Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: The dark side of libertarianism....

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like

    The dark side of libertarianism....

    While I am a card carrying believer in protecting the rights of minorities of all stripes, stuff like what happened below is one reason to temper those principles with common sense. These compounds amount to nothing more than religiously sanctioned Guantanamos. Sad part is, these kids are going to go from abusive compounds to foster settings that probably won't be much better. Really ugly...


    52 girls removed from Texas compound By MICHELLE ROBERTS, Associated Press Writer
    1 hour, 20 minutes ago


    Child welfare officials are scrambling to find foster homes for dozens of girls removed from a secretive West Texas religious retreat built by polygamist leader Warren Jeffs after a 16-year-old living there complained of physical abuse.

    Officials from Texas Child Protective Services, escorted by state troopers, took 52 girls, ages 6 months to 17 years, from the remote retreat on Friday afternoon.

    By the end of the day, 18 were put legally into state custody, and CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said interviews would continue Saturday. A warrant has been issued for at least one individual.

    The girls put in state custody were believed to be in danger, Meisner said. "Those are the ones we believe have been abused or they are in imminent risk of harm, and it would not be safe for those children to remain in the compound," she said.

    Child welfare officials were looking for foster homes for the girls, most of whom have rarely been outside the insular world of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They were being housed for now at a civic center, she said.

    "We're dealing with children that aren't accustomed to the outside world, so we're trying to be very sensitive to their needs," Meisner said.

    The investigation began with a call Monday alleging physical abuse of a 16-year-old girl living there, Meisner said. Authorities first arrived at the compound Thursday evening. They interviewed and searched through the night.

    On Friday, a search warrant and arrest warrant were issued.

    The search warrant sought records dealing with the birth of children to a 16-year-old and any records listing a marriage between a 50-year-old man and the girl, according to the San Angelo Standard-Times, which cited court records released late Friday in Tom Green County.

    The individual listed in the arrest warrant had not been located by Friday evening, said Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange. She said she could not reveal whose name was on the warrant.

    The ranch covers roughly 1,700 acres. It is north of this two-stoplight town, down a narrow paved road. Authorities blocked access to the compound's gate, keeping onlookers miles away.

    State officials said they did not know how many people lived at the retreat, but local officials in 2006 put the number at about 150, as members of the reclusive church moved from a community on the Arizona-Utah line.

    The congregation, known as FLDS, has been led by Jeffs since his father's death in 2002. It is one of several groups that split from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, decades after it renounced polygamy in 1890.

    In November, Jeffs was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of five years to life in prison in Utah for being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old girl who wed her cousin in an arranged marriage in 2001.

    In Arizona, Jeffs is charged as an accomplice with four counts each of incest and sexual conduct with a minor stemming from two arranged marriages between teenage girls and their older male relatives. He is jailed in Kingman, Ariz., awaiting trial.

    The Eldorado retreat, about 160 miles northwest of San Antonio, is on a former exotic game ranch. The church bought the property in 2004 for $700,000 and began an ambitious construction program anchored by an 80-foot-tall, gleaming white temple.




    Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2465600]While I am a card carrying believer in protecting the rights of minorities of all stripes, stuff like what happened below is one reason to temper those principles with common sense. These compounds amount to nothing more than religiously sanctioned Guantanamos. Sad part is, these kids are going to go from abusive compounds to foster settings that probably won't be much better. Really ugly...


    52 girls removed from Texas compound By MICHELLE ROBERTS, Associated Press Writer
    1 hour, 20 minutes ago


    Child welfare officials are scrambling to find foster homes for dozens of girls removed from a secretive West Texas religious retreat built by polygamist leader Warren Jeffs after a 16-year-old living there complained of physical abuse.

    Officials from Texas Child Protective Services, escorted by state troopers, took 52 girls, ages 6 months to 17 years, from the remote retreat on Friday afternoon.

    By the end of the day, 18 were put legally into state custody, and CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said interviews would continue Saturday. A warrant has been issued for at least one individual.

    The girls put in state custody were believed to be in danger, Meisner said. "Those are the ones we believe have been abused or they are in imminent risk of harm, and it would not be safe for those children to remain in the compound," she said.

    Child welfare officials were looking for foster homes for the girls, most of whom have rarely been outside the insular world of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They were being housed for now at a civic center, she said.

    "We're dealing with children that aren't accustomed to the outside world, so we're trying to be very sensitive to their needs," Meisner said.

    The investigation began with a call Monday alleging physical abuse of a 16-year-old girl living there, Meisner said. Authorities first arrived at the compound Thursday evening. They interviewed and searched through the night.

    On Friday, a search warrant and arrest warrant were issued.

    The search warrant sought records dealing with the birth of children to a 16-year-old and any records listing a marriage between a 50-year-old man and the girl, according to the San Angelo Standard-Times, which cited court records released late Friday in Tom Green County.

    The individual listed in the arrest warrant had not been located by Friday evening, said Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange. She said she could not reveal whose name was on the warrant.

    The ranch covers roughly 1,700 acres. It is north of this two-stoplight town, down a narrow paved road. Authorities blocked access to the compound's gate, keeping onlookers miles away.

    State officials said they did not know how many people lived at the retreat, but local officials in 2006 put the number at about 150, as members of the reclusive church moved from a community on the Arizona-Utah line.

    The congregation, known as FLDS, has been led by Jeffs since his father's death in 2002. It is one of several groups that split from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, decades after it renounced polygamy in 1890.

    In November, Jeffs was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of five years to life in prison in Utah for being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old girl who wed her cousin in an arranged marriage in 2001.

    In Arizona, Jeffs is charged as an accomplice with four counts each of incest and sexual conduct with a minor stemming from two arranged marriages between teenage girls and their older male relatives. He is jailed in Kingman, Ariz., awaiting trial.

    The Eldorado retreat, about 160 miles northwest of San Antonio, is on a former exotic game ranch. The church bought the property in 2004 for $700,000 and began an ambitious construction program anchored by an 80-foot-tall, gleaming white temple.




    Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.[/QUOTE]

    I am not trying to be sarcastic as I just recently started learning about libertarianism, but I don't understand how your title relates to the story. Can you explain?

  3. #3
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wasn't sure how that article related to libertarianism either?

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    A true libertarian would argue that such communities have a right to practice whatever form of religion they choose without interference from the evil federal government, the evil state authorities, etc. If that means polygamy, so be it. If that means young girls being indoctrinated into having sex with 50year old letchers, with the consent of their nutty parents, so be it.... etc.

    All I was saying is that there are significant limitation to the actual practice of libertarianism. Carried to far, it can slip into the sanction of pretty much anything... a kind of moral "looking away."

    Does the state have an obligation to intrude upon such practices to protect the rights of children? Or is that a violation of libertarian principles?

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2465716]A true libertarian would argue that such communities have a right to practice whatever form of religion they choose without interference from the evil federal government, the evil state authorities, etc. If that means polygamy, so be it. If that means young girls being indoctrinated into having sex with 50year old letchers, with the consent of their nutty parents, so be it.... etc.

    All I was saying is that there are significant limitation to the actual practice of libertarianism. Carried to far, it can slip into the sanction of pretty much anything... a kind of moral "looking away."

    Does the state have an obligation to intrude upon such practices to protect the rights of children? Or is that a violation of libertarian principles?[/QUOTE]

    From the [U]very little[/U] I have read, there are libertarians that believe the government should intervene when one person is trying to interfere with another person's liberty. In this case, if there was rampant pedophilia taking place, the government would be encouraged to intervene. Also, if you are a young member of this group who wanted to leave the group, but could not do so because of threats by other members, that would also be a restraint on your liberties that would call for government intervention. I may be wrong, and I read that there are libertarians that believe that there should be no government intervention at all because people are capable of governing themselves.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=maury420;2466071]From the [U]very little[/U] I have read, there are libertarians that believe the government should intervene when one person is trying to interfere with another person's liberty. In this case, if there was rampant pedophilia taking place, the government would be encouraged to intervene. Also, if you are a young member of this group who wanted to leave the group, but could not do so because of threats by other members, that would also be a restraint on your liberties that would call for government intervention. I may be wrong, and I read that there are libertarians that believe that there should be no government intervention at all because people are capable of governing themselves.[/QUOTE]

    The problem with these religious compounds is that the adults give consent to let their daughters be essentially raped. That's truly screwed up, but there you have it. There are guys here who are obsessed with Jeremiah Wright saying a curse word. They should worry about these extreme religious righters who sell their daughters into sexual slavery in the name of religion.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    So, Socialist Liberals don;t have enough to disagree with with ur COnservative friends, now they feel the need to nail Libertarians too, eh?

    Libertarians believe in Freedom, AS LONG AS THE EXERCISE OF THAT FREEDOM DOES NOT (REPEAT NOT) INFRINGE OF THE FREEDOMS OF OTHERS.

    Having sex with minors directly opposes what I just posted. Any Libertarian who supports child-sex is wrong, period. But I doubt you'll find that many....surely no more than Conservative Priests or Liberal Teachers, both of whom screw kids all the time these days.

    And L.O.L at "indoctrination". As if Liberal Schools and Conservative Churches didn't make their bread and butter living from that very act.

    And L.O.L at the Hypocricy of the LEft. Ass-Plunger Gays should be given the right to marry, but Polygamy between Adults is "bad"? Suuuuuure it is.

    The State should get the hell out of Social Contracts, plain and simple. Two Adult, or Twenty, a Social Contract is just that. The State shoulkd not have the rioght to interfere UNLESS someones rights or freedoms are being violated. As long as it's adults, there not.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    453
    Post Thanks / Like
    This has absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism.

    No true Libertarian would ever support pedophilia with out immediately ceasing to be Libertarian because it so obviously conflicts with their principles (as were well summarized by Warfish and Maury).

    The difference between believing someone should be able to raise their children in whatever faith they choose without arbitrary intervention from the state and supporting pedophilia or abuse of a minor is tremendous.

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have to be honest with you guys. I have just started reading about libertarianism and it seems more in line with my own beliefs than the Republican or Democratic Party. Why hasn't the Libertarian party made more noise in elections?

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Oakliusmaximus;2466183]This has absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism.

    No true Libertarian would ever support pedophilia with out immediately ceasing to be Libertarian because it so obviously conflicts with their principles (as were well summarized by Warfish and Maury).

    The difference between believing someone should be able to raise their children in whatever faith they choose without arbitrary intervention from the state and supporting pedophilia or abuse of a minor is tremendous.[/QUOTE]

    This is nice, but doesn't really get at the issue at all. I don't see this as a conservative/liberal issue at all. What I was trying to get at, given that I hold very strong libertarian principles as well, is that operationalizing an abstract idea gets complicated very quickly due to those who abuse it.

    You and Warfish quickly dismiss the idea that any libertarian would support pedophilia. Fine with that. But if we lived in a society of noninterference with the rights of others, how would we prevent such practices if they are done with the consent of childrens' parents in the privacy of their compounds. On the one hand, the libertarian is all for parents having the right to raise their children as they see fit. If a parent believes that offering his/her daughter sexually to a holy minister of their congregation is not pedophilia but a blessing, how do you argue that they can't do so from a libertarian point of view. Either children have equivalent rights to adults, or they are considered the responsibility of their parents. If they are equivalent, then who will protect or regulate their rights? We've just taken them out of the hands of their parents. It's a paradox that is difficult to resolve. Suppose the children were not offered sexually to be raped (my view), but simply sequestered in a single room and read the Bible for hours and never allowed to leave that room except to relieve themselves. Suppose they were required by their parents to work twelve hours a day at hard labor to support them, or suppose the parents engaged in using belts and electrical cords to "discipline" them when they violated some arbitrary religious rule? No state intervention? Or is this a parent's perogative? How does the libertarian respond?

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    453
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2466662]This is nice, but doesn't really get at the issue at all. I don't see this as a conservative/liberal issue at all. What I was trying to get at, given that I hold very strong libertarian principles as well, is that operationalizing an abstract idea gets complicated very quickly due to those who abuse it.

    You and Warfish quickly dismiss the idea that any libertarian would support pedophilia. Fine with that. But if we lived in a society of noninterference with the rights of others, how would we prevent such practices if they are done with the consent of childrens' parents in the privacy of their compounds. On the one hand, the libertarian is all for parents having the right to raise their children as they see fit. If a parent believes that offering his/her daughter sexually to a holy minister of their congregation is not pedophilia but a blessing, how do you argue that they can't do so from a libertarian point of view. Either children have equivalent rights to adults, or they are considered the responsibility of their parents. If they are equivalent, then who will protect or regulate their rights? We've just taken them out of the hands of their parents. It's a paradox that is difficult to resolve. Suppose the children were not offered sexually to be raped (my view), but simply sequestered in a single room and read the Bible for hours and never allowed to leave that room except to relieve themselves. Suppose they were required by their parents to work twelve hours a day at hard labor to support them, or suppose the parents engaged in using belts and electrical cords to "discipline" them when they violated some arbitrary religious rule? No state intervention? Or is this a parent's perogative? How does the libertarian respond?[/QUOTE]

    I think I get your point a little better now. Sorry for misunderstanding.

    I would say that a situation like this is really the dark side of freedom itself. Everything has costs that come in the form of unintended consequences and this is likely just an extremely unfortunate and heart breaking side effect of living in such a free country.

    I haven't put nearly enough thought into this yet, nor do I know enough about this particular situation, so this is really just coming off the top of my head for now - But I don't know if there is anything that can be done to prevent awful things like this all the time. Maybe this is just a cost that we have to pay for the benefit to raise our children the way we want. There are always going to be people that are going to abuse their freedom, maybe we just have to do the best we can to stop awful things like this when they happen. We see trade offs like this all the time. With the freedom to own firearms comes the inevitable situations where I child is going to find a parents gun and shoot themselves. When we are free to have swimming pools in our back yards, some people are inevitably going to drown. It's sad and it sucks but for the most part all we can do is try our best to make these situations as infrequent as possible (while preserving the maximum amount of freedom possible) and understand that overall, freedom to do these things is worth even such a high cost.

    I think this is generally what the libertarian position would be, but I don't want to speak for anyone else and like I said, I need to put some more thought into it.

    Interesting subject though.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    The SC has distinguished between belief and action. You have two issues, the freedom to believe and the freedom to act. In terms of belief the SC has consistently ruled freedom of belief is absolute but freedom to act, or the free exercise clause is not absolute.

    I think most people who consider themselves Libertarian generally support States rights and the peoples rights. If you look at our countries legal history, the reality is we talk about the framers but Lincoln had enormous impact on our Constitution and the Federalizing of our country. In many ways Lincloln and the Amendments during his Presidency changed the entire reading of the Constitution going forward. I think most Liberitarians have a viewpoint that has more of Jefferson's viewpoint and are opposed to the the post Lincoln Constitution along with the changing case law since.


    [url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html[/url]
    [QUOTE]The Belief-Conduct Distinction .--While the Court has consistently affirmed that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, protection for religiously motivated conduct has waxed and waned over the years. The Free Exercise Clause ''embraces two concepts-- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'' 189 In its first free exercise case, involving the power of government to prohibit polygamy, the Court invoked a hard distinction between the two, saying that although laws ''cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.'' 190 The rule thus propounded protected only belief, inasmuch as religiously motivated action was to be subjected to the police power of the state to the same extent as would similar action springing from other motives. The Reynolds no-protection rule was applied in a number of cases, 191 but later cases established that religiously grounded conduct is not always outside the protection of the free exercise clause. 192 Instead, the Court began to balance the secular interest asserted by the government against the claim of religious liberty asserted by the person affected; only if the governmental interest was ''compelling'' and if no alternative forms of regulation would serve that interest was the claimant required to yield. 193 Thus, while freedom to engage in religious practices was not absolute, it was entitled to considerable protection.

    Recent cases evidence a narrowing of application of the compelling interest test, and a corresponding constriction on the freedom to engage in religiously motivated conduct. First, the Court purported to apply strict scrutiny, but upheld the governmental action anyhow. Next the Court held that the test is inappropriate in the contexts of military and prison discipline. 194 Then, more importantly, the Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that ''if prohibiting the exercise of religion . . . is not the object . . . but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.'' 195 Therefore, the Court concluded, the Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit a state from applying generally applicable criminal penalties to use of peyote in a religious ceremony, or from denying unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs because of religious ceremonial use of peyote. Accommodation of such religious practices must be found in ''the political process,'' the Court noted; statutory religious-practice exceptions are permissible, but not ''constitutionally required.'' 196 The result is tantamount to a return to the Reynolds belief-conduct distinction. [/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 04-06-2008 at 04:26 PM.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2466938]The SC has distinguished between belief and action. You have two issues, the freedom to believe and the freedom to act. In terms of belief the SC has consistently ruled freedom of belief is absolute but freedom to act, or the free exercise clause is not absolute.

    I think most people who consider themselves Libertarian generally support States rights and the peoples rights. If you look at our countries legal history, the reality is we talk about the framers but Lincoln had enormous impact on our Constitution and the Federalizing of our country. In many ways Lincloln and the Amendments during his Presidency changed the entire reading of the Constitution going forward. I think most Liberitarians have a viewpoint that has more of Jefferson's viewpoint and are opposed to the the post Lincoln Constitution along with the changing case law since.


    [url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    That's helpful to the issue. I think it's fair to say that most libertarians (myself included) are very protective of any adult's right to choose any behavior as long as it private and does not harm others (Warfish's rule). The right to believe anything you wish is also an easy one to permit under the libertarian ideology. Frankly, I prefer that people declare their beliefs in an open society so that those beliefs are transparent and subject to debate.

    The "freedom to act" issue is indeed where the rubber meets the road. Libertarianism doesn't exclude the possibility of civilized people arriving at a consensus of what civilized behavior entails. If we are reasonably strict constructionists about it, we can still find consensus as a society concerning protection of children -- or at least balancing the protection of children with the right of reasonable adults to parent them as they wish. I use the word "reasonable" very broadly. It can include Hari Kirshnas and old fashioned disciplinarians. Sadly, we live in a world, as Warfish noted, where people will abuse their privileges to liberty. I would agree that there have to be laws to govern any society. Libertarianism for me is not equivalent to some kind of benign anarchy. If it was, we couldn't protect it for more than twenty minutes from somebody who would cut us up and conquer us. Nor do I equate libertarianism with states' rights. Probably the most egregious abuses of power and examples of corruption have occurred at the level of the states. The states may be closer to the individual, but in the end it is the individual people that constitute the fundamental unit of all government. The will of the people overrides the rights of states or the federal government, at least in my view of the US.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2466662]This is nice, but doesn't really get at the issue at all. I don't see this as a conservative/liberal issue at all. What I was trying to get at, given that I hold very strong libertarian principles as well, is that operationalizing an abstract idea gets complicated very quickly due to those who abuse it.

    You and Warfish quickly dismiss the idea that any libertarian would support pedophilia. Fine with that. But if we lived in a society of noninterference with the rights of others, how would we prevent such practices if they are done with the consent of childrens' parents in the privacy of their compounds. On the one hand, the libertarian is all for parents having the right to raise their children as they see fit. If a parent believes that offering his/her daughter sexually to a holy minister of their congregation is not pedophilia but a blessing, how do you argue that they can't do so from a libertarian point of view. Either children have equivalent rights to adults, or they are considered the responsibility of their parents. If they are equivalent, then who will protect or regulate their rights? We've just taken them out of the hands of their parents. It's a paradox that is difficult to resolve. Suppose the children were not offered sexually to be raped (my view), but simply sequestered in a single room and read the Bible for hours and never allowed to leave that room except to relieve themselves. Suppose they were required by their parents to work twelve hours a day at hard labor to support them, or suppose the parents engaged in using belts and electrical cords to "discipline" them when they violated some arbitrary religious rule? No state intervention? Or is this a parent's perogative? How does the libertarian respond?[/QUOTE]

    Your implication is that Libertarianism believes there is NO place for the State. That is utterly inaccurate, and quite ignorant frankly. A straw man argument of the most shallow and transparant.

    The State exists to defend and enforce the Freedoms we all possess. That includes defending the rights and freedoms of children not to be exploited. Not by others, not by their parants, not by so-called "Holy Ministers".

    We, as a society, have deemed Children as incappable of making such judgements themselves till the age of 18. Even though history shows children can and have been married off and lives as adults much younger, we have determined this to be the age of consent. As such, the State has the responsabillity to protect their rights and freedoms, even if it's their own parents doing the exploitation.

    Your argument against Libertariansims implies one would support the rape, abuse and exploitation of children, and frankly I find that implication detestable. If you'd like to debate a legitimate topic, thats fine, but if all you have to say is "Libertarians endorce Child rape", then you can find someone else to talk to. I have no time for such abject ignorance.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2467379]Your implication is that Libertarianism believes there is NO place for the State. That is utterly inaccurate, and quite ignorant frankly. A straw man argument of the most shallow and transparant.

    The State exists to defend and enforce the Freedoms we all possess. That includes defending the rights and freedoms of children not to be exploited. Not by others, not by their parants, not by so-called "Holy Ministers".

    We, as a society, have deemed Children as incappable of making such judgements themselves till the age of 18. Even though history shows children can and have been married off and lives as adults much younger, we have determined this to be the age of consent. As such, the State has the responsabillity to protect their rights and freedoms, even if it's their own parents doing the exploitation.

    Your argument against Libertariansims implies one would support the rape, abuse and exploitation of children, and frankly I find that implication detestable. If you'd like to debate a legitimate topic, thats fine, but if all you have to say is "Libertarians endorce Child rape", then you can find someone else to talk to. I have no time for such abject ignorance.[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, but you missed my point entirely. I wasn't suggesting that libertarians are endorsing any particular abuse. I was making the point that a libertarian society faces very difficult dilemmas in determining what constitutes an abuse of liberty. You seem very clear in your own mind as to what is acceptable and what isn't. But try putting ten libertarians in a room and see if you get the same consensus... it's not as simple as you would apparently like to have it.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=maury420;2466644]I have to be honest with you guys. I have just started reading about libertarianism and it seems more in line with my own beliefs than the Republican or Democratic Party. Why hasn't the Libertarian party made more noise in elections?[/QUOTE]

    I hear you, if I called my self anything it would be a libertarian as well..

    The problem, as I see it, is that there is WAY to much money and tradition tied up in the other two parties that it will take years and years for hard work in order to create a viable third party. People just get bored or dejected after awhile and quit...

    imo, what it will really take is a charismatic candidate with deep pockets running as a third party. Imagine Obama's charisma mixed with Perot's experience and $$$. Someone like that could accelerate the rise of a legit third party imo..

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2465716]A true libertarian would argue that such communities have a right to practice whatever form of religion they choose without interference from the evil federal government, the evil state authorities, etc. If that means polygamy, so be it. If that means young girls being indoctrinated into having sex with 50year old letchers, with the consent of their nutty parents, so be it.... etc.

    All I was saying is that there are significant limitation to the actual practice of libertarianism. Carried to far, it can slip into the sanction of pretty much anything... a kind of moral "looking away."

    Does the state have an obligation to intrude upon such practices to protect the rights of children? Or is that a violation of libertarian principles?[/QUOTE]


    You're a good poster, but this is basic strawman nonsense. No libertarian sanctions child abuse, even in the name of religion. My rights end where your rights begin, blah blah blah. This tragic story has 0% to do with libertarianism....try again.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2471932]You're a good poster, but this is basic strawman nonsense. No libertarian sanctions child abuse, even in the name of religion. My rights end where your rights begin, blah blah blah. This tragic story has 0% to do with libertarianism....try again.[/QUOTE]

    Not quite. Parental Rights are and have been at issue at the Supreme Court level and the Scalia faction is arguing that while not expressed in the BORights they may indeed be "inalienable." The case cited is perhaps ultimately a bad one due to the latest news that very young girls were being farmed out to elders, given that Texas state law does not permit marriage under the age of 16. But it wouldn't be a big stretch to imagine the same exact compound meeting the requirement of the law and using the same tactics with parental consent to promote marriage of their 16 year old daughters, after having indoctrinated them and confined them in the cult compound. Children are not equal in rights to adults in our society. There is an implicit understanding that parents have wide latitude to raise their children as they choose. I have not questioned the basic libertarian tenet of Holmes' standard for adults, but there are a number of questions as to where the line should be drawn given the role of parenting in our society and the complex role religion or absence thereof can play in how children are raised. When it comes to adults, I feel that the state should avoid intrusion unless clear harm is being done.

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2465716]If that means young girls being indoctrinated into having sex with 50year old letchers, with the consent of their nutty parents, so be it.... etc.[/QUOTE]

    Where did you ever get that idea?

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2472140]Not quite. Parental Rights are and have been at issue at the Supreme Court level and the Scalia faction is arguing that while not expressed in the BORights they may indeed be "inalienable." The case cited is perhaps ultimately a bad one due to the latest news that very young girls were being farmed out to elders, given that Texas state law does not permit marriage under the age of 16. But it wouldn't be a big stretch to imagine the same exact compound meeting the requirement of the law and using the same tactics with parental consent to promote marriage of their 16 year old daughters, after having indoctrinated them and confined them in the cult compound. Children are not equal in rights to adults in our society. There is an implicit understanding that parents have wide latitude to raise their children as they choose. I have not questioned the basic libertarian tenet of Holmes' standard for adults, but there are a number of questions as to where the line should be drawn given the role of parenting in our society and the complex role religion or absence thereof can play in how children are raised. When it comes to adults, I feel that the state should avoid intrusion unless clear harm is being done.[/QUOTE]

    I don't generally disagree, however, we're not talking about refusing certain medical treatments or forced-fasting because of religious beliefs, though. We're talking about rape and child abuse. Of course parents have wide latitude, as they should. And of course there are "questions" like in anything else there are questions. My contention is with how you teed this thread up, calling it the "dark side" of libertarianism, when libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with this specific case since no reputable libertarian has ever advocated legalizing child rape under the auspices of "parental rights." That is a strawman. This is not a libertarian issue whatsoever and to imply that it is is a disservice to libertarianism, which does not adovate anything like this. There is a clear need to establish these "lines" as you call them, but this is no more a "dark side" of libertarianism than it is a "dark side" of liberalism or conservatism or anarcho-syndicalism, since all philosophies of social structures have to deal with the dance between individual rights and how they may conflict among various individuals, particularly in the parent-child dynamic.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 04-10-2008 at 08:52 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us