhaps it is not my rhetoric but what the government is doing to its citizens that is extreme. We are talking here about the forced removal of millions of children from parents who have done nothing wrong; mass incarcerations of those parents without trial; forced confessions; government seizure of the private papers, property, and homes of citizens accused of nothing; children used as government informers against their parents; doctored court records; involuntary litigants shaken down on pain of incarceration for the fees of lawyers and psychotherapists they have not hired; and much more.
Oddly, nobody has written more eloquently on many of these abuses than Cathy Young. But now she asks blithely, "Is there any way to avoid that?" and expresses a truly astonishing pathos for "people forced to choose between losing their children and remaining in an emotionally intolerable marriage."
No one today is "forced" to contract a marriage agreement, which is designed to provide an emotionally tolerable environment for children. To avoid this intolerable choice for parents who lack grounds to break their contract, parents who remain faithful currently must lose their children without being given any "choice" in the matter. They may then be expropriated for not only everything they have but most of what they will ever earn, coerced into signing a confession, criminalized in ways they are powerless to avoid, and jailed indefinitely without trial.
By the way, I have never advocated that a parent should have no access to his or her children. What I advocate is bringing questions of justice, rather than therapy or social engineering, back into courtrooms. This certainly includes the joint custody (properly understood) that Young proposes. But any solution will effectively minimize divorce damage only by identifying the interests inflicting that damage and vigilantly monitoring them.
reason and Cathy Young deserve credit for opening a dialogue, but they would be doing a greater service through a more extensive investigation into this hijacking of the justice system.
Stephen Baskerville Howard University Washington, DC
*************************************** Stephen Baskerville, PhD President American Coalition for Fathers & Children 1718 M Street, NW Suite 187 Washington, DC 20036 www.acfc.org info@acfc.org 800-978-DADS (3237)
Department of Political Science Howard University Washington, DC 20059 202-806-7267 703-560-5138 For more than 30 articles on family issues, see: www.stephenbaskerville.net.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.