I am not certain that the mother necessarily has trusteeship of her offspring. Homesteading is a rule of first occupation, but the mother does not occupy the infant first; the infant, as a creature with an ultimately rational end, occupies him/herself first. What can be done to the infant is ultimately at their consent.
However, given that the infant obviously cannot give his consent, decisions will have to be made on his behalf. And the criteria of these decisions will be that they are what is best for the infant, what he would do in his own self-interest were he in full control of his faculties (lex dubia applying, of course; it is possible that the infant may later want to smoke crack, but it would be better to deny him crack smoking than to impair his body when he wouldn't have wanted such a thing to happen.) And automatically handing the infant to their mother may not necessarily be the best course of action; obviously, not all mothers are cut out for motherhood, and if the infant could choose he might not select his biological mother to be entrusted to.
So now comes the question of what would be the best allocation of trusteeship. I would say there is no clear-cut right-or-wrong answer, just as there is no clear-cut answer as to what is the right amount of restitution for a crime, what is the right price for a can of soda or what is the right value of a performance bond. I feel the best solution would be that such allocation would be a matter of custom. Likely, the infant's biological mother would be granted an important part due to biological connections that would benefit the child, and also that I believe that children owe their mother part of their future earnings to compensate the costs of the pregnancy and the mother would like to recoup these costs through their involvement in the child's development. But likely the extended biological family of both parents would be granted some role in order to better provide for the child. Basically, allocation of parental rights would be driven by the market, with interested parties working together in order to make the greatest profit possible, whether material or psychological (insurance companies would likely take an interest in enhancing the development of children so as to reduce their rates, along with landowners who wish to increase as many positive externalities and decrease the negative.)
What do you all think?
Your theory (when I say "your theory" I mean that in the sense that you are the one who has presented it to us, not developed it) about having a community of parents is not a new theory. Various Native American tribes and other indigenous tribes around the world practiced this in their communities before "civilized" societies interfered. By some accounts, it was very, very successful as a social practice.
The Native American society broke down after the Europeans arrived and forced European culture upon them (the NA's). Our society broke down after radical feminists pushed disasterous policies through Congress. There's research available on the links between the disasterous laws and policies of the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's (the promotion of debt-based living being a major contributing factor) and their aftermaths and the breakdown of the average white American family. While the problems facing the black community are far more severe because of different circumstances that have lead to generation after generation of fatherless families, I don't think the white community is immune from them. I simply believe that the white community hasn't suffered long enough under the effects of the bad policies that have thus far wrought havoc upon families.
Would the kind of social socialism that your are proposing work today? I don't think so. I think there are far too many broken and dysfunctional families today to allow for this kind of philosophy. It would be the blind leading the blind. Also, I don't think I would want more interference by anyone in the way that I raised my children (supposing I had any to begin with). If everyone shared similary philosophical views on various subjects then I don't think it would be that bad. However, given the realities of the world that we live in and the many people who espouse dangerous ideas (whether they be philosophic, economic, religious, or other), I think it is a very dangerous idea.
Now, some people might argue that one of the root causes of conflicts in society is the lack of exposure to other viewpoints. I happen to agree with that argument to a certain extent. I believe a wholesale lack of firsthand exposure to different ideas is dangerous. However, I also believe that a person must know what it is that they believe before they can pass judgment on or truly understand opposing views. In that sense, I certainly believe that extended families have a significant influence on shaping a child's initial beliefs. Of course, whether or not indoctrinating a child before that child is capable of objectively looking at what it is they are being "asked" to believe is also a topic for debate.
Okay, I think I've gone on long enough and gone off onto tangents that the OP had no intention of discussing. Thoughts?
bowenj10: Your theory (when I say "your theory" I mean that in the sense that you are the one who has presented it to us, not developed it) about having a community of parents is not a new theory. Various Native American tribes and other indigenous tribes around the world practiced this in their communities before "civilized" societies interfered. By some accounts, it was very, very successful as a social practice. The Native American society broke down after the Europeans arrived and forced European culture upon them (the NA's). Our society broke down after radical feminists pushed disasterous policies through Congress. There's research available on the links between the disasterous laws and policies of the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's (the promotion of debt-based living being a major contributing factor) and their aftermaths and the breakdown of the average white American family. While the problems facing the black community are far more severe because of different circumstances that have lead to generation after generation of fatherless families, I don't think the white community is immune from them. I simply believe that the white community hasn't suffered long enough under the effects of the bad policies that have thus far wrought havoc upon families. Would the kind of social socialism that your are proposing work today? I don't think so. I think there are far too many broken and dysfunctional families today to allow for this kind of philosophy. It would be the blind leading the blind. Also, I don't think I would want more interference by anyone in the way that I raised my children (supposing I had any to begin with). If everyone shared similary philosophical views on various subjects then I don't think it would be that bad. However, given the realities of the world that we live in and the many people who espouse dangerous ideas (whether they be philosophic, economic, religious, or other), I think it is a very dangerous idea. Now, some people might argue that one of the root causes of conflicts in society is the lack of exposure to other viewpoints. I happen to agree with that argument to a certain extent. I believe a wholesale lack of firsthand exposure to different ideas is dangerous. However, I also believe that a person must know what it is that they believe before they can pass judgment on or truly understand opposing views. In that sense, I certainly believe that extended families have a significant influence on shaping a child's initial beliefs. Of course, whether or not indoctrinating a child before that child is capable of objectively looking at what it is they are being "asked" to believe is also a topic for debate. Okay, I think I've gone on long enough and gone off onto tangents that the OP had no intention of discussing. Thoughts?
I don't think I ever said that I came up with the idea of an extended family all on my own. What I am recognizing is the fact that, in terms of the history of the family, our modern free-standing nuclear family is an anomaly and not a rule, and thus the idea that the mother necessarily has the kinds of right she does over her children today are not a given.
Also, I don't think I advocated any kind of socialism either. Parental rights would be established through customary law, which are the repeated actions of a community over time out of the self-interest of the participants. If a natural order were established tomorrow jack-booted thugs would not break into your house and take away your child to be raised by the rest of your family, because that is not the kind of law you would be interested in at the moment; however, in the generations afterwards with the resurgence of the family as an institution of social insurance and community, your great-grandchildren may find it as obligatory to share their children with the rest of their family as you do to raise them with just yourself and/or your spouse/significant other.
Parsidius: I don't think I ever said that I came up with the idea of an extended family all on my own.
I don't think I ever said that I came up with the idea of an extended family all on my own.
I was not trying to insinuate that you came up with the idea and I apologize if that's how I came off. I was simply trying to make it clear that I wasn't attributing the theory to you.
Parsidius: Also, I don't think I advocated any kind of socialism either. Parental rights would be established through customary law, which are the repeated actions of a community over time out of the self-interest of the participants. If a natural order were established tomorrow jack-booted thugs would not break into your house and take away your child to be raised by the rest of your family, because that is not the kind of law you would be interested in at the moment; however, in the generations afterwards with the resurgence of the family as an institution of social insurance and community, your great-grandchildren may find it as obligatory to share their children with the rest of their family as you do to raise them with just yourself and/or your spouse/significant other.
The problem that I have with this is that I think we have already wrought too much damage to our families. The steps that would need to be taken would be more than just voluntary actions on the part of parents. An entire overhaul in the areas of family law, tax codes, and criminal law would be needed since these influences are what are driving many family decisions and other societal problems. I don't think voluntary actions in the near-term or long-term would work unless the laws that were put into place that caused the problems were reversed. I think people underestimate the effects that laws (especially the welfare and social policy laws) at the county, state, and federal levels have had on families. I certainly wouldn't advocate changing the laws to promote the change. That's how the problem was created. I think that, and I think you'll agree with me here, the government would have to take itself out of the process and adapt to the evolving situation.
I do agree with you that I might have used the wrong word in describing your theory. I may have the wrong description again, but I think I might have been looking for loose social-comunism. I'm trying to think of a word or phrase that would adequately describe that social philosophy.
Now, supposing the required policy changes took place and the process of parental cooperation had already been in place for several generations, I think I might be able to go along with it. After all, if I was a product of the process I would be more likely to simply go along with the process.
was not trying to insinuate that you came up with the idea and I apologize if that's how I came off. I was simply trying to make it clear that I wasn't attributing the theory to you.
OK, that's cool. I just thought you said that I implied that I came up with the theory in a vacuum.
I would agree; there would be no place for legislative law in bringing about such a fix, as legislative law is more an act of fiat than any kind of voluntarism. The best that could happen would be that we would use common-law arbiters in an attempt to re-discover the law through contractualism, rather than trying to push through any laws right now. But for sure we would have to regard the current laws on the books as invalid in order for any kind of recovery to start. (And I would agree that the current laws are absolutely devastating on family life, which should be expected of the state as it desires that there is no competing social authority.)
Communalism would be an appropriate word.
Agreed. The law would obviously be a result of voluntary transactions of repeated actions of individuals over and over again. I think that parental rights would be distributed more on the basis of extended over nuclear family, as this would broaden the family as an institution of social insurance.