While not a big fan of Cato and the way they present things (from the "conservative" position), I do believe the family is the "anti-state". Iindividuals need some kind of (non-governmental) authority. Family life is potentially a great tool to impliment the authority of parents without the state. Libertarianism isn't about "no authority" it's about righteous authority that isn't related to the State.
Mike
Dear Mike,
Phrased your way, yes! definitely. My kid better listen to me, not
the state, if she knows what is healthy for her! Now that I have
calmed down, thank you for the article.
Marcy
While not a big fan of Cato and the way they present things (from
the "conservative" position), I do believe the family is the "anti-
state". Iindividuals need some kind of (non-governmental) authority.
Family life is potentially a great tool to impliment the authority of
parents without the state. Libertarianism isn't about "no authority"
it's about righteous authority that isn't related to the State.
Mike
________________________________
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Wed 5/17/2006 5:43 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Family vs the StateMy blood just boiled over, but I will try to remain calm enough to
offer the personal opinion that the "family values" scam has
nothing,
zero, zip, nada to do with my family. "Family values" is
like "global warming," "compassionate conservatism," or several
other
sound bites made up by campaign managers. On the other
hand, "family" to me means loving, caring, and nurturing my blood
relatives (and others, should I choose) in the best way I (ME,
MYSELF) determine. From where I stand, nothing here to do with
prostitution or gay marriage.Sorry for the rant.
Marcy
>
>
> The Family vs. the State Font Size: <javascript:;>
<javascript:;> <javascript:;>
>
>
>
> By Arnold Kling : BIO| 16 May 2006
>
> Discuss This Story! (8) <mailto:?subject=I%20thought%20you%
20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article&body=I%20thought%
20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article%3a%0a%0aThe%
20Family%20vs.%20the%20State%0aBy%20Arnold%20Kling%20on%2016%20May%
202006%0aYou%20can%20view%20it%20at%20http%3a%2f%2fwww.tcsdaily.com%
2farticle.aspx%3fid%3d051606A%0a%0a> Email <mailto:?subject=I%
20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%
20article&body=I%20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%
20this%20article%3a%0a%0aThe%20Family%20vs.%20the%20State%0aBy%
20Arnold%20Kling%20on%2016%20May%202006%0aYou%20can%20view%20it%
20at%
20http%3a%2f%2fwww.tcsdaily.com%2farticle.aspx%3fid%3d051606A%0a%
0a> | <javascript:;> Print <javascript:;> |
<javascript:doBookmark()> Bookmark <javascript:doBookmark()> |
<javascript:doSaveAs()> Save <javascript:doSaveAs()>
>
>
> family-govt
>
> "It is intelligible to say 'I love Mother Teresa' or 'I love
Madonna.' It is possible to sincerely wish them well. It is even
possible and intelligible to say, 'I love the poor.' I can
sincerely
will that the individual members of this large, impersonal class of
people have good things happen to them. But I cannot invest in
knowing them to the same extent that I can invest in knowing my own
mother. I cannot possibly know them as well or as clearly."
> -- Jennifer Roback Morse, Love and Economics
<Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work: Morse, Jennifer Roback: 9781890626297: Amazon.com: Books?
v=glance> ,
p. 181
>
> If you think that libertarianism is incompatible with "family
values" conservatism, then think again. And read Jennifer Roback
Morse's book.
>
> Single moms and the welfare state go together. Strong families
and
free markets go together. Morse argues that a combination of weak
families and free markets is much less likely to persist.
>
> Sources of Friction
>
> There are a number of issues that provide sources of friction
between market libertarianism and "family values" conservatism.
They
concern personal behavior, morality, and the law.
>
> Should gambling, prostitution, and recreational drugs be
legalized?
Market libertarianism answers in the affirmative, but "family
values"
conservatives would disagree.
>
> Another potential source of friction is abortion. It is not a
coincidence that the abortion issue became prominent during the
sexual revolution of the late 1960's and early 1970's. That was a
period in which social attitudes about sex-without-consequences
underwent a reversal. Prior to 1960, sex-without-consequences
generally was frowned upon. By 1975, sex-without-consequences was
widely applauded. In that context, abortion rights were considered
a
victory for sexual freedom. Libertarians tend to take the pro-
choice
side.
>
> Gay marriage is another legacy of the sexual revolution. Again,
it
tends to divide libertarians from "family values" conservatives.
>
> One compromise, which Morse generally endorses, is to use
persuasion rather than government in the family-values struggle.
That
is a compromise that I would favor, although unlike Morse, I
approach
the issue primarily as a libertarian.
>
> If one views a strong state and a strong family as incompatible,
then a case can be made that taking the state out of issues related
to prostitution or abortion or marriage actually helps serve family
values. If people know that they cannot rely on the state to
arbitrate these issues, then they will turn to families, religious
institutions, and other associations within communities to help
strengthen our values.
>
> For example, consider the issue of cursing. One of the more
dubious
examples of "liberation" in the 1960's was to break the taboo
against
using four-letter words. I have come to believe that restraint from
using curse words helps to reinforce a sense of respect for other
people. By not cursing, you set limits on your expressions of anger
or contempt, and that in turn makes for better human relationships.
>
> Nonetheless, I do not favor any external restraint on cursing.
Restrictions on speech lose meaning when they are imposed from the
outside. Ironically, the same generation that liberated us to curse
then turned around and wrote "speech codes" for universities that
are
every bit as counterproductive as rules against cursing. Formal
prohibitions on modes of speech only lead to rebellion against the
authority doing the prohibiting. Of course, any corporation,
university, or other private association should have the freedom to
draw up its own speech code. That is not the same thing as
violating
the first amendment, which only protects us from restrictions on
speech imposed by government.
>
> I would contend that other forms of morality, like speech codes,
are best reinforced by nongovernmental means. When we see moral
decline, we ought to try to resist turning to government as the
solution. Instead, we should view moral decline as a symptom of an
adverse cycle of government expansion and family breakdown.
>
> Government vs. the Family
>
> To see what strong government can do to families, consider
Phillip
Swagel's observations on China
<http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/swagel-on-china.html> , as
reported on Greg Mankiw's blog.
>
> "You see it just walking on the street: there are just
hardly
any children around. It's eerie. The 1-child policy has been in
place
for 3 decades, and as a result China is heading into a snap
demographic transition; they've created their own aging
society...And
their problems don't end there, since the demographic change means
as
well that they will soon be a society with near-vertical family
trees -- no brothers or sisters means in a few generations there
will
be no more cousins either. So there's no formal social safety net
and
they are putting an end to the informal safety net of the extended
family. No wonder they save so much -- it's all precautionary...who
knows what all of this will do to the social fabric in China, as
the
family structure of 1,000+ years comes to end."
>
> In the West, we do not use decrees to artificially break family
bonds. However, Morse argues that the incentives of government
programs, such as Social Security, can have the same consequences.
>
> "It is convenient for us who are young to forget about old
people if their financial needs are taken care of...But elderly
people want and need attention from their children and
grandchildren...This, then, is the ultimate trouble with the
government spending other people's money for the support of one
part
of the family. Other people's money relieves us from some of the
personal responsibility for the other members of our family.
Parents
are less accountable for instilling good work habits, encouraging
work effort...Young people are less accountable for the care of
particular old people, since they are forcibly taxed to support old
people in general." (p. 116-117)
>
> Most Western nations have created a cycle of dependency with
respect to single motherhood. Government programs, such as welfare
payments or taxpayer-funded child care, are developed to "support"
single mothers. This in turn encourages more single motherhood.
This
enlarges the constituency for such support programs, leading
politicians to broaden such programs.
>
> The Real Compassionate Conservatism
>
> While President Bush and other elected Republicans have won
over "family values" conservatives on issue such as gay marriage or
stem cell research, the legacy of this Administration and its
allies
has been to enlarge government. Much damage has been done by "big
government conservatism," or by neoconservatism, which always
troubled me (see here, also).
>
> * The No Child Left Behind Act fortified government schools,
to
the detriment of personal responsibility.
> * Entitlements were expanded, with the prescription drug
benefit. A consensus is emerging that the only solution for
Medicare
spending is "cost controls," which means a combination of price
controls on health care suppliers and bureaucratic restrictions on
health care procedures. The stroke of a pen solution, that would
raise the age of government dependency, is mocked by the policy
apparatchiks of both parties.
> * Fueled by entitlements, the share of GDP that will go to
taxes is certain to rise.
>
> The original idea of "compassionate conservatism" was for
government to achieve goals using as partners faith-based
organizations and other nongovernmental associations. If that idea
ever takes off, I believe it will be a disaster. My line
<http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/05/03/medicare/> is
that "Power
corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and private-public
partnerships absolutely corrupt the private sector."
>
> There is nothing compassionate about government subcontracting
out
to private entities. The only real compassionate conservatism is
conservatism that shrinks the role of government. Compassion should
start with families and expand through voluntary associations.
Government programs, everywhere and always, undermine families and
weaken voluntary associations.
>
> After observing Republican rule over the past several years, one
must come to the conclusion that there is no top-down solution for
the problem of big government. The Republican Party is clearly part
of the problem and not part of the solution. Those who wish to be
part of the solution should focus on strengthening our own
families.
The lesson of Morse's book is that strong families are the only
antidote to the nanny state.
>
> Arnold Kling is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and a
frequent contributor to TCSdaily. He is the author of Learning
Economics <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413460267/002-7090541-
8412033?n=283155> and Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay
for
Health Care <http://tinyurl.com/qms8e> .
>________________________________
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "lpsf-discuss
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; " on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-
discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; .
Marcy & Mike,
When I tell people what libertarianism is about, I often say that we believe each individual has the right to use his or her own time, money, body and property as he or she chooses. In other words, individuals have authority. So I certainly hope that libertarianism isn't about "no authority," otherwise I've been getting it wrong all this time!
However I don't find anything in libertarian theory about families having authority over individuals. Family authority is preferable to state authority, because it is less all-encompassing. However tyranny can also exist at the domestic level. "My kid better listen to me, not the state, if she knows what is healthy for her!" may sound good to you now Marcy, but how will it sound down the road when your kid is saying, "My *mom* better listen to me, not the state, if she knows what is healthy for her!"? For many parents, that message (normally less explicitly worded, of course) comes a bit sooner than welcome!
Parental authority (or authority over declining elders) is a necessary evil, something to be tolerated only because individuals are not born (or are no longer) fully capable of exercising their innate rights and taking responsibility for their actions. It would probably be far better for us all if individuals *were* born fully capable, because then people would not transfer their infantile notions about mommy and daddy taking care of them to the state in adulthood (as Mike Acree has written about in Liberty magazine).
Like all forms of authority over the individual, parental power needs to be strictly limited, lest it be abused. However in strong-government societies such as currently exist in most of the world, it is folly to give government more authority to set such limits, since governmental abuse of power is already a much greater problem than parental abuse of power. Therefore while some strengthening of parental rights as a bulwark against state power may be tolerated, the pure libertarian goal, in my view, is to strengthen the rights of individuals including children and young adult dependents *without* strengthening the institution of the family (read: parents or non-elder adult family members).
To recap, libertarianism is about the rights and authority of the individual, i.e. individual sovereignty. Any institution which would impinge upon that sovereignty by exercising authority over the individual -- whether state, family, church, corporation, or other entity -- should always be regarded with a healthy degree of mistrust. The adage about power corrupting doesn't *only* apply to government! Exactly what the modern family might become in the absence of a strong state is anyone's guess. But we can readily see what it once was, and in some places still is -- marriages arranged by parents, old people forced into servitude by their children, etc.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Mike,
Phrased your way, yes! definitely. My kid better listen to me, not
the state, if she knows what is healthy for her! Now that I have
calmed down, thank you for the article.Marcy
>
> While not a big fan of Cato and the way they present things (from
the "conservative" position), I do believe the family is the "anti-
state". Iindividuals need some kind of (non-governmental) authority.
Family life is potentially a great tool to impliment the authority of
parents without the state. Libertarianism isn't about "no authority"
it's about righteous authority that isn't related to the State.
>
> Mike
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Amarcy D. Berry
> Sent: Wed 5/17/2006 5:43 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Family vs the State
>
> My blood just boiled over, but I will try to remain calm enough to
> offer the personal opinion that the "family values" scam has
nothing,
> zero, zip, nada to do with my family. "Family values" is
> like "global warming," "compassionate conservatism," or several
other
> sound bites made up by campaign managers. On the other
> hand, "family" to me means loving, caring, and nurturing my blood
> relatives (and others, should I choose) in the best way I (ME,
> MYSELF) determine. From where I stand, nothing here to do with
> prostitution or gay marriage.
>
> Sorry for the rant.
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> >
> > The Family vs. the State Font Size: <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> >
> > By Arnold Kling : BIO| 16 May 2006
> >
> > Discuss This Story! (8) <mailto:?subject=I%20thought%20you%
> 20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article&body=I%20thought%
> 20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article%3a%0a%0aThe%
> 20Family%20vs.%20the%20State%0aBy%20Arnold%20Kling%20on%2016%20May%
> 202006%0aYou%20can%20view%20it%20at%20http%3a%2f%2fwww.tcsdaily.com%
> 2farticle.aspx%3fid%3d051606A%0a%0a> Email <mailto:?subject=I%
> 20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%
> 20article&body=I%20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%
> 20this%20article%3a%0a%0aThe%20Family%20vs.%20the%20State%0aBy%
> 20Arnold%20Kling%20on%2016%20May%202006%0aYou%20can%20view%20it%
20at%
> 20http%3a%2f%2fwww.tcsdaily.com%2farticle.aspx%3fid%3d051606A%0a%
> 0a> | <javascript:;> Print <javascript:;> |
> <javascript:doBookmark()> Bookmark <javascript:doBookmark()> |
> <javascript:doSaveAs()> Save <javascript:doSaveAs()>
> >
> >
> > family-govt
> >
> > "It is intelligible to say 'I love Mother Teresa' or 'I love
> Madonna.' It is possible to sincerely wish them well. It is even
> possible and intelligible to say, 'I love the poor.' I can
sincerely
> will that the individual members of this large, impersonal class of
> people have good things happen to them. But I cannot invest in
> knowing them to the same extent that I can invest in knowing my own
> mother. I cannot possibly know them as well or as clearly."
> > -- Jennifer Roback Morse, Love and Economics
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1890626295?
v=glance> ,
> p. 181
> >
> > If you think that libertarianism is incompatible with "family
> values" conservatism, then think again. And read Jennifer Roback
> Morse's book.
> >
> > Single moms and the welfare state go together. Strong families
and
> free markets go together. Morse argues that a combination of weak
> families and free markets is much less likely to persist.
> >
> > Sources of Friction
> >
> > There are a number of issues that provide sources of friction
> between market libertarianism and "family values" conservatism.
They
> concern personal behavior, morality, and the law.
> >
> > Should gambling, prostitution, and recreational drugs be
legalized?
> Market libertarianism answers in the affirmative, but "family
values"
> conservatives would disagree.
> >
> > Another potential source of friction is abortion. It is not a
> coincidence that the abortion issue became prominent during the
> sexual revolution of the late 1960's and early 1970's. That was a
> period in which social attitudes about sex-without-consequences
> underwent a reversal. Prior to 1960, sex-without-consequences
> generally was frowned upon. By 1975, sex-without-consequences was
> widely applauded. In that context, abortion rights were considered
a
> victory for sexual freedom. Libertarians tend to take the pro-
choice
> side.
> >
> > Gay marriage is another legacy of the sexual revolution. Again,
it
> tends to divide libertarians from "family values" conservatives.
> >
> > One compromise, which Morse generally endorses, is to use
> persuasion rather than government in the family-values struggle.
That
> is a compromise that I would favor, although unlike Morse, I
approach
> the issue primarily as a libertarian.
> >
> > If one views a strong state and a strong family as incompatible,
> then a case can be made that taking the state out of issues related
> to prostitution or abortion or marriage actually helps serve family
> values. If people know that they cannot rely on the state to
> arbitrate these issues, then they will turn to families, religious
> institutions, and other associations within communities to help
> strengthen our values.
> >
> > For example, consider the issue of cursing. One of the more
dubious
> examples of "liberation" in the 1960's was to break the taboo
against
> using four-letter words. I have come to believe that restraint from
> using curse words helps to reinforce a sense of respect for other
> people. By not cursing, you set limits on your expressions of anger
> or contempt, and that in turn makes for better human relationships.
> >
> > Nonetheless, I do not favor any external restraint on cursing.
> Restrictions on speech lose meaning when they are imposed from the
> outside. Ironically, the same generation that liberated us to curse
> then turned around and wrote "speech codes" for universities that
are
> every bit as counterproductive as rules against cursing. Formal
> prohibitions on modes of speech only lead to rebellion against the
> authority doing the prohibiting. Of course, any corporation,
> university, or other private association should have the freedom to
> draw up its own speech code. That is not the same thing as
violating
> the first amendment, which only protects us from restrictions on
> speech imposed by government.
> >
> > I would contend that other forms of morality, like speech codes,
> are best reinforced by nongovernmental means. When we see moral
> decline, we ought to try to resist turning to government as the
> solution. Instead, we should view moral decline as a symptom of an
> adverse cycle of government expansion and family breakdown.
> >
> > Government vs. the Family
> >
> > To see what strong government can do to families, consider
Phillip
> Swagel's observations on China
> <http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/swagel-on-china.html> , as
> reported on Greg Mankiw's blog.
> >
> > "You see it just walking on the street: there are just
hardly
> any children around. It's eerie. The 1-child policy has been in
place
> for 3 decades, and as a result China is heading into a snap
> demographic transition; they've created their own aging
society...And
> their problems don't end there, since the demographic change means
as
> well that they will soon be a society with near-vertical family
> trees -- no brothers or sisters means in a few generations there
will
> be no more cousins either. So there's no formal social safety net
and
> they are putting an end to the informal safety net of the extended
> family. No wonder they save so much -- it's all precautionary...who
> knows what all of this will do to the social fabric in China, as
the
> family structure of 1,000+ years comes to end."
> >
> > In the West, we do not use decrees to artificially break family
> bonds. However, Morse argues that the incentives of government
> programs, such as Social Security, can have the same consequences.
> >
> > "It is convenient for us who are young to forget about old
> people if their financial needs are taken care of...But elderly
> people want and need attention from their children and
> grandchildren...This, then, is the ultimate trouble with the
> government spending other people's money for the support of one
part
> of the family. Other people's money relieves us from some of the
> personal responsibility for the other members of our family.
Parents
> are less accountable for instilling good work habits, encouraging
> work effort...Young people are less accountable for the care of
> particular old people, since they are forcibly taxed to support old
> people in general." (p. 116-117)
> >
> > Most Western nations have created a cycle of dependency with
> respect to single motherhood. Government programs, such as welfare
> payments or taxpayer-funded child care, are developed to "support"
> single mothers. This in turn encourages more single motherhood.
This
> enlarges the constituency for such support programs, leading
> politicians to broaden such programs.
> >
> > The Real Compassionate Conservatism
> >
> > While President Bush and other elected Republicans have won
> over "family values" conservatives on issue such as gay marriage or
> stem cell research, the legacy of this Administration and its
allies
> has been to enlarge government. Much damage has been done by "big
> government conservatism," or by neoconservatism, which always
> troubled me (see here, also).
> >
> > * The No Child Left Behind Act fortified government schools,
to
> the detriment of personal responsibility.
> > * Entitlements were expanded, with the prescription drug
> benefit. A consensus is emerging that the only solution for
Medicare
> spending is "cost controls," which means a combination of price
> controls on health care suppliers and bureaucratic restrictions on
> health care procedures. The stroke of a pen solution, that would
> raise the age of government dependency, is mocked by the policy
> apparatchiks of both parties.
> > * Fueled by entitlements, the share of GDP that will go to
> taxes is certain to rise.
> >
> > The original idea of "compassionate conservatism" was for
> government to achieve goals using as partners faith-based
> organizations and other nongovernmental associations. If that idea
> ever takes off, I believe it will be a disaster. My line
> <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/05/03/medicare/> is
that "Power
> corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and private-public
> partnerships absolutely corrupt the private sector."
> >
> > There is nothing compassionate about government subcontracting
out
> to private entities. The only real compassionate conservatism is
> conservatism that shrinks the role of government. Compassion should
> start with families and expand through voluntary associations.
> Government programs, everywhere and always, undermine families and
> weaken voluntary associations.
> >
> > After observing Republican rule over the past several years, one
> must come to the conclusion that there is no top-down solution for
> the problem of big government. The Republican Party is clearly part
> of the problem and not part of the solution. Those who wish to be
> part of the solution should focus on strengthening our own
families.
> The lesson of Morse's book is that strong families are the only
> antidote to the nanny state.
> >
> > Arnold Kling is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and a
> frequent contributor to TCSdaily. He is the author of Learning
> Economics <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413460267/002-7090541-
> 8412033?n=283155> and Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay
for
> Health Care <http://tinyurl.com/qms8e> .
> >
>
> ________________________________
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> * Visit your group "lpsf-discuss
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; " on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-
discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; .
>
> ________________________________
>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Hi Starchild,
I enjoyed reading your view point; thank you. It reminded me of the
interesting discussions we all had on this list during one of the
past political elections, when a proposal was on the ballot to allow
minors to obtain medical treatment without parental authority.
Nothing has changed since then. Parents will usually be on the side
of parental authority, while non-parents will be on the other side.
The issue remains the same. Parents will usually focus on telling the
State to stay out of the family business, while non parents will
focus on the individual freedom of each family member.
My answer is a resounding "YES", to your question whether I would be
confortable when I am too old to take care of myself with my daughter
saying "My Mom better listen to me, not to the State, if she knows
what is healthy for her." Although the players have changed, the
issue remains the same. It will be my daughter's turn then to defend
me against the encroachment of the State in my life.
Marcy
Marcy & Mike,
When I tell people what libertarianism is about, I often say
that we
believe each individual has the right to use his or her own time,
money, body and property as he or she chooses. In other words,
individuals have authority. So I certainly hope that libertarianism
isn't about "no authority," otherwise I've been getting it wrong
all
this time!
However I don't find anything in libertarian theory about
families
having authority over individuals. Family authority is preferable
to
state authority, because it is less all-encompassing. However
tyranny
can also exist at the domestic level. "My kid better listen to me,
not
the state, if she knows what is healthy for her!" may sound good to
you
now Marcy, but how will it sound down the road when your kid is
saying,
"My *mom* better listen to me, not the state, if she knows what is
healthy for her!"? For many parents, that message (normally less
explicitly worded, of course) comes a bit sooner than welcome!Parental authority (or authority over declining elders) is a
necessary
evil, something to be tolerated only because individuals are not
born
(or are no longer) fully capable of exercising their innate rights
and
taking responsibility for their actions. It would probably be far
better for us all if individuals *were* born fully capable, because
then people would not transfer their infantile notions about mommy
and
daddy taking care of them to the state in adulthood (as Mike Acree
has
written about in Liberty magazine).
Like all forms of authority over the individual, parental
power needs
to be strictly limited, lest it be abused. However in strong-
government
societies such as currently exist in most of the world, it is folly
to
give government more authority to set such limits, since
governmental
abuse of power is already a much greater problem than parental
abuse of
power. Therefore while some strengthening of parental rights as a
bulwark against state power may be tolerated, the pure libertarian
goal, in my view, is to strengthen the rights of individuals
including
children and young adult dependents *without* strengthening the
institution of the family (read: parents or non-elder adult family
members).To recap, libertarianism is about the rights and authority of
the
individual, i.e. individual sovereignty. Any institution which
would
impinge upon that sovereignty by exercising authority over the
individual -- whether state, family, church, corporation, or other
entity -- should always be regarded with a healthy degree of
mistrust.
The adage about power corrupting doesn't *only* apply to
government!
Exactly what the modern family might become in the absence of a
strong
state is anyone's guess. But we can readily see what it once was,
and
in some places still is -- marriages arranged by parents, old
people
forced into servitude by their children, etc.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Dear Mike,
>
> Phrased your way, yes! definitely. My kid better listen to me, not
> the state, if she knows what is healthy for her! Now that I have
> calmed down, thank you for the article.
>
> Marcy
>
>
> >
> > While not a big fan of Cato and the way they present things
(from
> the "conservative" position), I do believe the family is
the "anti-
> state". Iindividuals need some kind of (non-governmental)
authority.
> Family life is potentially a great tool to impliment the
authority of
> parents without the state. Libertarianism isn't about "no
authority"
> it's about righteous authority that isn't related to the State.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Amarcy D. Berry
> > Sent: Wed 5/17/2006 5:43 PM
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Family vs the State
> >
> >
> > My blood just boiled over, but I will try to remain calm enough
to
> > offer the personal opinion that the "family values" scam has
> nothing,
> > zero, zip, nada to do with my family. "Family values" is
> > like "global warming," "compassionate conservatism," or several
> other
> > sound bites made up by campaign managers. On the other
> > hand, "family" to me means loving, caring, and nurturing my
blood
> > relatives (and others, should I choose) in the best way I (ME,
> > MYSELF) determine. From where I stand, nothing here to do with
> > prostitution or gay marriage.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Family vs. the State Font Size: <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By Arnold Kling : BIO| 16 May 2006
> > >
> > > Discuss This Story! (8) <mailto:?subject=I%20thought%20you%
> > 20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article&body=I%
20thought%
> > 20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article%3a%0a%
0aThe%
> > 20Family%20vs.%20the%20State%0aBy%20Arnold%20Kling%20on%2016%
20May%
> > 202006%0aYou%20can%20view%20it%20at%20http%3a%2f%
2fwww.tcsdaily.com%
> > 2farticle.aspx%3fid%3d051606A%0a%0a> Email <mailto:?subject=I%
> > 20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%
> > 20article&body=I%20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%
> > 20this%20article%3a%0a%0aThe%20Family%20vs.%20the%20State%0aBy%
> > 20Arnold%20Kling%20on%2016%20May%202006%0aYou%20can%20view%20it%
> 20at%
> > 20http%3a%2f%2fwww.tcsdaily.com%2farticle.aspx%3fid%3d051606A%
0a%
> > 0a> | <javascript:;> Print <javascript:;> |
> > <javascript:doBookmark()> Bookmark <javascript:doBookmark()>> > <javascript:doSaveAs()> Save <javascript:doSaveAs()>
> > >
> > >
> > > family-govt
> > >
> > > "It is intelligible to say 'I love Mother Teresa' or 'I love
> > Madonna.' It is possible to sincerely wish them well. It is even
> > possible and intelligible to say, 'I love the poor.' I can
> sincerely
> > will that the individual members of this large, impersonal
class of
> > people have good things happen to them. But I cannot invest in
> > knowing them to the same extent that I can invest in knowing my
own
> > mother. I cannot possibly know them as well or as clearly."
> > > -- Jennifer Roback Morse, Love and Economics
> > <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1890626295?
> v=glance> ,
> > p. 181
> > >
> > > If you think that libertarianism is incompatible with "family
> > values" conservatism, then think again. And read Jennifer Roback
> > Morse's book.
> > >
> > > Single moms and the welfare state go together. Strong families
> and
> > free markets go together. Morse argues that a combination of
weak
> > families and free markets is much less likely to persist.
> > >
> > > Sources of Friction
> > >
> > > There are a number of issues that provide sources of friction
> > between market libertarianism and "family values" conservatism.
> They
> > concern personal behavior, morality, and the law.
> > >
> > > Should gambling, prostitution, and recreational drugs be
> legalized?
> > Market libertarianism answers in the affirmative, but "family
> values"
> > conservatives would disagree.
> > >
> > > Another potential source of friction is abortion. It is not a
> > coincidence that the abortion issue became prominent during the
> > sexual revolution of the late 1960's and early 1970's. That was
a
> > period in which social attitudes about sex-without-consequences
> > underwent a reversal. Prior to 1960, sex-without-consequences
> > generally was frowned upon. By 1975, sex-without-consequences
was
> > widely applauded. In that context, abortion rights were
considered
> a
> > victory for sexual freedom. Libertarians tend to take the pro-
> choice
> > side.
> > >
> > > Gay marriage is another legacy of the sexual revolution.
Again,
> it
> > tends to divide libertarians from "family values" conservatives.
> > >
> > > One compromise, which Morse generally endorses, is to use
> > persuasion rather than government in the family-values struggle.
> That
> > is a compromise that I would favor, although unlike Morse, I
> approach
> > the issue primarily as a libertarian.
> > >
> > > If one views a strong state and a strong family as
incompatible,
> > then a case can be made that taking the state out of issues
related
> > to prostitution or abortion or marriage actually helps serve
family
> > values. If people know that they cannot rely on the state to
> > arbitrate these issues, then they will turn to families,
religious
> > institutions, and other associations within communities to help
> > strengthen our values.
> > >
> > > For example, consider the issue of cursing. One of the more
> dubious
> > examples of "liberation" in the 1960's was to break the taboo
> against
> > using four-letter words. I have come to believe that restraint
from
> > using curse words helps to reinforce a sense of respect for
other
> > people. By not cursing, you set limits on your expressions of
anger
> > or contempt, and that in turn makes for better human
relationships.
> > >
> > > Nonetheless, I do not favor any external restraint on cursing.
> > Restrictions on speech lose meaning when they are imposed from
the
> > outside. Ironically, the same generation that liberated us to
curse
> > then turned around and wrote "speech codes" for universities
that
> are
> > every bit as counterproductive as rules against cursing. Formal
> > prohibitions on modes of speech only lead to rebellion against
the
> > authority doing the prohibiting. Of course, any corporation,
> > university, or other private association should have the
freedom to
> > draw up its own speech code. That is not the same thing as
> violating
> > the first amendment, which only protects us from restrictions on
> > speech imposed by government.
> > >
> > > I would contend that other forms of morality, like speech
codes,
> > are best reinforced by nongovernmental means. When we see moral
> > decline, we ought to try to resist turning to government as the
> > solution. Instead, we should view moral decline as a symptom of
an
> > adverse cycle of government expansion and family breakdown.
> > >
> > > Government vs. the Family
> > >
> > > To see what strong government can do to families, consider
> Phillip
> > Swagel's observations on China
> > <http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/swagel-on-china.html> ,
as
> > reported on Greg Mankiw's blog.
> > >
> > > "You see it just walking on the street: there are just
> hardly
> > any children around. It's eerie. The 1-child policy has been in
> place
> > for 3 decades, and as a result China is heading into a snap
> > demographic transition; they've created their own aging
> society...And
> > their problems don't end there, since the demographic change
means
> as
> > well that they will soon be a society with near-vertical family
> > trees -- no brothers or sisters means in a few generations there
> will
> > be no more cousins either. So there's no formal social safety
net
> and
> > they are putting an end to the informal safety net of the
extended
> > family. No wonder they save so much -- it's all
precautionary...who
> > knows what all of this will do to the social fabric in China, as
> the
> > family structure of 1,000+ years comes to end."
> > >
> > > In the West, we do not use decrees to artificially break
family
> > bonds. However, Morse argues that the incentives of government
> > programs, such as Social Security, can have the same
consequences.
> > >
> > > "It is convenient for us who are young to forget about
old
> > people if their financial needs are taken care of...But elderly
> > people want and need attention from their children and
> > grandchildren...This, then, is the ultimate trouble with the
> > government spending other people's money for the support of one
> part
> > of the family. Other people's money relieves us from some of the
> > personal responsibility for the other members of our family.
> Parents
> > are less accountable for instilling good work habits,
encouraging
> > work effort...Young people are less accountable for the care of
> > particular old people, since they are forcibly taxed to support
old
> > people in general." (p. 116-117)
> > >
> > > Most Western nations have created a cycle of dependency with
> > respect to single motherhood. Government programs, such as
welfare
> > payments or taxpayer-funded child care, are developed
to "support"
> > single mothers. This in turn encourages more single motherhood.
> This
> > enlarges the constituency for such support programs, leading
> > politicians to broaden such programs.
> > >
> > > The Real Compassionate Conservatism
> > >
> > > While President Bush and other elected Republicans have won
> > over "family values" conservatives on issue such as gay
marriage or
> > stem cell research, the legacy of this Administration and its
> allies
> > has been to enlarge government. Much damage has been done
by "big
> > government conservatism," or by neoconservatism, which always
> > troubled me (see here, also).
> > >
> > > * The No Child Left Behind Act fortified government
schools,
> to
> > the detriment of personal responsibility.
> > > * Entitlements were expanded, with the prescription drug
> > benefit. A consensus is emerging that the only solution for
> Medicare
> > spending is "cost controls," which means a combination of price
> > controls on health care suppliers and bureaucratic restrictions
on
> > health care procedures. The stroke of a pen solution, that would
> > raise the age of government dependency, is mocked by the policy
> > apparatchiks of both parties.
> > > * Fueled by entitlements, the share of GDP that will go
to
> > taxes is certain to rise.
> > >
> > > The original idea of "compassionate conservatism" was for
> > government to achieve goals using as partners faith-based
> > organizations and other nongovernmental associations. If that
idea
> > ever takes off, I believe it will be a disaster. My line
> > <http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/05/03/medicare/> is
> that "Power
> > corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and private-public
> > partnerships absolutely corrupt the private sector."
> > >
> > > There is nothing compassionate about government subcontracting
> out
> > to private entities. The only real compassionate conservatism is
> > conservatism that shrinks the role of government. Compassion
should
> > start with families and expand through voluntary associations.
> > Government programs, everywhere and always, undermine families
and
> > weaken voluntary associations.
> > >
> > > After observing Republican rule over the past several years,
one
> > must come to the conclusion that there is no top-down solution
for
> > the problem of big government. The Republican Party is clearly
part
> > of the problem and not part of the solution. Those who wish to
be
> > part of the solution should focus on strengthening our own
> families.
> > The lesson of Morse's book is that strong families are the only
> > antidote to the nanny state.
> > >
> > > Arnold Kling is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute
and a
> > frequent contributor to TCSdaily. He is the author of Learning
> > Economics <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1413460267/002-
7090541-
> > 8412033?n=283155> and Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We
Pay
> for
> > Health Care <http://tinyurl.com/qms8e> .
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> >
> > * Visit your group "lpsf-discuss
> <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; " on the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-
> discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> Service <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; .
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.