Wednesday, December 18, 2013

A Mom Is Being Charged After Appearing In Topless Snapchat Photos With Her Daughter

Business Insider reports:
A Missouri mother is finding herself in hot water after a topless photo of her and her daughter circulated through the school district via Snapchat this past weekend, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.
The 50-year-old mother has not been identified in order to protect her daughter, who is a minor.

The photo was shot by the girl's sister, police told the Post-Dispatch.

It was taken Nov. 14 in a hot tub at their Wentzville, Mo., home, and circulated through at least two high schools via Snapchat, the here-and-gone photo-sharing app. Although, if you screenshot the photos when you receive them, they are as permanent as any picture you save to your phone.

St. Charles County Prosecutor Tim Lohmar sent Business Insider the official court document, which stated the woman is being charged with misdemeanor child endangerment.

Oh puhleez. I wonder if Ludwig von Mises would have been arrested in St. Louis for carrying this picture of his wife in his wallet:

If anybody should be arrested for taking criminal pictures, it's this guy.


  1. "misdemeanor child endangerment", because, according to the state - The State - is the true owner, and it alone gets to decide what is, or is not, child endangerment. [Next up: taking a bath while not wearing a foam helmet is child endangerment? After that: riding a motorcycle under age 25 is child endangerment? Where does it stop?]

    Some people say the parents are the owners.

    Other libertarian leaning people think the children own themselves. How can that work in the real world? A baby, as its own defender?

    Someone told me Rothbard said self-ownership takes place in the womb. That seems reasonable,... and yet....

    Is there no libertarian middle ground where a parent owns their child, and the children own themselves, simultaneously, or in slowly changing degrees?

    Perhaps, 'belonging to' is a better phrase than 'owning'?
    'Can 'belonging to' mean, a transitional period where ownership is transferred, along the lines of natural law a.k.a. when a bird gets kicked out of the nest?

    "SB 248 was written under the socialist belief that children belong to the state and not their parents and that only government workers know what is best for them.

    As reported last April by Kurt Nimmo, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry suggested that children don’t belong to their families but are rather owned by the community at large.

    “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities,” she said." ...

    Some libertarian leaning guys I've encountered really hate the idea of a parent owning their children.
    What's the solution when even libertarian leaning people don't think parents can decide for themselves on how best to raise their own children? Because without a claim of ownership, the stewardship and responsibility of a parent can be shifted anywhere, for any reason, by The State.

    Seems to me this is the final peg being kicked out from under the chair the concept of family sits upon.
    "They" are hacking at the root, too.

    - RothbardianamericanHelot

  2. Human beings can't morally be owned. That would be slavery. Parents have a responsibility to nurture and care for their children or not have them in the first place.

    1. "Human beings can't morally be owned." So that means parents do not own their own bodies and that which they produce with them, i.e. their sperm and their eggs and that which results from the combination. How seemingly very anti-libertarian. You can own a building you create, but not a life? Why the inconsistency?
      Why would parents be responsible for nurturing them and caring for them if the parents have no claim of ownership over their own children?
      Why would people have a single care about having children in the first place if the state owns them?

      How is a young child, who is throwing a tantrum saying they are unwillingly living in a home with their parents, considered a slave? Is a curfew from a parent to a child a form of kidnapping?

      - RothbardianamericanHelot

  3. Interesting Debate on this issue of 'child ownership' between Walter Block and Stefan Molyneux:

  4. Libertarians are always trying to institute one-size-fits-all libertarian solutions. Kind of ironic. In a true decentralized, libertarian world, there would be many creative, NAP-abiding solutions to choose from and if you didn't like them you could move to an area whose solutions you more agreed with.

    1. Oh, yes, Alaska3636, I do like the idea of panarchy. Very much.
      I was just trying to understand how certain ideas worked in the world we have now and how to successfully explain to others how it all related to libertarian thought.

      - RothbardianamericanHelot