Libertarianism and Paternalism: Considering a Child’s Death

Here is one example of why I believe in limited state paternalism:

A central Wisconsin father charged with reckless homicide for not taking his dying daughter to a doctor told police that he believed God would heal her and that he thought she was simply sleeping when she became unconscious.

Madeline Neumann died on March 23, 2008, from undiagnosed diabetes on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded the 11-year-old girl and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.

These stories occur with a disturbing frequency in the US. A parent exercising his or her freedom of religion and perceived paternal rights trusts God to cure their child and, unsurprisingly, the Almighty doesn't come through. Then the state prosecutes as it should:

Prosecutors contend her father, Dale Neumann, had a legal duty to take his weakened daughter to a doctor. A videotape of his interview with police after her death was shown to jurors during his trial Wednesday before prosecutors rested their case.

The Wikipedia entry about paternalism makes an interesting comparison and observation:

Opponents of paternalism, such as John Stuart Mill, claim that liberty supersedes safety in terms of actions that only affect oneself. Advocates of paternalistic policies claim that an overarching moral system overrides personal freedom in some circumstances, such as a religious, ethical, or philosophical doctrine, and will argue that while it is not moral to deprive someone of his or her liberty in a general situation, it is correct in that specific instance.

Notice that the paternalist in this instance has at least one more principle than liberty operating that could mitigate the actions of those who act on their liberty in extremis: the principle of doing no harm ("safety"). Dale Neumann, however, acted only on his religious liberty:

In the interview with Everest Metro Police Department detective Scott Sleeter, Neumann described the weeks leading up to Madeline's death, when he said she was a "little weak and a little slower," something he attributed to puberty. Her condition deteriorated, and by the day before her death, he said, Madeline could not walk or talk.

"We just trusted the Lord for complete healing," he said. "We didn't really sense it was like a life-and-death situation. We figured there was something really fighting in her body. We asked people to join with us in prayer agreement."

Neumann said it never crossed his mind that his daughter might have lost consciousness.

"She was just sleeping," Neumann said. "I didn't believe at all that the Lord would even allow her to pass."

Had the state known about the situation, I believe the state would have been utterly justified to intervene well before little Madeline Neumann died. Accordingly, I am saying that there certain situations when the state knows better than the individual. One doesn't have to do much thinking to imagine other examples (e.g. some special needs adults, some children and some parents as reflected in child labor laws).

Now I do not want to saddle all self-proclaimed Libertarians with the claim that they all would hold someone like Dale Neumann acted totally within his rights and that the prosecution of him is an outrage. But I will make these observations about those Libertarians who agree with me on this matter:

• They would be loath to admit that they too are limited state paternalists
  
• They are virtually silent about cases like this one
  
• When the state does intervene before the child dies, they almost never ("never" actually in my limited reading) declare that the state acted appropriately
  
• They are reluctant to name and explicate the principles by which the state can legitimately act paternalistically and curtail the liberty of an individual (I will say more about this reluctance in a later post)
  

But some Libertarians do oppose paternalism in any situation:

Libertarians are seen as generally being opponents of paternalism. Few political theorists, even libertarians, have ever completely rejected paternalism.^{[citation needed]} Robert Nozick, who is generally seen as a founding father of modern libertarianism, admits no exception : the State is acting paternalistically each time it presupposes to know better than people what is in their best interest. This leads Nozick to justify the moral permissibility of slavery.

Imagine that. It's better that thousands of Madeline Neumanns die than that the state curtail the liberty somewhat of their parents. That is to take the principle of liberty on a consistency holiday. Emerson is much to the point on such people:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds….