Lesbians as Foster Parents?

Missouri has recently faced this issue:

The state plans to drop its legal challenge to a lesbian's efforts to become a foster parent because a new state law makes the appeal impossible, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said.

A spokesman for Gov. Matt Blunt called the decision "outrageous" and said the governor wants the appeal to continue.

Both men are running for governor in 2008, and exchanges between Nixon, a Democrat, and Blunt, a Republican, have become increasingly pointed in recent months.

Nixon said the law, which Blunt signed this week, deletes a long-standing state law that banned same-sex sexual contact and that had been the basis of the state's appeal.

This story thus has two pieces of good news: Missouri repealed a law that had banned homosexuality, and Missouri dropped oppostion to a lesbian couple becoming foster parents.

Private sexual behavior raises no legitimate basis for government intervention; the only argument for such intervention is that homosexuality offends certain religious or moral views.   Those who hold such views are entitled to their opinions, but not to impose them on anyone else.

Opposition to gay couples as foster parents is defensible only if there is evidence that such couples are inadequate parents.   No such evidence exists. Moreover, the state is duty-bound to put the interests of children first.  Since suitable foster parents are in short supply, disqualifying gay couples is a grotesque violation of the state's responsibilities.

Comments

[KRM]

Although I agree that no such evidence exists, if it did exist that still wouldn't be grounds to stop lesbians from being foster parents. If you could use evidence in that fashion, MANY other people could be stopped from parenting as well. Would disabled people be allowed to parent? Slippery slope.

[Mike Huben]

"Private sexual behavior raises no legitimate basis for government intervention": maybe not in this case, but definitely in many other cases.

Private sexual behavior has plenty of unintended consequences, most notably unwanted pregnancy and disease transmission. Both are important reasons for state action, although such action should be as little intrusive as possible.

Thus, for example, we have sexual education requirements in schools. And required VD tests before marriage.

[Eric H]

Mike, I think you're trying too hard to force a disagreement here, and in a way that Foucault would find interesting. Besides widening the argument beyond the original point (hmmm...?), how does it follow that because there are unintended consequences that state action is an appropriate response? Smacking my thumb with a hammer does not mean that there ought to be carpentry licensing requirements for people buying nails. It seems that these are private problems for which there are plenty of private solutions, and the public solutions have little if any effect. Is there any evidence that unwanted pregnancies have declined as a result of sex education in schools, controlling for the availability of birth control (one of several private solutions)?

Further, VD testing before marriage is pretty much like closing the barn door after the horses have left, init?

[Alan Brown]

As a former foster child, I can tell you that I could not care less what the sexual orientation of a parent is.

I'm more concerned whether they put soap in my mouth. Or if they hit my sisters. Or if an adult foster sibling has a relationship with a fourteen year old.

I'm aware of many lousy foster parents. And they were all straight.

[Mike Huben]

Eric, arguments that use false framing are often designed to reinforce the false fram, not just the obvious goal. Libertarians and their ilk have been exploiting this one since before J.S.Mill, with the same poor logic. As framing goes, this example of Miron's is rather blatant.

If you don't know if sex ed helps, look it up.

And while private solutions may exist for problems, that doesn't mean that they are used enough. VD is an information problem where the actors have strategic reasons to conceal knowledge not only from their partners, but sometimes from themselves.

Mike's idiocy has the unintended (maybe not) consequence of making me ill. Therefore, state action should commence and his library card should be revoked. Actually... come to think about it... I think I know Mike's true identity:

http://www.break.com/movies/libraryjerk.html

[Eric H]

So,

(1) widening the argument is okay if you do it because you are defining the proper frame.

(2) Only libertarians and their ilk are guilty of false framing. See #1.

(3) You don't have any evidence for the efficacy of sex ed

(4) Because people *might* conceal something, even from themselves, state action is warranted even if it only uncovers the minutest fraction of 1% of all such problems. Warrantless searches, anyone? After all, you might need to be saved from yourself.

Got it.

[James]

Huben, your response here is telling. When you can't disagree with our host on the actual topic, you throw around accusations about "framing" and alarmism.

Since we've moved to the broader topic of framing, I'd argue that statists are far more guilty than libertarians of this. I normally don't bother to discuss it because I'm more interested in policy than linguistics and psychology, but can you mention a single government program with a name that doesn't presuppose its effectiveness? (e.g. gun control, social security, foreign aid, etc.)

Re: unintended consequences, are unintended consequences alone a sufficient condition to require state action? (I think you are deliberately unclear here for rhetorical purposes, but let's not get caught up in such accuasations.) Last I checked with any of my big government friends, they seemed to think that state action is only warranted when the unintended consequences are worse than whatever negative effects state intervention might bring. Your view is at least original, although I think there is some similarity with an Italian politician of the 1930s. Given that nearly every action has at least some unintended consequences, your position amounts to "regulate by default." No thanks.

[Mike Huben]

James, you cannot escape Godwin's Law's conclusion by comparing me to Mussolini instead of Hitler.

Apparently you can't read carefully enough to notice that my argument is about one of Miron's premises. A premise is part of the topic.

Eric, if you want to put words in people's mouths as a method of argument, perhaps I won't be polite with you any more. If you want people to respect libertarian views, you should be able to support them in a respectable manner.

[Eric H]

I am trying to determine a general rule from your comments. So far, all I have is that actions that have unintended consequences and situations in which people strategically hide private information (of which they may not be aware) justify state action. If that's all, then I'm afraid it opens nearly every action and situation to state control. I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt, but you aren't giving me anything more to work with.

Personally, I would also look at whether there are private responses or strategies that address those actions and situations more effectively. If they do, then better to keep the state out of it since they do tend to abuse their power (especially when the wrong party is in control) and they do have limited resources. Given the vast range of actions available to the average person, I conclude that there are sufficient reasons to keep the state out of the bedroom.

BTW, given the tone, invective, and insinuations of most of your comments here, I don't believe you are in a position to lecture anyone on respect, politeness, or the rules of logic. Look at your very first response to me in this article and tell me it isn't loaded with charged language.

[Mike Huben]

"I am trying to determine a general rule from your comments."

That's exactly your problem, Eric. You presume others need ideological answers, and assume they must follow fixed ideological rules.

Sorry, the real world is too complex for simplistic ideologies. Including your conclusion "that there are sufficient reasons to keep the state out of the bedroom."

Nor did I lecture you: I told you what I'd do if you continued to misrepresent my views. If you don't know the difference between consequentialism and moral lecturing, there doesn't seem to be much hope for you to think or argue clearly. Again, your problem seems to be that you expect other people to think as you do.

[Eric H]

In fact, I'm doing just the opposite of assuming an ideology on your part. What you have given so far is so wide open that it would preclude state action for very few situations or actions and would not consider the consequences of those interventions, so I am asking what else you consider. If I were assuming an ideology for you, I would have simply decided that your rule was to assume intervention, whatever the situation. I haven't done that, and in fact am doggedly trying to get something besides a semantic two-step from you.

If you like, substitute "method" for "rule" - I am trying to determine what your method is for working out these problems. How do you decide how to frame, from what assumptions do you start, do you consider consequences, how do you weigh private vs. public actions, efficacy, etc.

[James]

Huben,

I'm fully aware of the fact that you want to undermine one of Miron's premises. Fine. You attempt to do so by citing unintended consequences as though that is sufficient to justify state action. Is it?

I'm not too keen on Godwin's law, given that it isn't truth preserving in the same way as, say, Demorgan's.

[Mike Huben]

Eric, if you'd like to make a start understanding where I'm coming from, start with my So You Want To Discuss Libertarianism....

If you'd like some more meaty reading, then try: Countering Libertarianism and Neoliberalism.

Don't expect me to encapsulate 30+ years of thinking on the subject into a brief ideology for you. Educate yourself.

James: when market premises are violated, government intervention might give a better second-best result. Economists generally know this. In my example case, the unintended consequences are externalities, and there are information assymetries. That violates market premises for a first-best result. The choice of government or private solution depends on the economics of the situation. Presuming, of course, that we prefer to examine these issues economically, rather than with an eye to justice, morality, fairness, or some other normal human measure.

[James]

Mike,

"The choice of government or private solution depends on the economics of the situation."

What's the sufficient condition?

[Mike Huben]

James: what's the sufficient condition that determines whether one product dominates the market or not? This is a test of your economic reasoning. If you cannot pass it, you likely won't understand my answer.

[Eric H]

Great, thanks for the book recommendations. Best Neoprogressive collection I've seen since Kangas' last.

"James: when market premises are violated, government intervention might give a better second-best result. Economists generally know this. In my example case, the unintended consequences are externalities, and there are information assymetries. That violates market premises for a first-best result. The choice of government or private solution depends on the economics of the situation. Presuming, of course, that we prefer to examine these issues economically, rather than with an eye to justice, morality, fairness, or some other normal human measure."

There may be a number of problems with your reasoning here, but your roundabout approach leaves me unsure about what your particulars are. So, giving you the benefit of doubt, -- first, if the unintended consequence falls on one of the parties to the arrangement, it is not external in the normal sense of the word (but may be in a nonstandard understanding), and second that first order market failure findings (which almost always obtain, as I'm sure you well know) do not imply a second-best result from state intervention any more than existence of state intervention implies it *is* that which gives that second-best result. The actors still have private alternatives that may give second-best (or worse) results, and the chosen state intervention may have unintended consequences of its own, possibly relegating it to third-best or worse. Politicians are subject to similar limitations, after all. Further, both sets of results may change in dynamic analysis. Looking forward to seeing how your response to James incorporates these questions.

[James]

Huben,

I asked you first, but whatever. A will dominate B in the market if the subjective benefit to consumers of product A, less its subjective cost is greater than the subjective benefit to consumers of product B less its subjective cost.

But that's a positive question of economics. I asked you a normative question. What do you believe is a sufficient condition, or set of conditions for justify state action? If your own belief on the subject doesn't come from economics, or if it does, fine. But (seeing as how you're no anarchist) you must have some belief that a sufficient condition exists. What do you believe that it is?

[Mike Huben]

Very nice, James.

In the same terms, a government solution would be chosen when the subjective net benefit is greater. That's a positive description.

The normative question is when you'd want to argue with consumer sovereignty in politics, considering that politics subsumes economics as well. In other words, if voters have the choice of purchase of various market solutions and government solutions, on what basis would you question their choice of government more than their choice of a product in the market?

[James]

Huben, you (still!) haven't told us what you see as the sufficient condition to justify government intervention. Why are you so cagey?

"In other words, if voters have the choice of purchase of various market solutions and government solutions, on what basis would you question their choice of government more than their choice of a product in the market?"

When people choose products in markets, they don't get someone to confiscate and reallocate your belongings in order to fund their spending decisions. When people choose government intervention they do get someone to confiscate and reallocate your belongings in order to fund their spending decisions.

[Eric H]

"if voters have the choice of purchase of various market solutions and government solutions, on what basis would you question their choice of government more than their choice of a product in the market?"

In addition to the fact that it may introduce a new external cost while failing to address the fundamental problem with the original market transaction (e.g., opportunism and externalities still exist), I can think of a few. We know that directed waste exists (call it corporate welfare or pork or whatever), but I don't think you intend to defend that.

[Cara Fletcher]

I am not sure what is right in the case with gay foster parenting.But I also think if the gay couple prooves it may serve very good foster care then it deserves a chance.