Political Theory

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

ToxicAssets — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:54:18 GMT

QuisCustodiet:

Interesting take. Just note: It's important to clarify what you mean by legal guardian (that you don't think a non-consenting party to the sex that resulted in a child's conception has to be a legal guardian, though can choose to be). That is capital.

I don't want to overload the thread with ideas, but what if the rapist himself was a child, and then died? Would the rapist's parents be responsible for the child who was conceived as a result of their kid raping a woman? Consider that parents are generally responsible for the actions of their children until adulthood.

This will depend upon the custumary understanding and other circumstancial factors guiding the judicial mechanism invoked to solve the problem.

In modern western societies, most people will not consider a victim of rape responsible for any offspring resulting of the assault. And so they will give their support to a judicial mechanism that allow pregnancy abortion as lawful acquitance in such cases.

But this can become complicated if the allegations of sexual assault are introduced at later time and the circumstances are considered foggy or non plausible.

As for the kid rapist case, again the particular circumstances of a real case scenario would be of more relevance than a general principle.

The parents would probably be considered as potential culprits, but in any likely scenario a minor that is developed enough to sexually assault and sire will bear the larger amount of the responsibility by himself.

The rationale being that a kid that is forceful enough to carry out a sexual assault on a woman is likely to be beyond any reasonable control of his parents.

Of course, if the circumstances are such that the woman in the case is another child, or someone disabled, and the kid is just a puberscent boy and not a muscular drug-fueled thug aged 17, the burden of responsibility of any legal responsible increases accordingly.

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

ToxicAssets — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:37:42 GMT

QuisCustodiet:

@ToxicAssets

The issue is whether or not the implicit contract between two consenting biological parents (or only one in the case of rape [Edit: see A at bottom]) is a valid contract. A lot of libertarians (Rothbard, Block, etc.) argue that no implicit contract is valid.

Valid to whom?

The judeo-cristian ethical tradition and foundation for the Western Civilization is based upon individual responsibility.

And individuals that engage in actions whose implications can be foreseen and prevented are considered responsible.

Although, I agree that the conversation seems a bit repugnant. I think it's important to keep that in mind. I also agree with your conclusion that parent(s) do have positive obligations to his/their children.

It's not my conclusion. It's the custumary notion. You are morally responsible for the consequences of your actions to the degree that those consequences were predictable and/or cautionary measures were known and affordable.

[A] It is also possible that neither biological parent consented to the sex if a third party forced one to rape the other, or if the third party just threw them in a room and forced them upon one another. In this case, neither biological parent would have a positive obligation to the child; the third party -- the consenting party in this case -- would.

I also agree here.

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

QuisCustodiet — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:32:40 GMT

Interesting take. Just note: It's important to clarify what you mean by legal guardian (that you don't think a non-consenting party to the sex that resulted in a child's conception has to be a legal guardian, though can choose to be). That is capital.

I don't want to overload the thread with ideas, but what if the rapist himself was a child, and then died? Would the rapist's parents be responsible for the child who was conceived as a result of their kid raping a woman? Consider that parents are generally responsible for the actions of their children until adulthood.

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

ToxicAssets — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:23:11 GMT

Wheylous:

If we are to assume that all children have the same rights, then it is the same conclusion.

All children have the equal right to be taken care by their legal guardian. However some children don't have legal guardian to whom this right would apply.

It's exactly the same thing as saying all men have the right to paint their castles blue, but not every man has a castle to be painted blue.

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

QuisCustodiet — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:16:28 GMT

@ToxicAssets

The issue is whether or not the implicit contract between two consenting biological parents (or only one in the case of rape [Edit: see A at bottom]) is a valid contract. A lot of libertarians (Rothbard, Block, etc.) argue that no implicit contract is valid.

Although, I agree that the conversation seems a bit repugnant. I think it's important to keep that in mind. I also agree with your conclusion that parent(s) do have positive obligations to his/their children.

[A] It is also possible that neither biological parent consented to the sex if a third party forced one to rape the other, or if the third party just threw them in a room and forced them upon one another. In this case, neither biological parent would have a positive obligation to the child; the third party -- the consenting party in this case -- would.

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

QuisCustodiet — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:12:23 GMT

@Wheylous:

What if the rapist goes on to die? Does that mean no one is legally responsible for the child?

Hmm. Good point. If there was no prior arrangement for who would be responsible for the child in the event of the father's death, I suppose no one is legally responsible for the child (i.e. no one can be forced to take in the child). Of course, in a free society, I think orphanages would play a major role in child care/protection, and would likely jump to take the child in.

But I have another question about a party to a contract dying. What is the usual libertarian way to resolve that?

(As in, if today Joe pays Bob $50 to mow Joe's lawn Wednesday and Bob dies a day before he is supposed to mow Joe's lawn)

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

ToxicAssets — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:08:57 GMT

Holy crap...

This is almost beyond non-sense.

Parents who have engaged in voluntary or accidental conception resulting from voluntary actions are considered thus responsible for the well being of their offspring at least until they reach a certain maturity level.

And parents (that is, mothers) who were raped cannot be held morally responsible.

What's wrong with that?

Putting another way...

All children have equal rights, but not with respect to equal things.

Each child has the right to be taken care by their legal guardians.

Unfortunately some kids don't have a legal guardian to be found, to whom that law can be enforced.

It's like saying that each individual has the right to dispose of his property as he wishes, but not every individual actually owns property.

The lengths to which some libertarinas want to stretch their arguments in order to justify their liberal predispositions towards nasty stuff like abortion and child abandonment is utterly disgusting...

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

Marko — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:56:28 GMT

That's very clever QC.

The victim is not acting and therefore can not be entering into a contractual arrangement, but that is not necessarily the case for the rapist who is taking action.

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

Wheylous — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 03:56:34 GMT

QuisCustodiet - I came up with another scenario:

What if the rapist goes on to die? Does that mean no one is legally responsible for the child?

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

h.k. — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:55:21 GMT

Wheylous:

I hesitate to mix the words right and economics. Not because they can't be synthesized, but because it's not what we're doing here. (I'm thinking Misesian utilitarianism and Hayekian social evolution).

I think QC has a valid point.

I disagree with Hayek? I hesitate to care at all dude.... He's someone I rarely cite in any discussion. Further Mises was not a purist either.

I would argue you're being a little lazy. you can have whatever opinion you want on this issue, but if you use "positive right" in one of your posts it certainly gives the wrong impression.

The argument for children's rights is usually that the act of voluntary conception creates an implicit contractual obligation to the child.

To a very limited degree, you can give the child away but child support is not an Austrian idea. Women can have abortions all the time if they feel they can not keep up with child support, child support is just an act of aggression against men. Men and women come up with individual contracts for child support.

However, why not argue that rapists do the same thing? They create contractual responsibility over the child. Sure, it's not the same kind as the voluntary one in the previous case, but while we're at making implicit contracts, why not run wild with it.

Hence, I think that Block might actually have been wrong. Should I write to him?

I still don't see what this has to do with positive rights? The rapist violated the explicit rights of the woman, and as a penalty he should pay child support. Your argument is very classical liberal, if anything.

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

QuisCustodiet — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:50:13 GMT

Yeah, write to him. Be sure to ask if you can share his response with us 8-)

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

Wheylous — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:21:28 GMT

I hesitate to mix the words right and economics. Not because they can't be synthesized, but because it's not what we're doing here. (I'm thinking Misesian utilitarianism and Hayekian social evolution).

I think QC has a valid point.

The argument for children's rights is usually that the act of voluntary conception creates an implicit contractual obligation to the child. However, why not argue that rapists do the same thing? They create contractual responsibility over the child. Sure, it's not the same kind as the voluntary one in the previous case, but while we're at making implicit contracts, why not run wild with it.

Hence, I think that Block might actually have been wrong. Should I write to him?

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

h.k. — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:16:58 GMT

QuisCustodiet:

Sorry to ressurect another old thread of yours, but I decided to write a paper on the subject of positive rights for my Ethics class.

Even if we accept your critique, then the statement that rape doesn't confer rights is still powerful.

It could be that the child does have positive rights, only it is the rapist obligated to "meet" them (for lack of a better term; maybe you know one). Suppose the rapist does not or cannot fulfill these obligations. It doesn't mean that the child conceived in rape has no positive rights, it means that the child's positive rights are being violated by the rapist not sending child support, nurishment, etc.. Thus, Block's statement is unsound.

There's no such thing as a positive right though, that's the basis of unsound economics.

A rapist has to repay the victim based on negative rights.

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

Wheylous — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:55:48 GMT

Oooooh, I see. Ok.

Re: Block on child rights - powerful stuff

QuisCustodiet — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:49:25 GMT

Sorry to ressurect another old thread of yours, but I decided to write a paper on the subject of positive rights for my Ethics class.

Even if we accept your critique, then the statement that rape doesn't confer rights is still powerful.

It could be that the child does have positive rights, only it is the rapist obligated to "meet" them (for lack of a better term; maybe you know one). Suppose the rapist does not or cannot fulfill these obligations. It doesn't mean that the child conceived in rape has no positive rights, it means that the child's positive rights are being violated by the rapist not sending child support, nurishment, etc.. Thus, Block's statement is unsound.