I read this chapter or maybe part of a chapter from the Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard
I'm very confused as to what Rothbard thinks a "trustee-ownership" of a child is. This is a quote where he explains what it is:
"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."
So a mother has ownership of child, except she can't aggress against him/her at all, so that would mean everything the child would be doing is of his free will. So what exactly does she have the ownership to?
As Rothbard says, the only thing a parent can legally force their children to do is follow established rules within their property or else the child can be kicked out. But this is also true for any person that comes into their house, so how does a parent own a child anymore than a neighbor coming to visit?
Isn't a child just technically a visitor that the parent's allow to stay with them for a long period of time?
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
A child is fully owned by his parents. Concepts like trustee-ownership are just hackneyed attempts at ignoring the material consequences of ownership.
There is absolutely no institution in a libertarian society that can decide whether or not a mother is violating her child's rights.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Does that mean you believe a parent has absolute right to everything (including aggression) in a child's life until a certain age?
If children are property, they have no rights, so murder would be justified, is this correct?
Libertarian_for_Life:Isn't a child just technically a visitor that the parent's allow to stay with them for a long period of time?
Is there anything wrong with that?
Stranger:A child is fully owned by his parents.
Except it's not.
Stranger:Concepts like trustee-ownership are just hackneyed attempts at ignoring the material consequences of ownership.
No, they're not.
Stranger:There is absolutely no institution in a libertarian society that can decide whether or not a mother is violating her child's rights.
Is there an institution in a libertarian society that deals with property disputes? Even with persons that cannot pay for the services themselves; [defend themselves - i.e children]
"But how could a poor person afford private protection he would have to pay for instead of getting free protection, as he does now?" There are several answers to this question, one of the most common criticisms of the idea of totally private police protection. One is: that this problem of course applies to any commodity or service in the libertarian society, not just the police. But isn't protection necessary? Perhaps, but then so is food of many different kinds, clothing, shelter, etc. Surely these are at least as vital if not more so than police protection, and yet almost nobody says that therefore the government must nationalize food, clothing, shelter, etc., and supply these free as a compulsory monopoly. Very poor people would be supplied, in general, by private charity, as we saw in our chapter on welfare. Furthermore, in the specific case of police there would undoubtedly be ways of voluntarily supplying free police protection to the indigent — either by the police companies themselves for goodwill (as hospitals and doctors do now) or by special "police aid" societies that would do work similar to "legal aid" societies [p. 220] today. (Legal aid societies voluntarily supply free legal counsel to the indigent in trouble with the authorities.)
You don't think there would be Children Organizations? "Friends of babies"? Really? lol.. "Why won't someone think of the children!"
Conza88: Libertarian_for_Life:Isn't a child just technically a visitor that the parent's allow to stay with them for a long period of time? Is there anything wrong with that?
No, it makes perfect sense to me, I think if Rothbard left it at that, then I would be less confused. What I'm just trying to understand, is what "trustee-ownership" means if nothing can be done to a child against his will?
Rothbard goes on to say that you can sell this "trustee-ownership" to other people.
I don't get that, according to Rothbard, the parents can do nothing against a child's body without his consent, so it seems that technically the only thing that the child could do is willinging be a "visitor is another house" if the foster parent agrees. Why do the parents have a say in it?
Why do the parents have a right to sell a child?
It just seems like the logic is a bit screwed up.
Or perhaps the "trustee-ownership" that he talks about refers to just babies and children unwilling to make decisions, is this it?
Some of your posts have a distinct authoritarian streak, Conza88. You are not the only offender, though.
Conza88: Is there an institution in a libertarian society that deals with property disputes? Even with persons that cannot pay for the services themselves; [defend themselves - i.e children] "But how could a poor person afford private protection he would have to pay for instead of getting free protection, as he does now?" There are several answers to this question, one of the most common criticisms of the idea of totally private police protection. One is: that this problem of course applies to any commodity or service in the libertarian society, not just the police. But isn't protection necessary? Perhaps, but then so is food of many different kinds, clothing, shelter, etc. Surely these are at least as vital if not more so than police protection, and yet almost nobody says that therefore the government must nationalize food, clothing, shelter, etc., and supply these free as a compulsory monopoly. Very poor people would be supplied, in general, by private charity, as we saw in our chapter on welfare. Furthermore, in the specific case of police there would undoubtedly be ways of voluntarily supplying free police protection to the indigent — either by the police companies themselves for goodwill (as hospitals and doctors do now) or by special "police aid" societies that would do work similar to "legal aid" societies [p. 220] today. (Legal aid societies voluntarily supply free legal counsel to the indigent in trouble with the authorities.) You don't think there would be Children Organizations? "Friends of babies"? Really? lol.. "Why won't someone think of the children!"
Property cannot argue for itself in a dispute, and neither can children. What you are saying is that a children's organization would have an equal claim to own the children as the parents. Now unless the parents enter into some prior agreement with an outside party (godparents in a marriage contract, for example), no organization can even make the claim that they deserve ownership of the children.
Libertarian_for_Life:What I'm just trying to understand, is what "trustee-ownership" means if nothing can be done to a child against his will?
Ok. Essentially it is easier to understand as "guardianship rights". The parents own the right to guard the child.
Libertarian_for_Life:I don't get that, according to Rothbard, the parents can do nothing against a child's body without his consent, so it seems that technically the only thing that the child could do is willinging be a "visitor is another house" if the foster parent agrees. Why do the parents have a say in it?
"But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. 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 — in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age."
I think the parents have a say in it, when the child / baby does not / or cannot. The parents have no positive obligations, so they may be too poor to look after the kid, or whatever other reason. This may be helpful reading, it was for me. Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and property abandonment: children's rights by Walter Block
Libertarian_for_Life:Why do the parents have a right to sell a child?
Well they don't, they are selling the guardianship rights.
Libertarian_for_Life:Or perhaps the "trustee-ownership" that he talks about refers to just babies and children unwilling to make decisions, is this it?
Unwilling / unable. Furthermore, if a kid gets kicked out or runs away from home because of abuse etc or for whatever reason, they could try stay at a friends, get adopted into a family, orphanage, Boys town?, live on their own and become independent.
All seem better alternatives than remaining in an abusive home (assuming), or become children of the state! (eek)
Stranger:Property cannot argue for itself in a dispute, and neither can children.
The difference is, children have the potential too.
Stranger:What you are saying is that a children's organization would have an equal claim to own the children as the parents.
No that is not what I am saying. The parents have first claim, naturally.
Stranger:no organization can even make the claim that they deserve ownership of the children.
'Ownership' is the wrong word, no-one can own the child as their property. Because you can do whatever you want with your property, as long as it doesn't violate others.
If the parents fully owned the child, which is what you seem to be saying - then it would be legal to take the child, into the middle of time square and put a bullet through their brain.
Surely you're not going to stick by such a position... are you?
What the parents "own" is the guardianship rights. When they stop guarding the child, and in fact aggress against it - then you have problems.
tacoface: Some of your posts have a distinct authoritarian streak, Conza88. You are not the only offender, though.
Define "distinct authoritarian streak". If you mean adherence to the non aggression axiom, sure.
I'm quite surprised that you are so wrong about this Stranger. Normally, I agree with you on things. I wrote a fair deal on this before here and don't have time to repeat it all right now.
I call "trustee-ownership" guardianship. Children are special cases, vs. mere res, because of their potential to become actor-producers or moral agents as well. Actions such as rape or mutilation which are blatantly unhelpful to a child in reaching adulthood nullify your claim to a child as "property". Once unowned, another person might take guardianship and represent the child against their abuser. You simply can't "own" human beings in these ways unless they had been moral agents and made a contractual agreement.
You don't stake out and maintain ownership of an acre of land in the same way as a pizza or a child. The nature of the thing in question guides us.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Conza88,
Authoritarian - favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom
The term "distinct authoritarian streak" pertaining to some authoritarian positions in some of your posts.
Some examples -
Conza88:If the parents fully owned the child, which is what you seem to be saying - then it would be legal to take the child, into the middle of time square and put a bullet through their brain.
Conza88:Justified in self defense, from a smack in the face. Also justified in punishment, but must be proportional.
Conza88: Stranger:A child is fully owned by his parents. Except it's not.
Emphasis is all mine.
These examples along with your belief in an objective morality, which AJ pointed out goes directly against the idea of voluntary choice, illustrate a certain, although unnoticed by yourself, strain of authoritarianism in your beliefs.
tacoface: Conza88, Authoritarian - favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom The term "distinct authoritarian streak" pertaining to some authoritarian positions in some of your posts.
None of my posts involve a violation of the NAP, or anyone elses free will. You've got it the other way around.
tacoface: Some examples - Conza88:If the parents fully owned the child, which is what you seem to be saying - then it would be legal to take the child, into the middle of time square and put a bullet through their brain.
That is the logical conclusion of Strangers position. I am arguing against it. Did you not read the very next line?
"Surely you're not going to stick by such a position... are you?"
tacoface: Conza88:Justified in self defense, from a smack in the face. Also justified in punishment, but must be proportional.
It would be great if you included context. That being said, nothing in my position is authoritarian - far from it. It stems from natural law -> natural rights -> natural justice.
tacoface: Conza88: Stranger:A child is fully owned by his parents. Except it's not. Emphasis is all mine.
A child is not fully owned by it's parents (their property). What about that statement is authoritarian? In my opinion, anyone who denies it - is a wannabe authoritarian. I mean, how else could you explain a position where you want to own another human life as your property?
tacoface:These examples
Are all baseless and in no way support your ill-founded and erroneous conclusion.
Conza88: tacoface: Some examples - Conza88:If the parents fully owned the child, which is what you seem to be saying - then it would be legal to take the child, into the middle of time square and put a bullet through their brain. That is the logical conclusion of Strangers position. I am arguing against it. Did you not read the very next line? "Surely you're not going to stick by such a position... are you?"
The context of your sentence implies that you believe there should be a uniform legal system under which property violations are to be considered. This is is inherently authoritarian as there will be people unwilling to live by your laws.
You are trapped in the statist paradigm.
Conza88: tacoface: Conza88:Justified in self defense, from a smack in the face. Also justified in punishment, but must be proportional. It would be great if you included context. That being said, nothing in my position is authoritarian - far from it. It stems from natural law -> natural rights -> natural justice.
Your judgement that retaliation against a violation of property rights must be proportional is authoritarian. You wish to assert your subjective opinion on others as to how they can defend their property.
Conza88: tacoface: Conza88: Stranger:A child is fully owned by his parents. Except it's not. Emphasis is all mine. A child is not fully owned by it's parents (their property). What about that statement is authoritarian? In my opinion, anyone who denies it - is a wannabe authoritarian. I mean, how else could you explain a position where you want to own another human life as your property?
Is not fully owned? Are they partly owned? Are you making a concession here?
The quote I used has to be considered in the context of your post. You suggested there could be an institution that could justifiably violate a parents property rights with regard to its child.
Its cus on child-rearing, you already know what the right answer is: That parents always should do the right thing by the child etc etc.So you have to fumble around with libertarianism, adjusting definitions until you get the answer you want. Cus we are libertarian philosophers! We say we value liberty - but we're still human so we also value other stuff - then lets tweak our theories till it all fits together - so we don't have to admit to double standards! I'll work on a rhyming version of this later.
So me if and the missus want baby back ribs we can take Tommy out of the crib and do the butchering ourselves. Or do we need a licensed professional?
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
E. R. Olovetto: I'm quite surprised that you are so wrong about this Stranger. Normally, I agree with you on things. I wrote a fair deal on this before here and don't have time to repeat it all right now. I call "trustee-ownership" guardianship. Children are special cases, vs. mere res, because of their potential to become actor-producers or moral agents as well. Actions such as rape or mutilation which are blatantly unhelpful to a child in reaching adulthood nullify your claim to a child as "property". Once unowned, another person might take guardianship and represent the child against their abuser. You simply can't "own" human beings in these ways unless they had been moral agents and made a contractual agreement. You don't stake out and maintain ownership of an acre of land in the same way as a pizza or a child. The nature of the thing in question guides us.
Your wish does not make it a reality. There is no legal system that can impose such a wish except that of a state.
ladyattis: Stranger:A child is fully owned by his parents. So me if and the missus want baby back ribs we can take Tommy out of the crib and do the butchering ourselves. Or do we need a licensed professional?
Historically there has not been anything to stop this from happening, particularly in times of famine. If no one knows that you are butchering your own baby (your home being sovereign and inviolable) then no one can accuse you of violating their rights.
Stranger:Historically there has not been anything to stop this from happening, particularly in times of famine. If no one knows that you are butchering your own baby (your home being sovereign and inviolable) then no one can accuse you of violating their rights.
Wait what? Excuse me, but if they have rights therefore they cannot be owned, it's a logical contradiction to apply rights then to claim in the same or another sentence that you own them. Either they are owned, therefore are slaves, or they are not owned and therefore are free. Law of Excluded Middle is a bitch.
Does anyone happen to know what the law says about this issue? To what extent do we own our own children?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Stranger:Historically there has not been anything to stop this from happening, particularly in times of famine. If no one knows that you are butchering your own baby (your home being sovereign and inviolable) then no one can accuse you of violating their rights.And if no one knows that you've kidnapped a woman and have her chained in your basement, repeatedly raping her, no one can accuse you of violating her rights.
Absolutely, which is why one must be responsible for insuring one's life. If that woman has not entered into any protection contract, no one will come looking for her when she goes missing.
A child, for obvious reasons, cannot enter into contracts.
ladyattis: Stranger:Historically there has not been anything to stop this from happening, particularly in times of famine. If no one knows that you are butchering your own baby (your home being sovereign and inviolable) then no one can accuse you of violating their rights. Wait what? Excuse me, but if they have rights therefore they cannot be owned, it's a logical contradiction to apply rights then to claim in the same or another sentence that you own them. Either they are owned, therefore are slaves, or they are not owned and therefore are free. Law of Excluded Middle is a bitch.
I was pointing out the contradiction in non-enforceable rights.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And if no one knows that you've kidnapped a woman and have her chained in your basement, repeatedly raping her, no one can accuse you of violating her rights.
Stranger:Absolutely, which is why one must be responsible for insuring one's life. If that woman has not entered into any protection contract, no one will come looking for her when she goes missing.
To be sure, a child cannot enter into contracts AS YET. But it will be able to. It is a potential agent, and that makes all the difference. Seriously: you can't be advocating for parents to be able to murder their children. If so: I hope you neither have any nor ever will.
Knight_of_BAAWA:To be sure, a child cannot enter into contracts AS YET. But it will be able to. It is a potential agent, and that makes all the difference. Seriously: you can't be advocating for parents to be able to murder their children. If so: I hope you neither have any nor ever will.
I'm not, and you're misconstruing my position. Justice and rights are not about "being allowed" to do anything. They are about stopping someone from doing something, and getting compensated if they do. Whatever rights you wish children have, those are purely imaginary and have no material implications in a libertarian system of justice. Even obtaining the information that those imaginary rights are being violated necessarily implies that you are prepared to grossly violate the sovereignty of the household, building a slippery slope to the destruction of all property rights. (You can justify any rights violation in the name of protecting children from the potential harm done by their parents.)
Suppose a mother does murder her child. Then what? If the father is around, he can seek justice from the mother, as he shares ownership of the child. But if both parents are involved (most cases of child murder are murder-suicides), then what can anyone else do about it? They have no claim to any form of compensation. The only thing they can show in court is that those people are bad parents.
Stranger:'Im not, and you're misconstruing my position.
Stranger:Justice and rights are not about "being allowed" to do anything. They are about stopping someone from doing something, and getting compensated if they do. Whatever rights you wish children have, those are purely imaginary and have no material implications in a libertarian system of justice.
Stranger: Whatever rights you wish children have, those are purely imaginary and have no material implications in a libertarian system of justice. Even obtaining the information that those imaginary rights are being violated necessarily implies that you are prepared to grossly violate the sovereignty of the household, building a slippery slope to the destruction of all property rights. (You can justify any rights violation in the name of protecting children from the potential harm done by their parents.)
Whatever rights you wish children have, those are purely imaginary and have no material implications in a libertarian system of justice. Even obtaining the information that those imaginary rights are being violated necessarily implies that you are prepared to grossly violate the sovereignty of the household, building a slippery slope to the destruction of all property rights. (You can justify any rights violation in the name of protecting children from the potential harm done by their parents.)
I agree, Hillary Clinton's It Takes A Village is all about violating the sovereignty of the household to protect "children in crisis."
So Stranger, I take it you're a Moral Nihilist then? Not an accusation, just a question for clarification.
ladyattis: So Stranger, I take it you're a Moral Nihilist then? Not an accusation, just a question for clarification.
What has morality to do with justice?
Stranger: ladyattis: So Stranger, I take it you're a Moral Nihilist then? Not an accusation, just a question for clarification. What has morality to do with justice?
Everything.
tacoface:The context of your sentence implies that you believe there should be a uniform legal system under which property violations are to be considered. This is is inherently authoritarian as there will be people unwilling to live by your laws.
Except it doesn't imply that. You are confused.
tacoface:You are trapped in the statist paradigm.
Nope.
tacoface:Your judgement that retaliation against a violation of property rights must be proportional is authoritarian. You wish to assert your subjective opinion on others as to how they can defend their property.
Murray Rothbard is authoritarian? So is Stephan, Kinsella?
Not an appeal to authority here, just want to be clear you understand what you are saying.
It's not a subjective opinion of mine. And I said punishment btw.
tacoface:Is not fully owned? Are they partly owned? Are you making a concession here?
Not at all. What gave you that impression? I was providing the wrong position and disagreeing with it.
tacoface:The quote I used has to be considered in the context of your post. You suggested there could be an institution that could justifiably violate a parents property rights with regard to its child.
The parents don't have any property rights over their child, so how could they be violated? lol
bloomj31:I agree, Hillary Clinton's It Takes A Village is all about violating the sovereignty of the household to protect "children in crisis."
Stranger: Suppose a mother does murder her child. Then what? If the father is around, he can seek justice from the mother, as he shares ownership of the child. But if both parents are involved (most cases of child murder are murder-suicides), then what can anyone else do about it? They have no claim to any form of compensation. The only thing they can show in court is that those people are bad parents.
Marko:But this is not the same as saying that the parents own their children. This is only saying that they are in a position to wield such power over them as if they did in fact own them.
I'm going to let you reflect on the meaning of your observation.
Stranger: Marko:But this is not the same as saying that the parents own their children. This is only saying that they are in a position to wield such power over them as if they did in fact own them. I'm going to let you reflect on the meaning of your observation.
You are wasting your time. Power is not truth.
So, how in your opinion do parents own children? Indefinitely, permanently, unquestionably?
Have you read Kinsella's How We Come to Own Ourselves?
Is potentiality important to legal theory? On what grounds do you make a distinction between a man who falls asleep (yet ought to be afforded some negative rights) and a child (who you apparently are arguing is to have none)?
E. R. Olovetto: So, how in your opinion do parents own children? Indefinitely, permanently, unquestionably?
Until they decide to stop.
Austrian economic theory is based on action. Once children decide they no longer wish to be controlled by their parent, they can seek out their own protection as full adults.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: So, how in your opinion do parents own children? Indefinitely, permanently, unquestionably? Until they decide to stop. Austrian economic theory is based on action. Once children decide they no longer wish to be controlled by their parent, they can seek out their own protection as full adults.
Until they decide to stop OR the child is able to "proclaim themselves as adults"?
If I emborder a few acres of land and pollute nearby owners' land, or commit any other crime where I may lose title to property (including myself), I lose the claim to my land/other property.
Do you feel that I could fence in a great area of land and own it forever, assuming that I commit no crimes? I think that adverse possession has its place in libertarian theory. If you preclude others from making use of some thing, it is forestalling and a property rights violation of any would be homesteaders. Raping babies or having infant limbs for dinner is not making use of this category of thing, correct?
E. R. Olovetto: If I emborder a few acres of land and pollute nearby owners' land, or commit any other crime where I may lose title to property (including myself), I lose the claim to my land/other property.
To whom?
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: If I emborder a few acres of land and pollute nearby owners' land, or commit any other crime where I may lose title to property (including myself), I lose the claim to my land/other property. To whom?
You lose it to victims of your pollution, murder, theft, etc.
E. R. Olovetto: You lose it to victims of your pollution, murder, theft, etc.
And do you not see a problem of circularity when a child's property rights are violated?