A question for anarchists

Anarchists don't believe in violence except in self-defense, and therefore despise any encroachment on personal freedom so long as one is not hamring another.

 Is it then the case that anarchists believe children should be allowed to do drugs? I agree that adults should be allowed to do drugs, but even 5 year olds?

 I often hear arguements that people shouldn't be told what to do with their own children (forced mental screenings, vaccinations), so if you believe this, then doesn't it follow that parents should be allowed to give their children extra "sugar" in their cereal?

 Ah, but giving a child drugs would be a violent act perhaps, because the child doesn't know what it is. Well, what if they are 8, or 9, or 10, and they do know it's bad for you, and they ask for it? Then they would have knowledge of it properties, and the exchange would be voluntary. Would you just sit by while a parent does that? If you don't, then you are violating our own principle of allowing all voluntary exchanges/relationiships.

 Ah, but giving your child food of low nutritional value and making them fat is bad for them too. So if I think that you shouldn't be allowed to give drugs, then shouldn't I also forbid giving poor food? I really can't find a way out of that conclusion, but I don't like drugs for kids, and I don't think parents should not be allowed to give their children Oreo's. I'm inconsistant. While were at it, would you allow a parent to let their child starve to death because forcing them to feed their kid would be violent? After all, such an exchange should be voluntary.

 So, I'm inconsistant and violent. Anarchists are heartless and non-violent.

 Is this analysis correct?

Whence does it follow that anarchists are 'heartless and violent'?

 Anarchists are heartless albeit non-violent. They are heartless because it seems they must stand by while parents feed their children blow and meth. If they do not, then they violate their own principles of non-violence.

 Children are not self-owners.  The parents have a trustee guardianship property right in their children.  Therefore parents can tell their children what to do and what not to do until the child reaches the age when he can in fact consider himself a self-owner by demonstrating this fact in nature.

 

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp 

I can relate to this worry. This is no doubt the trickiest area in libertarian theory. Before I jumped ship and became and became an anarchist, I emailed Bob Murphy a very similar problem involving sex. He forwarded the question to some others, and I found Roderick Long's answer somewhat compelling at the time and even moreso now:

"'I'm not sure whether this is a normative question (what in libertarian rights theory forbids ...?) or a pragmatic question (what mechanisms under anarchy would prevent ...?). I suspect it's a little of each.

Rothbard's phrasing that parents/guardians "own" their children can encourage the impression that you are within your rights to do anything you want to a child (until they claim self-ownership, etc.); since Rothbard *doesn't* in fact mean that, perhaps "own" was the wrong word. I'd say that a guardian's right to make decisions for a temporarily incapacitated person (which applies to children as well as to the comatose, etc.) is conditional on their making those decisions on the basis, as far as they can tell, of what the person if not incapacitated would consent to.

As for the pragmatic question, many worry that no one would have the economic incentive to defend helpless victims (e.g. children) who weren't signed up with a protection agency. To this I say that there are countless voluntary non-profit public-interest groups operating today, and there would be far more and they would have far more resources without government intervention.

I say a bit about both these matters (guardianship rights and the defense of nonclients) in "The Irrelevance of Responsibility," Social Philosophy and Policy 16, no. 2 (Summer 1999), pp. 118-145 (unfortunately not yet online).

Roderick"

As far as your point concerning inconsistency versus heartlessness, I obviously think that's a false dichotomy. If I think that an ethical theory when applied consistently seems to lead to obviously unethical results, then one of the following must be true:
1) I made a mistake, and the unethical result does not actually follow from the theory when properly applied
2) The ethical theory needs to be revised in order to consistently provide for such cases
Contradictions can't exist. Ethical theory is like any other area in academic study. Difficult cases can force us to revise our theory or try to find explanations, but it's silly to throw out the notion of consistency just because you have a difficult time.

Jeff, thanks for the answer. Could you give me a specific answer as to whether or not a parent should be allowed to give their child meth, at say 9 years of age? Let's assume that the child has learned about drugs in school, and has asked the parent for it.

 Also, you forgot a third option for when an ethical theory is applied consistantly:

3) What we thought was unethical actually isn't

This is why I border on sketicism in the realm of ethics; because we try to make ethical theories that when applied correctly conform to our intuitive presuppositions as to what is/isn't ethical, so what happens when we get a result that contradicts those intuitions? Is the theory wrong or our intuitions? How do you know? And if you don't know, then on what basis can you reject any ethical theory?

 

Trianglechoke7:

Anarchists are heartless albeit non-violent. They are heartless because it seems they must stand by while parents feed their children blow and meth. If they do not, then they violate their own principles of non-violence.

Ah sorry, I misread. Parents do have obligations to children, one of which is not to harm them. A much harder question is the one you posed re the child asking for the drugs. Right now I don't really have an answer for that one.

 I'll let Jeff answer the questions you posed, but I will just say that I am not an intuitionist. Just because something seems unethical does not mean it is; an argument must be supplied to establish such a thing. Nevertheless, ethical theories are governed by the laws of logic, and thus must be self-consistent.

 Inquisitor, while we wait for Jeff to chime in, do you have any thoughts on the following:

 If a parent has an obligation to not harm their child does this apply only to acts of commision or to acts of ommission as well?

 If only commission, then do you believe a parent doesn't have an obligation to feed their child? If not, then you concede that some acts of ommision should not be permissible. On what basis then would you argue that forced vaccinations and mental screenings are wrong, if in fact you do argue that? We could go even further and add things like seat belt/car seat laws for children/infants.

Anarchists do not believe there is a right to disallow anything. In so far as they will give good food to children who have only Oreos at home, they have a good heart. What they won't do is use violence and disrupt the social peace by invading the parents' property in order to appropriate the children for themselves, which is socialism and like all forms of socialism will not achieve its stated ends.

Trianglechoke7:

Jeff, thanks for the answer. Could you give me a specific answer as to whether or not a parent should be allowed to give their child meth, at say 9 years of age? Let's assume that the child has learned about drugs in school, and has asked the parent for it.

I think the answer is no, parents should not be allowed to give their children meth. The parent's guardian right's is conditional on what the person would consent to if not incapacitated. There obviously remains a continuum problem. That is, at which point is the child no longer no longer incapacitated? They obviously are at one month, but it's less clear at 12 years old. Continuum problems are interesting and sometimes very difficult, but they can't the basis for rejecting a theory.

Trianglechoke7:

 Also, you forgot a third option for when an ethical theory is applied consistantly:

3) What we thought was unethical actually isn't

This is why I border on sketicism in the realm of ethics; because we try to make ethical theories that when applied correctly conform to our intuitive presuppositions as to what is/isn't ethical, so what happens when we get a result that contradicts those intuitions? Is the theory wrong or our intuitions? How do you know? And if you don't know, then on what basis can you reject any ethical theory?

You're right, I did forget that third option. This is a very interesting and fundamental problem you've brought up about accepting or rejecting ethical theory. I'll try to provide a brief answer (but I'm not always good at being brief).

FIrst off, I would point out that this isn't just a problem for ethical theory but every other belief that one holds. It cannot be the case that in order for a belief to be justified, it must be formed on the basis of other justified beliefs. If that was true, then the train of justification would either lead to an infinited regress (ie. A is justified by B is justified by C is justified by D...ad infinitum) or in a circle (ie. A is justified by B is justified by C is justified by A). In both of those cases, it is obvious that there is no real justification at all (In the first case, there is nothing at the end of infinity, and in the second, saying that A is justified by A is simply an assertion not a justification). Therefore there must be such things as "properly basic beliefs", beliefs that provide justification to other beliefs, but are not in themselves justified by other beliefs. Beliefs in rules of mathmatics and logic are the most obvious properly basic beliefs. We believe them not on the basis of other beliefs, but because they are so obvious (that is, they are confirmed by our intuitions).

Properly basic beliefs, of course, are accompanied by varying degrees of intuitive certainty. Consider my currently held belief that there is a computer screen in front of me. It is partly based on the undeniable fact that I see what looks like a computer screen, but it does not follow from that belief because it is possible that I am dreaming , brain in a vat, matrix, etc. And yet my intuitions step in, and I cannot deny that there is a computer screen in front of me. All empirical observations are far from certain, and yet it's foolish to therefore categorically disbelieve all empirical observations.

But what about when there is a disagreement between such observations? Consider a case where S is in the desert and he forms a belief that there is an oasis in the distance because he sees what looks like water. And yet when he examines it up close, he sees that no such oasis exists. S cannot conclude that both beliefs are true and therefore the oasis exists and doesn't exist. No, he must adandon one of the beliefs, but he cannot choose arbitrarily or randomly between them. The belief based on closer observation is more certain, and he should therefore keep that one. Afterwards he might seek an explanation for why his cognitive faculties deceived him in the one instance, but that is not necessary in order to know that he should abandon the first belief.

So it is with ethics. Like empirical observations, moral intuitions are far from certain, and some are more certain than others. With emprical observations we can formulate theories about how the world works that seek to explain all such observations. When there is inconsistency between theory and observation we must go with what is more certain. If it seems plausible that we made a mistake in our observation, then we set aside the obseration as anomolous and continue believing the theory. If however an observation is undeniable, then we must alter our theory. Similarily it is helpful to formulate ethical theories. These theories are tested against our moral intuitions. We deal with inconsistancies in the same way as empirical theories. If it seems plausible that my moral intuition is mistaken (perhaps I notice a bias in my culture that isn't shared by all humanity), then I disregard that intuition and continue beliefing what follows from the theory. If on the other hand, the intuition in question is undeniable (it is impossible for me to deny, for instance, that it is wrong to violently agress against an innocent person), then the theory must be modified.

I admit that arguments for skepticism seem to have a lot of force, but I would point out that whatever success they have against ethics, they would also have against science.

Trianglechoke7:

 Is it then the case that anarchists believe children should be allowed to do drugs?

Yes. So what? Its not your life. Leave the children alone.

 

Trianglechoke7:

 So, I'm inconsistant and violent. Anarchists are heartless and non-violent.

 Is this analysis correct?

 

 

Yeah, because wanting people to have the ability to make their own choices is "heartless."


Also, war is peace, ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery.

 Jeff, I love Plantinga! I'll say more tomorrow.

 The critical issue here is that parents don't own their children. No human being can own another. They do however own the property right of being parents to their children. They obtain this right, by virtue of the fact that they caused the child to exist. In effect they homestead the property of parenthood when the child is born.  They own the property of parenthood for the child, not the child itself. However, in order to retain ownership, parents must maintain their property ownership by acting as proper parents. Quite apart from physically abusing a child (which is a direct violation of the child's rights), if parents neglect a child they have abdicated their resposibility as parents. They have  ceased to exercise their property ownership in parenthood of their child, and others must be allowed to homestead the right. If the parents prevent others from homesteading the right, then the parents are violating the rights of those who do wish to act as parents to the child. Note, by neglecting the child, they are not violating the rights of the child, they are simply relinquishing their ownership of parenthood, and must therefore allow others to assume the responsibility.

 Questions of whether a parent is neglecting a child if they a give a child drugs or unhealthy food, for example, are essentially subjective. Drugs, probably yes; Unhealthy food, probably no. The issue is not whether the child asks for them, beacuse a child isn't old enough to make those decisions. But if enough people feel that such actions by the parents are tantamount to neglect, and that thereby the parents have relinquished ownership of parenthood, then others must be allowed to take over the ownership, by force if necessary.  

Very nice response leonidia

leonidia:

 Questions of whether a parent is neglecting a child if they a give a child drugs or unhealthy food, for example, are essentially subjective. Drugs, probably yes; Unhealthy food, probably no. The issue is not whether the child asks for them, beacuse a child isn't old enough to make those decisions. But if enough people feel that such actions by the parents are tantamount to neglect, and that thereby the parents have relinquished ownership of parenthood, then others must be allowed to take over the ownership, by force if necessary.  

 

How are you going to even know that the children are taking drugs without invading the property of their parents? You cannot do this without a surveillance state of some kind.

Stranger:

How are you going to even know that the children are taking drugs without invading the property of their parents? You cannot do this without a surveillance state of some kind.

 

Anarchy isn't Utopia. Will children be neglected, and nobody know about it?  Yes. Undoubtedly this will happen. It happens today. Without a state, parents would be solely resposnsible for raising their children, but other family members, the local community and private child protection organizations could all step in where there's obvious neglect. That was the way it was done for thousands of years before the state started meddling in family affairs.

What are parents who risk losing their children logically going to do with regards to people who have the power to take their children away? Keep them away as far as possible.

What you propose is only going to cause children to come to greater harm.

 

Stranger:

What are parents who risk losing their children logically going to do with regards to people who have the power to take their children away? Keep them away as far as possible.

What you propose is only going to cause children to come to greater harm.

Well, you could use that same argument to say that neglectful parents do the same thing today (i.e. conceal the neglect) because the state certainly has the power to take their children away. Historically, it's reponsible adults that have interceded to stop irresponsible adults from abusing or neglecting children. Tragically, this doesn't happen today because everyone assumes the state will. The state absolves extended families and other concerned citizens of that responsibility. In fact, it grants itself a virtual monopoly on dealing with such situations, but unfortunately it usually does a lousy job.

leonidia:

Well, you could use that same argument to say that neglectful parents do the same thing today (i.e. conceal the neglect) because the state certainly has the power to take their children away. Historically, it's reponsible adults that have interceded to stop irresponsible adults from abusing or neglecting children. Tragically, this doesn't happen today because everyone assumes the state will. The state absolves extended families and other concerned citizens of that responsibility. In fact, it grants itself a virtual monopoly on dealing with such situations, but unfortunately it usually does a lousy job.

 

That in no way validates your claim to a right to take the children of others. 

Stranger:

That in no way validates your claim to a right to take the children of others. 

I don't claim anyone has an automatic right to take the children of others. Far from it. My point is this: A parent owns a property right in parenthood. If they cease being a parent, others can claim the property of parenthood of that child. See my earlier post for a fuller explanation. Who will decide if such a claim is justified?  The courts.  Who runs the courts in a stateless society?  For an answer, read the following books; "A Market for Liberty" by Linda and Morris Tannehill, and "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. 

 

Based on what right will this court decide that the children do not belong to their parents? 

Its true that "drugs are bad for people ", what the prohibitions never do is prove why invading people's homes and locking them in cages is better for them.

Stranger:

Based on what right will this court decide that the children do not belong to their parents? 

 

If a child old enough to talk says "I want to live with my uncle and not my parents." What court is going to force him to live with his parents? As I've often said, people do not own their children.

Stranger:

Based on what right will this court decide that the children do not belong to their parents? 

 

Look at it this way... a person may acquire property by homesteading previously unowned property. Take the example of a landowner.  A landowner maintains his homesteaded land by acting in a manner consistent with being a landowner (by putting up a fence, or cultivating the land etc.) If he ceases to act as a landowner, he forefits his right to the property, and others have the right to homestead it.  In an analgous way, a parent establishes and maintains his homesteaded right to parenthood by being a parent. If he ceases to act in a manner consistent with being a parent, he forfeits his rights to parenthood, and others have the right to homestead it.  Note; It's not the child that's homesteaded, it's the parenthood of the child.  The child cannot be owned. So if, for example, the original parent put a fence around the child (physically or metaphorically) that by itself is not sufficent to establish parenthood.  The fence, metaphorically speaking, must be put around the parenthood, and that's accomplished by acting like a parent. If you stop being a parent, that's the equivalent of removing the fence, and then others are free to claim the parenthood.

Now, if a person wrongly homesteaded another person's right of parenthood, there would be general outrage. They could be sued and punished, probably severely, so nobody would do this lightly.  A person wishing to homestead an abandoned parenting claim would probably go to court first to avoid this situation.  The court would decide whether the original parent had stopped acting in a manner consistent with being a parent. They would do this based on common sense and societal norms.  Undoubtedly, a decision against the original parent would only be reserved for the most serious cases.

If the court were to decided against the original parent, the new homesteader would become the adoptive parent of the child, and have all the rights of parenthood.

JonBostwick:

If a child old enough to talk says "I want to live with my uncle and not my parents." What court is going to force him to live with his parents? As I've often said, people do not own their children.

 

If a child can argue in his own name in court then he no longer technically belongs to anyone; he has the ability to assume the full powers and rights of an adult and may choose to live wherever he wishes.

Until that day, the parents do own the child, and the court will have to decide on the basis of different adults' claim to ownership of the child because the child has not attained the rationality to own himself.

leonidia:

Stranger:

Based on what right will this court decide that the children do not belong to their parents? 

 

Look at it this way... a person may acquire property by homesteading previously unowned property. Take the example of a landowner.  A landowner maintains his homesteaded land by acting in a manner consistent with being a landowner (by putting up a fence, or cultivating the land etc.) If he ceases to act as a landowner, he forefits his right to the property, and others have the right to homestead it.  In an analgous way, a parent establishes and maintains his homesteaded right to parenthood by being a parent. If he ceases to act in a manner consistent with being a parent, he forfeits his rights to parenthood, and others have the right to homestead it.  Note; It's not the child that's homesteaded, it's the parenthood of the child.  The child cannot be owned. So if, for example, the original parent put a fence around the child (physically or metaphorically) that by itself is not sufficent to establish parenthood.  The fence, metaphorically speaking, must be put around the parenthood, and that's accomplished by acting like a parent. If you stop being a parent, that's the equivalent of removing the fence, and then others are free to claim the parenthood.

Now, if a person wrongly homesteaded another person's right of parenthood, there would be general outrage. They could be sued and punished, probably severely, so nobody would do this lightly.  A person wishing to homestead an abandoned parenting claim would probably go to court first to avoid this situation.  The court would decide whether the original parent had stopped acting in a manner consistent with being a parent. They would do this based on common sense and societal norms.  Undoubtedly, a decision against the original parent would only be reserved for the most serious cases.

If the court were to decided against the original parent, the new homesteader would become the adoptive parent of the child, and have all the rights of parenthood.

 

I brought up a similar point when talking about abortion, but your understanding of the matter seems much more mature than mine. Good post.

If a child is abandoned, custody would have to be awarded on a first-come first-service basis, a form of "homesteading" 

Its important to understand that human action is not determine by perfect knowledge. If people are generally both libertarian and opposed to child abuse they work for a way to reconcile the two. In the same way that people do not need to understand economies in order to benefit from participating in one, people do not need to be have full understanding of the complexity of human existence in order for free market legal systems to form.

JonBostwick:

Stranger:

Based on what right will this court decide that the children do not belong to their parents? 

 

If a child old enough to talk says "I want to live with my uncle and not my parents." What court is going to force him to live with his parents? As I've often said, people do not own their children.

I agree. Also, I have reservations as to whether the parents really own the custody of their child at all. If we have an order in which extended, rather than nuclear, families are the norm, how would it be logically and morally tenable to exclude the rest of the family from custody of the child and give it only to the biological parents?

Parents own their children ???

What does homesteading have to do with human beings ??? Human beings are not property - to claim otherwise is nonsense.

The belief that human beings can be 'owned' and so treated as things is also known as slavery, right ?

leonidia:

No human being can own another. They do however own the property right of being parents to their children. They obtain this right, by virtue of the fact that they caused the child to exist. In effect they homestead the property of parenthood when the child is born.

What's that supposed to mean ? "property right of being parents to their children." ? "homestead the property of parenthood" ?

Also, the original question - whether a child should be given drugs at 5 sounds almost like a red-herring to me. I highly doubt that 5-year-olds are interested in 'drugs'.

Anyway, If the principle of self-government is to be applied consistently then children can do whatever they please as long as they don't harm others

To believe that children should be ruled for their own good is the same belief that justifies government. After all, government rules its subjects for their own good.

The original question - whether a 5 years old should be allowed to take 'drugs' - sounds almost like a red herring to me. I doubt that children that young are interested in drugs at all.

At any rate, if the principle of self-government is to be applied consistently, then children should be free to whatever they please as long as they don't harm others. .

To believe that parents can rule their children for their own good is the same belief that makes the state possible. Government uses coercion against its subjects for their own good....

 The biggest problem with humanity is the forgetting of it's animal side. Simply observe other species and how they interact with their young and you'll have the answer. You don't need economic BS or philosophy to raise the young. It's built into DNA. The parent will control and guide their young until the child has grown to be able to think like the parent and learned the skills to survive.

 As far as drugs go. Maybe everyone should remember why people do drugs in the first place. At least most people. To relieve anxiety and stress. It's escapism. If society were a better place, people would need less drugs to get away. There will always be the people who use drugs for vision. Most of those people tend to keep their habits in check though.

Also depends what you define as a drug. What about concentrated sugar? What about caffiene? Cold medications? Herbal remedies? Tea? Chili peppers? 

 Parents do not own their children, and people cannot homestead human beings. You are right about both of those statements.

However, people can and do maintain ownership over rights. They maintain ownership over their own rights, and they can voluntarily consent to allow others to obtain their rights. 

 Parents do not homestead their children, they homestead their rights which the children as yet cannot exercise, and therefore cannot maintain ownership over. But it is a fact of life that children will grow into adults in several years, and therefore will then be able to take ownership over their rights. So parents do not exactly maintain ownership of their children's rights. Instead, they maintain a custodial possession of those rights. As such, they are obligated to exercise the rights of their children in a manner that the children themselves would if they were capable of consenting. Parenting is of course more of an art than a science, but to a reasonable degree a parent can predict what their children would choose if the parents keep in mind that the children would make choices in accordance with their own self-interest.  

 I would disagree with leonidia over the use of the word property. Although parents have created their children, unlike anything else that can be produced by a human being, children are living things which possess rights. I therefore agree with you that the use of the word property is not compatible with parenthood.

DW89:

 Parents do not own their children, and people cannot homestead human beings. You are right about both of those statements.

However, people can and do maintain ownership over rights. They maintain ownership over their own rights, and they can voluntarily consent to allow others to obtain their rights. 

 Parents do not homestead their children, they homestead their rights which the children as yet cannot exercise, and therefore cannot maintain ownership over. But it is a fact of life that children will grow into adults in several years, and therefore will then be able to take ownership over their rights. So parents do not exactly maintain ownership of their children's rights. Instead, they maintain a custodial possession of those rights. As such, they are obligated to exercise the rights of their children in a manner that the children themselves would if they were capable of consenting. Parenting is of course more of an art than a science, but to a reasonable degree a parent can predict what their children would choose if the parents keep in mind that the children would make choices in accordance with their own self-interest.  

 I would disagree with leonidia over the use of the word property. Although parents have created their children, unlike anything else that can be produced by a human being, children are living things which possess rights. I therefore agree with you that the use of the word property is not compatible with parenthood.

How does the parent homestead custodial ownership of the child's rights? My view is that extended families will edge out the nuclear family in terms of dominance in an anarcho-capitalist order, as it was so until very recently. I believe that the extended family as a whole, and not just the biological parents, would have this custodial right by virtue of their interaction with the child. Would one's interaction with the child be the criteria for determining homesteading?

Here's a great article by Kinsella on this:

http://www.mises.org/story/2291

 

DW89
"However, people can and do maintain ownership over rights. "

I'm afraid I don't understand the terminology. I thought that 'ownership' and 'right' were more or less the same thing. If you own 'A' you have the right to do with it whatever you please. If you have a right to use 'A' as you see fit, then you own 'A'

I also thought that homesteading was a principle mostly valid for land and other 'natural resources' - a subset of 'lockean' property rights ?.

I think the family is an inherently authoritarian institution. (Extended families were less so.) - So the family is part of the problem. It's not hard to see that tyrannies and 'paternalistic' governments are almost the same thing. Our totalitarian western societies treat their subject the way children supposedly must be treated.

A right is a choice that can only be justly made by the individual who maintains ownership over the right. Just because you have a right to something, does not mean that you own it. For instance, people enter into contracts with one another all of the time in which ownership of certain rights are transfered. Just because someone maintains ownership of some of your rights does not mean that they necessarily maintain ownership over you. For example by signing a contract with an employer you are forfeiting some of your rights during a certain context or duration of time. Does that mean that your employer owns you? Of course not. There are very few individual rights that when transferred imply ownership over the individual themselves. You're right that homesteading doesn't apply to this situation, I just couldn't think of a proper term. I suppose I should have just said that individuals assume a custodial role over a child's rights. I don't think that the family is inherently authoritarian in a negative sense. I think it only becomes so when certain rights that a member of the family are justly owned by that member are discouraged or disparaged by another member of the family. While a parent maintains a custodial ownership over a child's rights they are in a sense an authority figure, but they are also a caregiver who has justly acquired certain rights, they are not an oppresive force. Governments also need not be authoritarian in an oppressive sense as Bastiat explain in the beginning of "The Law". However, governments are perhaps inherently institutions that seek to unjustly acquire certain individual rights.

 I'd like to clarify some things because there seems to be a lot of confusion here. First, let me define some terms as I use them:

"Property"  Anything that can be owned or possessed, whether real property, personal property, intellectual property

"Right"  A just claim or title whether legal, prescriptive or moral

"Homesteading"  The claiming of previously unowned property, or of property that has been abandoned or vacated.

A biological parent has a just claim or right to be the parent of their child when their child is born. They possess this right.  The right is their property.  (Not the child. The child is not property).  If they stop being a parent, because they neglect the child, they abandon their right to be a parent. Why? Because they are not using their right. They have vacated it.   The right, which was their property, is now unowned.  Unowned property is free to be homesteaded.  A person who homesteads something becomes the new owner. In this case they become the owner or posessor of the right to be the parent. 

 Of course a parent doesn't have to neglect a child to abandon their right to be a parent. They can simply give away this right to a person of their choosing or to an agency who will find someone to take over the right.  This is the usual method of adoption.

 

But the problem remains. Parents decide for their children and force their children to accept whatever they [parents] think is 'good'.

Whether the state or the parents have the 'right' to dictate what's good for children is a misunderstanding of the problem, in my opinion. I think nobody has the right to dictate, or even knows what's good for others..

As for Bastiat, he says that government is the collective organization of the right to self-defense. Just that. He doesn't even say that governments are necessary. And almost the whole book is a merciless attack on so called 'legislators' and their artificial laws. Perhaps Bastiat was not an anarchist, but he was very close to natural order.

I wonder in part if this confusion perhaps stems from not having read Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty. In it he proceeds to explaining custodial rights and the like, though I think Hoppe has improved on him on this.

 As for parenthood being authoritarian, well children are not exactly rational agents. Ought a parent allow them to behave however they please? If they do not abide by the parent's terms (provided these are reasonable), why should the parent put up with such behaviour? How exactly do you propose, Juan, for a libertarian to deal with children?