5 ms·

This is what lack of diversity gets you. Nobody in the chain of events thought anything happening was unreasonable enough to say something. There were probabl

This is what lack of diversity gets you. Nobody in the chain of events thought anything happening was unreasonable enough to say something. There were probably ~8 people involved from the call to the officers to the DA and the administrative people in the middle who would have had a chance to opine. It only would have taken one Ron Swanson type to be like "hey, this is insane and we're gonna wind up being a national news story if we go through with this". It would have only taken one person from a rough part of town to be like "kids where I live walk this far and farther every day, there's nothing to see here". Edit: By "Ron Swannson" I mean "someone who takes a skeptical by default view of things the organization chooses to engage in", not necessarily a libertarian.

cool_dude85 4y ago
I don't think you want a lot of "Ron Swanson types", by which I infer you mean libertarians, getting involved in child protective services.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  Why not?
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    Well, I personally believe that the logical outcome of libertarian thought as it regards kids is that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. So that's one reason you wouldn't want a libertarian CPS agent.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      Your claim about the logical outcome of libertarian thought is wrong, because it fails to consider a key fact: the child is there because of the parents' choice. They chose to bring the child into the world. Or, if they adopted the child, they chose to do that. And when you make that choice, you accept the obligations that come with it. There is nothing in libertarianism that prevents people from making choices that come with obligations that they must accept. The only thing libertarianism would be against would be forcing people to raise children they did not bring into the world or did not adopt. There are edge cases, such as a woman becoming pregnant against her will (rape, for example); but those are edge cases and don't change the basic principle.
    - nearbuy 4y ago
      Good luck finding a libertarian that believes parents shouldn't have to feed their children. I think you've made a straw man argument.
      - cool_dude85 4y ago
        It's a direct quote from Murray Rothbard. So that's one at least.
        pdonis 4y ago
        While Rothbard is of course one of the major figures in libertarianism, he is also notorious for overstating things, and making claims about what "libertarianism" requires that are not endorsed by other prominent libertarians. The claim under discussion here is a case in point.
        caseysoftware 4y ago
        > It's a direct quote from Murray Rothbard. So that's one at least. Ugh. That sounds ugly. Which part is the quote? I assume not the "Well, I personally believe.." part but don't see any quotation marks so hard to tell.
        4y ago

cool_dude85 4y ago

I don't think you want a lot of "Ron Swanson types", by which I infer you mean libertarians, getting involved in child protective services.

SuoDuanDao 4y ago
Why not?
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  Well, I personally believe that the logical outcome of libertarian thought as it regards kids is that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. So that's one reason you wouldn't want a libertarian CPS agent.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    Your claim about the logical outcome of libertarian thought is wrong, because it fails to consider a key fact: the child is there because of the parents' choice. They chose to bring the child into the world. Or, if they adopted the child, they chose to do that. And when you make that choice, you accept the obligations that come with it. There is nothing in libertarianism that prevents people from making choices that come with obligations that they must accept. The only thing libertarianism would be against would be forcing people to raise children they did not bring into the world or did not adopt. There are edge cases, such as a woman becoming pregnant against her will (rape, for example); but those are edge cases and don't change the basic principle.
  - nearbuy 4y ago
    Good luck finding a libertarian that believes parents shouldn't have to feed their children. I think you've made a straw man argument.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      It's a direct quote from Murray Rothbard. So that's one at least.
      - pdonis 4y ago
        While Rothbard is of course one of the major figures in libertarianism, he is also notorious for overstating things, and making claims about what "libertarianism" requires that are not endorsed by other prominent libertarians. The claim under discussion here is a case in point.
      - caseysoftware 4y ago
        > It's a direct quote from Murray Rothbard. So that's one at least. Ugh. That sounds ugly. Which part is the quote? I assume not the "Well, I personally believe.." part but don't see any quotation marks so hard to tell.
        4y ago