An overview of the Montessori method

This will be the first in a series of posts going over different homeschooling philosophies. We will be going over Waldorf, Charlotte Mason, Classical, Unschooling, and more. Stay Tuned!
Maria Montessori, the founder of the Montessori method, was a Physician who lived from the late 19th through mid 20th century (1870-1952). Marie Montessori began developing her principles and methods while working with special needs kids. She later took these methods and principles and applied it to other children and found she had good results. This was the birth of the Montessori method.

Montessori believed that children learn better by adults improving their environment as well as modeling right behavior more so than being taught directly. Children learn naturally, with this she believed that children’s interest should drive the learning rather being teacher directed. Letting the child lead in their learning allows the child to have an interest in learning itself rather than being forced to do something they have no interest in. Working with the children this way allows for the natural love of learning flow and allows the child be a happy willing and active participant in their education.

An important feature of the Montessori method is that the environment fits the child and not the adult. Children’s activities and skills should be discovered at their level. Furniture should be their size as well as anything that they are to use to learn such as brooms, kitchen sets, paint brushes, blocks and more. Pictures should be set at their eye level rather than the adults. The room should be decluttered and noise reduced so the child is not distracted.

It is important, in the Montessori method, that the learning is child lead. This does not mean it is not structured but it is structured in a way that the child themselves can find opportunities to learn. This method, while being child led, also allows the child to do specific tasks and skills themselves with child-sized tools and equipment. The skill or task is learned by demonstration rather than instruction. This allows the child the opportunity to master skills themselves.

Montessori classrooms, and a lot of parents who homeschool exclusively as Montessori parents will insist on specific materials and learning aids. This includes sandpaper letters, the pink stacking block, cinder blocks, brown stairs and more. They can be quite expensive if you go the authentic Montessori route. These are great materials to have but they can certainly be a drain on the pocketbook. These items are supposed to be used during specific developmental stages, demonstrated and the child should do them under supervision to make sure they are being done right. Many of the more pure Montessori parents are not happy with those of us who take what works for our children and leave the rest.

Another huge principle is collaborative learning. This can be difficult if there are no other kids or families that practice as a homeschool method or if you have one child. The principle is that kids learn best in a multiage environment learning from each other and teach one another. This principle is sound but is hard to come by on a daily basis if you only have one child and are homeschooling. One way to foster this while homeschooling, and it isn’t necessarily Montessori, is to create play groups and let the children of various age groups play together. You will find that they tend to spontaneously play and teach without instruction or direction from adults. I notice this every day as Isaiah plays outside with children ranging from 3 to 12 years of age.

What is good about Montessori?

The self-directed or passion-driven learning is good.

  • Collaborative play is great.
  • The principles are sound and should be adaptable.
  • It encourages independence and growth of skill sets. It is a very hands-on way of learning.
  • If you follow it, even partially, it presents the child with information in different formats. As an example, the sandpaper letters let the child see the shape, a color, and feel the texture while they trace it with their finger.

What isn’t so good?

  • It can be expensive
  • It can be rigid, especially from the purist and those who swear by Montessori.
  • The materials are to be used in a particular manner. You may not get the full benefit if you don’t follow the way it should be used.
  • It is hard to implement a true Montessori classroom in your home.

What do I think about it?

Well, I like the general principles of Montessori. I think child-led learning is best and should be followed as much as possible. There does, I believe, need to be structure and this provides too much. I can’t afford to implement a true Montessori classroom so my wife and I pick and choose what to implement and how to use it. We have had success with Isaiah and are working with our daughter on learning letters and numbers. You can find what we do here. I am not a proponent of following just one philosophy of homeschooling but to take what works and fits and using it. I find this approach works well with curriculums and just about everything with homeschooling.

A few resources for those looking to try the Montessori method while homeschooling

You can also check out our cheap homeschooling guide here and how to homeschool when you have no time here!

How about you? Do you use the Montessori method? What was your experience? Remember you can subscribe and leave a comment below. You can join our Liberty Parents Facebook group here as well.

Lems Primal 2 Shoe Review: First Impression

The Lems Primal 2

The Primal 2’s are a minimalist/barefoot shoes or minimalist sneakers created by Lems. It is their second iteration of the shoe, the first being Lems Primal Origins, which they do not sell anymore. First, a little about the company.


Lems Shoes, Which stands for Live Easy & Minimal, was started by Andrew Rademacher. He started looking into shoes in 2008 while working as a shoe’s salesman. After researching and studying shoe designs, and even tearing apart shoe’s, he decided to build on from the ground up. Andrew wanted a shoe that fit the form of the human foot rather than having the foot conform to the shoe. He also wanted the shoes to have a flexible sole, great ground feel and allow for the natural movement of the foot. In 2011 he released his first shoe, the Primal Origin.

His company, Lems, Is based out of Boulder Colorado and is an American-run and family owned operation with a grand total of 5 employee’s. The goal of the company is to make great shoes with 3 main features.

  • The shoes must have a natural foot shape
  • They must be extremely flexible
  • They must be zer0-drop from heel to toe

Lems Primal 2 Shoe

The Primal 2 shoe shipped fairly quickly. I received it in 3 days from Colorado to North Carolina. After unboxing the shoes, which I forgot to take pictures of, I took some time to look them over. Here is a quick rundown of the specs:

  • LAST  Lems Natural-Shape Last
  • UPPER  Super-soft microfiber + open-weave mesh (100% vegan)
  • LINING 100% moisture-wicking polyester
  • OUTSOLE  8.0mm LemsRubber (air-injection rubber)
  • FOOTBED  3.0mm removable PU insole
  • INSOLE BOARD  1.0mm PU strobel (lined with fabric on top)
  • STACK HEIGHT  9.0mm (not including 3.0mm footbed)
  • DROP 0.0mm (Zero-Drop)
  • WEIGHT  6.9oz/195g (size 43)

The shoes look great. The black mesh with the microfiber makes a great looking combination. They’re great as a casual shoe and are my go-to shoes when I need something that blends in with my outfit.

The Lems Primal 2’s are wide toe box shoes. This allows for your toes to spread or splay naturally. With the wide toe box, you can even pair these with Correct Toes, that is how much space you have.

What I Like

There is no getting around it, the shoes are just plain comfortable. I will admit that the first time wearing these shoes, they hurt my feet. I wore them on a 14-hour shift at my nursing job. That is more about the job than the shoe though. After the first night, which I did not wear the 3mm insole, I put the insole back in and I was good. I transitioned slower from having the insole to without it. Now I wear the shoes without the insole in, even at work, and my feet are fine. I wear these shoes around town, my wife and I walk all over town, and these shoes keep me comfortable and allow my toes to spread.

I have taken these shoes on trails as well and they have held up great. I tend to barefoot hike on trails but when the trails turn to more gravel, I slap these on and I am able to keep going. It allows me to have that ground feel that we look for but it keeps my feet pain free. While on the trails in North Carolina I have hiked off trail and used the Primal 2’s to scale tree’s, walk across fallen logs, jump from rock to rock crossing a river and the shoes have performed phenomenally.

What I don’t  like

While these shoes are great, they are not perfect. Let’s be honest, no shoe is perfect for anybody. My biggest complaint of the Primal 2’s is that they do not have good traction on wet rock. I found this out the hard way while navigating across Eno River. This isn’t a deal breaker, these shoes perform well outside of this arena but this is something to keep in mind.

My second complaint is not being able to talk to a customer service representative when I called. I wanted to know how to wash the Primal 2’s so I did not ruin them, this stems from when I slipped and fell in the river. I got an answering machine, left my message, and I did not receive a callback. I only called once and they are a smaller company so this isn’t a huge negative but talking to a live person would be much better.

Would I recommend these shoes?

All in all, I would recommend these shoes for those looking for a versatile shoe that can be worn on easy to moderate trails but look good enough to wear out on a casual day. They come in a variety of colors from Black, Red, Gray, Dark Blue, and Teal. If you want to go with a casual barefoot shoe or if you want something that stands out, they will have what you want.

Whats Next

This was just my initial first impression. I will be adding another review in a few months once I have put some more miles on the Primal 2’s.

Next, I will be reviewing Lems Bouler Boot. Stay tuned for that.


If You Want To Teach Independence, You Have To Model It

When I work with parents and grandparents in my coaching practice, the overwhelming motivation for their movement is the desire to play with their children while they’re young and keep up with them as they get older.

Every parent wants to be able to squat down to solve a puzzle with a child, chase them down in a game of tag, and hoist them up in a tree to show them what they’re capable of. If you can’t move well, you’re missing out on a huge array of experiences. See, movement is how we interact with the world around us.  It’s how we engage with life and connect to the people and places who matter most.

If that weren’t reason enough to move, your children are learning from you, unconsciously mirroring your actions (and inactions). We’re social creatures after all.  We inherit behavior, beliefs, and attitudes from our parents and closest tribe. We learn to identify those patterns as normal. A child raised in a sedentary household is likely going to grow up into sedentary adulthood. They simply don’t connect with any other way. On the other hand, a child raised in a dynamic, movement-oriented household will be far more likely to maintain those behaviors for the long haul.

One of the greatest gifts you can give your child is a model of physical literacy. Numerous reports theorize that life expectancy is going to begin dwindling in subsequent generations, beginning with this one. Kids are growing up in a wholly dis-embodied culture, and the sad truth is that it’s entirely preventable. It starts with a choice from parents.

If you’re ready to make a choice to better your kids’ futures (as well as your own), I want to introduce a simple framework that cuts through some of the confusion. We can use an evolutionary model health to highlight simple areas of improvement. There are three questions that guide the way:



While we don’t know the specifics what the human animal evolved to do, we can generalize a few trends based solely on context:


  • Food didn’t exist; plants and animals did. There was likely quite a bit of moving through natural environments to acquire plants and animals. And of course, the decidedly unsexy acts of processing said plants and animals into something we might call food.


  • There was no work, no Netflix, no video games. We likely spent a lot of time sitting around in leisure.


  • We weren’t always undisputed food chain champs. As with most other animal species, we’d have to play defense now and then, moving quickly, outmaneuvering or outsmarting the predators.


  • We didn’t spend much time alone. When survival is at stake, you tribe up real quick. And modern neuroscience has shown us that our brains are geared for social interactions.


If we put this into a rough sketch, humans as we know them came into being frequently moving together in diverse ways through complex environments.



By and large, we do large bouts of nothing, with the occasional burst of something called fitness. And we do it alone in stale, boxy environments called “gyms”.



Here’s where that uncomfortable issue of choice comes into play. What will you choose to do every single day to make up for such a broad gap? Even the most active of us only move about 4% of the day. What are we doing the rest of the time?


As a parent, you have a lot of options here. You can spend more time with your children outside, hiking in the woods or simply walking to the store for errands. You can learn foraging skills and teach your kids about ecology through hands-on experiences. You can set up meals and TV time on the floor instead of the couch. You can play movement games with children: catch, tag, roughhousing.

This doesn’t require a massive overhaul of your life or family structure. It simply takes a bit of mindfulness about how your actions will ripple out both to your health and your children’s.



I’m Chandler Stevens, and I work with people who are passionate about the body through creative coaching in mobility and mindset. We make magic at the intersection of movement, conversation, and awareness.

Connect with me on Facebook or my website. I look forward to hearing from you!


Tuttle Twins

Tuttle Twins Creature from Jekyll Island Review.

The Tuttle Twins and the Creature from Jekyll Island

Tuttle Twins

Creature From Jekyll Island Cover

The Creature from Jekyll Island is the third installment of the Tuttle Twins children’s book series. This book is, again, written by Connor Boyack who is becoming quite good at writing books on liberty for children. Elijah Stanfield joined Connor again to illustrate this installment as well. The illustrations turned out wonderful and kept my sons attention through the entirety of the book.

First Some Background

Connor took a complex topic, the ideas found in The original book from G. Edward Griffin, and distils it into a children’s book that is readable and fun. The Creature from Jekyll Island, the book that this is based on, details the ideas and formation of the Federal Reserve Bank. Here is a quick quote:

“The year was 1910. A small group of the wealthiest and most powerful bankers in the world, along with a couple of people in the government, held a secret meeting on Jekyll Island, in Georgia, to plan the ultimate bank called the Federal Reserve. This bank – this creature – has one main power, and a very sinister one: The power to actually make unlimited amounts of new money.”

The Tuttle Twins book takes these ideas as well as the repercussions of having a central bank and lays it bare so even children see its sinister nature.

What About the Story

The story The Creature from Jekyll Island starts off with the Tuttle Twins bringing their honey to market. During this trip their Grandparents join their family for a few days to help out and visit. That night Ethan over heard his Grandfather talk about a creature stealing his savings and his money is not worth as much as it used to be. This gets Ethans imagination running and he begins to imagine what this creature looks like.

Later on when the twins and their family go to the fair to sell their honey, Their father and grandfather, with imputs from mom and Grandma, tell the children what the Creature from Jekyll Island really is, The federal reserve bank. The children are a bit surprised but the parents tell them why it is so sinister and how it is stealing their Grandparents wealth.

The story, while it has complex topics and ideas, breaks it down so both children and parents can both understand how something like a central bank can be a threat to liberty. This happens to be Isaiah’s favorite book of the Tuttle Twins childrens book series.

What Did Isaiah Think?

Isaiah loves this book. It has become his favorite one of the Tuttle Twins series. Isaiah loves the illustration of the creature especially. He loves the idea of selling honey and earning money. ( he has jobs around the house aside from his chores that he can earn money for ) The fact that this takes place in a County Fair setting, with rides, popcorn, and candy keeps Isaiah interested the whole time.

He can’t read the whole book himself yet but he can read parts of it. However, he prefers me to read it to him, I get animated and use different voices for different characters. As far as the topics and ideas of this book, I am able to use the book as well as hard examples like silver coins and dollar bills to help make the point and make it a bit more concrete for  him. He has now started to ask me to buy silver pieces for his savings rather than just tucking away his change. In the last year he has saved enough of his money to have 3 silver coins, not bad for a 4 year old!

What Did I think?

As for me, I am happy somebody has written libertarian books for children. This is something that I think is hugely important because I wouldn’t have really approached the subject of the federal reserve with Isaiah till he was much older. This has allowed me to get through to him in regards to sound money. Having a kids book set on liberty or libertarian topics is great and the Creature from Jekyll Island is instrumental in allowing parents to put forth the ideas of sound money as well as entrepeurship to kids.

This book has gotten Isaiah to ask all sorts of questions regarding money which is great. This along with the other books in the series, especially the Tuttle Twins learn about The Law book ( review can be found here) allows parents to approach these subjects with their children and at least get the conversation started.

Critical Thoughts

The only real negative for me with this book is how long it is. This book is made for older children but it reads well. Isaiah likes it so it takes a few nights to read it. This book would be great for 9 or 10 year olds to read on their own. It is a great book, however, to read to your children that are younger than that. This, of course, is up to you.

Would I Recommend This Book?

I would Recommend this book even for parents with younger children. You may be surprised by what your children will learn from it. Kids can understand remarkable concepts before we realize it. If you are looking for a book that teaches the principles of sound money, this is it. If you are looking for a series that teaches children about liberty, this series is for you as well!

Lets not forget that if you do decide to purchase the Combo Pack, you will get activity workbooks for children with it as well.

If you would like to purchase any of the Tuttle Twins books click Here. You can also purchase a combo pack with several free bonuses Here, it is a great deal plus You can get 25% off of your purchase by using coupon code PARENT

Our Review of the First Tuttle Twins Book can be found here!

Connor Boyack talking about the Tuttle Twins on the Tom Woods Show.

Check out our awesome Homeschooling guides. One to homeschool on a budget and one to homeschool when you’re busy!

Our New Mexico Adventure

In August 2016 my family and I decided to go on vacation. Years prior, we had gone to North Carolina. To the beaches, to the mountains, it was a great time however, we could not afford to go this time. After thinking about where to go, we settled on the Mountains of New Mexico. It was close and we could only afford to go for a week instead of two.

The drive out was uneventful, although I slept the majority of it since I had worked 12 hours at the hospital, came home, packed the suburban and then we headed out.

After spending a few interesting days in Red River and Taos we headed down to the Sante Fe National Forrest where we stayed close to Jemez Falls. The drive up to the camping spot was interesting. As we drove up the mountain shortly before dusk it started to rain. The were hardly any clouds above yet it was raining fairly hard. The way the sunlight shined against the rain, it was as if you could see each individual rain drop. It was stunningly majestic. It had been hot that day and as the rain hit the rocks and the pavement, they began to cool, and as the rain let up steam began to rise off of the surface of both. This made for a beautiful drive.

Atop the Mountain, we found a place in the trees to camp. We set up camp and built a fire to make dinner. This first night was rather uneventful…..except for Daniel getting into his camping hammock and it falling to the ground. As the thud of Daniel hitting the ground reverberated through the forest, laughter from my wife and I as well as Cornelius echoed in the trees. We all knew what happened and delighted in Daniels slight misfortune.

The next day we hiked the forested mountain and found several rocky outcroppings that offered gorgeous views of the valleys below. As we continued hiking we came upon a stream with a swimming hole that led to a waterfall. It was a wonderful place to stop and enjoy.

We climbed the rocks, stood upon the top of the waterfall and enjoyed the cool refreshing water! The temperature of the water took a little getting used to, but eventually, it felt great. We slowly made our way back, stopping to run across fallen trees, climb rock gardens and generally explore the forest off the well-worn hiking paths. This offered views of interesting rock formations, lessons on climbing trees, more views of the valley, and some of the biggest trees we had ever seen.

That night after cooking dinner over the fire and talking well into the night, we could see some thunderheads and lightning in the distance. The thunder, which we heard well after the flashes of lighting was great music to fall asleep to. The rumbles soothed the soul, while the cool air soothed sore muscles.

The next day we decided to leave the forest and explore farther south. We headed out towards Jemez Springs, stopping in a little town Cafe. We heard some locals talking about natural hot springs and we decided to we wanted to go. We asked directions from the waiter at the cafe, he gave us a map and a direction and we headed off. Reaching the parking area to hike to the hot springs, we changed into our swimsuits grabbed our bag and began the trek up the side of the mountain to the springs.

After 20 minutes of hiking and crossing a bridge with a small stream across it, we made it to our destination. Daniel and Cornelius beat us there and were in the lower hot springs while a larger group had taken the upper hot spring. Isaiah eagerly hopped in and Susie handed me Illiana. Susie had just stepped foot into the spring when the clouds let loose with rain.

This was nothing new as it had rained around this time every day we had been in New Mexico. I had Susie and the kids get under a rocky outcropping to wait out the rain, There wasn’t enough room for Cornelius, Daniel, or I so I stood beside it and Daniel and Cornelius went to take shelter under a fallen tree. This turned out to be different than the other rain showers we had been in. It began to hail. I tried to keep Susie and the kids sheltered, I stood over them and held my shirt over them to keep them out of the hail. A man with a beer came down from the upper hot spring with a towel to help protect Susie and the kids.

We had thought the rain would end like it had days previous but we were wrong. We realized we had to get out of there when a deluge of water came down from higher on the mountain. We wrapped Illiana in a jacket from my bag, Daniel grabbed Isaiah, and Cornelius helped guide Susie, and I grabbed our stuff and we took off down the mountain. The water was cold and up to mid shin as we ran down the mountain barefoot. The rain intensity picked up as did the hail as we went. We came across the bridge from earlier and that small stream was now a rushing red river that had reached the bottom of the bridge and threatened to overtake it. We ran across and continued our barefoot hike, each step more painful than the last from the cold flood water and rocks. We slipped, we fell, we yelled in pain from the hail and the rocks but we had made it to our suburban.

We wrapped Illiana in a jacket from my bag, Daniel grabbed Isaiah, and Cornelius helped guide Susie, and I grabbed our stuff and we took off down the mountain. The water was cold and up to mid shin as we ran down the mountain barefoot. The rain intensity picked up as did the hail as we went. We came across the bridge from earlier and that small stream was now a rushing red river that had reached the bottom of the bridge and threatened to overtake it. We ran across and continued our barefoot hike, each step more painful than the last from the cold flood water and rocks. We slipped, we fell, we yelled in pain from the hail and the rocks but we had made it to our suburban 40 or so minutes after starting our trek back in the storm.

After making it to the Suburban, we realized how lucky we were. The precarious situation we were in and the understanding that not just our children but we all were in danger hit us and after a few tense moments, I started the Suburban. We decided to leave the area while it was still raining. After driving, Cornelius spoke up and we realized an older woman in the upper hot springs might not have made it down. We turned around and headed back. A mile or so away from the parking area, the road had washed out and we were unable to make it back. We do not know if she made it down or not, but there was nothing on the news about it.

After driving farther south, it was as if nothing happened. No rain, no thunder, beautiful views just 5 miles south of the storm. It was one heck of an experience.

After this we continued down to Santa Fe and Sandia Peak, Santa Rosa to visit the Blue hole. Those will come in a later post though.

Looking back now Susie and I were terrified. Not of what could have happened to us but to our children. With this hindsight comes laughter and a realization that even though there was danger, it is one heck of a memory to share not only with our children but with others. Our vacation to New Mexico was by far one of our best and we look forward to making our return.

Homeschooling when you have no time

I have been in several discussions lately regarding homeschooling and the inability of some parents to do it. In these discussions, I found two main objections to why parents cannot homeschool their children. The two reasons were that it was too expensive, I tackled that objection in a previous article on how you can homeschool on the cheap. The second main objection is that it isn’t feasible since the parents either have to work or do not have the time. Let’s try and tackle the second reason today. I will be up front right now, not everyone will be able to apply these and there is no way I can say that everyone can homeschool, but there are ways to make it work most of the time.
It seems that one of the biggest issues is that new homeschooling parents think their kids need to be homeschooled 8 hours a day 5 days a week like the kids in public schools. This isn’t true, structured homeschooling can take place in at least half of that time if not less. It doesn’t have to be during “regular” school hours at all. I knew several families in Kansas that homeschooled their children at nights and on the weekends. This worked for their schedule best and the kids enjoyed it. They had an advantage of having a grandmother that stayed with them to watch the children during the day.

I hear the objections already and I know not everybody has this option, however, if you do have friends or family that live nearby ask them if they can watch your children during the day. Other types of child care are available as well but I find that when someone is in this situation, wanting to homeschool but yet has to work full time, not a lot of money can be spent on child care.I have found that some churches offer decreased rates for child care or maybe a church member would watch your child for you during the day. I have a friend in Alabama who didn’t want her child in public schools so she

I have a friend in Alabama who didn’t want her child in public schools so she has a friend of her’s watch and actually homeschool her child during the day. This works well for her, she works 6 days a week and while her friend schools her child during the week, she does it on the nights and Sunday.

Another option for some is having alternating shifts with their spouse. This allows one parent to be home all the time to school the child. Now a word of warning, this can be tough on a marriage but if you think you can make it work, it is an option albeit not an ideal one.

Another idea is to do a homeschooling co-op and have alternating days on who teaches the little monsters on what day. This isn’t ideal because you won’t have 100% control of what your child learns but it gives you much greater control than public schools ever could.

If you have the option and flexibility, you could bring your child to work with you. While this isn’t ideal, admittedly none of these are, it would be a good way to stay on top of what your child is working on and still be able to give feedback and help if needed. The child wouldn’t be home alone all day and you can still work. On a similar note, some workplaces offer discounts on child care or even a striped. You could take advantage of that and homeschool on nights and weekends if possible.

Talk to your manager or boss and see if you can telecommute all or some of your days. Many companies are now offering these options and even if some don’t, it never hurts to ask if you can. This would allow you to be home to help the child with homeschooling and still work. It gives you flexibility as long as you get your work done.

What about after schooling? Your child can go to school and when they get home you can homeschool them. It is a unique offshoot of the homeschooling community. This is probably one of my least favorite options but to be thorough I need to add it.

Make cuts in your bills so you can work less or you or your spouse can quite one job. This will free up a parent and allow them to stay home and school the children. I know it is scary, nobody likes the unknown but if you are dedicated to homeschooling you need to look at all options and lowering the amount of your bills lowers the amount of income you need. Couple that with my guide on how to homeschool on the cheap. Couple that with my free courses page and economics page and you are good to go on the homeschooling front.

This one is drastic. Find a better paying job or better yet, start a work from home business. These two options give you great flexibility in homeschooling and will get you where you want. Once again they are not easy since there is that fear of the unknown but if you’re willing to put everything towards homeschooling your children then this is one of the best options.

The ideas and links in this post are the tools to get you from not knowing if you can homeschool to knocking down the objections and homeschooling your children. Don’t let the idea of you can’t or you don’t have the time or the money for homeschooling stop you. You can, you just have to find the right mix of time, money managment, and support that will allow you to do so. These tools and ideas can only help you find a way, you have to go and do it.

If you just generally need help organizing so you can homeschool, try using homeschool tracker to keep track of all your homeschooling needs

If you have enjoyed these tips and this article, consider subscribing to our mailing list. We will be sending out newletters of our content, tips, tricks, and relevant information that you can use in raising your child! Don’t forget to share on pintrerest and facebook!


Midwest Juicery Pt. 1

Today I am starting a series of reviews on Midwest Juicery and the juices they offer. Let’s start with an overview of the company and a review of the first juice “Apple of my Eye”.

Midwest Juicery started in May of 2016 and has been rocking the juice world since. It was Co-founded by a man named Ziad Burkett who had a vision of people having great tasting and healthy fruit and vegetable juice with no added sugar. He went out and created his vision and it became Midwest Juicery. Here is a quick word from him!

We absolutely love and are amazed by the human body. It is one of, if not the most, complicated and magnificent things on earth. To ensure the human body reaches its full potential, it has to be fueled properly. Fruits and vegetables are essential. Unfortunately, it may be difficult to consume your daily fruit and vegetable requirements (here’s a secret: we recommend WAY more than the standard daily requirement. Fruits and vegetables are some of the most nutritious and easily digestible foods). As a result, a lot of people tend to eat foods that are convenient, but not as nutritious: processed and genetically modified foods.

Wouldn’t it be great if there were an easy way to consume more fruits and vegetables? That’s why we got started. Our mission is to provide you with a delicious, 100% organic, cold-pressed juice to make your life a little more tasty and a lot more healthy.

Midwest Juicery currently sells 5 different types of juices. Each with a unique name to go with its unique flavor. The flavors are Apple of my eye, 16 carrot gold, Beets by Midwest, Green with Envy, and Lava Lemonade. They sell them in stores in the midwest, the link to find them is here. They will also ship them to you complete with ice packs to keep your juice nice and fresh. This was great for me since I forgot my order was coming and my wife and I went hiking that day and the package sat out in the hot North Carolina sun till 4 in the afternoon. It was a blessing though, after that strenuous hike, I was glad to down the Apple of my Eye juice. It was cold, refreshing and energizing. I felt like I could go for another hike after that.

The Apple of my Eye juice boasts 2 apples, 3 heads of lettuce, 1/4 cucumber, 1/4 of a lemon and 100% deliciousness. Aside from the great taste that it offered, my favorite part is that there is no added sugar to the juice. This is important to me, as a nurse, I know what refined added sugar can do to the body and there is plenty of science to back it up It is 100% clean, organic, cold pressed, not from concentrate juice. This is the beauty of the juice. It is simple, it is clean, and it is a delicious healthy treat. The Apple of My Eye juice is a great pick me up after a arduos hike with the family up to hanging rock. My wife loved it and my children could not get enough. I should have had more because everybody wanted it. My only real complaint about the juice is that there wasn’t more!

Price wise, it runs 7.99 a bottle, however you can get them in bulk and use the discount code below to get 20%

I would recommend this juices to anybody who doesn’t have the time to juice on their own, parents who can’t get kids to eat their fruits and veggies, and anybody who needs a quick pick me up in the middle of the day. It tastes great, and they are healthy. That is a rare combination to have these days.

I talked to the owner of the company and he wanted to offer the readers a 20% discount. All you need to do is use discount code: LIBERTARIAN at checkout.

Stay tuned for the next installment and don’t forget to checkout Midwest Juicery for the Apple of My Eye juice. Don’t forget to like their facebook page as well!

Children and Rights

[This article is excerpted from chapter 14 of The Ethics of Liberty. Listen to this article in MP3, read by Jeff Riggenbach. The entire book is being prepared for podcast and download.] Can be found on

We have now established each man’s property right in his own person and in the virgin land that he finds and transforms by his labor, and we have shown that from these two principles we can deduce the entire structure of property rights in all types of goods. These include the goods which he acquires in exchange or as a result of a voluntary gift or bequest.

There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potentialself-owner.1  But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?…

Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child’s rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of “rights” is a “negative” one, demarcating the areas of a person’s action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a “right” to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a “right” to a “living wage,” for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)

Our theory also enables us to examine the question of Dr. Kenneth Edelin, of Boston City Hospital, who was convicted in 1975 of manslaughter for allowing a fetus to die (at the wish, of course, of the mother) after performing an abortion. If parents have the legal right to allow a baby to die, then a fortiori they have the same right for extra-uterine fetuses. Similarly, in a future world where babies may be born in extra-uterine devices (“test tubes”), again the parents would have the legal right to “pull the plug” on the fetuses or, rather, to refuse to pay to continue the plug in place.

Let us examine the implications of the doctrine that parents should have a legally enforceable obligation to keep their children alive. The argument for this obligation contains two components: that the parents created the child by a freely chosen, purposive act; and that the child is temporarily helpless and not a self-owner.5 If we consider first the argument from helplessness, then first, we may make the general point that it is a philosophical fallacy to maintain that A’s needs properly impose coercive obligations on B to satisfy these needs. For one thing, B’s rights are then violated. Secondly, if a helpless child may be said to impose legal obligations on someone else, why specifically on its parents, and not on other people? What do the parents have to do with it? The answer, of course, is that they are the creators of the child, but this brings us to the second argument, the argument from creation.

Considering, then, the creation argument, this immediately rules out any obligation of a mother to keep a child alive who was the result of an act of rape, since this was not a freely undertaken act. It also rules out any such obligation by a stepparent, foster parent, or guardian, who didn’t participate at all in creating the child.

Furthermore, if creation engenders an obligation to maintain the child, why should it stop when the child becomes an adult? As Evers states:

The parents are still the creators of the child, why aren’t they obliged to support the child forever? It is true that the child is no longer helpless; but helplessness (as pointed out above) is not in and of itself a cause of binding obligation. If the condition of being the creator of another is the source of the obligation, and this condition persists, why doesn’t the obligation?6

And what of the case, in some future decade, when a scientist becomes able to create human life in the laboratory? The scientist is then the “creator.” Must he also have a legal obligation to keep the child alive? And suppose the child is deformed and ill, scarcely human; does he still have a binding legal obligation to maintain the child? And if so, how much of his resources — his time, energy, money, capital equipment — should he be legally required to invest to keep the child alive? Where does his obligation stop, and by what criterion?

This question of resources is also directly relevant to the case of natural parents. As Evers points out:

[L]et us consider the case of poor parents who have a child who gets sick. The sickness is grave enough that the parents in order to obtain the medical care to keep the baby alive, would have to starve themselves. Do the parents have an …obligation to lessen the quality of their own lives even to the point of self-extinction to aid the child?7

And if not, we might add, at what point does the parents’ legal obligation properly cease? And by what criterion? Evers goes on:

One might want to argue that parents owe only the average minimal care (heat, shelter, nutrition) necessary to keep a child alive. But, if one is going to take the obligation position, it seems illogical — in view of the wide variety of human qualities and characteristics — to tie obligation to the Procrustean bed of the human average.8

A common argument holds that the voluntary act of the parents has created a “contract” by which the parents are obligated to maintain the child. But

  1. this would also entail the alleged “contract” with the fetus that would prohibit abortion, and
  2. this falls into all the difficulties with the contract theory as analyzed above.

Finally as Evers points out, suppose that we consider the case of a person who voluntarily rescues a child from a flaming wreck that kills the child’s parents. In a very real sense, the rescuer has brought life to the child; does the rescuer, then, have a binding legal obligation to keep the child alive from then on? Wouldn’t this be a “monstrous involuntary servitude that is being foisted upon a rescuer?”9 And if for the rescuer, why not also for the natural parent?

The mother, then, becomes at the birth of her child its “trustee-owner,” legally obliged only not to aggress against the child’s person, since the child possesses the potential for self-ownership. Apart from that, so long as the child lives at home, it must necessarily come under the jurisdiction of its parents, since it is living on property owned by those parents. Certainly the parents have the right to set down rules for the use of their home and property for all persons (whether children or not) living in that home.

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or “runs away” from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.10 This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.11

In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price.

The present state of juvenile law in the United States, it might be pointed out, is in many ways nearly the reverse of our desired libertarian model. In the current situation, both the rights of parents and children are systematically violated by the State.12

First, the rights of the parents. In present law, children may be seized from their parents by outside adults (almost always, the State) for a variety of reasons. Two reasons, physical abuse by the parent and voluntary abandonment, are plausible, since in the former case the parent aggressed against the child, and in the latter the parent voluntarily abandoned custody. Two points, however, should be mentioned:

  1. that, until recent years, the parents were rendered immune by court decisions from ordinary tort liability in physically aggressing against their children — fortunately, this is now being remedied;13 and
  2. despite the publicity being given to the “battered child syndrome,” it has been estimated that only 5 percent of “child abuse” cases involve physical aggression by the parents.14


On the other hand, the two other grounds for seizing children from their parents, both coming under the broad rubric of “child neglect,” clearly violate parental rights. These are: failure to provide children with the “proper” food, shelter, medical care, or education; and failure to provide children with a “fit environment.” It should be clear that both categories, and especially the latter, are vague enough to provide an excuse for the State to seize almost any children, since it is up to the State to define what is “proper” and “fit.” Equally vague are other, corollary, standards allowing the State to seize children whose “optimal development” is not being promoted by the parents, or where the “best interests” of the child (again, all defined by the State) are promoted thereby.


A few recent cases will serve as examples of how broadly the seizure power has been exercised. In the 1950 case of In re Watson, the state found a mother to have neglected three children by virtue of the fact that she was “incapable by reason of her emotional status, her mental condition, and her allegedly deeply religious feelings amounting to fanaticism.” In its decision, fraught with totalitarian implications, the court stressed the alleged obligation of parents to bring up children respecting and adjusting to “the conventions and the mores of the community in which they are to live.”15 In 1954, in the case of Hunter v. Powers, the court again violated religious freedom as well as parental rights by seizing a child on the ground that the parent was too intensely devoted to a nonconformist religion, and that the child should properly have been studying or playing, rather than passing out religious literature. A year later, in the case of In re Black, a Utah court seized eight children from their parents because the parents had failed to teach the children that polygamy was immoral.16

Not only religion, but also personal morality has been dictated by the government. In 1962, five children were seized from their mother by a court on the ground that the mother “frequently entertained male companions in the apartment.” In other cases, courts have held parents to have “neglected” the child, and thereupon seized the child, because parental quarrelling or a child’s sense of insecurity allegedly endangered the child’s best interests.

In a recent decision, Justice Woodside of the Pennsylvania Superior Court trenchantly warned of the massive coercive potential of the “best interest” criterion:

A court should not take the custody of a child from their parents solely on the ground that the state or its agencies can find a better home for them. If “the better home” test were the only test, public welfare officials could take children from half the parents in the state whose homes are considered to be the less desirable and place them in the homes of the other half of the population considered to have the more desirable homes. Extending this principle further, we would find that the family believed to have the best home would have the choice of any of our children.17

The rights of children, even more than those of parents, have been systematically invaded by the state. Compulsory school attendance laws, endemic in the United States since the turn of this century, force children either into public schools or into private schools officially approved by the state.18 Supposedly “humanitarian” child labor laws have systematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force, thereby privileging their adult competitors. Forcibly prevented from working and earning a living, and forced into schools which they often dislike or are not suited for, children often become “truants,” a charge used by the state to corral them into penal institutions in the name of “reform” schools, where children are in effect imprisoned for actions or non-actions that would never be considered “crimes” if committed by adults.

It has, indeed, been estimated that from one-quarter to one-half of “juvenile delinquents” currently incarcerated by the state did not commit acts that would be considered crimes if committed by adults (i.e., aggression against person and property).19 The “crimes” of these children were in exercising their freedom in ways disliked by the minions of the state: truancy “incorrigibility,” running away. Between the sexes, it is particularly girl children who are jailed in this way for “immoral” rather than truly criminal actions. The percentage of girls jailed for immorality (“waywardness,” sexual relations) rather than for genuine crimes ranges from 50 to over 80 percent.20

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 1967 case of In re Gault, juvenile defendants, at least in theory, have been accorded the elementary procedural rights of adults (the right to notice of specific charges, the right to counsel, the right to cross-examine witnesses), but these have only been granted in cases where they have actually been accused of being criminals. As Beatrice Levidow writes, the Gault and similar decisions:

do not apply to any adjudicatory hearings except those in which the offense charged to the juvenile would be violation of the criminal laws if committed by an adult. Therefore, the safeguards of Kent, Gault, and Winship do not protect the due process rights of juveniles who are dependent, neglected, in need of supervision, truant, run away, or accused of other offenses of which only juveniles can be guilty such as smoking, drinking, staying out late, etc.21

As a result, juveniles are habitually deprived of such elemental procedural rights accorded to adult defendants as the right to bail, the right to a transcript, the right to appeal, the right to a jury trial, the burden of proof to be on the prosecution, and the inadmissability of hearsay evidence. As Roscoe Pound has written, “the powers of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile courts.” Once in a while, a dissenting judge has levelled a trenchant critique of this system. Thus, Judge Michael Musmanno stated in a 1954 Pennsylvania case:

Certain constitutional and legal guarantees, such as immunity against self-incrimination, prohibition of hearsay interdiction of ex parte and secret reports, all so jealously upheld in decisions from Alabama to Wyoming, are to be jettisoned in Pennsylvania when the person at the bar of justice is a tender-aged boy or girl.22

Furthermore, the state juvenile codes are studded with vague language that permits almost unlimited trial and incarceration for various forms of “immorality,” “habitual truancy,” “habitual disobedience,” “incorrigibility,” “ungovernability,” “moral depravity,” “in danger of becoming morally depraved,” “immoral conduct,” and even associating with persons of “immoral character.”23

Moreover, the tyranny of indeterminate sentencing (see our chapter above on punishment) has been wielded against juveniles, with juveniles often receiving a longer sentence than an adult would have suffered for the same offense. Indeed the rule in contemporary juvenile justice has been to impose a sentence that may leave a juvenile in jail until he reaches the age of majority. Furthermore, in some states in recent years, this evil has been compounded by separating juvenile offenders into two categories — genuine criminals who are called “delinquents,” and other, “immoral” children who are called “persons in need of supervision” or PINS. After which, the PINS “offenders” receive longer sentences than the actual juvenile criminals! Thus, in a recent study, Paul Lerman writes:

The range of institutional stay was two to twenty-eight months for delinquents and four to forty-eight months for PINS boys; the median was nine months for delinquents and thirteen months for PINS; and the average length of stay was 10.7 months for delinquents and 16.3 months for PINS….

The results of length of stay do not include the detention period; the stage of correctional processing prior to placement in an institution. Analyses of recent detention figures for all five boroughs of New York City revealed the following patterns: (1) PINS boys and girls are more likely to be detained than delinquents (54 to 31 percent); and (2) once PINS youth are detained they are twice as likely to be detained for more than 30 days than are regular delinquents (50 to 25 percent).24

Again, it is mainly female juveniles that are punished for “immoral” offenses. A recent study of Hawaii, for example, found that girls charged merely with running away normally spend two weeks in pretrial detention, whereas boys charged with actual crimes are held for only a few days; and that nearly 70 percent of the imprisoned girls in a state training school were incarcerated for immorality offenses, whereas the same was true of only 13 percent for the imprisoned boys.25

The current judicial view, which regards the child as having virtually no rights, was trenchantly analyzed by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in his decision in the Gault case:

The idea of crime and punishment was to be abandoned. The child was to be “treated” and “rehabilitated and the procedures, from apprehension through institutionalization, were to be “clinical” rather than punitive.

These results were to be achieved, without coming to conceptual and constitutional grief, by insisting that the proceedings were not adversary, but that the State was proceeding as parens patriae (the State as parent). The Latin phrase proved to be a great help to those who sought to rationalize the exclusion of juveniles from the constitutional scheme; but its meaning is murky and its historical credentials are of dubious relevance.

…The right of the State, as parens patriae, to deny the child procedural rights available to his elders was elaborated by the assertion that a child, unlike an adult, has a right “not to liberty but to custody.” …If his parents default in effectively performing their custodial functions — that is if the child is “delinquent” — the state may interfere. In doing so, it does not deprive the child of any rights, because he has none. It merely provides the “custody” to which the child is entitled. On this basis, proceedings involving juveniles were described as “civil” not “criminal” and therefore not subject to the requirements which restrict the State when it seeks to deprive a person of his liberty.26

It may be added that calling an action “civil” or “custody” does not make incarceration any more pleasant or any less incarceration for the victim of the “treatment” or the “rehabilitation.” Criminologist Frederick Howlett has trenchantly criticized the juvenile court system, and placed it in a wider libertarian context. He writes of

the denial of certain basic rights of individuals — the right to associate with those of their choice and to engage voluntarily in acts that harm no one but themselves. The drunk who clogs our courts should have the right to get drunk; the …prostitute and her client should not have to answer to the law for an act that is their personal decision. The misbehaving child likewise has a fundamental right to be a child, and if he has committed no act that would be considered criminal were he an adult, why seek recourse through the courts …? Before rushing to treat or “help” a person outside the justice system, should not the community first consider the alternative of doing nothing? Should it not recognize the child’s right, as a person, to nontreatment and noninterference by an outside authority?27

A particularly eloquent judicial defense of the rights of children occurred in an 1870 Illinois decision, years earlier than the modern assertion of state despotism in the juvenile court system, beginning with the turn of the century Progressive period. In his decision in People ex rel. O’Connell v. Turner, Justice Thornton declared:

The principle of the absorption of the child in, and its complete subjection to the despotism of, the State, is wholly inadmissible in the modern civilized world….

These laws provide for the “safe keeping” of the child; they direct his “commitment,” and only a “ticket of leave,” of the uncontrolled discretion of a board of guardians, will permit the imprisoned boy to breathe the pure air of heaven outside his prison walls, and to feel the instincts of manhood by contact with the busy world…. The confinement may be from one to fifteen years, according to the age of the child. Executive clemency cannot open the prison doors, for no offense has been committed. The writ of habeas corpus, a writ for the security of liberty can afford no relief, for the sovereign power of the State, as parens patriae, has determined the imprisonment beyond recall. Such a restraint upon natural liberty is tyranny and oppression. If, without crime, without the conviction of any offense, the children of the State are thus to be confined for the “good of society” then society had better be reduced to its original elements, and free government acknowledged a failure….

The disability of minors does not make slaves or criminals of them…. Can we hold children responsible for crime; liable for their torts; impose onerous burdens upon them, and yet deprive them of their liberty, without charge or conviction of crime? [The Illinois Bill of Rights, following upon the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, declares that] “all men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights — among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This language is not restrictive; it is broad and comprehensive, and declares a grand truth, that “all men,” all people, everywhere, have the inherent and inalienable right to liberty. Shall we say to the children of the State, you shall not enjoy this right — a right independent of all human laws and regulations…. Even criminals cannot be convicted and imprisoned without due process of law.28

  • 1.John Locke, in his Two Treatises on Government, p. 322, put it this way:Children I confess are not born in this full state of equality (of right to their natural freedom), though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them when they come into the world, and for some time after, but ’tis but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they are wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy. Age and reason as they grow up, loosen them till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.
  • 2.On the distinction between passive and active euthanasia, see Philippa R. Foot, Virtues and Vices (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 50ff.
  • 3.Cf. the view of the individualist anarchist theorist Benjamin R. Tucker: “Under equal freedom, as it [the child] develops individuality and independence, it is entitled to immunity from assault or invasion, and that is all. If the parent neglects to support it, he does not thereby oblige anyone else to support it.” Benjamin R. Tucker, Instead of a Book (New York: B.R. Tucker, 1893), p. 144.
  • 4.The original program of the Euthanasia Society of America included the right of parents to allow monstrous babies to die. It has also been a common and growing practice for midwives and obstetricians to allow monstrous babies to die at birth by simply not taking positive acts to keep them alive. See John A. Robertson, “Involuntary Euthanasia of Defective Newborns: A Legal Analysis,” Stanford Law Review (January 1975): 214–15.
  • 5.The argument of this and succeeding paragraphs relies heavily on Williamson M. Evers, “Political Theory and the Legal Rights of Children,” (unpublished manuscript), pp. 13–17. Also see Evers, “The Law of Omissions and Neglect of Children,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 2 (Winter 1978): 1–10 (PDF).
  • 6.Evers, “Political Theory,” p. 17.
  • 7.Ibid., p. 16.
  • 8.Ibid., pp. 16–17.
  • 9.Ibid., pp. 15–16.
  • 10.It is now possible to make “independent placements” from one parent to another, but they can only be done with the approval of a judge, and such placements are officially discouraged. Thus, in Petitions of Goldman, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts refused to permit a Jewish couple to adopt twins born to Catholic parents, even though the natural parents were fully agreeable to the adoption. The ground of the refusal was that state regulations forbade cross-religious adoptions. See Lawrence List, “A Child and a Wall: A Study of ‘Religious Protection’ Laws,” Buffalo Law Review (1963–64): 29; cited in Evers, “Political Theory,” pp. 17–18.
  • 11.Some years ago, the New York City authorities proudly announced that they had broken up an “illegal baby ring.” Babies were being imported for a price from Greece by enterprising merchants, and then sold to eager parents in New York. No one seemed to realize that everyone involved in this supposedly barbaric transaction benefited: the poverty-stricken Greek parents gained money, as well as the satisfaction of knowing that their babies would be brought up in far more affluent homes; the new parents gained their heart’s desire of having babies; and the babies were transferred to a far happier environment. And the merchants earned their profits as middlemen. Everyone gained; who lost?
  • 12.On the current state of juvenile law in relation to the libertarian model, I am indebted to Evers, “Political Theory,” passim.
  • 13.Immunity was originally granted parents in the 1891 decision of a Mississippi court in Hewlett v. Ragsdale. Recently, however, courts have been allowing children their full rights to sue for injuries. See Lawrence S. Allen, “Parent and Child-Tort Liability of Parent to Unemancipated Child,” Case Western Reserve Law Review (November 1967): 139; Dennis L. Bekemeyer, “A Child’s Rights Against His Parent: Evolution of the Parental Immunity Doctrine,” University of Illinois Law Forum (Winter 1967): 806–7; and Kenneth D. McCloskey, “Parental Liability to a Minor Child for Injuries Caused by Excessive Punishment,” Hastings Law Journal (February 1960): 335–40.
  • 14.Thus, see the report for Cook County in Patrick T. Murphy, Our Kindly Parent — the State (New York: Viking Press, 1974), pp. 153–54.
  • 15.Compare the dictum of Sanford Katz, a prominent “child abuse” specialist: “child neglect connotes a parent’s conduct, usually thought of in terms of passive behavior, that results in a failure to provide for the child’s needs as defined by the preferred values of the community.” Sanford Katz, When Parents Fail (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 22. On parental quarrelling, and on In re Watson, see Michael F. Sullivan, “Child Neglect: The Environmental Aspects,” Ohio State Law Journal (1968): 89–90,152–53.
  • 16.See Sullivan, “Child Neglect,” p. 90.
  • 17.Quoted in Richard S. Levine, “Caveat Parens: A Demystification of the Child Protection System,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review(Fall 1973): 32. Even more bizarre and totalitarian in its implications is the often proposed concept of a child’s “right to be wanted.” Apart from the impossibility of using violence to enforce an emotion on someone else, such a criterion would arm outside parties, in practice the State, with the power to determine when “wanting” exists and to seize children from parents who don’t meet that scarcely definable criterion. Thus, Hillary Rodham, of the Children’s Defense Fund, has challenged this criterion: “How should a ‘right to be wanted’ be defined and enforced? …The necessarily broad and vague enforcement guidelines could recreate the hazard of current laws, again requiring the State to make broad discretionary judgments about the quality of a child’s life.” Hillary Rodham, “Children Under the Law,” Harvard Educational Review (1973): 496.
  • 18.On compulsory education in the United States, see William F. Rickenbacker, ed., The Twelve-Year Sentence (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1974).
  • 19.See William H. Sheridan, “Juveniles Who Commit Noncriminal Acts: Why Treat in a Correctional System?” Federal Probation (March 1967): 27. Also see Murphy, Our Kindly Parent, p. 104.
  • 20.In addition to Sheridan, “Juveniles Who Commit Noncriminal Acts,” p. 27, see Paul Lerman, “Child Convicts,” Transaction (July–August 1971): 35; Meda Chesney-Lind, “Juvenile Delinquency: The Sexualization of Female Crime,” Psychology Today (July 1974): 45; Colonel F. Betz, “Minor’s Rights to Consent to an Abortion,” Santa Clara Lawyer (Spring 1971): 469–78; Ellen M. McNamara, “The Minor’s Right to Abortion and the Requirement of Parental Consent,” Virginia Law Review (February 1974): 30532; and Sol Rubin, “Children as Victims of Institutionalization,” Child Welfare (January 1972): 9.
  • 21.Beatrice Levidow, “Overdue Process for Juveniles: For the Retroactive Restoration of Constitutional Rights,” Howard Law Journal(1972): 413.
  • 22.Quoted in J. Douglas Irmen, “Children’s Liberation — Reforming Juvenile Justice,” University of Kansas Law Review (1972–73): 181–83. Also see Mark J. Green, “The Law of the Young,” in B. Wasserstein and M. Green, eds., With Justice for Some (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970), p. 33; Sanford J. Fox, Cases and Material on Modern Juvenile Justice (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1972), p. 68.
  • 23.See the dissent of Justice Cadena in the 1969 Texas case of E.S.G. v. State, in Fox, Cases and Material on Modern Juvenile Justice, pp. 296–98. Also see Lawrence J. Wolk, “Juvenile Court Statutes — Are They Void for Vagueness?” New YorkUniversityReview of Law and Social Change (Winter 1974): 53; Irmen, “Children’s Liberation,” pp. 181–83; and Lawrence R. Sidman, “The Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law: Law and Order in the Home,” Family Law Quarterly (Spring 1972): 40–45.
  • 24.Lerman, “Child Convicts,” p. 38. Also see Nora Klapmuts, “Children’s Rights: The Legal Rights of Minors in Conflict with Law or Social Custom,” Crime and Delinquency Literature (September 1972): 471.
  • 25.Meda Chesney-Lind, “Juvenile Delinquency,” p. 46.
  • 26.Fox, Cases and Material on Modern Juvenile Justice, p. 14.
  • 27.Frederick W. Howlett, “Is the YSB All it’s Cracked Up to Be?” Crime and Delinquency (October 1973): 489–91. In his excellent book, The Child Savers, Anthony Platt points out that the origin of the juvenile court — reform school system in the Progressive period at the turn of the twentieth century, was specifically designed to impose a despotic “reform” on the “immorality” of the nation’s children on a massive scale. Thus, Platt in The Child Savers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 99–100, writes that the “child savers”were most active and successful in extending governmental control over a whole range of youthful activity that had been previously ignored or dealt with informally…. The child savers were prohibitionists in a general sense who believed that social progress depended on efficient law enforcement, strict supervision of children’s leisure and recreation, and the regulation of illicit pleasures. Their efforts were directed at rescuing children from institutions and situations (theaters, dance halls, saloons, etc.) which threatened their “dependency.” The child saving movement also raised the issue of child protection in order to challenge a variety of “deviant” institutions: thus, children could only be protected from sex and alcohol by destroying the brothels and saloons.Also see ibid., pp. 54, 67–68, 140. For earlier expressions of “child-saving,” parens patriae, and the incarceration of juveniles for truancy, see J. Lawrence Schultz, “The Cycle of Juvenile Court History,” Crime and Delinquency (October 1973): 468; and Katz, When Parents Fail,p. 188.
  • 28.55 111. 280 (1870), reprinted in Robert H. Bremner, ed., Children and Youth in America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970–74), vol. 2, pp. 485–87. Naturally, the “child saving” reformers chafed at the results of the O’Connell decision, which the prominent Illinois social and child reformer Frederick Wines called “positively injurious. It proceeds from a morbid sensitivity on the subject of personal liberty.” See Platt, The Child Savers, p. 106.
Direct primary care, Atlas MD, Concierge medicine, primary care, doc clinic, josh umber, unorthodox, direct primary care providers

Book Review: Primal Prescription

The Primal Prescription serves two major purposes and is divided accordingly.

First, the authors draw on Murphy’s economic insights to explain and analyze the complete history of health care in the United States and how things have progressed to what we have today, from wage and price controls in World War II to EMTALA under Reagan and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under Obama. They break down the effects of various laws, and spend several chapters showing how the ACA “works.”  Additionally, they show the process of new drug approval and the relationships between what has notoriously become known as “Big Pharma” and the FDA. And here’s a shocker. For everyone who says, “the free market is broken in health care,” you’ll find that it’s not so much the free market, but rather intervention and “tweaking” over the last century that have, in their attempt to “correct” for various problems and perceived problems, caused many unintended “side-effects” in the health care and health insurance markets that needed further and further intervention and tweaking.

To read the rest, click here to go to the original blog post!