The right to abandon & neglect children

JCFolsom:

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".

 

 

Don't you just love those ad hominems?

Paedophiles just go and get jobs at state orphanages and the like.  The state protects and implicitly encourages such behavior due to the nature of the state apparatus.  If there are individuals advocating the sexual abuse of children they are those who think that the state should have a hand in dictating the "rights" of children.

ozzy43:

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.

A contract with whom and, since it's the child that's being wronged, who would enforce it?!

Also, again, we're not talking about specific policies, but Rothbard's twisted ethical system regarding children.

If you want to argue in favor of legalizing child neglect or privatizing childhood protection services, that's a separate issue.

Protecting children from starving from neglect by the parent doesn't "force" anybody to pay for the child other than the parent, who should pay for the child.

ozzy43:

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."

But guardianship, by his definition, means at a minimum just leaving the child alone.

Also, as someone noted above: It hadn't even occurred to me that Rothbard's position is the same as NAMBLA.

On those same grounds, if children ought to have the same rights as adults, should they be able to consent to sex? Yuck.

There is a very Rothbardian article about Abortion up on LRC (I really hope you all frequent there)

 http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan168.html

 

 

JonBostwick:

There is a very Rothbardian article about Abortion up on LRC (I really hope you all frequent there)

 http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan168.html

 

 

That's not Rothbard's position.

According to him, the parent has no obligation other than to establish the child's negative rights.

If you're going to require the parent to put the parent up for adoption (assuming an adoption agency is available), why not just require them to feed and clothe it? By creating an obligation, you're basically creating a positive liberty.

If the mother doesn't meet this obligation, how should she be punished and by whom? 

This also doesn't really solve the problem, because the question then becomes: What obligation does the adoption agency have? Can they suddenly decide to abandon the child?

You can say, "They had a contract with the mother to take care of it," but that's not necessarily the case.

To use their same metaphor: If somebody stows away on your ship, you won't throw them in the ocean, but let them off at the next port. That next port, however, DOES NOT have to be a place where they will be provided for, however, as in the case of babies being cared for by adoption agencies.

Can you admit Rothbard is wrong and still be an Austrian and\or a Libertarian? Or is Rothbard to actually be treated like a "Libertarian Lenin"?

 

You misunderstood what I meant. When I said, "drop off in the wilderness," I didn't mean to forcefully drag them there. I meant doing it without any aggression. For instance... a parent takes their child to a playground. The parents points and says, "Hey look, Johnny!" Johnny looks away.

 The parent then dashes off, leaps into their automobile, and is never seen again.

No less objectionable than when a parent drops a child off at a police station for adoption.

In any case,  you still have yet to establish any objective reason as to why parents are obligated to  children, other than that, they're children.

According to Rothbard, there is nothing wrong about this.

And just so you know I'm not making up this because I'm some kind of crazy statist

Though  ironically you are.

Can you admit Rothbard is wrong and still be an Austrian and\or a Libertarian? Or is Rothbard to actually be treated like a "Libertarian Lenin"?

No, but you have to understand that positive liberties possess no objective reality.

What you are suggesting is that the life of one individual is more valuable than the life of the other individual, therefore the one individual is bound to that other individual in slavery.

Nathyn:

If Rothbard justifies late-term abortion, and abanonding and neglecting children, it is against human life.

Accounting for man's obligation to man's natural obligation being only to himself is "against human life?"

What a strange world you must live in!

No, I think what you mean is that not forcing one individual into an obligatory bond with another is immoral, and when we ask why you simply reply, because they are children - and I know moral when I see it.

 

Rothbard says there should be no legal responsibility for parents to take care of their children, because they have no ethical responsibility.

If this is not the case, please cite where he makes such a distinction.

 

  " 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. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)

     Our theory also enables us to examine the question of Dr. Kenneth Edelin, of Boston City Hospital, who was convicted in 1975 of manslaughter for allowing a fetus to die (at the wish, of course, of the mother) after performing an abortion. If parents have the legal right to allow a baby to die, then a fortiori they have the same right for extra-uterine fetuses. Similarly, in a future world where babies may be born in extra-uterine devices (“test tubes”), again the parents would have the legal right to “pull the plug” on the fetuses or, rather, to refuse to pay to continue the plug in place."

 

Niccolò:

 

You misunderstood what I meant. When I said, "drop off in the wilderness," I didn't mean to forcefully drag them there. I meant doing it without any aggression. For instance... a parent takes their child to a playground. The parents points and says, "Hey look, Johnny!" Johnny looks away.

 The parent then dashes off, leaps into their automobile, and is never seen again.

No less objectionable than when a parent drops a child off at a police station for adoption.

Of course it is. The police aren't going to let your child die!

Is that REALLY what you honestly think?!

Not everybody is as inhuman as Murray Rothbard.

Also, you can't be a Christian, at least not a believer in the golden rule, because the golden rule implies mutual respect for eachothers' well-being...It is positive. The golden rule is:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

NOT

"Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

If you were just a mere child, would you want to be thrown out in the wilderness alone? Of course not. This is absurd.

Niccolò:

In any case,  you still have yet to establish any objective reason as to why parents are obligated to  children, other than that, they're children.

I didn't, because it should be obvious. Someone else gave a good justification, though: When a person creates a child, they create the very situation of dependence ("life") which makes the child vulnerable to aggression. Until that child is capable of defending itself, the act of having children and aborting them (in the late term) or neglecting them is itself a form of aggression, just like throwing a stowaway into the ocean and expecting them to swim.

Niccolò:

Can you admit Rothbard is wrong and still be an Austrian and\or a Libertarian? Or is Rothbard to actually be treated like a "Libertarian Lenin"?

No, but you have to understand that positive liberties possess no objective reality.

What you are suggesting is that the life of one individual is more valuable than the life of the other individual, therefore the one individual is bound to that other individual in slavery.

No, I'm saying the life of a child is worth more than the parent's freedom to neglect it. "Social obligations" aren't slavery. Having a responsibility to care for your child is not slavery.

Also, for those minarchists here,  minarchism itself implies positive liberty.

BTW, I decided to re-read A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.

The first paragraph of the first chapter is relevant here:

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many.

Rothbard's ethics give no account of the justice of the liberty to neglect children. It accepts fanatical egoism as axiom. As a result, he sees a parent's own negative liberty as more important than the life of children. Were he or any of you defending him to understand the paragraph above, you would recognize how his statements are unconscionable.

Nathyn:

A contract with whom and, since it's the child that's being wronged, who would enforce it?!

Also, again, we're not talking about specific policies, but Rothbard's twisted ethical system regarding children.

If you want to argue in favor of legalizing child neglect or privatizing childhood protection services, that's a separate issue.

Protecting children from starving from neglect by the parent doesn't "force" anybody to pay for the child other than the parent, who should pay for the child.
But guardianship, by his definition, means at a minimum just leaving the child alone.

Again and again you keep dodging the argument against your fallacious nonsense.  In his argument about abandonment he was establishing the legality and not the morality of this issue.  Besides, you have never taken into account the rights of other individuals.  There are plenty of non-coercive forms of punishment that would provide one of the many means for stopping such behavior.  And on the other end of this, is it moral to force a parent to attempt to keep his child alive at the expense of his own life?

Nathyn:

Also, as someone noted above: It hadn't even occurred to me that Rothbard's position is the same as NAMBLA.

On those same grounds, if children ought to have the same rights as adults, should they be able to consent to sex? Yuck.

 

 

Children would not have the same rights as adults.  The parents own the child until the child demonstrates that he can prove that he is a self-owner.

"The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature"

Until that time the parents can make these decisions for the child.

 

You try really hard to make the case that Rothbard is somehow a baby-killing paedophile.  It's like you have an agenda...

Nathyn:

A contract with whom and, since it's the child that's being wronged, who would enforce it?!

Well, it could be said that the housing market, being a product of free enterprise, would naturally bolster those firms which catered the public best, including firms that required buyers to agree to certain terms--including "taking reasonable care" of children if they have them--before agreeing to sell the house. To the extent that the public preferred people feeding and clothing their children, their patronizing of housing firms that make this a requirement would tend to bring this about.

It seems like a hollow shell of a solution to the problem, but it's no skin off my back: I arrive at my free market anarchism on a different set of ethics than Rothbard's.

It does seem to bring a problem of conscience to some (not all) Rothbardians, though. A situation might easily be imagined where little four-year-old Johnny loves his parents dearly, yet has noticed a sudden decline in their interest in him. Gradually, they pay less and less attention. It comes to a point where the parents choose not to feed him anymore, and deny him use of their water and electricity, too. Johnny, being confused, starving for affection, and hungry could choose to exercise his self-ownership and leave to a nearby volunteer-run housing shelter. However, being four-years-old and desperate, his emotions override his reasoning faculty at every turn. He chooses to stay in the house of the parents he loves, even ignoring the pleas of concerned relatives who urge Johnny to move in with them. With parents who don't care, relatives who can't force Johnny against his will, and a heart that tells him he should stay with his parents because he loves them, little Johnny curls up in a corner of the living room hardwood floor, cold and thirsty, and enters eternal sleep.

Such a situation could not be said to contain any objective illegality for Rothbardians. Some might say that the inattentiveness of the parents was immoral if not illegal, though I'd ask them from which source of moral objectivity they derive this command of "You should raise your children the best you know how" if not from their natural rights, which possess no positive obligations.

None of this is actually a problem for Rothbardians insofar as an attempt to penetrate the consistency of their doctrine is concerned (and I'd like to emphasize that again here). But some might feel the apparent problem of a conscience which disagrees and fumbles to justify an alternative from a source which provides no category of the type necessary to draw from.

Nathyn:

Of course it is. The police aren't going to let your child die!

Guess again: 

http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2006/2111/

Nathyn:

Not everybody is as inhuman as Murray Rothbard.

Say what you will, but it's obvious that you have an agenda.  You can use all the circular logical arguments and gross distortions you want, but that just isn't going to change the fact that you're just a troll. 

Nathyn:

Also, you can't be a Christian, at least not a believer in the golden rule, because the golden rule implies mutual respect for eachothers' well-being...It is positive. The golden rule is:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

NOT

"Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

If you were just a mere child, would you want to be thrown out in the wilderness alone? Of course not. This is absurd.

And why is this inconsistent with the golden rule?  What he would like to do unto others is to not force others to do things against their will.  In other words he acts in a manner that does not violate another's rights.  He would also have others not force him to do unto him things against his will.  That means he would have others act in a manner that does not violate his rights.  There is no violation of the golden rule.

Aside from the misinformation that underpins your argument, you forgot about the story of Moses.  He was left out in the wilderness and things turned out great for him. 

Nathyn:

I didn't, because it should be obvious. Someone else gave a good justification, though: When a person creates a child, they create the very situation of dependence ("life") which makes the child vulnerable to aggression. Until that child is capable of defending itself, the act of having children and aborting them (in the late term) or neglecting them is itself a form of aggression, just like throwing a stowaway into the ocean and expecting them to swim.

Again, Rothbard's statement is about the legality of the topic and not the morality.  In many conceivable moral senses a parent does have an obligation to take care of his children.  Punishment for not living up to such obligations would surely permeate virtually every part of his life.  It's just that these punishments will not violate the self-ownership axiom.

Speaking of minimizing abortions, only a free market could perform that action.

Nathyn:

Can you admit Rothbard is wrong and still be an Austrian and\or a Libertarian? Or is Rothbard to actually be treated like a "Libertarian Lenin"?

Question begging...  If Rothbard was wrong, of course you could admit it and still be considered an Austrian and a libertarian. 

Nathyn:

No, I'm saying the life of a child is worth more than the parent's freedom to neglect it. "Social obligations" aren't slavery. Having a responsibility to care for your child is not slavery.

This is exactly why a free market would minimize abortions and stop child neglect. 

Nathyn:

Rothbard's ethics give no account of the justice of the liberty to neglect children. It accepts fanatical egoism as axiom. As a result, he sees a parent's own negative liberty as more important than the life of children. Were he or any of you defending him to understand the paragraph above, you would recognize how his statements are unconscionable.

 

Nice logical fallacy.  I have to applaud such effort.  This can only be the workings of a professional.  "Fanatical egoism as axiom," good one.  But again, as always, you fail to see the forest for the trees.  A man as intelligent as yourself couldn't possibly be doing this unless it was intentional, you know, performing purposeful action to achieve desired ends...

People like Nathyn seemingly cannot understand a rather simple fact. They think that if the government isn't there to 'take care of the weak and vulnerable' (and what a wonderful job it's doing one must say!), then the job simply won't get done. This Statist mindset completely ignores the facts of history and how such problems were resolved pre-Mommy government. They were solved via civil society action - voluntary, freely chosen actions as opposed to inherently coercive and violent actions via the political means. Again, Nock's social power vs State power is the crux. In this day and age where the State insists on usurping innumerable functions better left to civil society, there are many such people - they evince no ability whatsoever to think 'ouside the State box.' It's one of the primary reasons I hold out little hope for liberty in America. Even the intelligent people are idiots, demanding that the State make life risk free - insisting on guarantees, and in so doing utterly rejecting the reality that exists. 

Nathyn:

Can you admit Rothbard is wrong and still be an Austrian and\or a Libertarian? Or is Rothbard to actually be treated like a "Libertarian Lenin"?

Is this really an honest question? Or is it a troll trying to get a rise out of Austrians? Well, if disagreement with Rothbard is the litmus test of Austrianism, Hoppe, Kinsella, Block and hosts of other Austrians are henceforth disqualified and must renounce their label. So yes, you can disagree with Rothbard and still be an Austrian, just as Rothbard could disagree with Mises and still be an Austrian. A small amount of research would've answered this question. Whether Rothbard is actually wrong is an entirely different question.

 

And I love how you reduce Rothbard's position on political ethics to egoism (without, of course, proving that egoism is evil), as if you had not read that he distinguishes between personal morality (and social sanctions) on the one hand and legality on the other. Now one may disagree with Rothbard that no positive obligations arise to children from parents and even that the division he mentions is possible (alas, I repeat myself), but I see no reason why this ought to involve misrepresenting him and branding him "Dr Evil" (you're not a troll? really!?) 

Inquisitor:

Nathyn:

Can you admit Rothbard is wrong and still be an Austrian and\or a Libertarian? Or is Rothbard to actually be treated like a "Libertarian Lenin"?

Is this really an honest question? Or is it a troll trying to get a rise out of Austrians?

 

Well, we all know the answer to that one. It's a shame, really - he has infected these forums to the point where we can barely get a decent debate going before it gets hijacked - complete with juvenile name calling and self-righteous moralizing. 

Nathyn:

Of course it is. The police aren't going to let your child die!

 

How do you know? 

Nathyn:

Golden rule

Appealing to my religion, when you so obviously no so little about it, will not service you any points with me.

Certainly, I will not act to harm others, but at the same time, I will not throw a rock when I live in a glass house. I will not attempt to interfere with the freedom the Lord gave to all men.

 

If you were just a mere child, would you want to be thrown out in the wilderness alone? Of course not. This is absurd.

I believe I would be more emotionaly hurt than legally wronged. 

 

I didn't, because it should be obvious.

The "I know justice when I see it," argument.

 

Someone else gave a good justification, though: When a person creates a child, they create the very situation of dependence ("life") which makes the child vulnerable to aggression.

 Creating the situation of life and creating life are two different things. Life does not imply vulnerability, and vulnerability does not imply aggression.

The child born is an individual, as are the parents, and as an individual no one possesses authority over him. Though the child may be taken care of by the adults, or the adults may be trustees, they are only so contractually, and until the child can express otherwise, they can merely assume the desires of the child.

Is this moral? No. Is it immoral? No. It's unknowable.

Until that child is capable of defending itself, the act of having children and aborting them (in the late term) or neglecting them is itself a form of aggression, just like throwing a stowaway into the ocean and expecting them to swim.

 I disagree. The act of being the first violater negates the claim to moral obligation. Being an aggressor means you've become an enemy.

No, I'm saying the life of a child is worth more than the parent's freedom to neglect it. "Social obligations" aren't slavery. Having a responsibility to care for your child is not slavery.

You're using the term "neglect" to apply emotional ends to the argument. What the parents are doing in this situation merely expresses their desired actions, this is called living. You are certainly saying that the child is worth more than the adults, but are not proving it with objective truths.

Social obligations are slave contracts. You have no obligation to support me, and I have no obligation to support you, whether your life depends upon it or not. 

 

Rothbard's ethics give no account of the justice of the liberty to neglect children. It accepts fanatical egoism as axiom. As a result, he sees a parent's own negative liberty as more important than the life of children. Were he or any of you defending him to understand the paragraph above, you would recognize how his statements are unconscionable.

Egoism doesn't apply.

As for your slander, no, Rothbard sees those rights as equal ones. That is, if one violates the other then it is objectionable, but if neither are violated by the other, then even if one dies it does not suggest that the other caused it.

 

You're not thinking logically, merely by emotions. Reject the social chains that ravage your soul. Throw them from your back, and be free! 

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?

 

No, it is not true, and I fail to understand how you could possible think that that is what Rothbard thinks.  What Rothbard is saying is that the only rights parents have over the children they bring into the world are those of guardianship, to act on behalf of the child until the child shows that he is capable of acting on his own by leaving home and supporting himself. Please make an effort to actually read and understand before asking questions.

Nathyn:

That's not Rothbard's position.

I know you don't like it when people reply in segments, but theres nothing else that can be done when you make so many unconnected and unsupported assertions.

 

Nathyn:

According to him, the parent has no obligation other than to establish the child's negative rights.

 

It is very similar to Rothbard's position. The only difference is that Rothbard says a fetus can be expelled at anytime and that Gene thinks a fetus can only be expelled once it is likely to be viable, as he stated; which may be an improvement over Rothbard.

You see, the controversial issue here is abortion.  You are creating a strawman by saying that Rothbard advocates killing infants. He wasn't addressing the rights of born children, most people agree on those. What he was talking about was abortion.

 

Nathyn:

If the mother doesn't meet this obligation, how should she be punished and by whom? 

You're the one that wants to do it. Not me.

Nathyn:

This also doesn't really solve the problem, because the question then becomes: What obligation does the adoption agency have? Can they suddenly decide to abandon the child?

You can say, "They had a contract with the mother to take care of it," but that's not necessarily the case.

To use their same metaphor: If somebody stows away on your ship, you won't throw them in the ocean, but let them off at the next port. That next port, however, DOES NOT have to be a place where they will be provided for, however, as in the case of babies being cared for by adoption agencies.

So I'd have to take him to nearest soup kitchen?

 

Nathyn:

Can you admit Rothbard is wrong and still be an Austrian and\or a Libertarian? Or is Rothbard to actually be treated like a "Libertarian Lenin"?

I'll decide whether I want to admit he's wrong or not once someone proves he is.

 

Under a libertarian legal system there would be a baby market. People wouldn't throw away babies, because they would be worth something( unlike today, thanks to the governemnt.) This may be hard for you to understand but its possible to create desireable outcomes without violence.

 

 

 

Nathyn:

You're putting words into Rothbard's mouth. He never argued from a consequentialist position, but from a natural rights position. The book was called, "The ETHICS of Liberty."

The words I'm using here are my own, but I'm not misrepresenting the fact that Rothbard believed in natral rights as the basis of his ethical code.  I, likewise, am basing my ethical code on the idea of natural rights, claiming that children have innate and equal rights as their parents.  Rothbard might have disagreed with this specific point, that children have equal rights as their parents; but nevertheless my ethical code is a more-or-less Rothbardian one, as it builds off of Rothbard's premises about human nature, the basis of objective political ethics.

Nathyn:

This was Rothbard's essential argument. You must be mistaking him for David Friedman.

I've not yet read Friedman's work, but from what I've read about it, Friedman argued from a utilitarian standpoint.  I did not present my argument from a strictly utilitarian standpoint, but rather primarily from a natural law standpoint, like Rothbard.  The crux of that natural law being the law of self-ownership, a natural right held equally by all persons.

I added, as supplimental, a utilitarian argument, despite not being a utilitarian.

Nathyn:

Since rights are only negative, he sees nothing wrong with abandoning or neglecting children.

"Right" and "wrong" are moral terms, just as "just" and "unjust" are ethical terms.  In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard states over and over again that he was not arguing about morality, solely ethics,

Nathyn:

Again, no matter how intellectually it's put, it's still inhumane.

Are you making a moral claim or an ethical claim?

J.C. Hewitt:

Child labor laws prevent children from liberating themselves from an unsatisfactory family relationship.

Growing up, I despised that law.  I couldn't wait to turn 14.

Nathyn:

Can you admit Rothbard is wrong and still be an Austrian and\or a Libertarian? Or is Rothbard to actually be treated like a "Libertarian Lenin"?

Yes, Rothbard is wrong, but not about this.

Most libertarians are not Rothbardians.  Only a small fraction of libertarians are even anarchists, although you will likely find a lot of anarchists here.

Nathyn:

Also, you can't be a Christian, at least not a believer in the golden rule, because the golden rule implies mutual respect for eachothers' well-being...It is positive. The golden rule is:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Insofar as the golden rule prescribes positive action, it deals solely with the realm of morality, not with ethics.  "I will give this bum some spare change because I'd want others to give me spare change if I were in his situationn," not because I have to.

The golden rule can have application to ethics as well, but only insofar as it restricts the positive action of all persons in favour of protecting the natural negative rights held equally by all persons.  "I'm not going to force my morals upon you, or make you take any positive action against your will, just as I would not want you to force your subjective moral view onto me or force me to take any positive action I would not otherwise take."

One certainly can be a Christian and an anarchist.  In fact, I read half of an essay earlier this year that argued that Jesus was an anarcho-capitalist.

If there is a God, He/She/It is surely a libertarian and almost surely an anarchist.  Note how He/She/It (if He/She/It exists) created a world in which spontaneous order arises without centralised control (and most fluidly when such control is not present).  Notice too what little intervention, if any, He/She/It has in our lives.  Even when we think we want Him/Her/It to step in and nanny us, He/She/It typically does not.

Finally, as one economist once said, character is built from voluntarily doing what is right.  It should thus be of no surprise that it is said God gave us free will.

I realize this is off topic...
howeverIt's funny Nathan that you mention the golden rule, . If you are a christian and a statist then perhaps this will send a little shock. Since your so fund of referring to your christian beliefs.

"Matthew 7:12: [...] "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (See also Luke 6:31.)

"But if indeed Jesus actually meant what He said when He spoke these words--and He most certainly did--then this alone is more than enough to prove that Jesus is of necessity an anarchist, and not just any kind of anarchist, but a libertarian, free-market anarchist in particular."

The reason this would necessarily have to be the case is because it is impossible for any actual government to actually abide by the Golden Rule even in theory, let alone in practice. All governments must of necessity violate the Golden Rule, otherwise they would not be governments but would be something else instead.

"(When the word is used in the sense above) Government (i.e., a State) is that organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is generally successful at maintaining, a coercive regional monopoly over ultimate control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.)--this is a feature of all Governments; as well, historically speaking it has always been the case that it is the only organization in society that legally obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."

The above scenario leaves out something extremely vital though, as it merely assumes that this government in question somehow obtains its revenue by voluntary contribution and not by coercion. Yet all actual governments throughout history have obtained their revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for contracted services but by coercion. Thus all governments throughout history steal and extort wealth from their subjects which they call "taxes," yet at the same time governments make it illegal for their subjects to steal from each other or from the government. Thus here again in taxes we see that historically all governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to them. I say "historically" because while although all governments throughout history have found it necessary to fund their operations through theft and extortion, it is not necessarily the case that all governments in theory must be supported by taxes: one could imagine that most people in a certain society simply voluntarily donate their money to fund a government, as unlikely as that possibility is in practice. So while although a monopoly on ultimate control of the law is a logical necessity of all governments, taxes are not--taxes have simply been a practical necessity throughout all of history in order for governments to function.

"Yet someone who follows the Golden Rule must not do to others what they do not want others to do to them--this necessarily means that one must respect the autonomy of other people's person and their just property: which unavoidably leads to not just anarchism, as was demonstrated above, but also to the free-market, voluntarist, libertarian order. The rigorous proof of this is that everyone, by definition, objects to others aggressing against what they regard as their own property."

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

So if you follow the logic, then from a christian perspective the state cannot exist. And if the state cannot exist, what institution can legitimately coerce (even though such action is inherently illegitimate in the first place) parents to take positive actions with regards to their children (other then an institution enforcing a contract)?

Was this the article Mr. Peak?

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

pazlenchantinrocks:

Children would not have the same rights as adults.  The parents own the child until the child demonstrates that he can prove that he is a self-owner.

That's where I disagree with Rothbard.  The notion that parents can own their children, even if it's a "partial" or "limited" ownership, is just absurd.

loweleif:

Was this the article Mr. Peak?

http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

Basically.  What I was reading was a .pdf, though, which, if I remember correctly, was an updated copy of that same piece.

Thank you for informing me. I just found the pdf. For anyone else interested.
http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

Niccolò, you don't think that the act of conceiving and having a child is a consious decision to take on the positive obligation of providing for that child, or finding someone who will?

No, not neccessarily. It depends on the circumstances.

 

allixpeeke:

That's where I disagree with Rothbard.  The notion that parents can own their children, even if it's a "partial" or "limited" ownership, is just absurd.

 

It's seemingly absurd at first, but the children are not yet self-owners.  How can they be?  A young child has about the same cognitive capabilities as a chimpanzee.  I don't think you would see a problem with owning a chimpanzee in principle.  Practicality is a different matter.

allixpeeke:

pazlenchantinrocks:

Children would not have the same rights as adults.  The parents own the child until the child demonstrates that he can prove that he is a self-owner.

That's where I disagree with Rothbard.  The notion that parents can own their children, even if it's a "partial" or "limited" ownership, is just absurd.

 

Rothbard did not say that parents own children. He said they are their guardians until the child demonstrates their objection to the relationship by leaving it.

JonBostwick:

Rothbard did not say that parents own children. He said they are their guardians until the child demonstrates their objection to the relationship by leaving it.

 

 Let's let the man speak for himself, shall we?

"On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner.  But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?"

"Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind."

"The mother, then, becomes at the birth of her child its “trustee-owner,” legally obliged only not to aggress against the child’s person, since the child possesses the potential for self-ownership. Apart from that, so long as the child lives at home, it must necessarily come under the jurisdiction of its parents, since it is living on property owned by those parents. Certainly the parents have the right to set down rules for the use of their home and property for all persons (whether children or not) living in that home."

"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."

 

Of course the ownership isn't absolute because the child is a potential self-owner, but ownership still applies.

pazlenchantinrocks:

I don't think you would see a problem with owning a chimpanzee in principle.

I would have the same problem with this scenario that I have with child ownership. Trustee is a much more appropriate relationship for either case, in my view, and 'ownership' is not. To put what you just said another way:  A chimpanzee has about the same cognitive capabilities as a young child. So why do chimps not have any rights at all? Shouldn't we treat them as we would toddlers?

I'm not arguing against the the "trustee" aspect of all of this.  However the reason why a child has rights and a chimp does not is because the child is a potential self-owner.  The ownership of the child comes into play because the child is not yet a self-owner.  So who owns the child if this is the case?  However studying chimp behavior and how they act towards humans who keep them as pets suggests to me that they "petition" for certain rights.  Yet chimps have not demonstrated to humans in nature that they are in fact self-owners, while humans do it quite often.  When this happens we should respect chimps' rights.

In defense of Nathyn

Although I STRONGLY disagree w/ a lot of his comments and I do NOT like when topics are taken onto tangents, I do appreciate the effect his place at the table has. His posts might not appeal to the more learned folk (learned as it relates to liberty/austrian school, etc), which probably includes many of those on these forums, they appeal to me because I get to see vigorous debate/discussion concerning the basis of liberty. It's quite educational for my backward, undereducated, trailer trash brain. Also, I'm a total noob in the atheist/theist debates and the comments Nathyn receives reminds me of the ones I receive when I try to HONESTLY discuss my belief in god and their disbelief. I am held in utter disdain. lol. Nathyn may or may not be sincere, but it is serving a purpose in my thought life.

pazlenchantinrocks:

The ownership of the child comes into play because the child is not yet a self-owner.  So who owns the child if this is the case?

The unspoken presumption here seems to be: someone must own the child - either him/herself or another. Why must this be the case? Can a child not be 'unowned' until they can assert self-ownership? This still allows for a trusteeship to be established, though certainly there would be certain ethical dilemmas inherent in this - but there are ethical (and practical) dilemmas associated with child self-ownership, AND with parent-ownership of child. We are human beings - ethical dilemmas will exist for as long as we do, almost surely, and we need to be able to tolerate and deal with them.

That is, I am not sure we need to be dichotomous in our approach to this situation - is there no room for a different category of being, neither self-owned, nor other-owned? The extension to chimps is also valid here - does the fact that a chimp may not be capable of asserting self-ownership (and what exactly is the criteria for asserting self-ownership and just how clear is it?) mean that it must be owned? Why not, again, more of a trusteeship, perpetual if need be, when the issue arises? 

The idea that chimps can be owned - despite the fact that most of the arguments for differentiating humans from chimps in a fundamental way (i.e. difference of kind and not degree) cannot be sustained in light of the scientific evidence - and experimented upon, killed, disposed of as their owner wills, is troubling from an ethical standpoint, at least to me. If the difference is primarily one of degree, then how is it ethical to assert ownership, whether over a child or a chimp?

I think un-owned is self-owned, meaning you decide for yourself.

If the difference is primarily one of degree, then couldnt you say we dont have the right to kill anything (berries, corn, apples, etc)?

pairunoyd:

In defense of Nathyn

Although I STRONGLY disagree w/ a lot of his comments and I do NOT like when topics are taken onto tangents, I do appreciate the effect his place at the table has. His posts might not appeal to the more learned folk (learned as it relates to liberty/austrian school, etc), which probably includes many of those on these forums, they appeal to me because I get to see vigorous debate/discussion concerning the basis of liberty. It's quite educational for my backward, undereducated, trailer trash brain. Also, I'm a total noob in the atheist/theist debates and the comments Nathyn receives reminds me of the ones I receive when I try to HONESTLY discuss my belief in god and their disbelief. I am held in utter disdain. lol. Nathyn may or may not be sincere, but it is serving a purpose in my thought life.

This will be my last post on the subject of Nathyn, promise...unless he directly provokes me.

I fully understand where you're coming from, this other site I frequent has some vigorous debates on occasion with people from vastly different walks of life and many different political/economic viewpoints. Debates get heated, feathers get ruffled, insults get bandied about but everyone knows where to draw the line between 'no harm, no foul' and straight up open hostility. Only on one occasion have I seen things get out of hand (VT shooting debate) but when everyone calmed down it was all good again.

Nathyn on the other hand seems to be trying to produce the exact opposite of a good healthy debate. Between his outright misrepresentations and blatantly obvious trolling he has the effect of hijacking the discussion to no good end. His argumentative technique consists of strings of logical fallacies so he quickly reverts to ad hominem attacks out of pure frustration. He claims to honestly want to learn about Austrian economics yet his 'study' on the subject seem to be limited to anti-libertarian propaganda and looking for any little thing he can present that shows the believers in the Austrian/Libertarian system are morally corrupt.

I'm sure if someone came on here who thought Keynes was the second coming and Mises was a hack and was willing to defend their position tooth and nail to the bitter end this place would come alive like a California poppy field after the first spring rain. I used to get in epic debates with someone who almost literally believed God spoke through Marx and Plato's Republic was the blueprint for the future, he even made a genuinely honest attempt to disprove the economic calculation problem. I really enjoyed our exchanges. Nathyn on the other hand has absolutely no interest in 'adding value' to this forum from what I've been able to determine. 

As to my outright open hostility towards Nathyn, I have found that is the best way to deal with trolls and astroturfers. I have no doubts there are some who don't appreciate this at all, will use it to judge my overall character and will refrain from responding to my posts because they think I will just openly attack them if they don't agree with my viewpoint. All courses of action have their consequences...

To the staff, members and lurkers, I humbly apologize for my troll baiting activities.

Anonymous Coward:

pairunoyd:

In defense of Nathyn

Although I STRONGLY disagree w/ a lot of his comments and I do NOT like when topics are taken onto tangents, I do appreciate the effect his place at the table has. His posts might not appeal to the more learned folk (learned as it relates to liberty/austrian school, etc), which probably includes many of those on these forums, they appeal to me because I get to see vigorous debate/discussion concerning the basis of liberty. It's quite educational for my backward, undereducated, trailer trash brain. Also, I'm a total noob in the atheist/theist debates and the comments Nathyn receives reminds me of the ones I receive when I try to HONESTLY discuss my belief in god and their disbelief. I am held in utter disdain. lol. Nathyn may or may not be sincere, but it is serving a purpose in my thought life.

This will be my last post on the subject of Nathyn, promise...unless he directly provokes me.

*loads his crossbow*

 j/k

pairunoyd:

I think un-owned is self-owned, meaning you decide for yourself.

If the difference is primarily one of degree, then couldnt you say we dont have the right to kill anything (berries, corn, apples, etc)?

 

Berries, corn and apples exhibit differences in *kind* from humanity. They do not, for example, have self awareness, which chimps most definitely do. They have not demonstrated that they can use sign language to communicate, as chimps have. They cannot exhibit transitive inference in communication as chimps can. Etc. 

Again, I don't see why unowned has to mean self-owned. This is the dichotomoy I referred to before - why must everything be either self-owned, or fair game to be other owned? Surely we are capable of appreciating more nuance and complexity than this forced oversimplification!

define 'unowned'.

Also, you said 'a matter of degree', so i assume that since those things i listed have life, they would be w/i that continuum of degrees. I know at the least other animal life could be, birds, fish, bugs, etc.