What are different libertarian theories on status of children?
Do they have property rights? For their own bodies? Are they treated as independent actors? Are they in custody of their parents/caretakers? What if they are abused? Does aggression towards children by their parents makes a defensive aggression towards parents by third parties permissible?
Thanks in advance,
Andris
They have the right not to be harmed in any way.
They are in custody of their caretakers.
If they are abused, then any person capable of taking care of them, and with agreement of the child, has the right to take them away.
Yes, you always have the right to defend moral agents, or partial moral agents. You just don't have the right to force a third party to pay for it.
For my theoretical backing behind these answers, see:
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/wiki/MoralityFromASocietalPerspective
I don't agree with this analysis. Parents have a biologically unique relationship with their children. It is a great mischief that modern society equates the interests of just anyone with the interests of the parents in the survival of their offspring. The rampant abuse of children in our foster care and other juvenile systems can be traced in large part to this one mistake. Parents should decide how they will care for their children, including how they will discipline them. What constitutes abuse cannot be objectively determined and is a matter of cultural norms. To best facilitate the establishment and enforcement of social norms regarding how parents are expected to care for their children, a market-law system should acknowledge a hierarchy of interests in the well-being of children. Specifically, the "rights" of parents regarding the raising of their children and establishment of a household primarily consists in the unique privilege of parents to refuse care for their children from anyone they do not want to care for their children, for whatever reason, including family. This privilege has limits. Parents cannot refuse care for their children from anyone and refuse to care for their children themselves. In this case, family has a right to intervene but the right of intervention should also be understood in a hierarchical sense. That is, those who are more closely biologically related to a child have a better claim to refuse care from those who are more biologically distant relatives of the child. Each parent has equal claim on care for the children (mothers do not have primacy). Parents pre-empt grandparents. Grandparents and siblings have equal claim. Grandparents and siblings pre-empt uncles and cousins. And so on.
As for what level of discipline or other forms of coercion constitute illegal abuse, this should be handled through lawsuit between family and the parents. If the grandparents believe the children are being abused, they should file suit against the parents. If the parents' behavior constitutes abusive coercion, as delimited by the prevailing legal norms (in a market-law society), then the parents would lose their right to refuse care from the grandparents and the right of refusal would transfer to the grandparents. Note that, in this model, the parents can never lose their right to care for their children, they can only lose their right to refuse care from others more biologically distant to their children.
Clayton -
So how exactly are you disagreeing? Can you give me a for-instance?
Just stumbled on an opinion by Walter Block: Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise.
His idea is to apply homesteading principle to children. This basically means treating them as property, not as actors.
It would be interesting to learn his opinion on when does a child become an actor with property rights to own body.
Negative.
Block, Walter. 2004. “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 275-286;
Conza, do you have a link or pdf of the article?
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf
It's probably linked in the Child Slavery thread. People stopped responding, so I never finished my analysis of needs but it might be time to revisit it. I have some notes on Maslow, Max-Neef, Piaget, etc.
Rothbard is right in recognizing potential but the "ability to consent" thing is contradictory.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Here's Bryan Caplan on Locke and children's rights: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn045.pdf
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
Joe: Conza, do you have a link or pdf of the article?
abirkmanis: http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf
Thanks. Possibly worth noting: there is another journal article Block wrote that has the same title as the small opinion piece he wrote in lewrockwell.com, 2001.
Block, Walter. Forthcoming B. “Stem cell research: the libertarian compromise,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.
Although he has since changed the name of it, though I am not sure to what.
It is very different. The medical journal article is a 30 page paper. The LRC one is a 2 page paper."
E. R. Olovetto: It's probably linked in the Child Slavery thread. People stopped responding, so I never finished my analysis of needs but it might be time to revisit it. I have some notes on Maslow, Max-Neef, Piaget, etc. Rothbard is right in recognizing potential but the "ability to consent" thing is contradictory.
Yeah, was looking forward to that. There is also (from memory) a post from trulib outlining and elaborating on the legal sequence of dealing with child abuse in a free society. That was good.
The way I see it, is when you lose your "ability to consent" - you revert into guardianship status. So you get knocked unconscious - you cannot consent right there and then, but you still have the potential to do so.
Responding to something different entirely, but the characterization here is useful:
"In answer we may point out that their [natural law] view identifies value not with existence but rather with the fulfillment of tendencies determined by the structure of the existent entity. Furthermore, it identifies evil not with non-existence but rather with a mode of existence in which natural tendencies are thwarted and deprived of realization…. The young plant whose leaves are withering for lack of light is not nonexistent. It exists, but in an unhealthy or privative mode. The lame man is not nonexistent. He exists, but with a natural power partially unrealized. … This metaphysical objection is based upon the common assumption that existence is fully finished or complete. … [But] what is good is the fulfillment of being.[30]" - http://mises.org/daily/2426
So if you are in a coma, knocked unconscious who cannot "consent" etc. you revert back to guardianship status. (As you were when you were a baby) So if someone injures you while in this state, they can be liable as aggressors. So I see three states, potential to consent (and able) [rational beings], potential to consent (and unable) [baby, person in a coma, knocked unconscious etc.], and no potential [animals, piece of wood etc.]
That's kind of the framework you also accept? So while we would contend that physically beating / raping a child / etc., person in a coma, someone knocked unconscious is a rights violation - [you know who] would say that it is fine "because they cannot consent and thus revert to no potential [animals, piece of wood etc.] and become "homesteadable property".
Eh, I should probably elaborate on points as it is needed but I can't be bothered atm. This no editor is a pain in the..
Thanks. I think as far as I can really go for now is to speak of 3 general categories: (pre-rational) child, (rational but not self-sustaining) adolescent, and adult. As I said, the whole theory has further implications for adults in altered states of mind (intoxicated, insane, etc.), but more importantly and I still haven't sorted this all out, implications for prisoners and dealing with suspected crimes. I'm getting more and more tired of arguing with idiots and feel like I'm almost prepared learning-wise to start more serious writing. Reinach's philosophy has be captivated right now. Try to get your hands on James DuBois' Judgment and Sachverhalt if you can.
This is basically fine, except I will gripe about the term, "ability to consent". There is a difference though between an infant with sheer potential and an adult who later comes to require some form of guardianship. The latter may have, as a moral agent, altered his legal status through various social acts. Obvious examples would be of someone making a living will to direct the actions of any potential guardian, or of a standard will directing distribution of an estate.
There is no 'libertarian' answer because they are obsessed with 'principles'. In realtiy customary norms will handle this, and it is a serious pragmatic problem for the 'absolutist' libertarians (though no serious problem for consequentialist libertarians).
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
"As regards the utilitarian position, the proof contains its ultimate refutation. It demonstrates that simply in order to propose the utilitarian position, exclusive rights of control over one’s body and one’s homesteaded goods already must be presupposed as valid. More specifically, as regards the consequentialist aspect of libertarianism, the proof shows its praxeological impossibility: the assignment of rights of exclusive control cannot be dependent on certain outcomes. One could never act and propose anything unless private property rights existed prior to a later outcome. A consequentialist ethic is a praxeological absurdity. Any ethic must instead be “aprioristic” or instantaneous in order to make it possible that one can act here and now and propose this or that rather than having to suspend acting until later. Nobody advocating a wait-for-the-outcome ethic would be around to say anything if he took his own advice seriously. Also, to the extent that utilitarian proponents are still around, they demonstrate through their actions that their consequentialist doctrine is and must be regarded as false. Acting and proposition-making require private property rights now and cannot wait for them to be assigned only later." - HHH
Conza88:There is also (from memory) a post from trulib outlining and elaborating on the legal sequence of dealing with child abuse in a free society. That was good.
This covers the practical issues of how parental child abuse (and neglect) will be approached by a libertarian court and how enforcement would likely work in anarchy. The definition of what is consistent with homesteading the right to bring up a child will be determined by the norms held by the individuals in society and those norms will be discovered and exercised through a free market in law.
I am not sure whether the libertarian court can go further, and allow force to be committed against Bob. In particular:
E.R. - How are you defining "self-sustaining" (roughly) and how is the distinction useful? Send me a private message if you prefer.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
@trulib, what an obvious approach to the situation in a free society! Glad you shared it.
[DELETED: THIS IS A MATTER FOR THE ISSUES FORUM]
Edit: As usual, the off topic "troll" comment stands.
I can't see how libby's post is on topic, but the last 3 need taken to teh Issues FOrum.
Misread the post. I can't delete this post for sme reason.
I'm confused if I should report this second Stirnerite turd, after the one in the "Libertarian child rearing" thread got deleted. Relevance?
1) I got the thread posts mixed
2) is turd an appropriate term?
3) It wasn't relevant, it turns out I misread and jumbled both posts. It is deleted
[deleted]
A CRITIQUE OF BLOCK ON ABORTION AND CHILD ABANDONMENT
Someone posted that yesterday and I hadn't taken the time to respond yet. Basically though, his argument centers around a faulty analogy. This is the 2nd paper recently criticizing Block that is pretty bad. I'm a bit surprised it even got published.
@E. R., I made a new thread for this topic: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/17261.aspx