Another question for libertarians

Great Debates
1

After rereading the How Libertarian are you thread, a question came to my mind. Let me start out my citing some basics of libertarians philosophy, and then proceeding from there.

First of all, libertarians agree that individual freedom comes first. People should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don’t harm somebody else.

The purpose of government, according to libertarians in that thread, is to protect people’s freedom. Institutions like a police force and a military exist to protect freedom.

Although it wasn’t mentioned, I’m guessing that most libertarians would agree that parents are responsible for raising their own children without assistance from the government in most cases. For example, they’d oppose massive federal spending on anti-smoking advertising aimed at teens. If Mom and Dad think that junior shouldn’t smoke tobacco, they need to handle that issue by themselves; the government can’t do it for them.

And libertarians generally oppose the idea of “victimless crimes” such as drug use. So if Mom and Dad don’t want junior to smoke pot, they again need to handle that issue by themselves.

Now I assume that most libertarians don’t have a problem with the concept of parental authority. I also assume that they wouldn’t oppose private businesses that help treat drug addiction or other medical problems among teenagers. (btw, feel free to correct me if any of my statements are incorrect.)

Well, as it happens, there are already many businesses involved in treating teenagers for drug addiction in the United States right now. Obviously, there are therapists and private clinics. Some teenagers attend residential programs or boardings schools to help with addiction or other problems. At the extreme end there are programs that are “locked down”, meaning that students can be held there involuntarily, and escort services that will bring them to such programs, by force if necessary. (Here’s an example.)

So how does a libertarian reconcile private businesses that involve removing the some of a teenager’s rights? If you believe that they should be legal, how does this fit with the idea of individual liberty as being all-important? If you don’t think that they should be legal, does that mean that you think the government should override the authority of parents even the parents aren’t harming their child?

2

**

Allow me a minor nitpick. I always thought that libertarians believed that individuals can have rights but groups cannot have rights. That’s a bit different the then individual freedom coming first.

**

Among others. But those are certainly the most basic examples of government protecting rights.

**

Children are in fact protected under the Constitution. Of course that has to do with government actions not parental actions though. So while a cop can’t come into your house and search little Johnny’s room without a warrent you as the parent certainly can.

**

Individual liberty is not absolute. Even an adult can do things which remove their right to live free. It is accepted in our society that children are incapable of making major decisions that affect their life. It is also accepted that the parents or guardians are responsible for ensuring the well being of the child and making the decisions that they are incapable of.

By the way I don’t like it when minors are charged as adults for any reason.

Marc

3

Libertarian answered this question once (and for the life of me, I can’t find it) but the upshot was (apologies if I get the argument wrong): until a child is able to make decisions for themselves, the parents act for him/her. However they are answerable for their decisions…

Aargh… I’m butchering his answer, but that was the crux of it.

Fenris

4

I understand the basis of this argument, but I’d like to ask whether you feel that anybody should be in charge of the private teen corrections industry. Do you feel that the government is responsible for stopping abuse in a private facility? If so, do you think that parents can also be held responsible if they send their children to a facility where they know that abuse is going on, or is that out of the range of acceptable government oversight?

Here is an interesting article about a case where relatives managed to have a child removed from his parents’ custody in order to remove him from a private program, based on charges of abuse. I’d be interested in hearing anybody’s opinion of whether this is justifiable.

5

http://www.tcs.ac

This is a group of your rather extremist libertarians…