I've been told by libertarians that parents should choose the schools for their children not the government and I agree.
From this, I began to ponder: until when should children decide how they want to live their lives?
Many young children tend to feel invincible and naive when young but until when does a parent have no say in a child's life?
In a libertarian society, hypothetically speaking, if a 6-year-old child hates his parents and wants to live on his own despite being extremely naive and arrogant, should the child decide this despite his parents' supposed superior general knowledge?
Rothbard's Kid Lib (ERAN Chapter 7) attempts to address the questions you've raised.
It is perfectly acceptable for property owners (parents) to set house rules for all guests (including perma-guests ie children). But just because parents can set rules for their house, that doesn't mean they physically own their children.
The focus on property rights also provides us with the solution to the thorny problem of when the child can own and regulate himself. The answer is: when he leaves his parents’ household. When he gets out of his parents’ property, he then removes himself from his parents’ property jurisdiction. But this means that the child must always have, regardless of age, the absolute freedom to run away, to get out from under. It is grotesque to think that the parents can actually own the child’s body as well as physical property; it is advocating slavery and denying the fundamental right of selfownership to permit such ownership of others, regardless of age. Therefore, the child must always be free to run away; he then becomes a self-owner whenever he chooses to exercise his right to run-away freedom. This means that the fundamental tyranny of the parent over the child is not imposing curfews or getting him to eat spinach or preventing cohabitation in the back room; the fundamental tyranny is the current legal power of the parent to seize a child who has run away and drag him back home by force. The parent should, of course, have the right to try to persuade or cajole the kid to return, but he should never have the right to force him to do so, for that is kidnapping and a high crime that violates every person’s absolute right to his body.
perfoliate: Many young children tend to feel invincible and naive when young but until when does a parent have no say in a child's life? In a libertarian society, hypothetically speaking, if a 6-year-old child hates his parents and wants to live on his own despite being extremely naive and arrogant, should the child decide this despite his parents' supposed superior general knowledge?
Children feel invincible and naive when young because they are protected by their parents the horror of the world.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Rothbard: But this means that the child must always have, regardless of age, the absolute freedom to run away, to get out from under.
But this means that the child must always have, regardless of age, the absolute freedom to run away, to get out from under.
On this point, I have never agreed with Rothbard. But in short, there is no simple answer. If your infant crawls off down the street, for instance, any responsible parent would bring his child back. So I believe he is wrong here that there is 'always' a right to run away.
In a truly Libertarian society the only "law" would be the NAP.
Does a person (any age) leaving home violate the NAP?
Does a person (any age) preventing someone from leaving violate the NAP?
I'll bite..
MatthewF: Does a person (any age) leaving home violate the NAP?
No
MatthewF: Does a person (any age) preventing someone from leaving violate the NAP?
Hmm... usually? :) But this seems to imply a 1 year old crawling off the porch into the street has a right to do so, obviously that's nonsense. So the question I have is how would you define a "person" with rights? A mature adult capable of understanding the NAP? (Also keep in mind the mentally disabled here - it's a tricky subject.) This smells like one of the many animal rights discussions we've had here before.
If your toddler wanders into traffic, and you spend time contemplating the moral justification of saving them, good. That's a perfect example of the world putting a check on the spread of the "logically sound", yet functionally meaningless.
sicsempertyrannis: Rothbard: But this means that the child must always have, regardless of age, the absolute freedom to run away, to get out from under. On this point, I have never agreed with Rothbard. But in short, there is no simple answer. If your infant crawls off down the street, for instance, any responsible parent would bring his child back. So I believe he is wrong here that there is 'always' a right to run away.
It really depends on whether the child is "running away" or just plain running away.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Certain people here believe that parents own their children in the sense of owning other things. The fact that they brought them to this world means they can rape or murder them. In essence, children are slaves of their parents. What I would like these folks to clarify is how children become manumitted.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Stranger: It really depends on whether the child is "running away" or just plain running away.
I understand what's meant here, but it's a little absurd to think that you could actually justify using force (without breaking the NAP since it's acting "in defense of the child") preventing a parent from stopping their 5 year old leaving the NYC apartment at midnight because they didn't want to go to bed.
There has to be more to this than Rothbard seems to be implying in that quote, and I think the argument will need to be compatible with the lack of animal rights and the (limited or lack of?) rights of the mentally disabled. The simplest guess I can muster is that the person needs to be able to comprehend and abide by the NAP themselves. Or another way to say the same: a contract (non aggression) must be mutual to be valid.
The fundamental question is if the infant crawling down the street is actually running away from home, or just leaving the house unwittingly while going exploring. If it is the former, then the infant is demonstrating action and has the right to run away. However, I seriously doubt that in reality, there would ever be a situation where an infant is demonstrating action by purposefully running away from home. He is probably just aimlessly wandering and exploring, which does not constitute action at all.
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
Ansury: Hmm... usually? :) But this seems to imply a 1 year old crawling off the porch into the street has a right to do so, obviously that's nonsense.
Hmm... usually? :) But this seems to imply a 1 year old crawling off the porch into the street has a right to do so, obviously that's nonsense.
Why is it nonsense?
Ansury:So the question I have is how would you define a "person" with rights?
It seems to me that the burden of proof should fall on the "aggressor" to show that the other doesn't have rights or that the violation was legit.
This idea of childrens rights is a new area of interest for me, so perhaps I should read a few of the other threads on the topic before diving in...
MatthewF: Why is it nonsense?
That's what I'm trying to determine. You can't let a 1 year old that you're responsible for crawl/walk (or whatever they do) into a busy street. This reductio ad absurdum of non-aggression seems to be a logical rebuttal which I guess is technically correct, but all would agree that the consequences are unacceptable on moral grounds.
MatthewF: It seems to me that the burden of proof should fall on the "aggressor" to show that the other doesn't have rights or that the violation was legit. This idea of childrens rights is a new area of interest for me, so perhaps I should read a few of the other threads on the topic before diving in...
This is a good point to mention, but what's the criteria for "proving" the lack of rights? To me this is a part of the controversy, and it's directly connected to animal rights and rights of the mentally disabled or incapacitated as well.
I still consider this a rather new topic to me although I have read and participated in some of these discussions, particularly on animal rights, and at least for me personally it's still something that is not crystal clear by any means.
Ansury:You can't let a 1 year old that you're responsible for crawl/walk (or whatever they do) into a busy street. This reductio ad absurdum of non-aggression seems to be a logical rebuttal which I guess is technically correct, but all would agree that the consequences are unacceptable on moral grounds.
Agreed. I would never allow a small child to wander into a busy street, but I have difficulty translating that into the child not having the right to do so. It seems to me like confining another human being is a clear violation of the NAP, but a violation that I would feel comfortable accepting... kind of... I hate saying that because it makes me feel like the NAP isn't a priciple to live by so much as a nice suggestion. I'm conflicted.
Ansury:This is a good point to mention, but what's the criteria for "proving" the lack of rights? To me this is a part of the controversy, and it's directly connected to animal rights and rights of the mentally disabled or incapacitated as well.
I'm conflicted here as well. I have great difficulty in saying that a cow, for example, doesn't have a right to live or that a man can make that determination for said cow, yet I eat steak. ALOT of steak. And I don't feel bad about doing so. Your thoughts?
perfoliate: I've been told by libertarians that parents should choose the schools for their children not the government and I agree. From this, I began to ponder: until when should children decide how they want to live their lives? Many young children tend to feel invincible and naive when young but until when does a parent have no say in a child's life? In a libertarian society, hypothetically speaking, if a 6-year-old child hates his parents and wants to live on his own despite being extremely naive and arrogant, should the child decide this despite his parents' supposed superior general knowledge?
I am certain it would be best for you not to worry about some other moral code telling you how to "do the right thing", this seems like something most people can intuitvely come to the "right" decision on their own accord. Any set system can lead to catastrophic consequences, just as it could lead to major success.
Apes and lilacs have no problem with reproduction and they have no law on how to deal with their offspring, I think you could do all right w/o one as well.
MatthewF:I would never allow a small child to wander into a busy street, but I have difficulty translating that into the child not having the right to do so. It seems to me like confining another human being is a clear violation of the NAP, but a violation that I would feel comfortable accepting...
I think the limited awareness of the child wandering into traffic would justify you in stopping them. I mean, couldn't you safely assume that they didn't know what they were doing? You probably wouldn't have a moral dilemma with saving someone who's stoned off their ass, i.e. not sufficiently aware of their surroundings to safely move on their own. Now if the child made it clear to you that they knew what they were doing, i.e. that they wanted to commit suicide*, you would have to let them.
* Note that wandering into a busy street with the intention of being run over would be aggressive, and thus you would be justified in stopping your kid, or whoever else, from aggressing against the drivers' property rights by trying to cause an accident.
MatthewF:I have great difficulty in saying that a cow, for example, doesn't have a right to live or that a man can make that determination for said cow, yet I eat steak.
Having so far only read a couple of books on libertarian political philosophy, I'm no authority yet, but I fully agree (having earlier come to similar conclusions myself) with what I've read here.
I own that book and it's one of my favorites.
I think if you ask many parents, I don't think they need government to tell them when to stop caring for their children. It's like the seatbelt issue. Seatbelts save lives and don't need government to force you to buckle in. Government wants to break up the family so they have control. They do this by attempts to take care of your child. Whether through child protection agencies, public schools... different juvenile laws.