Libertarians very weak on parental rights

The USA has a two-party system, and other parties just make an amusing sideshow. They allow factions to discuss changes that the major parties are afraid to discuss, or that are politically infeasible.

Here is one:

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, has made a commitment to fight for fathers’ rights. He is aware of provisions in the Social Security Act that financially reward the States to go after the income of non-custodial parents, who are in most cases, fathers. Johnson says he will work to change this situation, not by interfering with States’s rights to conduct Family Court hearings, but by keeping the Federal government entirely out of that process.

In an interview with a fathers’ rights group, Gary Johnson stated that he is a strong supporter of the rights of fathers. He wants to do away with Federal anti-family incentives that impinge on decisions in domestic cases. He does not want to interfere with the right of the state judges to make rulings in state court, but he thinks the process would be much more fair if the Federal government did not offer incentives for the breakup of the family.

I am surprised that any Libertarian would talk about "States’s rights". States do not have rights, under most libertarian views.

He should be credited for sticking up for fathers in this way, but this problem is a small fraction of how the family courts and other family policies deprive fathers and mothers of their liberties. Almost all of it is anti-libertarian.

The Libertarian Party does not seem very libertarian to me.