Do you accept the anarcho-libertarian view that children are the property of their parents or guardians until they either reach the age of majority or unilaterally declare themselves adults (whichever comes first)?
Nicely written article, Jonah/Jeff. Very clear on parameters. What would y'all say about situations where a parent is employed by the Federal Governemnt, military, civilian, whatever, where they get medical coverage, including for the children. If such coverage covers things like braces for kids, or corrective cosmetic surgery, should it also cover gender care?
My view would be that government, in particular, should not provide compensation in the form of health care; instead, either additional salary or at most something like a health insurance voucher. Then each employee decides how to spend that compensation.
You could use the same argument for allowing children under age 18 to use heroin. Indeed, the results of using heroin are typically much more reversible than the results of gender-affirming care. Do you advocate allowing 13-year-olds to use heroin if their parents give them permission?
It's my understanding that we accept parental custody because, humans being the kind of animal that they are, kids require guidance, and parents are most likely to act in their kids' interests. But what if they don't? First, how do we know? Second, what do we do if the 'bad' activity is narrow--like otherwise ideal parents letting their kids use heroin? There are people who would consider teaching some religions child abuse. And heroin causes only minor ill effects (as long as you can get your fix).
I agree that incentives might not always be perfectly aligned on this (although of course that issue arises for tons of other situations). Beyond malpractice, I think the main factors that would push back against doctors recommending too often would be insurance companies limiting reimbursement for such treatments.
Yes. I support full legalization of heroin, and I oppose minimum purchase ages (broadly).
yes
Is this aimed at my comment?
I'll try to write about this in a future post.
Do you accept the anarcho-libertarian view that children are the property of their parents or guardians until they either reach the age of majority or unilaterally declare themselves adults (whichever comes first)?
Nicely written article, Jonah/Jeff. Very clear on parameters. What would y'all say about situations where a parent is employed by the Federal Governemnt, military, civilian, whatever, where they get medical coverage, including for the children. If such coverage covers things like braces for kids, or corrective cosmetic surgery, should it also cover gender care?
My view would be that government, in particular, should not provide compensation in the form of health care; instead, either additional salary or at most something like a health insurance voucher. Then each employee decides how to spend that compensation.
All drugs should be legal. Even the gender affirming drugs.
You could use the same argument for allowing children under age 18 to use heroin. Indeed, the results of using heroin are typically much more reversible than the results of gender-affirming care. Do you advocate allowing 13-year-olds to use heroin if their parents give them permission?
I guess it depends on what mistakes we're willing to accept, and libertarians most fear mistakes of power.
So that's a yes?
It's my understanding that we accept parental custody because, humans being the kind of animal that they are, kids require guidance, and parents are most likely to act in their kids' interests. But what if they don't? First, how do we know? Second, what do we do if the 'bad' activity is narrow--like otherwise ideal parents letting their kids use heroin? There are people who would consider teaching some religions child abuse. And heroin causes only minor ill effects (as long as you can get your fix).
I still haven't watched Captain Fantastic.
I agree that incentives might not always be perfectly aligned on this (although of course that issue arises for tons of other situations). Beyond malpractice, I think the main factors that would push back against doctors recommending too often would be insurance companies limiting reimbursement for such treatments.