A case for self-defense against Child Protective Services
In an ongoing case described in three articles at Reason, Danielle Meitiv, a Maryland mother of two was reported to Child Protective Services for letting her children, ages 10 and 6, play in a park two blocks from their house and walk to and from unsupervised by an adult. Two agents showed up at her house to inform her that this is illegal. (In fact, it is not illegal, let alone immoral.) She then called CPS and was told that “judges have interpreted the law to include parks—in spite of the fact that the language is VERY clear about enclosed spaces—so a cop could charge us $500, or a judge could give us 30 days in jail, if my daughter is without supervision at the park.” We have a mother who wants her children to learn to operate independently and get some exercise. The state, on the other hand, would rather use the fact that she is not with them every step of the way as a pretext for extortion or kidnapping and caging. The reasoning here boggles the mind; “spend time with your kids or we’ll make sure you can’t for a month!,” say the agents of the state.
Higher-level CPS agents realized that the case was foolish and dropped it. The following month, her husband Alexander dropped off the children at a park about a mile from their house. They walked home together and were reported again. Police responded when the children were halfway home and took them the rest of the way home in a police car. The officer asked for the man’s ID, and he refused. She said she would call for back-up, and six police cars arrived. He then agreed to get his ID. She responded, in front of the children, that shots would be fired if he came back with anything else. She then followed him upstairs, despite having no warrant to enter the house. The older child called his mother crying, saying that police were there and his father was going to be arrested. The man stepped outside to try to spare his children more emotional distress. He disagreed with the officer about the danger posed to the children, to which she asked him, “Don’t you watch TV?” He answered that he did not. After taking notes, the police left the scene.
After this, a CPS agent arrived and told the father to sign a temporary plan saying that the children would not be left unsupervised until the following Monday, when further contact with CPS would occur. He refused, after which the agent called the police and said that they would take the children immediately. He gave in to the threat and signed the plan.
Several weeks later, the Meitivs were contacted by a CPS worker named W. Don Thorne. He made an appointment for them to come to his office on Jan. 9. He then called the Meitivs again, saying that he needed to come to their house. They refused, but he showed up unannounced with police escort on Jan. 12. He insisted that he had the right to enter, despite what the Fourth Amendment says. The Meitivs refused to let him enter. Then they noticed a sticker from their children’s elementary school on his jacket, leading the Meitivs to suspect that he had interviewed the children at their school with their parents’ knowledge or consent. He would not confirm or deny this, and left the scene. The children later confirmed it.
This is a clear case of government oppression. The question is how to respond to it. Let us see what is allowed by libertarian philosophy and classical logic. From the act of argumentation, one can show that morality is a valid concept and that there are moral rules which should be considered binding upon all people at all times. Neither costumes nor badges contain moral magic which excuse their wearers from moral rules which are binding upon everyone else. Agents of the state derive their authority solely from force of arms, as any other standard either disallows the establishment of such authority or makes its continuation impossible. Such authority is therefore anti-rational, as the universal preferability of reason over initiatory force is a precondition of rational argumentation. Thus, we should hold any agent of the state to the same moral standards as a private individual. The essence of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which says that it is never morally acceptable to initiate the use of force, and that the use of force to defend against a force initiator (a.k.a. aggressor) is always morally acceptable.
Now, let us examine the particulars of the above case. In the above case, the police who transported the children would be guilty of kidnapping if they were not state agents, although the charge might be mitigated by the fact that they took the children to their home. After this, the police officer entered the Meitiv’s land and house against their will, which would be wanton trespass on private property if the officer were not a state agent. This is cause for the use of as much defensive violence as necessary to remove the trespasser. The officer then made a murder threat against Alexander Meitiv, which is also cause for the use of as much defensive violence as necessary to end the threat. When the CPS agent gave the parents an ultimatum, this was a threat to kidnap the children, which may be prevented by as much defensive violence as necessary. The later incident with the CPS agent visiting the children at school is creepy, but not actionable. However, the fact that the children are forced to be in government schools by murder threats (laws) made by violent sociopaths (politicians) who win popularity contests (elections) and enforced by thugs in costumes (police) is cause for the use of force.
None of this is to say that the Meitivs should have taken up arms and used force to repel CPS agents and government police officers. That is a value judgment that they alone must make. After all, the likely outcome of this would have been yet another innocent family murdered by agents of the state. The number of people willing to defend themselves from such aggression is not yet large enough to mount an effective resistance. But the moral case is clear; the Meitivs have the right to defend themselves, regardless of the costumes and badges worn by the aggressors and the organization the aggressors claim to represent.
<<The Dark Side Of Decentralization++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++How The USDA Ruined Burns Supper>>