02-01-2003 17:56									#1
	The Problem with Libertarians... Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

they just don't give a damn...

What libertarians don't realize is that America today in 2003 is incapable of having a working libertarian society. There are far too many people who depend on the first and fifteenth... too many people who do not have parents for moral influence... too much general inethical behaviour occuring... too much of a liberal attitude of if it feels good, do it...

A libertarian society that forms in this environment will only result in an even worse cycle of poverty for millions of Americans. Of course, to libertarians, this is just 'tough luck'...


thanks

	02-01-2003 17:58									#2
	Support Apolyton

I don't give damn either...

	02-01-2003 19:41									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

When first looking with still asleep eyes, I thought this was a rant against librarians.

But you're right, libertarians are blind to facts.

	02-01-2003 20:22									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Bah!

	02-01-2003 20:30									#5
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Just have the government raise kids and then have a libertarian society once they get out of the goverment centers.

	02-01-2003 20:34									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Very Plato of you Apocalypse

	02-01-2003 20:42									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin Very Plato of you Apocalypse

My beliefs on this have nothing to do with Plato, as in I didn't get this idea from reading his works.

I just believe the only problem that libertarian societies can't get around has to do with children. Have one of the few functions of the government be this and then you are set.

It could help with population control too, since parents would have to pay taxes.

	02-01-2003 20:50									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I don't want my kids to be just like everyone else. I want them to be better. I'm not a baby machine, making babies for the country. I'm having them for me. What's the point of having children if you're not going to raise them and love them?

	02-01-2003 20:58									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor What's the point of having children if you're not going to raise them and love them?

Continue on your genes.

The problem is that is kinda selfish since so many kids aren't loved.

	02-01-2003 21:04									#10
	Put an end to popups!

So since some kids don't have love and parents, none of them should? Wow, good point...

I don't care about my genes. I care about my baby.

	02-01-2003 21:09									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor So since some kids don't have love and parents, none of them should? Wow, good point...

A common misconception is that loving parents are needed for children. One of the reason so many people are messed up over this issue is soley because they harp on how their parents don't love them, but not on any results of this. You remove the jealousy and envy and you remove the major problem with kids who don't have loving parents.

	02-01-2003 21:15									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Apocalypse A common misconception is that loving parents are needed for children. One of the reason so many people are messed up over this issue is soley because they harp on how their parents don't love them, but not on any results of this. You remove the jealousy and envy and you remove the major problem with kids who don't have loving parents.

The results of loving parents include:

A stable emotional environment (encourages growth)
A delayed need to be self-supportive (encourages balance)
Proper boundaries (encourages self-discipline)

Of course, none of these are "needed", but that does not make them unimportant.

Let's put this another way: if there was no reason for the "jealousy and envy", it wouldn't exist.

	02-01-2003 21:20									#13
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Apocalypse A common misconception is that loving parents are needed for children.

Is that so? Why don't you clear it up for us? Substantiate your claim.

quote: One of the reason so many people are messed up over this issue is soley because they harp on how their parents don't love them, but not on any results of this.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that I must think kids need love because my parents didn't love me? No, some of my parents loved me, and that has made all the difference.

quote: You remove the jealousy and envy and you remove the major problem with kids who don't have loving parents.

So it's as simple as that, huh? What about the rich development that occurs as a result of someone loving you, paying attention to you, spending time with you, and teaching you? You want to take that away just so no one will envy each other?
The way to remove the problems of kids who don't have loving parents is to create more of them (loving parents), not take them all away.

Do you seriously think that kids don't need love? Seriously?

	02-01-2003 21:28									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by One_Brow The results of loving parents include: A stable emotional environment (encourages growth) A delayed need to be self-supportive (encourages balance) Proper boundaries (encourages self-discipline) Of course, none of these are "needed", but that does not make them unimportant.

Parents aren't needed for this though.

quote: Originally posted by One_Brow Let's put this another way: if there was no reason for the "jealousy and envy", it wouldn't exist.

Yes, but this can come from things like not having parents buy kids things, feeling left out when your parents don't come to a game when other kids' parents do, and other areas that really don't matter but still create these emotions in kids with bad parents.

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor Is that so? Why don't you clear it up for us? Substantiate your claim.

That's what I am doing at the moment.

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that I must think kids need love because my parents didn't love me? No, some of my parents loved me, and that has made all the difference.

No, I am not talking about. I'm talking about messed up kids. They get upset over not having loving parents because other kids have loving parents, not because they are missing out on something vital that can't be obtained in some other way.

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor So it's as simple as that, huh? What about the rich development that occurs as a result of someone loving you, paying attention to you, spending time with you, and teaching you? You want to take that away just so no one will envy each other? The way to remove the problems of kids who don't have loving parents is to create more of them (loving parents), not take them all away.

But you can't create loving parents for everyone. Furthermore, like I said earlier, the vital functions of parents can be replaced by the government.

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor Do you seriously think that kids don't need love? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

	02-01-2003 22:03									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

I don't beleive I have run across a more riduclous argument and thats saying something. A child doesn't need the love of parents??? Seriously, this is a joke and simply a thought exercise right??

Perhaps your Brave New World appeals to you but certainly not to me, my wife or my daughter.

PS. Sorry for the flames Apoc. I didn't realize it was you when I first replied, but I still stand by my post. I think it one of the most if not THE most important ingredients to allowing a child to develop.

Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on 02-01-2003 at 22:19

	02-01-2003 22:10									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

what ogie said

	02-01-2003 22:17									#17
	Remove this text

You people say kids need love but you don't support it with examples of important things only parents can do but government can't.

	02-01-2003 22:28									#18
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Apocalypse But you can't create loving parents for everyone. Furthermore, like I said earlier, the vital functions of parents can be replaced by the government.

Considering the dedication and efficiency and cost effectiveness with which other government services are performed, you've got to be kidding, or simply high.

quote: quote: Do you seriously think that kids don't need love? Seriously? Yes, seriously.

How many kids have you raised (or turned over to the government, and what's their status (Facility level and term of sentence?)

Seriously, child and adult psychologists have long identified how kids from near post birth to adolescence have both their emotional development and their views of human interactions and relationships role modeled for them by parents.

quote: You people say kids need love but you don't support it with examples of important things only parents can do but government can't.

Actually, other than asserting "government can do it" you've failed to support how, at what cost, and with what quality of service "government" would take over all parental functions for all kids on a 7/24 basis. Until you do something beyond BAMMING, there's nothing which needs to be supported from the other side of the argument.

	02-01-2003 22:39									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Children need individual attention, especially in younger years. They need the bond of one or two parents. Babies, especially, have a very strong need for stability and knowing what's going on. If you have children, you understand this. When we bring my son out shopping or on errands, it interrupts his normal scheduele, he doesn't understand, he gets upset. He sometimes needs a whole day back in his environment and routine to calm down again. Do you suggest that the government hire a person to take care of each child? How about their parents! The effects of group day care are being studied, and so far they have shown that the younger children the greater the need for individual attention. They need a person who cares about them enough to be patient even when it's hard, to not give up and leave them crying in the next room because it's too hard to find out what's wrong with them, they need people who care about them enough to consider their actions, their parenting approaches and what effect they will have on their children. They need their parents.

You can make good parents. No, the government can't do it, people can. By raising their children with love and caring. Good childhoods make good parents. Bad childhoods can to, but it's significantly more difficult. It requires fixing everything wrong that happened.

	02-01-2003 22:40									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

If you really think the government can do a better job then parents, just spend a day or so visiting kids that are "wards of the state" in their institutions. You will see that "government" really doesn't have a clue on how to raise children properly.

	02-01-2003 22:46									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

We're still animals. We have genetically adapted ourselves to a particular mode of reproduction and child rearing. Just because rearing children in a creche might be more "efficient" from a Taylorist point of view doesn't mean it is the best method for raising children from the standpoint of creating functional humans. This is one of those things the early 20th Century Communists were way off-base on, but then, they didn't have the benefit of late 20th Century psychology to show them they were wrong.

On the other hand, just because you have functioning genitals doesn't mean you're capable of raising the children you create.

	02-01-2003 22:47									#22
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Considering the dedication and efficiency and cost effectiveness with which other government services are performed, you've got to be kidding, or simply high.

You are forgetting that raising many kids together is more efficient. A family with 4 kids does not have to spend 4 times as much money as a family with one kid. It's easier to share clothes, TV, toys, and whatnot. Sure it might be inefficient, but it still would be cheaper than individual families raise the children. Cost has nothing do to with this anyway. You shouldn't put a price on children's happiness and well being.

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat How many kids have you raised (or turned over to the government, and what's their status (Facility level and term of sentence?)

What does this have to do with anything? Even if I did raise kids and/or turn them over to the government that would only be an incredibly small statistic not worth bringing up in debate. You need to focus on the issue at hand.

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Seriously, child and adult psychologists have long identified how kids from near post birth to adolescence have both their emotional development and their views of human interactions and relationships role modeled for them by parents. Actually, other than asserting "government can do it" you've failed to support how, at what cost, and with what quality of service "government" would take over all parental functions for all kids on a 7/24 basis. Until you do something beyond BAMMING, there's nothing which needs to be supported from the other side of the argument.

I'm just trying to bring forth the fact that parents aren't needed. You can bring up statistics about how parents can with development and the like, but your side of the debate can never bring up evidence that it is impossible or even very difficult for children without loving parents to function in live.

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe PS. Sorry for the flames Apoc. I didn't realize it was you when I first replied, but I still stand by my post.

I honestly don't care.

	02-01-2003 22:51									#23
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ming If you really think the government can do a better job then parents, just spend a day or so visiting kids that are "wards of the state" in their institutions. You will see that "government" really doesn't have a clue on how to raise children properly.

You really don't think this would change if it became a main fuction of the government?

	02-01-2003 23:08									#24
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Apocalypse You really don't think this would change if it became a main fuction of the government?

Nope.


After all, they always do so well with their main functions.

Why do you NEED the government to do if parents can? So others won't envy them? I don't give a rat's ass if other kids envy my son. Would you send your kids to school with barefeet so that no one would envy his expensive shoes?

	02-01-2003 23:10									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yet this goes completely counter to Libertarian POV doesn't it? A goverenment whose sole function is to raise kids and establish the morals for those kids is not very Libertarian. Libs believe strongly in the rights of the individual and the individuals rights to establish their own code of morality seperate and distinct from government influence.

The plan you suggest merely takes a broad swipe at achieving mediocrity (if the gov could even pull it off) in child rearing as an attempt to even the playing field and bring those with poor family lives to parity at the expense of those with good family lives. I for one would not have traded my childhood and expect the same for my child.

	02-01-2003 23:14									#26
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor Nope. After all, they always do so well with their main functions.

I guess thats why national defense started sucking once the feds took over it.

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor Why do you NEED the government to do if parents can? So others won't envy them? I don't give a rat's ass if other kids envy my son. Would you send your kids to school with barefeet so that no one would envy his expensive shoes?

Many parents can't though. It's about fairness. Your kid has done absolutely nothing to deserve something over some other kid. Your selfishness disgusts me. And that shoe comment doesn't really work out well since pretty much all kids in the US have shoes.

	02-01-2003 23:17									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Oh, look at this. Perfectly good thread hijacked all the way to hell, with ample moderator participation!

I tend to feel that "What libertarians don't realize is that America today in 2003 is incapable of having a working libertarian society" would be more the point of this thread than child-rearing, yesno?

	02-01-2003 23:18									#28
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Apocalypse Your selfishness disgusts me.

When you have children, and someone starts telling you that you're disgustingly selfish for wanting the best for them, I'm sure you will appropriately tell them where they can go stick it.

EDIT: And I never said that I didn't hope the best for all children and wasn't willing (voluntarily) to help bring that about. My husband and I have even talked about adopting sometime down the road when we are more financially stable.

	02-01-2003 23:19									#29
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Yet this goes completely counter to Libertarian POV doesn't it? A goverenment whose sole function is to raise kids and establish the morals for those kids is not very Libertarian. Libs believe strongly in the rights of the individual and the individuals rights to establish their own code of morality seperate and distinct from government influence. The plan you suggest merely takes a broad swipe at achieving mediocrity (if the gov could even pull it off) in child rearing as an attempt to even the playing field and bring those with poor family lives to parity at the expense of those with good family lives. I for one would not have traded my childhood and expect the same for my child.

Not everyone will be completely equal with the system that I desire. If a kid does well in math, the kid will be moved into better math classes. If the kid does better in english, the kid will be moved into better English classes. Thus what a kid has will be based on their individual ability. I'm not trying to argue everyone should be the same in everything, just start off the same. Libertarianism is really only unfair in the starting position of people.

	02-01-2003 23:22									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Stefu Oh, look at this. Perfectly good thread hijacked all the way to hell, with ample moderator participation! I tend to feel that "What libertarians don't realize is that America today in 2003 is incapable of having a working libertarian society" would be more the point of this thread than child-rearing, yesno?

I'm trying to argue what is needed for an otherwise libertarian society in the US to work. I believe the US could function in a very libertarian type society as long as one of the few functions of the government is to raise the children.