I don’t plan to go into over much depth regarding the point Letters from a Tory made regarding libertarian philosophy in this post. Not least because the Nameless Libertarian has already done so. So too has DK.
The core issue being raised is; in a libertarian society, is state intervention the right thing when it comes to groups indoctrinating children? Both DK and the Nameless one say “no”. So do I. LFAT makes what I believe to be a fundamental flaw in assuming that because children are not mature, they need some sort of protection form “indoctrination”. Yet as children, we have all been subjected to our parents’ world-view and had that challenged as we grew older and met others who present a different one. Still, in the discussion over at the Appalling Strangeness, LFAT reiterates that thought:
That said, I really don’t think education is enough. You can’t discuss rational thinking, political ideology or racial prejudice with a 6-year-old…
I replied there, but I’ll expand here. I was about six years old, possibly a little younger or a little older, it’s difficult to tell, it was so long ago – but it was in the early sixties, when my father impressed upon me the importance of freedom of speech. He explained it in simple terms, using the war that had been over for barely twenty years and during which he grew up as an example. It was important, he explained, that extreme groups such as the Nazis and the communists are allowed their say, that their ideology is in the open, because people can see it for what it is and counter it. Ban it, prevent them from speaking, and it becomes furtive, mysterious and appealing. As a six year old, I understood the reasoning perfectly. So perfectly, that it underpins my absolute defence of free speech to this day, some forty odd years later.
Children, let us not forget, are not made of bone china and they are not stupid. They have a massive capacity for learning, and rational thinking is not beyond their grasp. They are not, in this instance, “vulnerable” and do not need protection by the state. Give them the information, teach them how to analyse it and let them grow up forming their own opinions.
Therefore, no, the state should play no part in protecting them from ideas and indoctrination that the state deems unacceptable. Ever.
It’s not indoctrination per se that bothers me – you could argue that every religion indoctrinates children every day.
It’s indoctrination with ideas that might be physically threatening to others (e.g. gays should be killed, Jews should be persecuted) that I think leaves libertarians with a problem.
Indeed – and some of it is pretty nasty stuff that taken to extremes could lead to violence if followed through.
I still don’t have a problem. Words and thoughts are not actions. When they become actions, they actively cause harm to others, then it becomes appropriate to intervene, not before.
LR, you’re still arguing on the basis of ‘should’ (or in this case ‘should not’).
Isn’t the real point that on a practical level, the State (however well intentioned, which it isn’t) can’t really achieve much in this regard (at least not without huge costs, huge unintended consequences etc)?
Mark, perfectly true. However this is not a reason in itself for taking the view that I do. The state has no business being involved – because the raising of children is a matter for parents, not the state. So, yes, I do mean “should not”.
The existence of such parental indoctrination causes no such problem to me, providing there is also diverse social opinion, freedom of speech, and a minimum amount of high-level law that makes actual violence against others an offence.
What concerns me far more is governmental indoctrination through state education (which places a premium on homgenity and unquestioning conformance), the national curriculum (which is shallow, shocking and socially conditioning) and the stealthy creep of “joined up working” that appears to seek the impossible task of offering 100% protection to every child, whatever the cost to the liberty of that child, their family – and society as a whole.
This is from a recent DCSF minister’s speech: “Of course, what happens in families is rightly a private matter. But at the same time, all families – at some time or other – need support.” Is this not more cause for concern?
This indoctrination might not advocate violence but it’s endemic and hugely damaging to our society and economy. It is obliterating critical thinking, rational risk-taking, problem solving and entrepreneurship. And we’re paying for it in every sense!
Given all this, no wonder people doubt children, doubt parents and worry that localised indoctrination will wreak widespread destruction. Imposing additional external controls, however, is not the answer.
Should the state have some role in protecting the child from poor parents? Or in protecting it’s citizens from the results of poor parenting?
Define poor parenting first.
We’re never going to learn, are we?
To be honest, I’m uncomfortable with unlimited free speech if it means that people are able to indoctrinate children (I’m as uncomfortable about kids being brainwashed with authoritarian socialism as I am with neo-Nazism or Islamism) or call for violent revenge to be stirred up.
If, as a really stupid example, I called for people to rape and torture your wife LR, that would be legal?
I suspect a lot of people would be uncomfortable with libertarianism in its purest sense too. Just as many are uncomfortable with communism.
I think free-market conservative liberalism with low taxes and minimal state intervention is the way to go.
“If, as a really stupid example, I called for people to rape and torture your wife LR, that would be legal?”
I believe that such calls as you describe, Paul, would be far more likely to be met with immediate social abhorrence and resistance in a society that did not seek to control freedom of speech, and did not mass-indoctrine its people in uncritical tolerance as a way to achieve this.
I can’t see how limiting free speech can ever be “minimal state intervention” – it allows the state to define a concept of “suitability” on behalf of everyone. In my opinion, that is far more likely to lead to large scale abuse – and that I find more uncomfortable than the possibility of fundamentalist families or individuals living amongst us.
If all anti-freedom of speech laws were to be repealed, what would happen? I think there’s a bit of a leap of faith going on here.
If I follow the libertarian case correctly, this will happen:
Freedom of speech will be absolute. Even if it may inspire people (my faith in people is limited!) to cause harm to others.
People will somehow become less like animals (I’d love to believe this; no faith in others again). Most people I discuss politics to seem to have the distinct authoritarianism drilled into them by the BBC and consider me paranoid whenever I mention different news media. They assume I mean something like Alex Jones or David Icke (both of whom I have never read) and that kind of thing and write me off. How on Earth do you bring a state-sactioned media down? All I see is people addicted to authoritarianism.
A free speech culture will develop with mostly-intelligent people discussing the politics of the day (with a few extremists on the side, naturally).
I’d be very happy to see state-funded extremists have their funding cut away from them. Religion should have little to do with the state.
How well funded are the various Islamic extremist groups? They (with the odd exception) seem to be fairly incompetent here thus far. We tend to hear about more real terrorism from dissident Northern Irish paramilitaries these days.
As I say I think this will be extremely difficult to sell to the general public especially in this climate. People want the illusion of security, not the freedom of liberty.
Paul, my faith in people is limited too, and I agree that moving back from the rafts of legislation and state-funded intervention we already have in place is now hugely problematic, given the society we have created. People are, as you say, “addicted to authoritarianism”.
What I would hate to see is yet more legislation or “non-negotiable support” that enables the state to define indoctrination, or “good” parenting, for example (and we are rapidly moving in that direction with the current review into home education). I do not see the state to be best arbiter of what constitutes either of those things. And to be legally bound by it? Yikes.
We’re currently deciding on which country would be sensible to move to and avoid all this, as I think that what you say in your final paragraph is very true.
Paul, the answer to your question is “No”, it would not be illegal. Talking about something inspiring them even, harms no one. Doing something about it, acting on that inspiration, breaks existing laws and is, therefore illegal. To restrict free speech on the basis of what people might be thinking or saying – given that they will think it and say it anyway – is thought crime. Or is it precrime? Is this the kind of dystopa we want; where one is deemed to be guilty and the state intervenes on the basis that we might commit an offence because of what someone said?
On another thread on this topic, Frank Fisher reminded people of that old saying about sticks and stones.
If you are to start banning indoctrination – should you wish to engage in the impossible – then where will you draw your line and what thoughts and speech will you deem unacceptable?
Ultimately, I don’t care about how we sell it – if people are so damned stupid that they think security and liberty are an acceptable trade off, then it makes no difference whatsoever how we sell it. All we can do is keep repeating the truth, challenging people to think it through for themselves and hope that a seed sown will germinate.
I remain firmly attached to my principles and will resist authoritarianism. The many may want that illusion of the gilded cage. I most certainly do not. I’ll take my chances with the nutters and extremists rather than the oppression of the state’s comfort blanket..
Renegade Parent, we moved to France. In principle, having the Napoleonic system of law and a large state bureaucracy, it should be worse than Britain. However, the French people have the right attitude – the state exists to serve them and they are quick to remind politicians of that fact. In practice, you tend to be left alone to get on with your life as you see fit.
I’m thinking this through. And as you say LR, it wouldn’t be easy. And, as you hint, the extremists would say “define indoctrination”. That’s a harder pill to swallow than a mouthful of bittering hops (and yes, I did try that the other day).
Statists will say you’re condeming children to a lifetime of abuse. Libertarians will say that it’s either that or a police state. Statists will say that they prefer a police state if it saves one child (which it won’t; eventually it will kill many, many more). And so it shall come to pass.
I suppose it’s a bit like those ‘full stop’ NSPCC adverts you see on the mongbox all the time – there’s an awful lot of things you can’t stop people doing. Just because it’s illegal doesn’t ultimately stop someone from doing various horrible things to people.
Again, as people can’t justify the twisted ideology they are fed even in conversation (not heated debate) they just switch off as they are taught. Hence there is zero debate and no-one changes their minds.
Where is there to move to again?
Easy; no. Simple? Yes. Allow people to say and think as they wish. Vigorously prosecute those who engage in violence.
Oh, and those NSPCC adverts are vile. The NSPCC is nothing more than a fake charity that demonises parents for its own twisted ends. I wouldn’t give them a penny of my money.
You know that. I know that. Not many other people do. We’re ‘paranoid’, remember?
My mum has taken a real dislike of the NSPCC in recent times especially after their assault on home education.
The NSPCC has been demonising parents for years. According to Childhood Interrupted by Kathleen O’Malley the organisation was snatching kids away from their parents and condemning them to extreme suffering at the hands of the Catholic Church in 1950s Ireland. So they have form for inflicting misery on others.
There are more of them than there are of us. And this is why we are doomed.
How would you deal with national security LR? Would disclosures of important military and security information (you know, like real information, not stuff the State wants to keep hidden) be considered free speech?
One of the arguments against ID cards and the NIR was that it would undermine national security as agents would be liable to exposure. I have no problem with confidential information being shared only with those who need to know. Intelligence couldn’t operate any other way. It all depends on the information, though. If disclosure places operatives in danger, then it should remain secret.
“…that I think leaves libertarians with a problem.”
Well, I’m a libertarian, and I don’t see a problem.
DK
Heh. I think the only people who really have a problem with it aren’t libertarians!
Longrider – We have talked at length about France; I had the law/state concerns but also a sneaking suspicion that we’d still be a lot freer. Still in the running, then.