Forum Post: If a father sexually abuses his daughter, should the "evil big government" intervene?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, noon EST by leftistperson
(95)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If a father sexually abuses his 10-year-old daughter, should the "evil big government" intervene?
Should the government intervene in the "private life" of that family?
If the government intervenes, is it communism?
Let the "small government" fundamentalists answer this...
Small government doesn't mean no government. Libertarians aren't anarchists. You need to brush up on your American political philosophy.
So... The government should intervene in the private life of that family? The government should intervene with what happens inside the sacred private property that is the house of the family?
More government is always the answer with you progressives. The problem is, the government is incompetent and corrupt.
Only if we, the people, allow it to be incompetent and corrupt. We elect the government.
"We elect the government" is a half truth. Do we elect the head of the Treasury or the head of the Fraudulent Reserve? No, we don't. They are appointed. Anyway, our elections are a charade. Life experience will teach you that government is not the answer. Your prescription: 10+ more years in the 'real' world.
And the solution is?
I think the obvious solution is reforming the political system to create real democracy, and not call for "minimal government".
I'm all for reforming the government. Reforms should include removing federal programs and reestablishing them at the state level as needed. Our founding fathers deemed a central government necessary to protect its citizens, but they tried hard to limit its control over local affairs. FEMA, for example, erodes the power of local governments to manage their own affairs. Sure, you say these programs are necessary until they become outrageously inefficient and expensive and begin meddling with citizens' privacy and right to manage their own lives. The Democrats' solution to government is to create more bureaucracy when the government fails. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a good example of what is wrong with the federal government's mindset. The SEC failed, so instead of investigating and prosecuting the corruption at the SEC, they created more layers of bureaucracy. The Republicans' solution is to take on more debt, refuse to pay for their wars by increasing taxes, and blame the Democrats for the wrongs of government. Funny thing is, both parties share the same bank account. Reforming the government, yes. Limiting the government, hell yes.
Dumb question
Small government would handle this at either local or state level according to their laws that are setup for these situations. Why would the F.B.I. need to work on an something like this. That was a poor analogy. Why don't we look at how BIG government and lets ay the Dept. of Justice is using tax payer money to buy guns and sell the to Mexican drug carteles where the drug dealrs then kill U.S. citizens answer that "Big Gov" fundaentalist, how should the courts take care of these criminals.
Government is government. It doesn't matter if it's the federal government, the state government, or the local government. If you prefer, I can accept free healthcare and free higher education from the local government, it's no problem to me...
I think you are just trolling I never mentioned health care. Also where do you get the idea of "Free" health care and higher ed. I guess you didn't take out school loans to learn in economics 101 to find out there is no such thing as a "free" lunch. Somewhere someone is either putting in time and labor or they are paying for it.
I did like how you managed to not even acknowledge my question back to you and you just came out with talking points. You could run for office with skills like that.
Well no - this actually isn't a good example of what is meant by a call for smaller government. One of the primary and originally stated purposes of government is protection.
Protection of what?
If party A is exercising his rights and party B is exercising his rights, and the exercising of party A's rights infringes upon B exercising his rights, then the State and legal system should intervene, but ONLY at the point where the rights of one are infringed upon by the rights of another. Clearly, in your situation, party B's (the daughter's) rights are being infringed upon in a violent and coercive manner. Libertarians tend to not be sympathetic towards violence and coercion.
Libertarians essentially believe in the philosophy of "live and let live"
This is the premise behind Spooner's essay "vices are not crimes" ...
"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
In vices, the very essence of crime --- that is, the design to injure the person or property of another --- is wanting.
It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.
Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.
For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth..."
http://tiny.cc/smarb
What rights? Who defines what are the rights of A and B? I think I have a right to free higher education and free healthcare.
Who pays for your "free" education?
Who pays for your "free" police, that protect your "rights"? The policemen are paid with the taxpayer money. Should we abolish the police?
Among the natural rights that you have are the right to life, liberty and property. The police are there to make sure that when your follow citizens are exercising their rights they don't infringe on your rights. Property includes my money. Taking my money by force to pay for your free health care and free education is theft. The fact that you have the government steal my money only makes it leagel not moral.
"Natural rights"? Is that some kind of biological rights? Or is that some kind of biblical rights?
Did you know that those "natural rights" are socially and historically determined? And that new rights can be added to it, like the right to free healthcare?
Natural rights, also called unalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Natural rights do not change at the whim of society. Thats what unalienable means. Your so called "right" to a "free" education or "free" health care does not exist under the banner of natural rights. Our government was created to protect our natural rights. To protect them from each other, your natural rights end where mine begin, from foreign countries and from the government itself. Natural rights do not always = legal rights, but under our constitution they should. You may convince 51% of the population to go along with your so called right to a "free" education. But, in order for your "free" education to be paid for the government must take the payment from the rest of the people by force thus violating their natural rights and the whole reason for the government to exist in the first place. According to you if I can convince 51% of the people that because of your political views you should not have a natural right to life, than your life should be forfeit. That is exactly why natural rights are unalienable. So they can't be taken away at the whim of society.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
There are no "self-evident" and "universal" rights. Those rights are historically determined. Before the philosophers of the "Enlightenment" in the 18th century, nobody thought about those rights as being "universal".
The world didn't started in the 18th century.
So rights are what ever you determine them to be whenever it suits your objective. Suffering from a little megalomania aren't we. Have a nice life comrade.
So if society changes in the future and says its a natural right for me to have a big screen TV I guess it would be all right to take yours. Same logic.
Yes. What's the problem? Why do you think the philosophical evolution of human societies should STOP in the stage reached in the 18th century?
Well send it over than. I'm waiting.
Personally, I believe in natural rights and that the role of the government is to protect naturally occurring rights and not to grant extraneous rights. This view of rights is in-line with what Locke and Paine spoke about. Our Country was founded with natural rights in mind and that rights and freedom cannot be legislated.
"Thomas Paine (1731–1809) further elaborated on natural rights in his influential work Rights of Man (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.
The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."
By you claiming the you have the right to free higher education and free healthcare, you are claiming that you have the right to someone else's labor. Do you not see a problem with that?
nice try
No. I think the police should intervene. If not I think the 10 year olds mother should take care of the big evil father with a Smith and Wesson if the police won't intervene. Just my opinion.
Laws should and are made in cases like this, to protect the individual right of the child. And, as much as you want to beat or kill the father, laws protect him too. They should not allow this to happen, as it violates the child's rights. What was the question?
Well, I may not be the audience you are soliciting here... but if the evidence proves that such a CRIME took place... I believe the local community should have the authority to "tar and feather" the sexual offender... and "hang him by his nuts".
The protection of rights is the only just duty of a government therefore yes the government has the power, authority, and responsibility to interfere.
I don't think you have a solid grasp on what small government people desire.
Your mocking tone also does you a disservice.
Who defines what is small government? Who defines what are the duties of the government? You? Ron Paul? The Tea Party? Or the people, in a democratic way?
I think every individual defines the concept for themselves. I don't understand the reason you think that any of the definitions of the people/groups you list would or should or could be forced onto other people. I am an individualist - I judge people as individuals and I listen to their thoughts as individuals - I don't try to assign blanket beliefs to people.
I don't think you can define a political philosophy by democratic action - people will believe what they wish to believe regardless of how many voices are telling them to believe another way.
In this country, the constitution enumerates the role, responsibilities and limitations of government.
The father should be treated as any other sex offender. Just because it's his daughter, it doesn't mean he gets a free pass.
Something like that happened in Tucson: the father killed the rapists and a jury, THREE TIMES, acquitted the murderer.
You should go somewhere else for specific political agendas
No. There are "small government" fundamentalists here claiming that "big government is evil, because it intervenes in the private life of people".
Let them answer the question.
the truth is, or government has turned into a tyrannical nanny surveillance state. try these: in CA they have made it illegal for 10 yr olds to get a tan, but they can get vaccines without the parent's informed consent http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10/now-law-vaccines-can-be-given-to-12.html DHS uses FAST technology to rob us of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/10/invisible-surveillance-state-dhs-and.html Police state abolishes trials using intimidation tactics against naiive defendants http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/police-state-end-the-trial191.html
Okay lefty - did the government intervene in the private life of these people who were members of a private buying club because they wanted to buy raw milk?
http://www.naturalnews.com/033822_Kelly_Sakir_Rawesome_Foods.html Oh, and they wasted over a million taxpayer dollars on a sting operation that they wouldn't even use against the mob or the banksters (which they should)