You and me Monkeys! Libertarianism or bust...!

[_Ren]

Over on MAD, myself and Book of Mormon were getting back into our periodic Libertarianism debates. But, apparently the thread was political (Don't know where they got that idea!), so I'm moving it over here.

Basically, I'm a Libertarian. And I was discussing what Book of Mormon sees as a 'problem' with Libertarinism when it comes to children.

I think I've got one example that maybe hits the sweet spot of the debate here - the right to 'smack' children.
I think it's been discussed on this board before at some point, but Barrel - how do you see the right to 'smack' a children fairing specifically with your idea of Libertarianism, and whatever your moral philosophy is now...?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Over on MAD, myself and Book of Mormon were getting back into our periodic Libertarianism debates. But, apparently the thread was political (Don't know where they got that idea!), so I'm moving it over here.

Basically, I'm a Libertarian. And I was discussing what Book of Mormon sees as a 'problem' with Libertarinism when it comes to children.

I think I've got one example that maybe hits the sweet spot of the debate here - the right to 'smack' children.
I think it's been discussed on this board before at some point, but Barrel - how do you see the right to 'smack' a children fairing specifically with your idea of Libertarianism, and whatever your moral philosophy is now...?

We need smilies here!!!!!!!!

I just sent you a pm over there. I'll write up more later. And it's not the right to smack children. It's the right to abandon your children. The philosophy says I can walk away from each of my children, right this moment. Never support them again or care for them. Who is going to coerce me into doing that. YOU? If you don't what happens to them? You have to have some sort of welfare state... uhoh!

Hey, I really can't right now....... get back to you in a few hours.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Never mind. I sent them out to play!

Okay, following that thought.

In the libertarian philosophy what do you do with children. Let's suppose a few libertarians decide to have a few. They then decide they don't want to care for them. They just stop feeding them or what not. Or just up and leave. Is that somehow being untrue to the principles of the philosophy? Are you going to tell them they should be there. Are you going to force them to go back and care for those kids? Are you going to tax someone else to pay for the feeding of those children? What to do? What to do?

Heh. I'm so glad you post over here too. :D

Oh, this should really be in the off topic forum, dontcha think?

[_barrelomonkeys]

OMG! The irony just hit me. I sent my kids out to play so I can discuss the obligations adults have to care for them. Ack!

[_moksha]

I do like the libertarian philosophy of everybody having the right to take off their clothes and run wild in the streets, until they actually start doing so. Then it seems like anarchy. My guess is any libertarian government would collapse within a week.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I do like the libertarian philosophy of everybody having the right to take off their clothes and run wild in the streets, until they actually start doing so. Then it seems like anarchy. My guess is any libertarian government would collapse within a week.

Yah. When I used to run naked and wild in the streets it was lots of fun.

Now I don't want my kids to see me doing that. ;)

[_barrelomonkeys]

I got so excited my grammar is really, really bad.

Please some mod move this down to the off topic forum before too many people see it. :)

[_moksha]

Yah. When I used to run naked and wild in the streets it was lots of fun.

Now I don't want my kids to see me doing that. ;)

If I were to do so, it would cause a lot of unnecessary cataract surgery.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Yah. When I used to run naked and wild in the streets it was lots of fun.

Now I don't want my kids to see me doing that. ;)

If I were to do so, it would cause a lot of unnecessary cataract surgery.

:D

I'm sure I'd cause a few wrecks.

[Guest]

barrelofmonkeys,

And it's not the right to smack children

I don't know if you mean this example isn't to do with what you were saying, or it's not related to Libertarianism at all...

The philosophy says I can walk away from each of my children, right this moment.

If you walk away from all your children, society implodes. It is unsustainable, as well as going against deeply ingrained natural instincts.
You are correct, the philosophy doesn't provide hard limitations. That doesn't mean that this problem you've highlighted isn't purely hypothetical...

Show me a country that has embraced Libertarianism to any degree that is getting close to calling children with no guardian 'morally acceptable'?

Who is going to coerce me into doing that. YOU?

No. But if your going to abandon your kids, no state with Libertarian leanings I'm aware of will not make every effort to place that child with a guardian that actually wants the child.
I'd personally rather have that than leave the kid with a parent that doesn't want them.

If only the religious would stop getting in the way of gay couples adopting...

You have to have some sort of welfare state... uhoh!

An 'extreme' welfare state directly attacks Libertarian principles.
But I'm aware of no Libertarian principle that excludes a 'contract' between an individual and the society it is a part of (which would cover such concepts as taxes etc.) - AS LONG AS such person could 'opt out' of society. They would have no obligation to pay taxes etc., but they would also recieve none of the benifits of society.

I am very much in favour of the rights of gypsies (at least the non-hypocritical ones), and I hold as a priority the need to reach a mutually-acceptable arrangement with them.

Is that somehow being untrue to the principles of the philosophy?

For me, the underlying principle of Libertarianism is 'The longest amount of freedom for the most amount of people'. A child that isn't getting fed or otherwise looked after doesn't seem to me like it's going to find much 'freedom' in the long run....

Oh, this should really be in the off topic forum, dontcha think?

Perhaps. I'm sure we can weave some Mormonism in as well...! :)
Yeah - this is probably the wrong forum. Mods, sorry about that! And no probs with moving it as nessesary...

OMG! The irony just hit me. I sent my kids out to play so I can discuss the obligations adults have to care for them. Ack!

Haha :D

moshka,

I do like the libertarian philosophy of everybody having the right to take off their clothes and run wild in the streets, until they actually start doing so.

I think that's what fundy Islamists think of our 'Western' libertarian ideals already moksha. Forget about what 'is' to come. A women walking around in a bikini IS 'tak[ing] off their clothes, and running wild in the streets'.

When Richard Dawkins was talking to a Islamic fundemetalist, he didn't seem to interested in much of Dawkins' critism. He seemed to think we should sort our culture out before critisising his.
..one of his points? "Why do you let your women loose wearing nothing'?

My guess is any libertarian government would collapse within a week.

The western world is largely Libertarian, and is only moving one way.
Look around a bit. It's true...

Well, the US has hit a few road-bumps lately. But - you know - s**t happens sometimes...

There is certainly very little that happens in UK politics that I can't see highly influenced by a practically de facto sense of Libertarian morality.
My only continual dissapointment with the Western World is the War on Drugs. In most other areas, Libertarianism is alive and well...