0 votes

What is the Libertarian position on child support?

Im curious. I pay 20 percent of my take home to my ex-girlfriend, with no oversight as to how that money is spent. She was never awarded custody, but has custody. I'd rather buy him a 1 oz gold eagle every six weeks than save for his college in FRN. His Bright Start (govt sponsered) college fund is down considerably already.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Forget the money....

Nothing will count more than you just being there for your child.


The problem with this country

...is that everyone is either an idiot or a pansy.

Only if we could build a country with solid foundations and solid families. Every family had a coat of arms, and every child carried down the torch.

Woman would we subsidized to stop working and look after the children at 25-30, rather than subsided to break apart families as they are right now.

Woman would have to be dependent on the man and not the other way arount, like nature intended it to be. Men are mean't to provide the food and shelter, and woman to look after the family. But if woman are subsided to work their whole lives and recieve child support benefits, the family is absolutely CRUSHED.

No amnesty or benefits for illegal immigration.

Only private schooling and home schooling, with competition for schools. Home schooling being the free option.

I don't care where this country would be formed, I would go there in a heartbeat. My god, I wish Texas split from America and this would be our motherland.


I'm definitely going to check out that site. (After I post this :-)

I'm not actually fighting to stop paying her the 20%. I write the checks every two weeks, and will continue do do so, even though I am nearing bankruptcy, because I believe that I can do more good for my son broke and out of jail, than in jail.

I'm fighting right now for simply more time. We only get 32 hours a month together (2 days a month, with 16 hours spent sleeping) I'm fighting on the grounds that this arraignment is alienation of a parent. I just want more time. (I basically pay $350 a visit to see my son, simply because my ex is bitter and manipulative.)

But I'll tell you this. Every time I go in front of the judge, and I act cordially and respectful of the court, but inside I'm screaming to ask "So are we operating under Constitutional Law or Maritime Law?" then point to the flag.

I fear that the judge may call some secret police to start harassing me for something like that. The sheeple aren't supposed to know that we're all being duped. :-)

Thanks again for your input!

P.S. I should also state that I do subscribe to Glenn Sacks emails. He's a fighter for Fathers Rights, and has some great articles. Google him if this is an area that pertains to you)

"You are a den of Vipers.I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out."

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Joe Danger,

I suggest you look into Direct Representation - http://www.directrep.org -as a way to settle these issues. Most people wouldn't vote for these arrangements that benefit the lawyers. So why do we still insist on using the same flawed voting system?

The Constitution is flawed. Winning by plurality is a sham.

I have a tremendous amount

I have a tremendous amount of knowledge on this subject. We are taking a national action. You can email me if you want more info, or to see some of my pleadings. Troyusaguy@yahoo.com.

In a nutshell, the fed has a program social security act, I believe started in 1935. In this program you had title IV, welfare programs. These programs were set up for a "needy" family (welfare) or an "Absent Parent". That’s it!! It all stems from there.
The states have expanded this program to pull everyone in, most of the time improper application process which changes the status of the "non custodial" ( a non custodial parent can have the kids over half the time) parent, without any notice to the non custodial parent. So if there is no needy family, or absent parent, then the state can not, through the counties, collect or intervenes. This is where you hear about people losing there license, and the stories of good parents being pushed through the meat grinder. If we can put an eligibity bill in place, in other words, people have to qualify for welfare, because title iv-d is a collection and can only be used if a person enters through one of the welfare programs under title IV, then most of this abuse would stop, and parents would have incentives to co-parent. The current system is a total abuse of power, destructive on the family. We here in MN have an eligibity bill we hope will be introduced this year.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading on marriage too. The million dollar question......what’s the states compelling interest in our children or our private family contracts. They need to get the hell out!!!
I have seen in the MN statues, marriage is a contract....but what are the terms of the contract and who are the players?? I have read through my marriage application, it gives no warning to any rights I may be waiving. So how does the state become a party, and how do they have senior interest in people’s kids and the marriage??? Think about it, you get divorced and you go to court and ask for permission if you can still be involved in your children’s life?? If you’re asking the state for permission doesn’t that mean the state has a senior interest?

I wrote a good letter today to the department of child support enforcement. I have my kids over half the time, they are 9,7,6 and I haven’t paid child support that was forced on me, so the state took away my drivers license and my real estate license, for the best interest of my children???? I blasted them sooo many times in court, the judge has been protecting them, so I’m hoping to get a grand jury and get all them bastards in trouble!! I will hopefully know this month about the grand jury, and then hopefully I can get all those bastards indicted, the child support worker, the county attorney and the judge!!!

To answer your question, I support people’s right to contract, including marriage and a father’s natural right as a guardian.
If you pay 20%, does she qualify for that in government assistance, because the government can only collect what she qualifies for, the goal of title IV-d is to off set the expense the state incurs...makes sense when the program is used in its proper perspective.
If you had your son and abandoned him, then whatever happens to you by the state is your consequence for having kids and leaving society to care for them. My experience is many people are not absent parents, they are ensnared by the Title IV-D program. Oh and by the way, child support guidelines wouldn’t apply to you either if you weren’t in a welfare program.

Great topic. I am divorced

Great topic.

I am divorced and have 2 young daughters that I share custody with my ex-wife. I get them during the summers and her for the school year. I pay her child support except when they are with me during the summers. However the court orders have me paying a small amount of child support so I actually pay more just on moral grounds.

I used the child support calculator that the state uses and pay that instead of the lower amount that was ordered. I figure it is best to just keep it out of the courts and if I am able to do so now then that is what I do since there may come a time in this depression when I can't make the over and above amount that I have been paying and I may need to pay the lower required amount.

Keeping this issue out of courts I think has contributed to my ex and I having a good relationship. During the schoolyear she lets me get my daughters pretty much whenever I want which is at least a couple times a week.

When determining what the

When determining what the Liberterian Position is I always think that is the position moral people would take on their own.

When it comes to child support, I can say my parents divorced, me (11 at the time), my brother(13) and my sister (7) stayed with our father for the first 2 years while my mother was getting settled. No courts were involved nor money that changed hands. When my mom had the means to take custody of us my brother and sister moved in with her. All of us had completely free movement between the houses. Our parents didn't talk smack about each other to us children, didn't fight if they came into the same room. They just treated it as a relationship that didn't work out (they had been married for 17 years when they split). Now all of us kids are over 20 and get along fine with our parents, but our parents no longer speak. They have no reason to because they no longer share responsibility for us kids.

I feel this is the "morally and socially" correct thing to do when relationships that involve children occur, the parents have a responsibility to support their children in life, not the ex spouses lifestyle. I feel the financially stable (without support) parent should have custody over favoring the mother all the time.

In your case, I think it is a shame that all that money is being spent on lawyers that could be spent on your child and it truely is a waste, the more fiscally stable person should have the child but not restrict access to the child to the other parent. Unfortunately morality is not what people in this country have alot of. Again in your case, I think if your ex chose to leave you for another man, she chose to have a child with you and she needs to do what's right towards the child which is let him see you and when he does you pay for things for him. And since she chose you, she needs to just trust that you are a moral person that will put money aside to support your child if/when the time comes.

In Letters of Ayn Rand

Leonard Peikoff, "Letters of Ayn Rand", a must have book for anyone who wants to understand Ayn Rand and Libertarian ideas, a fan wrote to Ayn asking about taking social security money, if she should take SS even though she did not need it... Ayn Rand tells her, "It's YOUR money!" Take it!

Ayn Rand claimed Kennedy was a fascist after his speach where he says, "Ask not what your government can do for you, but ask, what can I do for my government". Ayn says there is NOTHING wrong with taking money from the government. What's wrong is paying money to the govt..

If the money is legal, what's the problem? Morals? It's up to you to do the moral thing with the money or without it.

What does this have to do with anything

It's not government money.

Rand qualified the notion of "taking money from the government" far more than you imply here.

Rand wrote reams

I'm suggesting a book, "Letters of Ayn Rand", where I learned more about Ayn Rand, a founder of Libertarianism, with supporters such as The Brandon Institute, than reading all of her novels, or becoming a Libertarian in 76, or an Objectivist. I believe that Social security is involved in courts accounting with children/dependents, and since SS is money the government takes from us, getting it back isn't so easy.. but it's our money, not the govewrnments... I posted govt, in short, as it is the courts and SS (govt) action. Rand wrote reams, and many people have also written reams on Ayn Rand. I have my opinions based on years of following Ayn, even when she was alive. I believe Ayn would tell her to take the money. Do you disagree?

It's philosophical controversy.

It gives us something else to debate when we aren't discussing 911, FEMA camps, and whether or not "In God We Trust" belongs on the front of a nickel. ;)

Support the Constitution of the United States

Support the Constitution of the United States

When I was divorced long ago

When I was divorced long ago (1977, to be exact), I was given custody of my daughter and my ex was given visitation rights. When it came to child support, I told the judge I didn't want a penny from my ex (money = strings, in my book). The judge said the least he was allowed to award was $60 a month and that is what he awarded me. Rather than pay $60 a month, my ex left town. I have never see or heard from him again. Tells me what his daughter was worth to him. I had nothing but an old pickup at the time so I had nothing to lose. Got a summer job milking 100 head of cows twice a day to save enough money to get started in college.

By the time a few years had elapsed, that $60 a month the court awarded was enough to keep the ex away forever. The best $60 a month I ever didn't get. I had my freedom and my daughter's, could move anywhere I wanted, any time. No strings, no hassles. Is child support right? I concur with what others here have said, I think supporting your child is a moral imperative, but not a government matter. I wouldn't worry too much about how she spends what you give her. It costs every penny to keep a child housed, fed and clothed.





State enforced child support

State enforced child support is nothing but a racket designed to make money for the state and makes it nearly impossible for a lot of fathers to make a living let alone pay support.

Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Not just money for the state.

Lawyers. Lawyers make an easy living from it.

Support the Constitution of the United States

Support the Constitution of the United States

Social Services too.

Social Services too.

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.


Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

As the old saying goes,

As the old saying goes, follow the money. The state makes a bundle serving as collection agency for the person granted support. In Ohio so called 'administrative fee' is 2%. In addition, there is federal $ earned. I've been working on this for a while and don't have summary yet but appears that money your state collects is matched at least dollar for dollar by fed. We hear more lately about 'fathers rights', etc. but what I don't find much discussion on is that it affects the mothers too. You see more and more 'dead beat' mugs of women plastered everywhere. Enforcement can and usually does include confiscating drivers licence as well as any other license issued by the state, including professional. Nothing like demanding payment, then take away your means to earn it.

We all know people caught up in this nightmare. A family member in this battle is what drew me into researching it. Her case is one of 'arrears' on an adult child (25) which did not involve pay back of any welfare money received. The state is working as a collection agency for disputed court ordered support where the adult child does not want to be in the middle, often the case. It's a huge industry for the State.

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.


Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

My 2 cents

Child support is an obligation, although it should not be a legal obligation, but a moral obligation.

On one hand, the state has no business forcing you at gunpoint or through physical coersion to pay money for anything.

But...you should take that moral obliation seriously and pay for your offspring. I know, it hurts when you know the mother isn't spending enough of that check on the child, I know this system is very unfair and full of overstepping authorities...in short, it sucks.

Perhaps you can find a means around this through some simple discussion and negotiation with your ex. Try suggesting that you spend 10% of your income on grocery store gift cards and the other 10% on some type of savings for the child's education. That way, you know your money is going to feed your child and gives you some control over saving for him. This is of course all dependant upon a rational and responsible ex girlfriend, and perhaps is asking too much.

Don't shirk your responsibility however difficult this process may be. You aren't going to get a moral free pass from me or anyone else just because the system is flawed. Remember, the child should be the most important thing here.

Lastly...more than anything do your best to maintain a parental relationship with your child. Perhaps easier said than done, but it's worth it.

Thats a good question and I'm not sure the Libertarian answer...

A good question and I'm not exactly sure what the reasonable Libertarian answer would be. However I can give you my answer and it may fall in line with the Libertarian one (since my views tend to naturally slant that way).

One of the prerequisites for a Libertarian society, with limited restriction and self governance as a rule, is a sense of individual responsibility. If a society is generally self governed in this way it will produce a majority of citizens which:
( 1.) understand they are responsible for their own actions,
( 2.) that accept consequences for those actions taken,
( 3.) and a reality based outlook that society will not step forward to share or bare the responsibilities for him/her.

So, although there is no society which is perfect, and there will always be anomalies in every system, I generally feel that under a reformed Jeffersonian Republic there would be dramatically LESS people not performing their responsibilities.
Our society has grown to encourage misbehavior and aloof responsibility-- however that would change when big brother bites the big one. Under a free society, where both parents are not having to work long hours just to make ends meet, I foresee a resurgence of family values. This would help in our situation because it would ultimately instill better principles within our society.

I realize your not the dead beat type and I respect that. If society would once again put emphasis on principled fortitude, rather than giving spotlight to the slack sub-culture which is the degradation of our society, I think we would find many more people wearing the reins of responsibility. Just my take.

The libertarian answer is

The libertarian answer is the state has no business intervening in the family.

Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

The deck is stacked!

Problems: No fault divorce. I just don't want him anymore but, I want him to pay for me anyway.
Violence against womens act: He hit me. Whether it is true or not. Statistics say that the women are the violent ones and abuse their children far more than the men.
Child support enforcement act. If you don't pay the extortion, you can loose your drivers license, occupational license, Passport (can you believe that?), on and on.
Children "awarded" to the mothers more than 85% of the time. No shared parenting. Double standards.
Courts create advesarial conditions.
Incarceration without due process. Swat teams breaking into your house at 4AM. Federal government payouts to states who purpetuate the big lie.
Social engineering. (I don't want the village to raise my child). Government control of children and their welfare.
Most women know the system is rigged, biased and play it like a violin.
Men forced to pay whether they are employed or not. Forced to pay whether in jail or not. Responsible for extortion interest forever. Child support offices full of dike feminist gouging men at their own pleasure and with the governments backing.
And women wonder why men aren't marrying today? This could go on and on but, it ain't good for anyone.
"Deadbeat." Try "beat dead."

This is a very deep topic

This is a very deep topic and the corruption knows no limits. This website and author has some real eye opening articles. Parents are being enslaved by 'family courts'. Every time you hear the term 'dead beat', take a look at what it really is.


Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.


Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

First ...

Intercourse has an implied contract ....

Everyone knows the risks and if not ignorance is not innocence...

Second ...

It should be a civil matter and not a criminal matter ...

Third ...

It should be a state issue and not a federal issue ...

Fourth ...

There are no answers to certain situations where the father or mother just simply runs and hides ... other than an active private organization that does everything possible to publicly shame the person.

No remedy will be equitable to the child losing a parent ... financially or otherwise.

There are no winners in some situations ...

That is why it is very important for both parties to realize what they are doing when they decide to engage in unprotected intercourse.


"Intercourse has an implied

"Intercourse has an implied contract ...."

That's a new one on me. Of course the whole concept of an 'implied contract' is bunko for a litigation-happy society. We need tort reforms.

Support the Constitution of the United States

Support the Constitution of the United States

Kevin, I actually agree with rhino here

That's a first, I think, but I agree. When men take that final leap as it were, they have engaged in and agreed to a whole lot more than their own momentary satisfaction. It's something cultures around the world and through the ages have tried to manage--the consequences of "willy nilly" sexual intercourse--and there are many, not the least of which is the creation of life. And when a man does that...well...as my father-in-law used to say, "You wanna dance? You gotta pay the band."

How's that for fancy contract language? :):)

It's morally right, of course.

But what we are discussing is law, and I think creating life is a 50-50 responsibility that both partners should take more seriously. Marriage should also not be entered into "willy nilly".

And as far as divorce laws, I think things should be spelled out far more explicitly, before the system butts in and starts assigning one spouse to support the other. The world would have a lot fewer frivolous marriages, latch-key kids, and broken homes if the responsibilities of child support were spelled out explicitly before marriage, on paper.

Support the Constitution of the United States

Support the Constitution of the United States

Who said anything about marriage law ...

unless of course I have been mistaken and it is in fact impossible to have a child out of wedlock.

This is about child support ... not marriage ...

completely separate issues.


All three requirements for a contract are present.

"In writing" is sufficient but not necessary.



A man needs to take ownership of his seed. Looking at it from the inside, few things make me as angry as a man who has sex with a woman and says "it's not my fault she got pregnant".

I also agree that this is a very deep topic and the enforcement of this has been corrupted by most state govts.


Before the state became so involved in these (moral) questions, fathers had their "handy" shotguns...:):) and took care of the situation that way. Not suggesting that's the best way, but I'm sure it made one or two guys think twice maybe before taking "the plunge". :):)

Given my choice between what the state now does and what fathers and brothers used to do, I'd pick fathers and brothers any day of the week! :)

Some states allow child support payors to

file an Accounting action in family court to force the payee to show the court how she spends the child support and to make sure that it benefits the child. Check with a lawyer in your state

Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective