Mercenary Child Protectors
by digby
So the state determines that a known violent wife and child abuser should not be allowed near his newborn baby and they remove it from the parents custody. (The wife refuses to leave, apparently.)In the affidavit they file with the court seeking permission, it mentions that he's also a member of a radical, right wing militia type movement called the Oath Keepers. What happens? The libertarians go wild, claiming that the jackbooted thugs are removing children from parents who are merely exercising their constitutional rights to join a militia. They picketed the hospital where the baby was born and they picketed the paper and engaged in online flame wars even when the full affidavit was revealed with the father's long history of violence toward his wife and children.
Slate takes up the story:
Is it relevant to a child-protection case that a man with a history of violence is connected to a group which believes Americans are in imminent danger of being herded into concentration camps? Or is apocalyptic anti-government scenario-spinning inherently political and protected? In a country where the FBI is confused (or worse) about the legality of peaceful protest, this is a discussion worth having.
Just don't go looking to the New Hampshire picketers for that debate. The ones who made it into the Concord Monitor, anyway, are sad crackpots. "The fact that there are documents about it is meaningless," one told the paper
That baby chose to be born of an abusive father and a battered mother and he's the individual responsible for that choice. That's called freedom folks.
This is not to say that libertarians don't have good solutions for such problems, they do:
"The family should be left to resolve it on their own," Biondolillo said. "Or private enterprise - private companies can contact the family and say, 'We heard you were hitting your kids. Can you stop that?' "
That sounds like a hell of a business opportunity. As the article points out, it's unclear who or how one would pay for such a service, but I believe it's almost certain that since it's a private sector, non-state, non-coercive enterprise that it would be successful. Aren't they all?
And anyway, you have to protect that family's right to abuse its children. It's fundamental to our liberty.
I am skeptical of state police power and I know there are instances where kids are removed for improper reasons. If this guy's only crime had been belonging to a nutty, violent right wing militia, obviously it wouldn't have been enough reason to remove the kids. But he was a violent abuser with a house full of guns (including tasers) and he also happened to belong to a nutty, violent, right wing militia. That combination, if true, is enough reason to fear for a little baby's safety so until Dagny's Mobile Parenting Advice Corporation gets off the ground, the state will have to continue to do this unpleasant business. Contrary to what right wing libertarians believe not everything in life comes down to property rights.
h/t to @allisonkilkenny
.