Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« A tale of three healthcare plans | Main | The Harmonizers »

Monday, August 24, 2009

Curfews in Killarney

The town of Killarney Manitoba has seen a recent rise in vandalism in the town of 3300 people and a curfew for people 17 years old and younger has been proposed in order to deal with it.

"They're out jumping around on rooftops on Main Street; they've been dancing around on a few vehicles," (Mayor Rick Pauls) said. "We've had some of our picnic tables and park benches thrown into our lake."

Sounds like some laws are being broken there. If there are already laws being broken, then why the curfew? Shouldn't these folks be handled for the crimes they already committed?

This is a lazy way to police people. It punishes the many for the acts of the few, which is not fair nor just. It also marks everyone in that town of a certain age range as a criminal, which is collectivist and disturbing. Individuals are causing the harm, not entire age groups.

Plus, the government has no right to tell entire age groups that they can't be in public. This is public property, they own a piece of it. Why the cut-off at 17? It's because 18 is an "adult" and for some reason they feel that they can pick on people under 18, but oh no, once you're 18 you are magically transformed into an adult and have personal responsibility.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms says;

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (c) freedom of peaceful assembly

Unless of course, you are aged 0-17 and live in Killarney Manitoba.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on August 24, 2009 in Crime | Permalink

Comments

Scott,

(1) I agree with the basic point that a curfew is a very bad way to respond to this problem, but appealing to the Charter is a weak argument. There are a great many way that the law treats people under 18 different from people over 18 (like, for example, restricting young people from smoking, voting, drinking, driving, etc.). Section 1 of the charter has been interpreted to allow these differences, so this case need not be any different constitutionally speaking. But the curfew is a very bad idea.

(2) You wrote: "Plus, the government has no right to tell entire age groups that they can't be in public. This is public property, they own a piece of it." This is nonsense, but something I hear from libertarians all the time. It shows a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be a part owner of something. It's not that hard a concept.

Someone who owns a few shares of Coca-Cola is a part owner of the company. But that does not give shareholders the right to walk into any Coca-Cola factory or office they want any time they want. It can be legitimate for the company to restrict access to spaces even to co-owners of those spaces.

Public property is no different from private property in this respect. Every citizen is a co-owner and policies about who should have access to that property are set by the owners. Instead of shareholder meetings to choose executives to set policies, we have elections to choose governments to set policies. Just as shareholders can change their leadership, citizens can change their leadership. But duely elected leaders can enact policies that, among other things, restrict some of the co-owners from having access to some of the property we all own.

A further point to consider is this: If your claim that co-owners can't be restricted from using public property at certain times of day is right, then public parks could never be closed at night and public buildings would be required to be open 24/7 for anyone who just wanted to wander around. (It would solve the homelessness problem, but I digress....) It also would mean that men could insist on being allowed to go in to any publicly owned bathroom, whether designated for men or women. That's just absurd.

The fact that a piece of property is publically owned is no reason to think that any and all members of the public have a right to access to it. Access rules work the same for all property, whether public or private.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-24 7:20:11 PM


The fact that a piece of property is publicly owned is no reason to think that any and all members of the public have a right to access to it

The problem is that if a shareholder of Coca Cola decides to be a jerk about it, he can always sell his shares as a protest. Can the parents of curfewed children get rebates on the property taxes that fund the parks their children cannot take full advantage of?

Posted by: FACLC | 2009-08-24 7:26:44 PM


The fact that a piece of property is publically owned is no reason to think that any and all members of the public have a right to access to it. Access rules work the same for all property, whether public or private.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-24 7:20:11 PM

I don't think that a Coca-Cola building that a shareholder owns part of and a public sidewalk or road is a fair comparison.

1. As FACLC points out, you can't opt out of the public ownership as you can with Coke or sell your shares.

2. The property is regularily accessable, only now being proposed to be restricted to the people that own it.

3. It's collectivism, it's no more legit than saying that a certain race can't be allowed out after curfew because some people of that race are committing crime.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-24 7:49:22 PM


BTW, I don't think that the Charter is anything great, but I like to bring it up when it is clearly being violated.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-24 7:50:15 PM


FACLC,

"The problem is that if a shareholder of Coca Cola decides to be a jerk about it, he can always sell his shares as a protest. Can the parents of curfewed children get rebates on the property taxes that fund the parks their children cannot take full advantage of?"

That's an entirely different question. The question of whether public owners can set rules that restrict access to public property to some of the co-owners (in exactly the same way private owners do) is not the same issue. The fact that you cannot sell your share of public property does not mean you automatically get unrestricted access to the property in return. The two issues are unrelated. If they were related, then it would seem that you are arguing that it is not legitimate to restrict men from women's bathrooms. That's crazy.

It is also worth noting that libertarians (in contrast to anarchists) do think that some public property is necessary, unless you think that even police files and military intelligence reports should be privayely owned. But the fact that intelligence reports are publically owned does not mean that any citizen should be allowed to read them any time they want. But if your argument is right, then that would not be the case. That's crazy, too.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-24 8:08:12 PM


Scott,

"I don't think that a Coca-Cola building that a shareholder owns part of and a public sidewalk or road is a fair comparison."

Why? Because making the comparison does not support your point? If ownership does not require access in a private case there is no reason to think it does in a public case unless you can show why it should be different in this respect.


"As FACLC points out, you can't opt out of the public ownership as you can with Coke or sell your shares."

Well, you can opt out by moving. But why does the fact that you can't sell your part ownership lead to the conclusion that you should be allowed access to all parts of the property at all times? You have not shown that ownership conditions and access rules are related in any way. Once again, you are conflating different issues.


"The property is regularily accessable, only now being proposed to be restricted to the people that [sic] own it."

Yes. Just as the board of directors at Coke could change access policies to parts of their buildings previously regularly accessible to the people who own it, elected officials can change access policies to property previously regularly accessible to the people who own it.


"It's collectivism, it's no more legit than saying that a certain race can't be allowed out after curfew because some people of that race are committing crime."

This is a reason to think that the curfew is a bad idea. But I already agreed that it was a bad idea. That claim is not being contested by anyone here, so I don't see why you bring it up again, unless you are confused about what the discussion is.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-24 8:21:51 PM


"Why?"

I explained why.

"Well, you can opt out by moving."

So I can move to another place where I'll be subject to the same thing. Yipee!

"This is a reason to think that the curfew is a bad idea."

There are a multitude of reasons. You think I'll have thought of every one of them by teh time I post? Sorry to dissapoint you.

The Charter says their is the right to peacefully assemble, the town of Killarney wants to violate that. I'm showing that the govenment doesn't give a damn about their own laws, they just do what they want, electing people doesn't change that.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-24 9:00:55 PM


How many of you would condemn a local curfew but praise Trudeau (curse his name and remember his victims) for suspending human rights to go after some "terrorists"?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-24 9:38:08 PM


F.M., it is debatable whether minors have any legal rights at all, since they have no legal responsibilities. Now, let's see you do something with that.

And Scott, if you don't think the Charter is that great, why do you bring it up if you think it's being violated? Is it because it imposes limits on the law, and you support all such limits?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-24 10:01:10 PM


Scott,

"I explained why."

No you didn't. You merely asserted that the fact that you cannot opt out of being a co-owner somehow magically entitles you to physical access to every part of the property you co-own, access that could otherwise be restricted. No argument for this non sequitur was offered. You also do not explain how things like public bathrooms and military intelligence reports can gain status as exempt from the no-opt-out-entitles-access "argument".

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-24 10:31:33 PM


And Scott, if you don't think the Charter is that great, why do you bring it up if you think it's being violated? Is it because it imposes limits on the law, and you support all such limits?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-24 10:01:10 PM

Because it's a document that the government is supposed to follow and they don't, it's violated again and again.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-24 10:36:01 PM


F.M., it is debatable whether minors have any legal rights at all, since they have no legal responsibilities. Now, let's see you do something with that.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-24 10:01:10 PM

Sure. Making an 18 year old legally an "adult" is a meaningless, arbitrary number.

Of course they have rights, they are people. Legal rights, of course they do, assulting a minor is still a crime.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-24 10:41:43 PM


Fact Check,

I agree with you that a Charter-based challenge to the curfew will be weak (how many other restrictions on the liberties of children are there, that either have or would pass constitutional muster in the courts? Lots, I bet.) Section 1 ensures this outcome. In the U.S., I believe courts have upheld similar child-centered restrictions without even needing something like Section 1.

I suppose I blame the parents for electing the buffoons, who can't even handle a few episodes of vandalism without turning into tyrants.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-08-24 10:48:50 PM


You also do not explain how things like public bathrooms and military intelligence reports can gain status as exempt from the no-opt-out-entitles-access "argument".

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-24 10:31:33 PM

I don't think that your examples equate with the idea of a public street and public sidewalk where the public has the expectation of being able to move freely.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-24 10:50:29 PM


Scott,

First, you continue to not even attempt to present an argument for the basic claim you make that ownership with no opt-out entitles you to physical access to every part of the property you co-own.

Second, your reply to the bathroom and military intelligence reports examples is that the "expectation" of access makes the difference. But the mere fact that people expect something does not mean that they are entitled to it. Your claim would only be right if you said "legitimate expectation" instead of just "expectation". But whether the expectation is legitimate or not is the very point in question, so to say that is just to beg the question. As it stands, your argument amounts to saying that believing something will be the case entitles you to demanding that it be the case. But that's crazy. Mere "expectation" is no justification.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-24 11:07:56 PM


Terrence,

"I suppose I blame the parents for electing the buffoons, who can't even handle a few episodes of vandalism without turning into tyrants."

Me too, but don't just blame the parents. Childless voters are responsible too!

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-24 11:09:32 PM


I'm thinking of taking my 3 underage kids to killarny tommorrow night and teaching them how to commit civil disobedience. I would dare the cops to try and charge them with anything for walking down the street at 11:15pm.

Kids should be taught the importance of standing up to tyranny at a young age.

No doubt mathews supports this statist move.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-08-24 11:45:51 PM


Kids should be taught the importance of standing up to tyranny at a young age.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-08-24 11:45:51 PM

I agree.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-25 12:07:02 AM


Because it's a document that the government is supposed to follow and they don't, it's violated again and again.

And yet you defend those who smoke dope even though they're not supposed to. You don't have a problem when the "little guy" breaks the rules. You only care when the "military-industrial statist complex" breaks the rules. Either people are bound by the law or they aren't. There is no grey area.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 12:09:14 AM


Your claim would only be right if you said "legitimate expectation" instead of just "expectation".

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-24 11:07:56 PM

The difference between the two are a matter of opinion, so this goes nowhere. I have a "legitimate expectation" that government wouldn't violate the Charter, since it is their document, but they do it anyways, so in their eyes it's not legitimate.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-25 12:10:09 AM


Sure. Making an 18 year old legally an "adult" is a meaningless, arbitrary number. Of course they have rights, they are people. Legal rights, of course they do, assulting a minor is still a crime.

Yet under the libertarian ideal, liberty brings with it responsibility. You cannot have right without responsibility. For the sake of civility we protect their right to life and security of the person. But they do not enjoy the full Constitutional rights of an adult, as the courts have repeatedly ruled. I can even hit my children to discipline them, provided I stay within certain guidelines.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 12:12:47 AM


I'm thinking of taking my 3 underage kids to killarny tommorrow night and teaching them how to commit civil disobedience. I would dare the cops to try and charge them with anything for walking down the street at 11:15pm.

Sure, Greenthumb. You're going to drive all that way, and contribute to the delinquency of your own kids, just so you can satisfy your pathological lust to take a crap in the Man's coffee. What are you going to say to them when the cops haul them off to jail? Give them a crash course in Resisting Arrest 101?

Come on, lots of laws out there to protest. Be imaginative. By all means, don't let morality or even basic common sense get in the way of politics. Remember, nothing matters but sticking it to the Man.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 12:22:09 AM


I suppose I blame the parents for electing the buffoons, who can't even handle a few episodes of vandalism without turning into tyrants.

Terrence, how would you feel if the authorities instead budgeted for some goons to lay in wait for these vandals and kneecap them in the street? Saves the cost of a trial and jail, targets only the actual offenders, and certainly drives home the message.

Minors do NOT have full legal rights. To argue otherwise is to argue for the abolition of the very concept of minor status—in which case what are you going to do with the five-year-old who steals an apple? Give him 40 hours of community service? Kids that age make good chimney sweeps, don't you know.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 12:25:52 AM


Shane,

I'm not against a crack-down - targeted at the actual offenders - in this situation (maybe not knee-capping, but what about rubber bullets? Rock salt? Wooden paddles?) If the curfew is a temporary measure until some real law and order can be imposed, that's certainly less objectionable, but it shouldn't be treated as a permanent solution.

What is objectionable, at least in my mind, is collective punishment that ensnares the innocent and the guilty alike. We don't even know how many young people are engaging in vandalism. It might only be a few making a major nuisance of themselves.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-08-25 12:44:01 AM


Minors do NOT have full legal rights.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 12:25:52 AM

Arbitrary number Shane. Why 18? Why not 17? 16?

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-25 12:50:16 AM


"It punishes the many for the acts of the few, which is not fair nor just."

Agreed. 100%. At this point, the only real solution is for the citizens of Killarney to stand up for themselves.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-25 6:09:06 AM


A more appropriate question, Terrence, is: What are minors doing out on the street at that hour in the first place? These are pre-adults, not adults with zits and funny clothes. They shouldn't be out there unsupervised.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 6:36:48 AM


Arbitrary number Shane. Why 18? Why not 17? 16?

Or for that matter, 21? Okay, let me ask you this: At what age may a youth consent to sex with an adult? Twelve? Ten? Six? Why not four? Come on, don't be "arbitrary."

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 6:39:24 AM


Scott,

"The difference between the two are a matter of opinion, so this goes nowhere."

Well, since it seems clear you have no intention of presenting an argument for your claim, it does go nowhere. It seems the best you are willing to do is to say that it is just your "opinion" that it is legitimate for a co-owner who cannot give up his co-ownership to expect to magically gain the right to physical access to all parts of the property co-owned, a right that would not exist if he had the option to cease being an owner. If you think it is just an "opinion" that "goes nowhere", then you are really saying you have no argument.

QED. Thanks for coming out.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-25 7:15:15 AM


QED. Thanks for coming out.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-08-25 7:15:15 AM

You don't like what I had to say, fine.

I just don't have in interest in following your line of argument actually, so I'm not putting to much effort into it. It's only one aspect of the problem.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-25 8:33:47 AM


At what age may a youth consent to sex with an adult? Twelve? Ten? Six? Why not four? Come on, don't be "arbitrary."

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 6:39:24 AM

You're changing the subject, stay on topic.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-25 8:35:13 AM


Scott,

Fact Check is right here. About the only thing that can possibly be countered is that it is easier to sell stock than to move (pretty weak in my view).

Recently, my firm sold a stock because the management refused to let us meet the manager (and visit the plant he runs) that is charged with turning a certain division around. It smelled bad so we sold the stock. The same can be said of the people living in Killarney. If it smells bad, then move. This is also why I believe that power should be decentralized as much as possible. It's much easier to move to a different town than a different country.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-25 8:39:29 AM


Curfew issued by government = Martial law for kiddies.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-25 9:14:25 AM


Curfew issued by government = Martial law for kiddies.

But curfew issued by parents = parents' prerogative? It seems to me you object not to the action itself, but to who is doing it. If parents were doing their jobs, there would be no need to discuss a youth curfew in the first place.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 9:34:30 AM


You're changing the subject, stay on topic.

Answer the question: At what age, how young do you have to be, before legal limits on your behaviour based on that age no longer become "arbitrary"?

I just don't have in interest in following your line of argument actually, so I'm not putting to much effort into it.

It seems you don't have much of an interest in putting effort into anything but carping. You don't care if your beef is legitimate; you just like upsetting the cart and watching all the little rolling apples. The Standard must be getting pretty desperate for scribblers.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 9:40:51 AM


"Terrence, how would you feel if the authorities instead budgeted for some goons to lay in wait for these vandals and kneecap them in the street? Saves the cost of a trial and jail, targets only the actual offenders, and certainly drives home the message."

How about the police instead of goons? Isn't that thier job? Less the kneecapping of course. Since we can't expect the kids to pay for the damage, perhaps the parents should. It would make you a bit more aware of what your child is up to if you had to pay for any damages he/she may cause.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-08-25 9:54:46 AM


If parents were doing their jobs, there would be no need to discuss a youth curfew in the first place.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 9:34:30 AM

Correct. However the kids now have been raised to thwart parental authority as they learn in school that the government is the only authority. So we have yet another Kafkaesque contradiction. Great system eh? I'm sure you're all for it too.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-25 10:26:36 AM


Unfortunately, Steve, even if the police do their jobs, there's still the matter of the courts not doing theirs. It's hard to push a law-and-order agenda when our courtrooms are stacked with dreamy ideologues left over from the Quiet Revolution.

Your second assumption is also wrong: Society doesn't raise children, parents do. If any kid of mine brings home a report of a teacher getting political, I'll be down at the school pronto, delivering a stern lecture that they earn their keep as educators, not indoctrinators, and best I not hear of them straying from the curriculum again.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 10:36:37 AM


17 years olds are kids not adults! They don't have the same rights as adults! Obviously, there are some young troublemakers in this town. Some one has to crack down on these juvenile delinquents(future criminals). The problem isn't the curfew. This is just a condition of living in modern Canada. Parents are not allowed to whack kids over 12. Corporal punishment is not allowed in the schools. Leftist judges have allowed birth control, abortions, and other crap to be committed by underage children without parental consent. Parents are undermined at every step in Canadian society. The courts and schools don't even seem to know how to put any teeth in their punishments. We are raising a generation of spoiled brats who have no boundaries set for them!
I think the United States has the right idea. Did you know that there is no age limit on when a parent spanks their kid in the U.S.? Did you know that corporal punishment is allowed in the private schools of 48 states? Here is a shocker for you! 21 American states(also Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Island) allow corporal punishment in their public schools. Most states require parental consent before dispensing abortions or birth controls. Contrary to the media hype, the United States murder rate has now fallen to its lowest rate since 1965(down 2% in 2008) while the country is in a deep recession. The same is true for virtually all other categories of crime which are at their lowest levels since the early 1960's in many cases(so much for the link between poverty and crime). Has Canada's crime rate had so steep a drop? I think not. The United States has both a far higher birth rate and a more slowing aging population. Yet, they are having a drastic reduction in crime. Could it be that when you hold people accountable(both adults and children) for the bad that they do that lessons are learned? Give parents the ability to discipline their kids. Bring back the paddle and lets start holding our kids accountable for their behavior!

Posted by: Theo | 2009-08-25 6:52:47 PM


At what age, how young do you have to be, before legal limits on your behaviour based on that age no longer become "arbitrary"?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-25 9:40:51 AM

They are all arbitrary, because each individual person in the world is different. The government's one-size-fits-all approach is collectivist nonsense.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 8:22:06 AM


"17 years olds are kids not adults!"

So? Does that mean they day they turn 18 they magically are responsible for themselves?


"Could it be that when you hold people accountable(both adults and children) for the bad that they do that lessons are learned? "

Yes, but the methods you are proposing don't do that.

"Bring back the paddle and lets start holding our kids accountable for their behavior!"

Beating kids won't make them respect peoples property.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 8:25:18 AM


They are all arbitrary, because each individual person in the world is different. The government's one-size-fits-all approach is collectivist nonsense.

Unfortunately a standard age has to be set in order to avoid endless squabbling, testing and re-testing, and so on ad infinitum. Even the simplest societies have standard ages for manmaking ceremonies and the like. If you're going to that far, you may as well call society collectivist nonsense, sell all your property, and live in a hollowed-out tree in the forest.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-26 9:59:51 AM


So? Does that mean they day they turn 18 they magically are responsible for themselves?

Yes.

Yes, but the methods you are proposing don't do that.

No, they are preventing the harm from occurring in the first place. Prevention beats cure.

Beating kids won't make them respect peoples property.

No, only owning property of their own will make them do that (and then only maybe). It'll make them think twice about touching other people's property, though, if they have to walk around on a cane for a while.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-26 10:01:48 AM


>>Does that mean they day they turn 18 they >>magically are responsible for themselves?

>Yes.

Interesting. And what magical changes occur in their brain where they are 18 less a day and aren't responsible for themselves, and the next day they are?

"It'll make them think twice about touching other people's property, though, if they have to walk around on a cane for a while."

Yes, crippling people sure is an adequate response to hooligans

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 11:00:46 AM


Theo is spot on. We are reaping what was sown. When parents in Canada impose boundaries including a curfew on problem teenagers, the state steps in granting assistance to the kids. We cannot no longer blame the parents nor hold them responsible, since the state has removed parental authority.

These are signs of a dying civilisation.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-26 11:35:47 AM


We cannot no longer blame the parents nor hold them responsible, since the state has removed parental authority.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-26 11:35:47 AM

Interesting concept, hadn't thought of that before.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 12:19:23 PM


I no longer live in Calgary.
My wife and I were bullied out of the neighbourhood we lived in by neglected children who marauded and vandalized our property all hours of the day and night.

When we called the police, we were the ones the police gave a hard time to, not the children or the parents that were the problem.
The police suggested we should move away.
"Kids will be kids.", the police said.

In the new smaller community where we live children were doing the same thing, except they were vandalizing businesses.

The town council assembled and tried to pass a curfew that would have all children under 18, not accompanied by an adult, arrested and their parents fined.

Parents who cared about their children were all in favour of a curfew.
Their position was that vandalism would go down, their children would be less influenced by the rogue children in their midst, and because they were caring parents, they already accompanied their children after dark and saw that their children were in at a reasonable hour anyway.

The neglectful mothers of the little rogue darlings showed up to protest and see that the curfew wasn't passed.

Troubles continue now, as in the past.
I think these children are going to grow up to be very proficient criminals.
The only thing their parents are teaching them is how to lie well to the police, not that the police seem to mind.

Posted by: Speller | 2009-08-26 5:51:36 PM


Freedom Manitoba, what I am calling for is disciplining our kids! I grew up on a street with some real losers. Heck, one guy was convicted of manslaughter. However, I was fortunate to have two parents who cared. They loved us and cracked down on us when we needed it. My parents spanked me when I deserved it. Heck, my mother used to slap us when we cursed because she felt vulgarity was the act of an uneducated person with a limited vocabulary. My parents strongly emphasized education. We were told to both try our best in school and follow the teacher's instructions. I knew that if I was disruptive in school then I would get it at home. The result is that my parents produced three law abiding adults who all have bachelors degrees or higher(law degree, teaching certificate, masters, etc). We are all employed. No one takes a cent of the public dole. We are all on the right of the political spectrum. I am not the "perfect" libertarian! I believe in the death penalty, oppose abortion, am a devout Catholic, and support full tilt the effort in Afghanistan. However, my childhood proves that discipline plays a role in transforming our children into adults that we can take pride in. It is for this reason that I support a parent's right to spank.
Libertarian or otherwise, we have a major problem to confront. Too many of our kids are out of control! This problem has multiple elements. One, we have too many parents that don't care. Two, we have judges and bureacrats that undermine parents when they try to assert their authority in the household. Three, our schools and local governments have few powers to deal with the troublesome kids that come from the families where either the parents are overwhelmed(often overworked single parent households) or don't care. A kid who does not have boundaries set for them too often becomes a law breaking adult. I support the paddle in schools because there are too many kids in our schools causing mayhem(and too little of their parents bothering to care). At least, the paddle makes them accountable. Remember career criminals normally begin to push the parameters of legality in their youth. This is not a libertarian issue! This is not a conservative or liberal issue! This is an issue that effects all of us! Your kid's disruptions effect everyone else too. If your kid disrupts class, then they are ruining 30 other kids learning time. If your kid commits vandalism, then they are damaging other peoples property. If they join a gang(and expand the range of their illegal activities) then they are damaging property, possibly affecting the insurance rates(insurance rates are generally higher in high crime areas), causing emotional distress to the local population(afraid to walk the streets), and possibly reducing your home resale value(who is going to buy a house in a neighborhood where crime is high).Many libertarians talk in glowing terms about Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier. In Laurier's day(1896-1911), the paddle was legal in schools and parents disciplined their children free of bureaucratic interference. What was the crime rate then compared to now? What was the level of juvenile delinquency compared to today? In his day, Laurier did not try to overturn these practices. Why? Is it because the prime minister that both liberals and libertarians love knew that such measures were for the good of society! Children must be raised with a mix of love, compassion, and discipline. Canadians have enough of the first two. If we really love our kids then we should be willing to use the third also!

Posted by: Theo | 2009-08-26 8:06:35 PM


The only thing their parents are teaching them is how to lie well to the police, not that the police seem to mind.

Posted by: Speller | 2009-08-26 5:51:36 PM

And a curfew wouldn't have changed that.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 9:59:31 PM


"However, my childhood proves that discipline plays a role in transforming our children into adults that we can take pride in. It is for this reason that I support a parent's right to spank. "

I agree with all of this, sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

"If your kid disrupts class, then they are ruining 30 other kids learning time. "

Beating them isn't a good solution for that.

" If your kid commits vandalism, then they are damaging other peoples property."

That's a crime to be dealt with.

"In Laurier's day(1896-1911), the paddle was legal in schools and parents disciplined their children free of bureaucratic interference. What was the crime rate then compared to now?"

I don't know if it's a clear causation. Many people would blame the downfall of schools on prayer being taken out of it.

"Children must be raised with a mix of love, compassion, and discipline. Canadians have enough of the first two. If we really love our kids then we should be willing to use the third also!"

I agree 100%. I do not agree with the government disciplining my kids, that is my job. Now someone will say “what about the bad parents”, you can’t do much about that, the government replacing bad parents with a horrible foster care/child services system is no better.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-26 10:05:31 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.