Is it true that, in The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard justifies the right of parents to abandon and neglect their children, in the same sense that Spartans used to dump sickly kids out in the wilderness?
This seems rather unjust to me. Why should Murray Rothbard's property rights matter, but not the lives of children?
And also, if freedom truly comes from the right to make contracts -- and children are forbidden from making contracts -- this essentially means that under anarchism, children will universally be slaves.
No matter how intellectually you put it, justifying this is downright dastardly, particularly when juxtaposed with the claim that the mere existence of government amounts to theft and murder.
This is what I meant, by the way, when I said that one has to be thoroughly dehumanized to buy into such radicalism.
It is also inconsistent, because all philosophical ethics are rooted in Humanism -- the idea that humans are valuable, in and of themselves, apart from what they can be selfishly used for. If humans are not to be regarded as valuable, but are disposable commodities that can be traded away or enslaved, then there's no reason to care about what's right or wrong, period.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
There is a vast literature on this so anything I say will not be enough to make the case, but let me say that when i first read this, I was horrorified. But in time, I began to realize that it is consistent and humane and correct that a parent should not be able to force a child to stay under his or roof and nor should the government force the parent to provide for a child up to a certain aga, say 16, as it does now. I'm quite certain that he is right that all people should be considered self owners regardless of age and should not be subject to coercion against their free will to come and go. Moreover, I think this is rightfully considered a "conservative" position: I've known parents who would have been right to kick out their kids early than the law the permits but have been unable to do so. Rothbard might have filled out his argument a bit more but it seems clear to me that under this system, private institutions would emerge that would do quite well without state intervention.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Nathyn:Is it true that, in The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard justifies the right of parents to abandon and neglect their children, in the same sense that Spartans used to dump sickly kids out in the wilderness?
Nathyn:Is it true that, in The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard justifies the right of parents to abandon and neglect their children
Where do you get this stuff?
Does it specifically say 'abandon and neglect' or is that just an interpretation?
There are many historical and cultural examples where children were free to leave the care of their parents and chose the upbringing of others or where parents could pawn off their children on willing foster-parents.
I seriously doubt he is implying that it's OK to dump your kids out in the woods and leave them to be raised by a pack of wolves.
Nathyn:And also, if freedom truly comes from the right to make contracts -- and children are forbidden from making contracts -- this essentially means that under anarchism, children will universally be slaves.
Doesn't 'the right to make contracts' come from the ability to freely associate with whoever you chose?
I can think of a lot of aspects of freedom that has nothing to do with 'the right to make contracts' like, I don't know, the freedom not to get hit upside the head with a dead rabbit by a complete stranger.
Nathyn:If humans are not to be regarded as valuable, but are disposable commodities that can be traded away or enslaved, then there's no reason to care about what's right or wrong, period.
So humans have an intrinsic value apart from their market value?
Hmm... I wonder if that's where their inherent Freedom comes from or perhaps that could even be the basis of their inalienable rights?
Maybe, just maybe it could be that they are valuable *because* they possess this Freedom and inalienable rights...
You actually got it completely wrong.
Suppose now that the baby has been born. Then what? First, we may say that the parents—or rather the mother, who is the only certain and visible parent—as the creators of the baby become its owners. A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party or parties may be the baby’s owner, but to assert that a third party can claim his “ownership” over the baby would give that person the right to seize the baby by force from its natural or “homesteading” owner, its mother. The mother, then, is the natural and rightful owner of the baby, and any attempt to seize the baby by force is an invasion of her property right. But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children. We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty - Ch. 14
But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children.
We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.
Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty - Ch. 14
Nathyn, I think its time you left. You aren't contributing anything, you're just making statements for the mere purpose of pissing people off.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
The argument I'd make on this point is the same I tend to make about abortion (uh-oh, pro-lifer here!). If you cause a traffic accident (whether negligently or not), and you injure a person such that they require being hooked up to someone's kidneys for nine months to heal (a ridiculous situation, I know, but stick with me) or they will die, I hold that you are OBLIGATED to allow yourself to be hooked up to them. Similarly, if you engage in sexual activity (voluntarily), which you know (or ought to, anyway) always carries at least some slight risk of pregnancy, and, lo and behold, a pregnancy is caused, you have created a person, without their consent, into a situation of utter dependency on you. Your actions caused their dependency, and therefore, you are obliged to provide for it, until such time as they are no longer dependent.
As much as the custom may seem horrifying it was codified in some societies.
In Finland ihtiriekko was the name gave to a child led to be lost in the woods by his/her own parents. The practice was officially illegal under the Swedish and Russian legal systems but few were ever persecuted. Gendarmes could not reach every hamlet where ancient customs still ruled.
In Japan, as usual, there existed an official procedure called mabiki. During times of famine parents could legally leave their children to die or kill them outright. Of course there were procedures to be respected: the children had to be under a certain age, the village elder had to give his consent, it was forbidden in large cities etc.
It may seem repugnant but abandoning children has always existed and, unbelievably, still exists. Different societies have different ways of dealing with them.
For example in many Catholic countries many nunneries had a special wheel where unwanted children could be left without revealing the parents' identity. The children were cared for by the nuns and later sent to an orphanage where they were kept until a family agreed to take them in or they reached the age of consent. One of my great-great mothers was left at the wheel and raised in an orphanage. I could be a descendant of royalty for what I know...
This didn't cost taxpayers a penny: orphans were provided for by charitable institutions or religious orders and often recieved a decent, above-average instruction. Of course it was not the Western Paradise of the Great Bliss, but it was surely better than be left to die of exposure in the woods or be closed in a cloth sacked and tossed in a river.
Of course later the State had to tuck its nasty nose in. Wheels had to go, since parents needed to be identified and punished. Children could not be risen anymore by stern but caring nuns and friars. They were "ward of the State" now or, better yet, "property of the State": Leela's Oprhanarium in Futurama gives a perfect description of the State-run orphanage. Adoption has also become increasingly difficult: for example in Europe it's much much easier to adopt an Ethiopian or Colombian children than a Flemish or Danish one. It takes many years for a domestic practice to clear: even a love gesture like adopting a child has been ruined by the Modern Behemoth.
Nathyn:Why should Murray Rothbard's property rights matter, but not the lives of children?
This axiom of self-ownership applies to every human, regardless of age. Every child, no matter at what age, has a natural right to his/her self. Rothbard's property rights matter precisely because children (and everyone else) should be free from coersion and force.
In short, without Rothbardian property rights, children could be enslaved!
It's not that the lives of children don't matter, but rather that children must be treated equally with adults. No adult has the right to force me to labour so as to sustain his/her existence. Neither, in fact, do children, no matter at what age they may be, or how wealthy I may be.
Children should be treated as equals to adults, and since Smith must abide by the "My house, my rules" rule when in Brown's home, so too do Brown's children. If Smith does even the slightest thing to irritate Brown, Brown has every right to demand that Smith leave the premises. Likewise, Brown has the right to demand that his own children leave the premises.
Finally, because children are naturally equal to adults, if a child wishes to secede from his/her parents and "run away," the parents have no right to force the child to return, nor does the state and its henchmen have the right to employ force to coerce the child into returning.
Rothbard's major flaw in The Ethics of Liberty was in implying that babies can be owned. They cannot be. He is correct that parents can sell guardianship to other would-be parents. But since children are, by their very nature, human beings, and since human beings all have the same rights vested in them as each other, a child has every right to alter or abolish his/her bonds with his/her guardians. In the same way it is our right to alter or abolish the government, a child is free to A) leave his/her guardians and seek adoption from others, or B) leave his/her guardians and set out to live on his/her own.
The fact is, under anarchism, children cannot be owned, just as adults cannot be owned--except by the self. Even if a parent said, "My house, my rules; you may not sign that contract, and if you do, you must leave here," the child would still be free to sign the contract if he/she deemed the reward of signing to be greater than the disadvantage of needing to find a new home, just as I am free to terminate my employment with my employer.
Nathyn:No matter how intellectually you put it, justifying this is downright dastardly, particularly when juxtaposed with the claim that the mere existence of government amounts to theft and murder.
Our current system forces children to attend ten years of education, regardless of their opinion on the matter.
Our current system says that children must sign up with Selective Services so that the state, any time it wants, can enslave you and force you to murder.
Our current system enslaves children to their parents. Try running away, the cops will bring you back. And unfortunately we don't even have an underground railroad anymore to help escaped slaves make it to Canada.
It's our current system which is downright dastardly.
Nathyn:This is what I meant, by the way, when I said that one has to be thoroughly dehumanized to buy into such radicalism.
Niccolò: Nathyn:Is it true that, in The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard justifies the right of parents to abandon and neglect their children, in the same sense that Spartans used to dump sickly kids out in the wilderness? You actually got it completely wrong.Suppose now that the baby has been born. Then what? First, we may say that the parents—or rather the mother, who is the only certain and visible parent—as the creators of the baby become its owners. A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party or parties may be the baby’s owner, but to assert that a third party can claim his “ownership” over the baby would give that person the right to seize the baby by force from its natural or “homesteading” owner, its mother. The mother, then, is the natural and rightful owner of the baby, and any attempt to seize the baby by force is an invasion of her property right. But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children. We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty - Ch. 14 Nathyn, I think its time you left. You aren't contributing anything, you're just making statements for the mere purpose of pissing people off.
Read just a few paragraphs ahead. You missed the really good part.
On the other hand, the very concept of “rights” is a “negative” one, demarcating the areas of a person’s action that no man may properly interfere with....Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights.
As I said, according to Dr. Evil, we can dump our kids out in the wilderness.
Nathyn:As I said, according to Dr. Evil, we can dump our kids out in the wilderness.
I see no problem with Rothbard's position. Conversely, under our current system of statism and ageist privilege, children are treated as animals. They are enslaved (e.g. conscription), they are forced into institutions regardless of their wills (e.g. educational institutions), they are condemned and even punished for committing acts no adult would be condemned for (e.g. smoking, drinking, engaging in sexual activity), the contracts they consensually sign are treated as illegitimate, and they are forced to live with (or rather, under) people they might not otherwise choose to live with (or under) by that apparatus of coersion we call the state.
Rothbard's position is far more compassionate than what children must deal with under statism. At least under anarchism, children are equal to adults under the law, not treated as second-class citizens or worse, not treated like cattle that can be herded, moulded, and controlled.
The choice is simple: either we treat children like equals--like fellow humans--to whom we have no natural obligations but also whom we may not violate the natural rights thereof; or, we treat them as inferiors with no rights and only a small set of state-mandated privileges which serve primarily as a tool to placate the masses so that they won't notice the outright injustice afoot against children.
I could go on to explain why there would be virtually no instances of parental neglect in a free society, but I think that's beyond the point here. Since you're clearly concerned with ethics here, I'll simply conclude by saying that the system which treats all humans as equal is by far the more ethical system over the one that treats children like a lump of clay with no sovereignty.
"Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge. This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies."
So is it that you advocate the state having control over the children so they can sustain repeated abuse at the hands of state orphanages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Pia_child_sexual_abuse_scandal
http://hrw.org/summaries/s.china961.html
http://www.jbs.org/node/4631
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54861
When you're trying to establish the law you can't mix in morality. They are two different subjects.
" What we are trying to establish here is not the morality... (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother..."
I guess you conviently missed that.
Anyway, if there was a free market in children, then why would anyone abandon their child when they can put him up for adoption and be compensated for him? The states' rules against the free market and the states' establishment of rape room orphanages are in many cases what drive people to toss their babies into dumpsters in the first place. A free market would solve these problems.
You're taking the metaphor out of context.
Please, just leave.
allixpeeke: Nathyn:As I said, according to Dr. Evil, we can dump our kids out in the wilderness.The benefits of abolishing all slavery, even looking at this from a utilitarian standpoint rather than the natural law standpoint I commonly employ, are far greater than the negative consequences, both for the parents and for the children.I see no problem with Rothbard's position. Conversely, under our current system of statism and ageist privilege, children are treated as animals. They are enslaved (e.g. conscription), they are forced into institutions regardless of their wills (e.g. educational institutions), they are condemned and even punished for committing acts no adult would be condemned for (e.g. smoking, drinking, engaging in sexual activity), the contracts they consensually sign are treated as illegitimate, and they are forced to live with (or rather, under) people they might not otherwise choose to live with (or under) by that apparatus of coersion we call the state.Rothbard's position is far more compassionate than what children must deal with under statism. At least under anarchism, children are equal to adults under the law, not treated as second-class citizens or worse, not treated like cattle that can be herded, moulded, and controlled.The choice is simple: either we treat children like equals--like fellow humans--to whom we have no natural obligations but also whom we may not violate the natural rights thereof; or, we treat them as inferiors with no rights and only a small set of state-mandated privileges which serve primarily as a tool to placate the masses so that they won't notice the outright injustice afoot against children.I could go on to explain why there would be virtually no instances of parental neglect in a free society, but I think that's beyond the point here. Since you're clearly concerned with ethics here, I'll simply conclude by saying that the system which treats all humans as equal is by far the more ethical system over the one that treats children like a lump of clay with no sovereignty.
This was Rothbard's essential argument. You must be mistaking him for David Friedman.
Since rights are only negative, he sees nothing wrong with abandoning or neglecting children.Again, no matter how intellectually it's put, it's still inhumane.
Niccolò: Nathyn:As I said, according to Dr. Evil, we can dump our kids out in the wilderness.The right to do nothing does not correlate with the right to drop a child in the wilderness against his will. You're taking the metaphor out of context.Please, just leave.
And just so you know I'm not making up this because I'm some kind of crazy statist, "Libertarians For Life" agree with my analysis:
http://www.l4l.org/library/chilroth.html
I disagree with their position on abortion, but I agree with them when it comes late-term abortions and caring for children when they're actually out of the womb.
Surely, you, as a Christian, can agree.
Nathyn:Again, no matter how intellectually it's put, it's still inhumane.
Translation: I cannot find any flaws in your logic (i.e. logically, children might well be better served under your proposed system, especially when one considers that evolution ensures that protection of children through adolescence remains of primary importance to the overwhelming majority of parents) so I'll disagree based on my emotions and choose to consider Rothbard a mean and heartless person.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
ozzy43: Nathyn:Again, no matter how intellectually it's put, it's still inhumane. Translation: I cannot find any flaws in your logic (i.e. logically, it seems that children would be better served under Rothbard's proposed system) so I'll disagree based on emotion.
Translation: I cannot find any flaws in your logic (i.e. logically, it seems that children would be better served under Rothbard's proposed system) so I'll disagree based on emotion.
Not exactly. Your argument is illogical because you don't care about human life.
If you don't care about human life, no philosophical ethics can stand, because humans (other than yourself perhaps) are regarded as unimportant as sticks and stones. As such, why should it even matter?
If you wanted to apply this to my criticisms of Rothbard on animal rights, yes, that's just my own personal feelings... But not this issue.
Nathyn:Your argument is illogical because you don't care about human life.
My argument? I haven't made one on this topic, but nice try. Big on straw men arguments aren't you? Also on asserting your intimate knowledge about what people you have never met do and do not care about, like, human life for example. This template thinking will not serve you well, I promise...
I don't think many people pay attention to that part of Rothbard's ethics. Having a child creates a life totally dependent on the parents. If neglected, the child will die. Its no different from pushing someone into a lake, and having them drown. You can't say "the lake killed him, not me!", or "the bullet killed him, not me pulling the trigger!". Abandoning one's child differs from shooting the child only by the length of time involved before death, and both are acts of aggression.
Obviously there were strong reasons for children to be abandoned throughout history. But we no longer have famines, or anything like that. Those reasons are gone.
I think Rothbard just made an error here (and many other places as well), thats all. He's hardly the final word on libertarian ethics.
ozzy43: Nathyn:Your argument is illogical because you don't care about human life. My argument? I haven't made one on this topic
My argument? I haven't made one on this topic
Good point.
More ignorant posts from Nathyn; that is to be expected I suppose.
http://www.mises.org/story/2291
Learn, already.
I actually agree with Niccolo. So far you've trotted out fallacy upon fallacy, misinterpretation upon misinterpretation, lie upon lie. Alex refuted your misunderstandings already (no words need to be put into Rothbard's mouth.) You're neither here to debate nor to learn; only to troll. You will be treated accordingly henceforth.
PS: I agree with Grant.
I've noticed that it is far too easy for people to take a quick glance at what Rothbard has to say and pass it off as an "error." I think you have to look deeper at Rothbard was actually trying to accomplish and what he has actually dug up. I doubt very seriously that he is incorrect. I suggest reading my previous post on this topic.
Legality and morality are two different things.
Nathyn: Not exactly. Your argument is illogical because you don't care about human life.
That one made me chuckle. An argument can be perfectly logical although the person using it does not care about human life. The term you are looking for is consistency (consistent) - to remain consistent with one's values (for example).
Seriously, stop this Nathyn. Your presence depreciates any value a discussion may have (had).
Yan Grenier: Nathyn: Not exactly. Your argument is illogical because you don't care about human life. That one made me chuckle. An argument can be perfectly logical although the person using it does not care about human life. The term you are looking for is consistency (consistent) - to remain consistent with one's values (for example). Seriously, stop this Nathyn. Your presence depreciates any value a discussion may have (had).
I'm not saying, "It's illogical, because you're an evil person!!!"
I'm pretty calm and composed right now, to the point that I've successfully prevented myself from responding in retaliation to the slew of personal attacks I've faced.
You ignored the second half of my post above. It's illogical because secular ethics are based on Humanism.
If you don't care about human life, it is logically inconsistent to make arguments about ethics.
No ethical standard can deny the sanctity of human life, else there's no real basis for ethics at all.
Can secular ethics include any form of sanctity? Wouldn't that sort of defeat the purpose of them being secular? Hmmm...
Nathyn: Is it true that, in The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard justifies the right of parents to abandon and neglect their children, in the same sense that Spartans used to dump sickly kids out in the wilderness? This seems rather unjust to me. Why should Murray Rothbard's property rights matter, but not the lives of children? And also, if freedom truly comes from the right to make contracts -- and children are forbidden from making contracts -- this essentially means that under anarchism, children will universally be slaves. No matter how intellectually you put it, justifying this is downright dastardly, particularly when juxtaposed with the claim that the mere existence of government amounts to theft and murder. This is what I meant, by the way, when I said that one has to be thoroughly dehumanized to buy into such radicalism. It is also inconsistent, because all philosophical ethics are rooted in Humanism -- the idea that humans are valuable, in and of themselves, apart from what they can be selfishly used for. If humans are not to be regarded as valuable, but are disposable commodities that can be traded away or enslaved, then there's no reason to care about what's right or wrong, period.
That anyone responds to any of your posts at this point is a testament to the extraordinarily good nature of those on this forum.
You're excellent at using fallacious arguments and laying circular logical traps. I really wouldn't be surprised if you were a well placed toll or just someone with a personal vendetta against liberty, perhaps both. It's obvious from what Rothbard said that he isn't advocating dropping babies into the wilderness.
To understand why Rothbard makes his point about abandonment is to know the difference between freedom and slavery.
Stop. Stop. Stop.
In order to understand Rothbard you have to understand the difference between Legality and Morality. You can't just take a chapter out of the middle of the book and pretend like you know what he means.
To say that parents have a legal responsibility to take care of their children is to say that violence can be inflicted against parents who do not meet some arbitrary standard of parenting.
It seems that otherwise liberal minded people on this board abandon all respect for the concept of volunteerism as soon as parenthood is mentioned. Rather than trying to devise a voluntary relationship that would fit inside our voluntary society, some seem to view it as mutual slavery.
And back to realty. People currently abandon their children all the time, by giving them up for adoption.
Peace
Grant:I don't think many people pay attention to that part of Rothbard's ethics. Having a child creates a life totally dependent on the parents. If neglected, the child will die. Its no different from pushing someone into a lake, and having them drown. You can't say "the lake killed him, not me!", or "the bullet killed him, not me pulling the trigger!". Abandoning one's child differs from shooting the child only by the length of time involved before death, and both are acts of aggression. Obviously there were strong reasons for children to be abandoned throughout history. But we no longer have famines, or anything like that. Those reasons are gone. I think Rothbard just made an error here (and many other places as well), thats all. He's hardly the final word on libertarian ethics.
No. Parents do not choose the circumstances of a child's existance, they most definately do not "push them into a lake". Neglect is definately not aggression, thats the motto of socialists.
Your analogy is wrong. A correct analogy would be:
I stop a person from being hit by a truck, saving his life. Then an on looker(thats you), says that I have created new obligations for myself. Because I have caused his continued existance, I am now obligated to provide for him into the future.
You are objecting to Rothbard out of ignorance, not knowledge. The same ignorance that causes many enemies of liberty to share your belief
JonBostwick:You are objecting to Rothbard out of ignorance, not knowledge. The same ignorance that causes many enemies of liberty to share your belief
I don't even give him that much credit - I don't think it's simple ignorance. Based on the posts I've seen, he seems to comb through anarchist philosophy looking for areas of potential disagreement so he can play the role of provocateur here. Perhaps this is amusing to him, or perhaps he's a true believer that anarchism is evil and he feels he is on some sort of pro-State crusade - who knows. But in the process, of course, he ignores the vast majority of logic which is easy to interpret and rationally compelling (especially in the case of Rothbard), and so misses the nobility while searching desperately for its opposite. Instead of honestly seeking truth, he seems to be dishonestly seeking something he can readily twist into fallacy and lies. It's sad, given the potential of the human mind, to see it used for such trivial, paltry and negative purposes when it so easily could have been an ennobling experience. Then again, maybe it still can.
Nathyn:I'm pretty calm and composed right now, to the point that I've successfully prevented myself from responding in retaliation to the slew of personal attacks I've faced.
You do understant that it's intentional in order to get you either to go away or 'play nicely with others'.
Since you have no real understanding of logic it is safe to assume that you have no idea how annoying it is to debate with someone who trots out fallacy after fallacy.
It is also (probably) safe to say that all the people that respond to you read your fallacious arguments and just start typing in response without having to research or critically think about an issue that hasn't already been addressed by someone else before and that they are already knowledgeable about.
What exactly do you contribute? If you don't wish to learn from the interaction with the people here why do you even bother to post 'questions'?
Don't get me wrong, I enjoying trolling socialists as much as the next guy but at the end of the day they at least learn something new from the experience -- if nothing else the deep flaws in the socialist system as revealed by Mises.
Ah, it was a fine day that I was accused of being an astroturfer for the oil industry for advocating for a Free Market solution to the 'peak oil crisis'...
Anyway...
Trolling as an attention seeking activity is just plain pitiful so please stop...or fully expect to face further slews of personal attacks.
Fair warning, the kid gloves are now off...
Inquisitor:Yet you have not demonstrated it is against human life. You have asserted it. Arguments were given by several posters as to why Rothbard's solution (whilst not perfect, for reasons Grant mentioned) is more humane than anything under the current system and its attendant ethical basis.
ozzy43:Can secular ethics include any form of sanctity? Wouldn't that sort of defeat the purpose of them being secular? Hmmm...
JonBostwick:Stop. Stop. Stop.In order to understand Rothbard you have to understand the difference between Legality and Morality. You can't just take a chapter out of the middle of the book and pretend like you know what he means.To say that parents have a legal responsibility to take care of their children is to say that violence can be inflicted against parents who do not meet some arbitrary standard of parenting.It seems that otherwise liberal minded people on this board abandon all respect for the concept of volunteerism as soon as parenthood is mentioned. Rather than trying to devise a voluntary relationship that would fit inside our voluntary society, some seem to view it as mutual slavery. And back to realty. People currently abandon their children all the time, by giving them up for adoption.
If this is not the case, please cite where he makes such a distinction.
JonBostwick:No. Parents do not choose the circumstances of a child's existance, they most definately do not "push them into a lake". Neglect is definately not aggression, thats the motto of socialists.
How don't they? In the modern world, parents willfully create children. Early-term abortions and birth control are commonly available things. In ancient times, circumstances might be beyond the parent's control, and might have to abandon a child (due to the threat of starvation, for example). However, these situations are very uncommon in industrialized nations.
When nothing goes wrong, parents do in fact choose the circumstances of a child's survivability. When the unexpected happens (the threat of starvation, horrible birth defects, etc) then thats a very different situation. However, the death of a neglected, healthy child is as sure a thing as is jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and every parent knows this.
JonBostwick:I stop a person from being hit by a truck, saving his life. Then an on looker(thats you), says that I have created new obligations for myself. Because I have caused his continued existance, I am now obligated to provide for him into the future.
No, because the person who was about to be hit by the truck (presumably) did not wish to die. By saving his life, you fulfilled a request of his. Now, if this person was trying to commit suicide to escape the misery of battling a painful, terminal disease, and you prevented him from doing so, I'd definitely say you were responsible for his pain.
I wasn't really trying to say that neglect is always an act of aggression. But if someone puts another person in a situation where they know (or at least suspect) they may die without their consent, that is aggression.
Nathyn:If Rothbard justifies late-term abortion, and abanonding and neglecting children, it is against human life.
If Rothbard justifies late-term abortion, and abanonding and neglecting children, it is against human life.
Do you know why Rothbard justifies late-term abortion? Giving up a child to a foster agency is a form of abandonment. Isn't this against human life, too?
He doesn't put forth a consequentialist argument, like David Friedman, probably because it would be very difficult to prove. His argument is based in natural rights.
Why would it be difficult to prove? Chicagoans have argued for markets in babies based on consequentialism.
How about this: replace current system with an explicit contract system. When child is born, parent(s) sign a contract stating their intent and accepting an obligation to care for the child until the age of majority (which is a whole other topic we could discuss...). Essentially, parents do this implicitly now (i.e. it's a given, backed up by legislation), except in the case of adoption, which already follows the contract model. If parent or parents refuse to sign, kid goes up for adoption.
Simply making it explicit and getting rid of special legislation, so it follows contract law, would fall within the parameters of Rothbard's system of ethics, or so it seems to me. Obviously, evolution has already provided the implicit contract which works perfectly well in the overwhelming majority of cases, so worrying about people dumping their kids in the wilderness en masse is ludicrously unrealistic. Parents who are sufficiently wacked that they would do such a thing will not be deterred by legislation any more than, say, armed robbers are deterred by gun control laws. Just as repealing gun control laws would not result in en masse killings, repealing laws regarding parental support for children would not result in en masse dumping. This is sheer lunacy inasmuch as it constitutes a complete repudiation of everything we know about human nature and evolution itself. That said, it is rather common for Statists to make such idiotic arguments.
The really amazing thing is how many people actually buy such absurdities. Oh - public schools - yeah, never mind.
BTW, interesting that Nathyn has espoused support for government run welfare in other posts, and this style of welfare pays young women to have babies, which thus become simply objects of revenue generation. This *actuality* is abhorrent under any ethical system, so it would seem to make more sense - if one's objections were truly about the ethics of the thing - to crusade against that (and to stop espousing support FOR such a system) than to spend time decrying some theoretical supposition based on a system of ethics which is not exactly about to be implemented nationwide. This can most accurately be described as 'hypocrisy' on the part of such individuals, in my view.
Child labor laws prevent children from liberating themselves from an unsatisfactory family relationship. A psychology of dependence can develop over time, resulting in even greater harms.
Now, I doubt that children would suddenly go off to start working in factories en masse, but more options would be available to young people otherwise abused by petty family tyrannies enabled by the state.
I haven't read all the posts, and I must say Ideally I am much closer to Rothbard's view than away from it.
But I would ask this. In practicality, most parents would choose to keep their children safe and healthy, either in a "want" based society like the current West, or in a "need" based society of eras gone by (and if the State were to be properly shrunk it would be so again perhaps). So to dwell on the cases of abandonment or abuse, you can draw whatever far flung scenerio you like, but then you should also take the opposite into account. Would you want a State based society wherein the parents are mere agents of the State in raising their children? How about the situation where immature children can make their parents' lives hell by endlessly invoking the State at every turn? We are now much more toward this end of the spectrum than the other.
So if you're going to paint the far end scenerio of children being tortured endlessly for pure pleasure and nothing will be done, then see the other end wherein children, via the State, run every aspect of a parent's life from birth on, even to some ridiculous ends.
There is a reason that I had the distinct feeling that my wife and I were passing an oral/behavioral exam after my first child was born. The very hospital that WE contracted to assist in the birth seemed to be reviewing us again and again lest we prove ourselves unable and the authorities therefore would need to be called. Maltreatment of children IS unacceptable. But to default to the notion that the State is the solution is what creates the bureaucratic nightmare that is now parenthood. Don't make your "solution" become part of the Leviathan.
If your actions are the cause that another person becomes dependent, than you are responsible to tend that dependency.
When parents create a child, intentionally or not, they have caused a situation whereby another human being, without their consent, is unable to communicate or make rational decisions for themselves. They put that human being in that situation, therefore, they are responsible for that human being until such time as they are no longer too deficient to properly care for themselves.
I think y'all on the "children have all the rights of adults" side might want to consider who you ally with. This is the same position taken by people (mostly men) who want to have sex with 8-year-olds, and frankly, I'd not be suprised if some of those who hold that position here in fact have that as one of their hopes. You only need to watch one of those "to catch a predator" programs to see how many men, from all races and walks of life, are eager for "the touch of the younger kind".
I agree that we may need to revise our age of majority, as it's probably too late, but I think it is unreasonable to say that a slobbering, potty-training, nose-picking little brat is capable of caring for themselves.
Which is why several people have cited Rothbard's contention that "We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind."
Sexual assault is aggression. It's not inconsistent to note that children have the same rights as adults while recognizing that sexual contact between adults and young children is inherently exploitive.
Let me approach this issue in a practical sense instead of trying to justify child neglegence
If the law changes and gives you the right to neglect your children, would you do it?
It's easy to blame it on anarchism; but when it all comes down to it, anarchism only gives you choices, it does not tell you what to do.
Humanism or not, it's up to you. No one is saying humanistic elements are not valuable.