I'm not a fan of child support laws, and my basic beleif is that a father shouldn't have to pay for a child he doesn't want. And that I certainly shouldn't have to pay for a government to step in and force him to be a responsible adult.
However many people find this view to be too "cold," was there anything in place before the government took over and are there any facts and statisitics that show how the government getting involved is actually worse for the child? And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system? Marriage Insurance?
Thanks
This is quite tangled, but at a minimum both parents have obligations to their child. I fail to see how the severing of a marriage would end that. There are many complicating factors of course, such as whether impregnation was part of the father's intent etc.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Honest your honor, I just slipped and she got pregnant!
If we acknowledge the right of a woman to choose to not bear a child, how can we refuse the same right to a man?
If she has the option of curtailing her responsibility for childraising for the next 18+ years, he should as well. Once the responsibility has been freely accepted, I don't see any way of honorably walking away from it - but the failure of contraception does not automatically mean that one must accept the responsibility to be a parent.
In the case of dissoultion of marriage, it gets more complex. Like other things in economics, raising a child costs what it costs. However, this cost will change dramatically with social and economic status, whether the marriage is continued or not. I expect that people with more cash flow spend more money than I do, per child, in raising them. Calculating "fair" child support is likely to be contentious, and adding it to the emotional upheaval of the dissolution of a marriage just makes it more difficult to keep it at a level that will be seen as just by all involved.
One thing I think would work better than the current USAian policy would be for the parent who had more control have the additional responsibility to go with it. Joint custody matched with joint expenses would be (relatively) easy to calculate, and full custody should carry with it the full financial responsibility - if one parent may no longer even visit with their children, it's hard to justify making them pay for someone else to raise them.
Danno
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Danno: One thing I think would work better than the current USAian policy would be for the parent who had more control have the additional responsibility to go with it. Joint custody matched with joint expenses would be (relatively) easy to calculate, and full custody should carry with it the full financial responsibility - if one parent may no longer even visit with their children, it's hard to justify making them pay for someone else to raise them.
I agree that if a father was given a larger role in the child's upbringing after a seperation he would more likely voluntarily give more, studies seem to show thise as well. However, what if the father were to abandon the mother and child, does that make him free from his obligations?
One of my favourite Blairisms is the 'rights and responsibilites' jargon.
Right now a father's rights with regards to his kids are still highly unequal to mother's rights. At present, governments want fathers to shoulder the responsibilities without the corresponding rights.
Has anyone considered pre-nuptual agreements as the solution to this quagmire. For instance "in the event of abuse,dereliction, etc., the the father shall have to pay $X for damages caused...". It's a private contract between two persons, rather than a coercive payment enforced by the state. The agreement could also outline the living arrangements for the child(ren), rather than having a lengthy and costly judicial hearing.
Contractual obligations are surely superlative to a set of marriage vows. We have to start believing that pre-nups arn't just for the rich and famous.
As for young unmarried men who plant their seed in a woman and cause an unwanted pregnancy...I don't know.
Irish Liberty Forum
Angurse:and my basic beleif is that a father shouldn't have to pay for a child he doesn't want.
Ditto. This is a form of slavery.
Angurse:However many people find this view to be too "cold," was there anything in place before the government took over and are there any facts and statisitics that show how the government getting involved is actually worse for the child?
Higher rates of divorce? If a married couple are having problems and the wife can get the same income through child support payments, she will be more inclined to divorce him all other things being equal. As for it being to "cold", family is a division of labour. It used to be the case that parents would have children because they were an asset. You have extra hands to do work and someone to take care of you when you get old. Now people seem to be having children to get welfare and child support payments, which means higher levels of illigitimacy and family breakup. I don't think this is in the child's interest. It is much better when he has two parents who have every incentive to ensure that he is successful, since this is the best guarentee of being taken care of when they reach their later years.
Angurse:And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system?
By not giving incentives for family breakup.
And what about the unmarried couple? Or the one-night stand? Or even the rape victim? How can the free market help them?
Angurse: And what about the unmarried couple? Or the one-night stand? Or even the rape victim? How can the free market help them?
By providing abortion clinics. :P
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
Yet another demonstration of the problems with many in the freedom movement. Freedom does not mean an abdication of responsibility for one's action. When two people take the action of having sex there are possible outcomes as a result of their actions. One of the outcomes possible is creating a child. Even if one is using contraception that only reduces the likelihood of a certain outcome, it does not eliminate it. One's intention is irrelevant to taking responisbility for the result of the action. If a person did not want to have the risk of having children they could refrain from sex. When I drive my car I have no intention of causing an accident and I might take steps to reduce the likelihood but if I cause an accident I am still responsible.
So the mother and father have obligations to care for the child.
Maxliberty:Yet another demonstration of the problems with many in the freedom movement. Freedom does not mean an abdication of responsibility for one's action. When two people take the action of having sex there are possible outcomes as a result of their actions. One of the outcomes possible is creating a child. Even if one is using contraception that only reduces the likelihood of a certain outcome, it does not eliminate it. One's intention is irrelevant to taking responisbility for the result of the action. If a person did not want to have the risk of having children they could refrain from sex. When I drive my car I have no intention of causing an accident and I might take steps to reduce the likelihood but if I cause an accident I am still responsible.
Are you suggesting that the government step in and force the father to fulfill his obligations? Also, in the case of seperation, if the father has little-to-no parental duties, does he then still have to pay for the child he cannot raise (or see in many cases)?
Maxliberty:So the mother and father have obligations to care for the child.
What if the father doesn't want the child? He is then at the mercy of the woman.
Angurse: Maxliberty:Yet another demonstration of the problems with many in the freedom movement. Freedom does not mean an abdication of responsibility for one's action. When two people take the action of having sex there are possible outcomes as a result of their actions. One of the outcomes possible is creating a child. Even if one is using contraception that only reduces the likelihood of a certain outcome, it does not eliminate it. One's intention is irrelevant to taking responisbility for the result of the action. If a person did not want to have the risk of having children they could refrain from sex. When I drive my car I have no intention of causing an accident and I might take steps to reduce the likelihood but if I cause an accident I am still responsible. Are you suggesting that the government step in and force the father to fulfill his obligations? Also, in the case of seperation, if the father has little-to-no parental duties, does he then still have to pay for the child he cannot raise (or see in many cases)? Maxliberty:So the mother and father have obligations to care for the child. What if the father doesn't want the child? He is then at the mercy of the woman.
The obligation is to the child. The father's obligation does not cease regardless of the circumstance or relation with the mother. What the father wants regarding responsibility for his actions is irrelevant. Like I said, this is where many in the freedom movement fail intellectually and why many discussions about freedom ring hollow and are nothing more than a misleading intellectual exercise. First, you have to accept that people have obligations and responsibilities for their actions, then we can discuss what should be done about those who don't fulfill their obligations.
As far as the "government stepping in", I do not propose the government do anything, including breathe.
Maxliberty: The obligation is to the child. The father's obligation does not cease regardless of the circumstance or relation with the mother. What the father wants regarding responsibility for his actions is irrelevant. Like I said, this is where many in the freedom movement fail intellectually and why many discussions about freedom ring hollow and are nothing more than a misleading intellectual exercise. First, you have to accept that people have obligations and responsibilities for their actions, then we can discuss what should be done about those who don't fulfill their obligations. As far as the "government stepping in", I do not propose the government do anything, including breathe.
What obligation? No one has an obligationt to anything but themselves. If a mother has the right to abort a child because she does not want the responsibility of raising it then the father has just as much right to walk away from the child after it was born. To assume otherwise is to foist the idea of slavery on a man to the child. While he might have a moral responsibility to care for the child he certainly does not have any legal obligation nor does the child or the mother have the right to enslave the father forcing him to care for something he has no desire for. But this applies to a mother as well. A mother may give birth to a child but soon discover she does not have the funds or even the time to deal with it. She does not have the right to kill the child after birth but can either give full custody of it to the father or if the father wants nothing to do with the child she could find some other person that has the means and will to care for the child.
The fact that a child is born does not in anyway mean I am legally obligated to it. I might be morally bound but morals have no legal force. Your moral compass could be drastically different than mine. Some are morally opposed to eating meat whereas I am not (I just enjoyed a nice tasty pig). Some might feel morally obligated to care for a child even if they don't really want to but I might not. Perhaps I feel that my only job is to "spread my seed."
To force someone to care for something they do not want is tantamount to slavery. And the only way to enforce this is through the violent coercive force of the State. Forcing someone to conform to your moral code is just as immoral as abandoning a child.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Angurse:I'm not a fan of child support laws, and my basic beleif is that a father shouldn't have to pay for a child he doesn't want. And that I certainly shouldn't have to pay for a government to step in and force him to be a responsible adult. However many people find this view to be too "cold," was there anything in place before the government took over and are there any facts and statisitics that show how the government getting involved is actually worse for the child? And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system? Marriage Insurance?
Parents bear an obligation for the child their actions created, from conception until the end of their dependency. This is because they are the cause of that dependency. As with a person you hit with your car and thus disable, accidentally or not, you are obligated to tend to the dependency of another human that results from your actions.
That being said, forced child support, at least for fathers, should still not exist. This is because it is impossible to establish paternity without violating his rights. You can't force a man to give up his blood, he might not be the father. Motherhood is obvious, fatherhood can be established only by scientific testing.
Angurse: I'm not a fan of child support laws, and my basic beleif is that a father shouldn't have to pay for a child he doesn't want. And that I certainly shouldn't have to pay for a government to step in and force him to be a responsible adult. However many people find this view to be too "cold," was there anything in place before the government took over and are there any facts and statisitics that show how the government getting involved is actually worse for the child? And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system? Marriage Insurance? Thanks
If you do not want a child, you should not have one. The essence of liberty requires individuals to be responsible for their own actions. If you wish to have sex without practicing contraception or getting a vasectomy, then you are responsible for the outcome. By placing the responsibility of raising the child entirely on the mother, you are infringing on her liberty, and yourself engaging in the same type of coercion which you decry when it occurs by the state. A child cannot be simply thrown away because you do not "want it". This is also incompatible with the concept of liberty. The government should not have to force you to be a "responsible adult", if you are in fact a responsible adult, you should act like one without any state coercion. It is not simply "cold", it is childish and immature, not to mention morally bankrupt. I would, however, agree with the other poster who pointed out that by bearing a share of the financial burden, shared parenting/visitation should be a basic right, except in the case of abuse.
Fine. What should be done about those fathers who don't fulfill their obligations?
spkrman:If you do not want a child, you should not have one. The essence of liberty requires individuals to be responsible for their own actions. If you wish to have sex without practicing contraception or getting a vasectomy, then you are responsible for the outcome.
Okay, what if the father simply leaves? I don't think that every individual who practices unsafe sex takes the time to think of the consequences, nor would they necessarily accept them.
spkrman:The government should not have to force you to be a "responsible adult", if you are in fact a responsible adult, you should act like one without any state coercion.
I absolutely agree, people should be responsible, but are they?
spkrman: If you do not want a child, you should not have one. The essence of liberty requires individuals to be responsible for their own actions. If you wish to have sex without practicing contraception or getting a vasectomy, then you are responsible for the outcome. By placing the responsibility of raising the child entirely on the mother, you are infringing on her liberty, and yourself engaging in the same type of coercion which you decry when it occurs by the state. A child cannot be simply thrown away because you do not "want it". This is also incompatible with the concept of liberty.
If you do not want a child, you should not have one. The essence of liberty requires individuals to be responsible for their own actions. If you wish to have sex without practicing contraception or getting a vasectomy, then you are responsible for the outcome. By placing the responsibility of raising the child entirely on the mother, you are infringing on her liberty, and yourself engaging in the same type of coercion which you decry when it occurs by the state. A child cannot be simply thrown away because you do not "want it". This is also incompatible with the concept of liberty.
The same can be said of the mother. It is not always the father that walks out. Sometimes the mother will leave the child with the father. Should forcing him to bear the responsibility of raising the child be a just thing? What if neither of them want anything to do with the child? Are they actually obligated to raise the child? Would not forcing them to raise a child against their will be akin to enslavement? Having committed no crime I see no reason why a person would assume that either the mother, father or both be held responsible for the care of any child they might have. While walking out might be a morally bankrupt thing to do it is not a crime. No ones liberty has been infringed on. No person is born with a "right to being raised by two parents" or even by one parent. The mothers "liberty" is not being infringed on because the father has walked out any more than his "liberty" would be infringed upon if the mother left. Just what "liberty" or "rights" are we discussing here? Her "right" to have someone share half the cost? I hardly see how that could be a right. Her "right" to have someone bear half the burden? Certainly that is not a right anymore than a person having a "right" to a job. What "liberty" or "rights" is the father then violating by leaving? To force him to care for something he has no desire for is a violation of his "liberty" because he is now enslaved to this parasitic being. The mother does not have any "liberty" being denied her if she freely and of her own accord accepts the responsibility of raising the child. If she does not want that responsibility then she merely has to place the child with an adoption agency. There are a lot of people who are willing to adopt a young child because they can't have children naturally.
So how exactly then is the mothers "liberty" being violated?
spkrman:The government should not have to force you to be a "responsible adult", if you are in fact a responsible adult, you should act like one without any state coercion. It is not simply "cold", it is childish and immature, not to mention morally bankrupt. I would, however, agree with the other poster who pointed out that by bearing a share of the financial burden, shared parenting/visitation should be a basic right, except in the case of abuse.
But how are you going to "force" a father to care for something that is obviously a violation of his liberty? What you need to do is stop confusing morality with legality as they are two completely different things. Legally I can do whatever I want so long as I do not violate the property of another. And morally I can do anything I want provided I do not violate MY moral code. Your moral code might state that having sex outside of marriage is wrong whereas my moral code might be completely different. I might not believe in marriage and therefore sex with anyone I wish is just fine. My moral code is vastly different than yours but you cannot LEGALLY force me to live the way you want. By forcing me to live under your moral code you are violating my right to self-ownership and self-determination. I cannot force you to adhere to my moral code as I would be denying your right to self-ownership and self-determination.
So let's understand that what is moral and what is legal are two separate and distinct things. Legality can be enforced -- morality cannot.
Angurse: Maxliberty: The obligation is to the child. The father's obligation does not cease regardless of the circumstance or relation with the mother. What the father wants regarding responsibility for his actions is irrelevant. Like I said, this is where many in the freedom movement fail intellectually and why many discussions about freedom ring hollow and are nothing more than a misleading intellectual exercise. First, you have to accept that people have obligations and responsibilities for their actions, then we can discuss what should be done about those who don't fulfill their obligations. As far as the "government stepping in", I do not propose the government do anything, including breathe. Fine. What should be done about those fathers who don't fulfill their obligations?
Now the PDA's are only concerned about the children with regard to child support. So the PDA's will develop policies similar to the following: If an independent has sex with a member of a PDA then the rules of that PDA will be applied to the independent. If an independent has sex with another independent then the only concern becomes the child. As such PDA's like the SDK in the Liberty Colony have already adopted policies concerning the general philosophy of protecting all children from physical harm.
So when independents have sex with PDA members then the rules governing the PDA client will apply. Independents can avoid potential problems by choosing their partners with this in mind.
When independents have sex with other independents then there are no specific rules regarding the obligations of the parents other than the child can not be harmed. That is not to say that there will not be consequences because independents will be very vulnerable to physical retaliation by other independents and perhaps other forms of economic retaliation from society at large.
The final example is the Kingmonkey type who refuse to accept any responsibility for any action they take. So these types are willing to murder, rape, steal or otherwise violate people and expect no consequence for their actions. The only possible outcome in these scenarios is conflict.
There are no such things as positive obligations. People posess responsibility for themselves only. If I impregnate a woman and she gives birth, the child has no right to my property, as it is MY property, not the childs. I signed no contract with the child obligating me to care for it.
That being said, if a couple have a child, they have the right to deny it of their property (i.e. Put it out on the street).
I would say people like that are sick, immoral, and deserve God's wrath, that does not mean I can punish them for it, they haven't aggressed upon anyone.
banned:There are no such things as positive obligations. People posess responsibility for themselves only. If I impregnate a woman and she gives birth, the child has no right to my property, as it is MY property, not the childs. I signed no contract with the child obligating me to care for it. That being said, if a couple have a child, they have the right to deny it of their property (i.e. Put it out on the street). I would say people like that are sick, immoral, and deserve God's wrath, that does not mean I can punish them for it, they haven't aggressed upon anyone.
If you hit someone with a car by accident, and because of this, they are rendered unable to support themselves, are you not now obligated to support them? Even if you don't have a contract with them? You are the cause of their dependency, and therefore, you must provide for it. The situation is the same with children. You are obligated to care for them until they can care for themselves, because their dependency is the result of your actions.
Maxliberty: Good, now we are asking the right questions. First, let's eliminate government from the equation. Let's use the real example of the Liberty Colony. In the Liberty Colony I believe most people will belong to one or more Private Defense Agencies. These PDA's will have these areas covered as far as what are the legal obligations of individuals engaging in sex.
Good, now we are asking the right questions. First, let's eliminate government from the equation. Let's use the real example of the Liberty Colony. In the Liberty Colony I believe most people will belong to one or more Private Defense Agencies. These PDA's will have these areas covered as far as what are the legal obligations of individuals engaging in sex.
Your idea of what a PDA is seems to be is very different from what everyone else's idea of a PDA constitutes. You seem to think that a PDA is some kind of governing organization that can make rules for how people live their lives. That is NOT what a PDA is. A PDA -- Personal Defense Agency -- is merely there to provide protection for their customers. They are NOT there to govern their customers lives. The PDA can make NO rules concerning how I live my life or how any of their customers live their lives. I am not going to pay money to some company just so they can tell me how to live! You so wrong on your perception of what a PDA's purpose is it brings everything else you say under suspicion.
Maxliberty: So this leaves only people like Kingmonkey who believe that they are not responsible for anything they do and people who for whatever reason choose to be what I call independents that is those individuals with no PDA relationships. As a reminder I believe this group will be fairly small.
So this leaves only people like Kingmonkey who believe that they are not responsible for anything they do and people who for whatever reason choose to be what I call independents that is those individuals with no PDA relationships. As a reminder I believe this group will be fairly small.
Please show me where I stated anything like that? But you know what, you're right. I don't have to take responsibility for anything I do so long as what I'm doing is not violating the property of another.
Maxliberty: Now the PDA's are only concerned about the children with regard to child support.
Now the PDA's are only concerned about the children with regard to child support.
WRONG! WRONG!! WRONG!!! PDA's are only concerned with the wishes of their customers! They have no business in anything the customer does not what them to be involved with. A PDA cannot set rules for how anyone lives their life!
Maxliberty: So the PDA's will develop policies similar to the following: If an independent has sex with a member of a PDA then the rules of that PDA will be applied to the independent. If an independent has sex with another independent then the only concern becomes the child. As such PDA's like the SDK in the Liberty Colony have already adopted policies concerning the general philosophy of protecting all children from physical harm.
So the PDA's will develop policies similar to the following: If an independent has sex with a member of a PDA then the rules of that PDA will be applied to the independent. If an independent has sex with another independent then the only concern becomes the child. As such PDA's like the SDK in the Liberty Colony have already adopted policies concerning the general philosophy of protecting all children from physical harm.
If an independent has sex with a member of a PDA then they simply have sex with a member of a PDA. You are trying to legislate the behaviors of willing consensual actors. You are, therefore, attempting to establish a pseudo-State which can legislate morality.
Maxliberty: So when independents have sex with PDA members then the rules governing the PDA client will apply. Independents can avoid potential problems by choosing their partners with this in mind.
How do you suppose that? How could I EVER come on the "rules governing the PDA client" if I did not subscribe to a PDA's services? A PDA cannot set "rules" for their clients. We continue to see in your comments your misguided belief that by signing up for a particular service someone offers I can give up my free will and self-determination, that I can voluntarily give up my liberty, that I can place over me some master that can set "rules" on how I can live my life. Not only can a PDA NOT do that a PDA cannot FORCE any person to live under their rules for any reasons!
Maxliberty: When independents have sex with other independents then there are no specific rules regarding the obligations of the parents other than the child can not be harmed. That is not to say that there will not be consequences because independents will be very vulnerable to physical retaliation by other independents and perhaps other forms of economic retaliation from society at large.
For what? If they child isn't harmed then how can I be subject to any retaliation? Parenthood is not something that can be forced on someone. You are either willing to care for a child or not. There is a big difference between walking out and leaving the care of a child to one parent compared to both parents or even one of them taking a new born baby and leaving it in the trash can. In the former I would have committed no crime since I have no violated anyones liberty. The later could be the crime of murder if the baby should die.
Maxliberty: The final example is the Kingmonkey type who refuse to accept any responsibility for any action they take. So these types are willing to murder, rape, steal or otherwise violate people and expect no consequence for their actions. The only possible outcome in these scenarios is conflict.
How is that? Refusing to be burdened for the rest of my life because a parasite was born that steals my liberty and my wealth doesn't mean I would go out and just murder, rape, steal or otherwise. What proof, what EVIDENCE, do you have that shows that because someone does not what to accept the responsibility of raising a child (which is not a crime) they are more apt to go out and commit all manner of crimes as you have suggested?
What you believe to be moral is no more correct than what I would believe to be moral. Morality is subjective and rest entirely upon the individual moral code of the person in question. There are some acts that transcend morality such as murder, rape and theft because you have now violated the liberty and property of another person. You have initiated coercive violence against another which denies them their single greatest property -- their life and liberty.
I think you'd find more people that would agree with you on a Marxist message board. I don't think you have any place here. You believe you can rule over people, even people who voluntarily accept the DEFENSE services of a company.
JCFolsom:If you hit someone with a car by accident, and because of this, they are rendered unable to support themselves, are you not now obligated to support them?
Correct. I am only obligated to pay insurance. Driving is a risk.
Of course in a free market, road companies would probably instate driver obligations to keep their roads safe.
If I deliberately hit someone with a car, that is an act of aggression. I've denied them a right, and in turn they can do the same.
JCFolsom:Even if you don't have a contract with them? You are the cause of their dependency, and therefore, you must provide for it.
Someone invests their life savings in my company. My company goes under despite benign intent (not fraud). I made no promise or contract to return them their money, so do I owe them their money? I may have caused them to depend on some outside entity for sustinance, but both they and I were making an investment with risks involved. Driving on a road is quite similar. I am taking a risk, and hopefully I've insured myself to cover that risk, or I'm using a road with adequate safety regulations.
Of course, this is supposing your analogy is correct. But the fact is, it can be argued that you've done something to impare the situation of the other driver, you've aggressed upon them. This is not the case for the child. All you have done is supplement it's creation. Simliarly, a drug seller suplements his customers addiction. They may be dependant on the drug, but they do not have a right to take that drug away from the seller. That would be theft.
A child developes itself off siphoning it's mother's nutrients. If the mother allows that to happen, so be it. The child has no right making the mother continue her practice of giving it care. Conception isn't an act of aggression so the child has not been violated into it's dependancy.
banned:A child developes itself off siphoning it's mother's nutrients. If the mother allows that to happen, so be it. The child has no right making the mother continue her practice of giving it care. Conception isn't an act of aggression so the child has not been violated into it's dependancy.
It isn't? Did you ask it first, if it wanted to exist? No, you forced it to by your actions (rape is an exception to this case, but Block's evictionism should go into effect in that case). Admittedly, this is a gray area. To remove the "driving is a risk" bit, let's say you, by accident, run off the road and crash into someone's house, injuring them and causing their dependency. They did not take a risk, you did (unless you want to say that building your house anywhere near a road is also a risk that disqualifies them from compensation beyond insurance); you took an action that carried a risk, a liability to anyone who might become dependent as a result of your actions.
This is why it is hard to get hot chicks into libertarianism.
JCFolsom:Did you ask it first, if it wanted to exist? No, you forced it to by your actions...
Aggression implies a prior owner. For instance, if someone agresses against me by taking MY car, that implies I OWNED the car, if I don't own the car, it's not aggression against me, and if I don't exist, I can't own anything.
The baby didn't exist prior to its conception, therefore it posessed no rights (since things that don't exist obviously can't act). It would be foolhardy to say you can proform acts of aggression against things that don't exist. Existance precludes rights.
And IF conception IS aggression, how could someone who is agains't aggression uphold conception? Wouldn't, then, conception be an unlibertarian enterprise?
JCFolsom:To remove the "driving is a risk" bit, let's say you, by accident, run off the road and crash into someone's house, injuring them and causing their dependency. They did not take a risk, you did (unless you want to say that building your house anywhere near a road is also a risk that disqualifies them from compensation beyond insurance); you took an action that carried a risk, a liability to anyone who might become dependent as a result of your actions.
The nature of this scenario is fairly ambiguous, but i'll try to respond as best I can. By driving off the road purely out of my own negligance I would have proformed aggression upon someone. Whether I intended to or not, was aware of it or not, it was aggression. I denied someone the private use of their property. However, we're supposing the home owner made no prior contract with the road owner and that the actions causing the "accident" can be relegated 100% to me and were not some flaw in the road or car.
I don't exactly see how that correlates to conceiving babies though.
Maxliberty:Good, now we are asking the right questions. First, let's eliminate government from the equation. Let's use the real example of the Liberty Colony. In the Liberty Colony I believe most people will belong to one or more Private Defense Agencies. These PDA's will have these areas covered as far as what are the legal obligations of individuals engaging in sex. So this leaves only people like Kingmonkey who believe that they are not responsible for anything they do and people who for whatever reason choose to be what I call independents that is those individuals with no PDA relationships. As a reminder I believe this group will be fairly small.
Alright, I sign up for a private defense agency, and agree that I will fulfill any financial burden my children may cost. Fair enough.
Maxliberty: Now the PDA's are only concerned about the children with regard to child support. So the PDA's will develop policies similar to the following: If an independent has sex with a member of a PDA then the rules of that PDA will be applied to the independent. If an independent has sex with another independent then the only concern becomes the child. As such PDA's like the SDK in the Liberty Colony have already adopted policies concerning the general philosophy of protecting all children from physical harm.
So an independent will be required to pay for a child even if they aren't a subscriber? Or are you saying the PDA will cover the cost of a non-member?
Maxliberty:When independents have sex with other independents then there are no specific rules regarding the obligations of the parents other than the child can not be harmed. That is not to say that there will not be consequences because independents will be very vulnerable to physical retaliation by other independents and perhaps other forms of economic retaliation from society at large.
Basically, "if you don't pay for your child, I'm going to hurl bricks at you." What type of economic retaliation? Ruin the dead-beat dad's credit?
JCFolsom: banned:A child developes itself off siphoning it's mother's nutrients. If the mother allows that to happen, so be it. The child has no right making the mother continue her practice of giving it care. Conception isn't an act of aggression so the child has not been violated into it's dependancy. It isn't? Did you ask it first, if it wanted to exist? No, you forced it to by your actions (rape is an exception to this case, but Block's evictionism should go into effect in that case). Admittedly, this is a gray area. To remove the "driving is a risk" bit, let's say you, by accident, run off the road and crash into someone's house, injuring them and causing their dependency. They did not take a risk, you did (unless you want to say that building your house anywhere near a road is also a risk that disqualifies them from compensation beyond insurance); you took an action that carried a risk, a liability to anyone who might become dependent as a result of your actions.
I fail to see how smashing a car through someones house and having a child are the same thing? Smashing a car through a house is aggressive because I have violated the property of another. What property am I violating by leaving a child to the care of its mother? Certainly I'm not violating the property or the liberty of the child nor could I possibly be violating the property or liberty of the mother who has already accepted the roll of guardian over this child. If I smash into someone and cripple them the most likely scenario is that I will compensate them monetarily for the pain, suffering, etc. I highly doubt I would be someone placed in involuntary servitude to this person for the rest of their life nor would they want me around them all the time. The only way I could be held responsible for the care and upbringing of a child is if I somehow violated its liberty -- if I committed some form of aggression against it. Fathering a child who was in a state of non-existence does not constitute aggression. Neither does leaving it to the care of another who would do a far better and loving job than I would.
You guys have a pretty weird definition of aggression. Most people do not think that you can aggress without intent. Accidents are, by definition, unintended.
As for the injured party, if you ruined their kidneys with the accident, and the only way to keep them alive (in a hypothetical world without dialysis) was to filter their blood through someone else's kidneys every other day, shouldn't that someone be you? You are the cause of their dependency. You did not intend to cause the dependency, but it is the direct result of your actions nonetheless.
JCFolsom:You guys have a pretty weird definition of aggression. Most people do not think that you can aggress without intent.
I shot him, but I didn't intend to kill him your honor!
Aggression is the act of violating someone's free use of property (that isn't used aggressively). Intent has nothing to do with it.
JCFolsom: As for the injured party, if you ruined their kidneys with the accident, and the only way to keep them alive (in a hypothetical world without dialysis) was to filter their blood through someone else's kidneys every other day, shouldn't that someone be you?
Angurse: Fine. What should be done about those fathers who don't fulfill their obligations?
JCFolsom: That being said, forced child support, at least for fathers, should still not exist. This is because it is impossible to establish paternity without violating his rights. You can't force a man to give up his blood, he might not be the father.
If enough people actually cared about family values, dead-beat dads would be banished.
Maxliberty: So the mother and father have obligations to care for the child.
First of all, what do you mean exactly by "help" for them? That is a completely subjective concept. Each person would have a different opinion. Therefore, negotiation is the only solution.
Second, aside from the fact that it is not even an actionable agent, the "free market" really does not have an obligation to supply any help.
[ If a meteor landed on Earth, would we expect the "free market" to be able to help? I would not. I see disruptions to the family unit to be of such severity as to make it equivalent to the damage produced by a meteor. Not everything can be fixed. ]
MatthewWilliam: Has anyone considered pre-nuptual agreements as the solution to this quagmire.
Angurse: However, what if the father were to abandon the mother and child, does that make him free from his obligations?
Angurse: However many people find this view to be too "cold," was there anything in place before the government took over and are there any facts and statisitics that show how the government getting involved is actually worse for the child?
Angurse: And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system? Marriage Insurance?
Charles Anthony: JCFolsom: As for the injured party, if you ruined their kidneys with the accident, and the only way to keep them alive (in a hypothetical world without dialysis) was to filter their blood through someone else's kidneys every other day, shouldn't that someone be you? I do not think your equivalency is accurate. You are equating the kidney injury to a pregnancy.
I do not think your equivalency is accurate. You are equating the kidney injury to a pregnancy.
Well, it's not precise, anyway. There is nothing precisely like it. What else can we possibly compare it to? It is a unique circumstance. I come down on the side that it is comparable, and that you are always liable for the situations your choices created. You, apparently, think that only "aggression" creates this obligation, and that this "aggression" includes any act that causes injury, whether intended or not (your gunshot example was a little weak; you certainly intended to shoot, and there are few uses for shooting; driving your car is more appropriate).
Charles Anthony:If enough people actually cared about family values, dead-beat dads would be banished.
Banished where?
Charles Anthony: First of all, what do you mean exactly by "help" for them? That is a completely subjective concept. Each person would have a different opinion. Therefore, negotiation is the only solution. Second, aside from the fact that it is not even an actionable agent, the "free market" really does not have an obligation to supply any help.
By "help" I simply meant financial aid. I never said that the free market had an obligation to supply an help, that doesn't mean it can't.
Charles Anthony:That happens all of the time: parents die.
So if a father walks out on his family, your might as well consider him dead, minus the government assistance and the possibility of life insurance.
Charles Anthony:That is an interesting possibility. However, marriage and divorce seem like incredibly messy things no matter what the social system happens to be. My suspicion is that without a monopolized legal system, most insurers would not be interested in having anything to do with marriage because arbitrating disputes would be incredibly arduous and risky -- it would probably just be a luxury service for movie stars and rich people. The concept of copyright law comes to mind too.
Basically, all I can gather, is that in a stateless society people should just be more careful - which is definately good. However, there really won't be any type of safety net (private or otherwise) for the unfortunate, besides possible charities and abortion clinics.
Angurse,
When an independent has sex with a client of the PDA he becomes bound by the public policies that the PDA has regarding it's clients. So independent's would be wise to either negotiate a separate agreement with the other person regarding this or have sex only with those individuals upon which they either agree with the rules of the PDA or who are independents. This is similar to when you enter a store to buy something and they have a sign posted no shirt/no service. By entering you implicitly agree to the rules of the store and it is reasonable for them to enforce their own rules. It is important to note that in a free society you have control over who you interact with so there is no burden on you, it is your own actions and with whom that will determine what obligations you have.
Secondly, regarding contracts in a free society like the Liberty Colony. Contracts are the essential element to any society and individuals or groups of individuals can and will make contracts for virtually any activity. It is reasonable that these contracts describe the agreement, describe remedies for the violations of the agreement, and outline appropriate methods of enforcement for violations of the agreement. These types of contracts, contrary to what Kingmonkey and some others on this forum may think are not remotely close to the idea of communism. Contracts are the essential element to free societies.
Maxliberty: Angurse, When an independent has sex with a client of the PDA he becomes bound by the public policies that the PDA has regarding it's clients. So independent's would be wise to either negotiate a separate agreement with the other person regarding this or have sex only with those individuals upon which they either agree with the rules of the PDA or who are independents. This is similar to when you enter a store to buy something and they have a sign posted no shirt/no service. By entering you implicitly agree to the rules of the store and it is reasonable for them to enforce their own rules. It is important to note that in a free society you have control over who you interact with so there is no burden on you, it is your own actions and with whom that will determine what obligations you have. Secondly, regarding contracts in a free society like the Liberty Colony. Contracts are the essential element to any society and individuals or groups of individuals can and will make contracts for virtually any activity. It is reasonable that these contracts describe the agreement, describe remedies for the violations of the agreement, and outline appropriate methods of enforcement for violations of the agreement. These types of contracts, contrary to what Kingmonkey and some others on this forum may think are not remotely close to the idea of communism. Contracts are the essential element to free societies.
You keep pushing this idea that a PDA has some contractual right to deny me any of my liberty? Further, how can a PDA enforce "public policies" when they are a private entity? They can only enforce THEIR polices on those that SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR SERVICES. I cannot be held liable for any infraction of any policy a PDA might set if I am not a subscriber to their service. Screwing people who belong to a PDA does not mean the PDA can run my life neither does the PDA have the right to run the lives of any of its clients. What you are proposing is nothing more than a pseudo-state in which I sign a contract with a PDA only to sign away my life and liberty to the whims of the company CEO. And what happens if you try to enforce your polices and I cancel my services? Are you still going to pursue me?
Maxliberty:When an independent has sex with a client of the PDA he becomes bound by the public policies that the PDA has regarding it's clients.
That's illigitimate.
The US government could be like, "Oh yeah, about you anarchists saying we don't own you, well you see, you've interacted with some of our voluntary tax payers (clients) so yeah, you're under our jurisdiction now".
You cant enforce a policy on people who did not make a contract or assume control over a certain aspect of their property. That's what illigitimacy is all about.
No, All you have THE RIGHT to do in that situation is punish your own client. They're the one that agreed to your rules.
Maxliberty:This is similar to when you enter a store to buy something and they have a sign posted no shirt/no service. By entering you implicitly agree to the rules of the store and it is reasonable for them to enforce their own rules. It is important to note that in a free society you have control over who you interact with so there is no burden on you, it is your own actions and with whom that will determine what obligations you have.
No it's not.
First off, they have a right to have that policy because they OWN the store. Now in this liberty colony are the PDAs asserting OWNERSHIP over their customers? If that's true, this colony is just another scourge upon the principle of liberty.
Second, "No Shirt, No Service" MEANS "No Shirt, No Service". If I don't have a shirt, the store owners/cashiers may not service me. And if a cashier does, THEY ARE LIABLE TO THE STORE. IT IS NOT "No Shirt, We Own You".
Third, There is a sign saying this, it's an agreement. Is the PDA going to tatoo every one of it's customers saying "If you have sex with me, you're agreeing to someone elses rules"? I can't own a store and then when someone enters say "By entering this door you have agreed to give me your right arm!"
Maxliberty:When an independent has sex with a client of the PDA he becomes bound by the public policies that the PDA has regarding it's clients. So independent's would be wise to either negotiate a separate agreement with the other person regarding this or have sex only with those individuals upon which they either agree with the rules of the PDA or who are independents. This is similar to when you enter a store to buy something and they have a sign posted no shirt/no service. By entering you implicitly agree to the rules of the store and it is reasonable for them to enforce their own rules. It is important to note that in a free society you have control over who you interact with so there is no burden on you, it is your own actions and with whom that will determine what obligations you have.
So, by entering the woman's vagina, I am now under the domain of her PDA? What if I was never properly informed? Are all PDA members required to wear badges displaying their defense providers?
I could see this being applied to, oh say, a brothel. In which, by entering the property, I agree to the house rules.
I think it's pretty simple - contractual agreements. If a woman expecting child support gets into a relationship with a man who refuses to agree beforehand to support a child resulting from the marriage, it's her fault. On the other hand, a man who wants a long-term relationship should expect such an agreement to take place. Caveat emptor.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
A man does not even have a provable obligation to himself, nevermind any other party. My father left my mother homeless and pregnant, and he had every right to do so. Was it a nice thing to do? Not really. He did this a few times, with different women. Should he be punished for it? Not at all. There are no such things as positive obligations. Obviously, his reputation preceded him, did it deter several women?
Conception is not aggression and creates no responsibility for the mother, father or otherwise. The child, being unable to sign contracts, is not a customer of any PDA, and therefore cannot avail itself of any defense services. I personally would not purchase the defense package that made me liable for conceiving children. Remember there would be competition, and with that, different products.
With a free market, there wouldn't be a surplus, because all children would be potentially for sale. The market would make prices, and sellers would respond appropriately -- our very biology may find this offensive, and our cultural obsession with family may judge it unnatural, but I think it's probably going to be present in the next major step of human development.
spires:With a free market, there wouldn't be a surplus, because all children would be potentially for sale.
Children for sale? That sounds useful for organ harvesting. :P