Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Tag: child

How Becoming a Father Made Me Rethink My Libertarianism

(Image credit: Unsplash)
The libertarian message has broad appeal, or so we’re told. But what if that appeal isn’t lifelong? Since having children, my view of the struggle between the individual and the state has evolved. Maybe the libertarian movement should evolve too.  The most persuasive aspects of libertarianism are actually at the philosophy’s core. There is self-ownership, the notion that no one else has a property claim to your person. The non-aggression principle follows, stating that no person has the right to initiate violence against someone else. Private property is also commonsensical, as a necessary component of freedom, allowing for voluntary trades and a division of labor that brings forth a fruitful life through each individual’s pursuit of happiness. No other ideas have yet come along that impress me enough to give up those core libertarian principles. However, such a framing of libertarianism can lend itself to a myopic worldview that ultimately serves statism, not liberty. How is that possible? The answer may enlighten libertarians and inform how they communicate their ideas to more of the general population.  As I arrive at that answer, I hope readers will forgive some brief autobiography. I have three kids under three years old. A new dad’s life is infinitely more joyous than any other time of his life, but at the same time, the real world is more complicated, even threatening. That’s been my experience anyway. I share that because having kids made me consider the mid-to-long-term prospects for liberty more intensively than ever before. And yet, I can also empathize more with most people who have misgivings with libertarianism.  That’s because my political outlook is no longer limited strictly to the individual and the state. My new perspective still favors the individual against the state, but the important distinction is that the individual’s best fighting chance is when he is part of a healthy social order.  To put it another way, insofar as individualism dismisses or overlooks formative institutions, such as the family, church, and other community associations, it is insufficient for securing liberty against the state. After entering fatherhood, I realized that I had long taken for granted the civilizing power of institutions. I fear too many libertarians are making that mistake now. Some even gasp at the idea of following traditions that keep those institutions alive, as if getting married or attending church weekly were irrational and collectivist. Probably more often the case is simply the feeling of indifference toward institutions. That is understandable, given that many of these social structures don’t fulfill their stated purpose. They are supposed to form people into good community members or leaders, but instead, as Yuval Levin observes, they’ve largely become backdrops for futile self-aggrandizement. “In one arena after another, we find people who should be insiders formed by institutions acting like outsiders performing on institutions,” Levin noted in a New York Times op-ed. “Many members of Congress now use their positions not to advance legislation but to express and act out the frustrations of their core constituencies. Rather than work through the institution, they use it as a stage to elevate themselves, raise their profiles, and perform for the cameras in the reality show of our unceasing culture war.” This depletion of institutional integrity has coincided with the growth of the state, and libertarians should be painfully aware of that.  It’s clear that the state has a vital interest in usurping or undermining institutions because they intercede between the individual and the state with natural solidarity. The state’s unquenchable thirst for power and control cannot tolerate such a buffer for long. The state seeks to be the sole force of formation (or deformation) for the individual and society too. Once a libertarian wakes up to this reality, it should only reinforce their commitment to pursuing a free society. And now hopefully they can better speak to concerns both conservatives and liberals have about the problems in society, with a greater appreciation for human attachments to God, family, and nation. To be clear, this need not be a prescription for how to live. Libertarians need not become parents to begin to think more deeply about the mid-to-long-term prospects for liberty. Other life episodes will facilitate that.  Remember the tens of millions of Americans who lost their jobs, the businesses that shuttered, and the empty store shelves during the worst days of the government-ordered Covid-19 lockdown. That societal alarm bell going off told us to save more for a very uncertain economic future. Don’t forget, either, the subsequent spike in suicides, exposing the fragile social fabric of the country.  Libertarians may stand to gain more supporters and converts to their ideas at this time if they recognize the crisis of institutions, especially with regard to the cornerstone that is the family.  The economist Wilhelm Röpke, who was greatly inspired by Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School, described the “well-ordered house” ideal in his book, A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market. Röpke insisted that “we cannot abandon” values of self-responsibility and mutual aid “without shaking the very foundations of a free society and making its difference from Communism no more than a matter of degree.” Calling out the problems inherent with statism is a must, but no longer should libertarians assume a free society will develop out of “free” individuals who are atomized and isolated from social orders that cultivated liberty in the first place.

Lemonade Stands: If You Think You’re Free, Think Again

As summer approaches, young entrepreneurs are likely to set up lemonade stands to make a little extra money. The police, however, are just as likely to shut down these innocent business projects. The stories of police shutting down children’s entrepreneurial ventures seem to never end. This is not just an unnecessary obstacle, but an insult to the American Dream and the spirit of freedom. Shutting Down Lemonade Stands is an Insult to Freedom As an individual, I have the right to own property. I have a right to start a business so people can voluntarily purchase my products/services, and I don’t need your permission to do so. This also applies to children. Young minds are quite creative so long as no one suppresses it. It only makes sense that children use their creativity to make some spare money. When the state shuts down a child’s ventures, however, it shows the true cruelty of government. They say you have to teach them while they’re young, so the government teaches children to obey or pay the price. This is not freedom. Rather, this is the rule through fear. It is the government claiming ownership of children. The Costs of Permits Exterminates Young Entrepreneurs As the government tears down another child’s dreams, one must wonder what the course of action this child can make is. If they want to continue, they will need a permit that can cost them hundreds of dollars and hours of their time. For small ventures like lemonade stands, the child does not have enough money to buy the permit and would not make enough money to warrant paying for it even if the child could. In other words, the government is teaching your child that business is not worth it.

Shutting Down Entrepreneurship Stunts Progress and Emboldens the Welfare State

As young people see the government crush their side hustles, they develop learned helplessness. They believe that there is no reason to fight for themselves, thus developing a dependency complex. By shutting down children’s lemonade stands, the government is guaranteeing that some children will lose the entrepreneurial spirit, stunting our growth as a society. But even worse, this guarantees that some children will grow up thinking that the only thing they can do for themselves is asking for help. By crushing their innocence while they are young, no child will ever ask “what if?” and create something amazing for themselves and for society at large. Lemonade Stands are proof of the entrepreneurial spirit! Celebrate it, don’t crush it.

School Choice Awards Highlight Differences Between Private Initiative and Traditional Approaches

School Choice Awards Highlight Differences Between Private Initiative and Traditional Approaches

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here. When freedom lays the groundwork for markets, colorful outbursts of creativity and efficacy can be seen, filling the air with sparkles. Not just figuratively. ChildrenUnfortunately for many children who now lack the opportunity to attend a school that meets their needs, many in America fail to see education as a market as well. Not because parents do not want to see results, but because special groups have, over the years, used education as a means to obtain political influence, oftentimes hurting the poorest among us. With their talk of making education a “right,” they helped to remove the market element, further hindering competition and, as a result, increasing the overall cost of education across the board. In states like Arizona, where students have had the opportunity to experiment with the idea of school choice, even if just superficially, things seem to be getting better. Because of the implementation of the charter school system in the state — a system that still relies on public funding — local public school students are able to “learn to speak Mandarin, study dance, [and even] become young engineers or delve into the medical sciences.” Thanks in part to a more competitive educational environment, Arizona students have shown that adding private elements to the public school system helps to boost choice, creativity, and dedication, making the Grand Canyon state a leader in high school education. One of the state’s charters is even among the country’s top 10 schools, according to the most recent “Best High School” ranking. Recently, the Arizona Charter Schools Association celebrated the private element of the segment’s work, recognizing some of the best individuals involved in the private aspect of the charter school system. During the event, President and CEO of the Arizona Charter Schools Association Eileen B. Sigmust gave a speech, claiming that what “these winners have in common is their innovative approach to education and committed focus to the success of their students.” Unfortunately for countless students in less privileged areas of the country, public school teachers and leadership often fail to focus on these two factors, mostly because of a lack of incentives to ensure children excel — a problem often caused by teachers unions, whose main accomplishments often include providing teachers with paths to comfortable and unchallenged careers by basing their salary on seniority, failing to tie pay rate with performance. During the Arizona Charter Schools Association’s 2016 Charter Awards event, teachers were praised for “[understanding and embracing the notion] that all students learn differently and [tailoring their] lessons to each child to ensure all students make growth in her classroom.” While the system isn’t perfect, the clear differences of approach between the traditional schools and the charter system give us further proof of the importance of private ownership, and the role it plays in helping every single child have access to the education that better meets their needs.