What About The Children?
OK, my first thought is, “Why do people keep bringing up the
children?” Even though I would have to guess that it is because they
represent something to most people. So what do they represent? I think
it is a deep rooted psychological problem that people have. They don’t
even seem to know it. First, they see children as helpless and in need
of someone else to care for them. That is pretty obvious and I doubt
that most people would put much effort into arguing about whether
children need protection or not. But, that brings me to my next thought
on why people bring it up so much. People are made to feel (and act)
like the government is their parent. They seek their comfort and care
from the government. Every problem they have, they look to the
government to solve. Every dispute they have, they look for the
government to settle for them. Every bump in the night sends them
screaming and crying for the government to come to their rescue. So
when someone asks about the “children”, I try to understand what their
real fears might be. But what I am going to do is try and take a look
at some of the most common cries on behalf of the “children” and see if
I can make sense of them.
Poor kids couldn’t go to school.
This is usually an argument put up by people that have never really
seen any poor kids or been to any poor countries. I can assure you
though that if you go somewhere with REAL poverty, the kids are in
school. Education is an investment that most parents don’t mind making.
As a matter of fact, it is an investment in society that most people,
whether they are parents or not, don’t mind making. The idea that
education would be less important if there were no government is just a
knee jerk reaction to government indoctrination on the subject.
Early supporters of a government education system (by early I mean,
directly after the American Revolution), felt that the best way to
“indoctrinate” citizens to their views would be to start teaching them
to the children at an early age.
They wanted to pass on THEIR belief system and morals, because they
felt that they were the most enlightened and that people should strive
to be “just like them”. Most people that make the argument for
government schooling today think the exact same thing. They all have
certain goals and standards they want to pass on to the children. Never
mind that in the US we spend the second most money of any country in
the world on education and rank near the bottom as far as results go,
it is more important that the kids learn to be “good citizens” that
learn to bow before the authority of the state at an early age. It is
more important that they learn tolerance than learn how to use critical
So the argument to me doesn’t seem to be so much, “Poor kids won’t
go to school” as, “Poor kids won’t act the way we want them to act.”
The two major political parties in the US seem to be like two divorced
parents. Both of them using the “children” to try and get at the other
one. In a world with no government parents, REAL parents will be able
to pass on the type of education they want to their children on their
own. It doesn’t matter who has money and who doesn’t, education is
important enough that there will always be people willing to teach and
children willing to learn.
Poor kids wouldn’t have health care.
Poor kids don’t really have health care now. But that has not much
to do with the government paying for it, it has to do with the
government being all up in the middle of it. It literally takes an act
of congress to get the poor kids into the doctor. Than the doctor has a
pile of red tape to go through to get paid. Book keeping takes up more
of the doctors’ time than actually seeing the patients. And who
requires the paperwork? You guessed it, the government does. All this
extra work has to be paid by someone. When people are getting the
government to pay for it, we all pay for it. On top of that, it helps
the doctors set their prices on what they charge for their services. So
on top of paying for it in taxes, when someone goes to the doctor they
are paying for a service that is priced basically by the governments
willingness to pay for the service. As the cost of doing business with
the government (and conversely what the government will pay for the
service) rises, so does the price for everyone else, even those paying
for the service out of their own pocket. This is precisely one of those
areas that the government has done incredible amounts of damage to the
market by interfering in it.
Today we see lots of clinics opening up. There have been medical and
dental clinics all across the US that have operated on a free or
sliding scale basis, but they are making a comeback. Doctors have
figured out that the best way to offer their services is to take the
government out of the equation. It lowers their cost of doing business
and it increases the number of people they can see. In the case of
seeing people for free, they are usually compensated through donations.
But the impersonal treatment “medical farms” give to their patients is
giving way to a more personal approach. This is very attractive to most
people. Lets face it, even with a government, lots of people (not just
kids) don’t have the insurance or money to pay for medical services at
the rate they are charged now. And despite the pessimistic outlook
people have of doctors being in it for the money (although I am sure
there are plenty), most of them got into the field because they wanted
to help people. The absence of government will not change the desire of
a certain group of people that want to help others out.
What about child abuse?
I could break this down into its many, many different categories.
Sexual, physical, mental, or just plain neglect, but there really is no
reason to do that. Abuse is abuse. It happens with a government and it
is likely to happen without one. The argument is that without a
government, no one will step in to help the children. They say that
private security agencies won’t have a motivation to intervene on their
behalf. All I can say is, BULLSHIT. If I know about abuse of a child, I
am motivated to step in on the children’s behalf NOW. What would change
just because there is no government?
For something to be done about abuse in our current system, the
reported abuse must come to light first. The same would have to happen
under a stateless society. Right now the government sends people over
to investigate the allegations. In a stateless society the abuse would
be investigated by a private security agency. How do I know this?
Because I for one (and I am sure most others would also) would only do
business with a PDA that included that service. And if it wasn’t an
included service of anyone of them, I would hire one of them to do it
The idea that the children won’t be cared for is just insane. I
don’t even know where people come up with that idea. Well, really I do
know where they come up with it, it is the load of propaganda they have
Kids would be doing drugs.
Once again, kids do drugs now. Having a state or not doesn’t change
the fact. Some people think that MORE kids would do drugs than do now.
That could be, I don’t have a crystal ball to say one way or the other.
I do believe that only a certain number of people do drugs, it doesn’t
matter if they are legal or illegal. If the prohibition of alcohol in
the US is any indicator, we can pretty much assume that MORE people do
things when it is illegal than when it is legal. But regardless, there
is no reason to just assume that there would be more kids doing drugs
then there is now.
What about the kids that no body wants?
I don’t know that there are any kids that people don’t want NOW.
There are plenty of kids that are in foster homes or state custody, but
that doesn’t mean no one wants them, only that for whatever reason the
state has taken them from their parents. But, many of them seem to stay
in the system now. Most of the ones in the system end up turning 19 or
21 or whatever arbitrary age the government says they can’t stay
anymore and THEN they are turned out on the streets. With no support
system, no family to turn to, no religious affiliation to lean on,
nothing. Where do a lot of this kids end up? Back in the system, but
this time they are locked in cages to be kept away from the rest of us.
Lots of these kids are kept from going to loving caring families for
whatever reason the government comes up with. In some places, if you
smoke you can’t take them in, if you are gay you can’t take them in,
and on and on. Without those kinds of draconian prohibitions against
caring and loving for a child, I don’t foresee any more children being
homeless and alone, than we do now. More than likely those kids would
find a loving home and someone else will provide the service that gets
them together with that new family.
Something about a stateless society that sounds barbaric when you
just hear it is this; in a stateless society, people will be able to
sell their children. That sounds awful, but is it really? Think about it. NOW, if someone
has a child they don’t want, can’t handle or can no longer care for,
that child goes to the state. The chances of the parent ever getting
them back are not very good and many parents don’t even want them back.
It is a sad fact of life that there are unwanted children sometimes.
But IF the parents can sell the children they will have an incentive to
provide them for sell in the best possible shape. They will be
motivated to make sure they are well fed, without disease and
definitely not beaten and bloody. And since most people want babies or
young children, they will be motivated to get rid of them as soon as
possible, therefore removing the children from a bad situation even
One of those things that make people uncomfortable about a stateless
society is their perception of how children will be treated. Whether
that is a true belief that children will be mistreated or a deeper fear
that they themselves will feel insecure without the government is hard
to see on the face of the issues. I would be willing to say that it is
a combination of both of those things. I don’t think the whole argument
is about the children, but there are things involving children that I
myself think should be addressed. Sometimes people are at different
points on their journey to a stateless society and this is one of those
issues that will continually come up.
The No Name Group Project