http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm
I had assumed we were under agreement that there would not be legal distinction between “minor” and “adult” in a libertarian society. So who is going to kidnap this child and return him to his former parents?
So much for a voluntary society.
The core belief of libertarianism, I believe, is that everyone is at liberty to do as he or she pleases, as long as he or she does not infringe upon the liberty of another. This belief brings with it some constraint, to limit oneself so that the one does not knowingly by his actions trample upon another or his property.
The right to life carries with it the responsibility to work to maintain that life. Your right to your life does not place the responsibility to work to maintain your life on another. In olden days this meant your had to directly forage for, plant, and reap your own food. Today with the division of labor that are many tasks at which one may labor for wage, and use that wage to purchase food from another who has foraged, planted, and reaped more than he can consume himself.
When one cannot supply himself with enough food to live either by foraging, planting, and reaping, or labor in another activity, and still wishes to live he or she will by some method become slaves to some degree, or die. If one steals to support oneself, and is caught, that one will find himself a prisoner, which is most definitely slavery. Otherwise one can contract his labor to another who can from that labor make enough to pay the one a liveable wage and a profit for himself. The one is then a slave to that person for a certain period of time.
While we are at liberty to choose the actions we wish to take, we may not always be at liberty to choose the consequences we reap. A man may choose to steal, and not wish to choose prison as his consequence. Then there are those who choose to steal for the very purpose of reaping prison as a consequence, because of the surety of food and shelter. In any of these cases the one is at liberty to choose how he will survive. I guess you could call this a libertarian view of slavery.
On the other hand a child has no choice in being born, and no choice as to how he will be cared for. In the early years of a child, he does not undestand his life separately from those of his parent(s), or guardian. He only knows that food, clothing, and shelter come from those adults with whom he lives, and that he is responsibile for doing what those adults tell him to do. I guess you could call this natural slavery. Part of the reason farm families of yesteryear, before the advent of farm machinry, had big families was free slave labor. Children used to be assets. Today they are liabilities, which is why abortion is desirable.
Inquisitor posted a URL with a very good discussion about contractual slavery. Today, the vast majority have unwittingly contracted to the government to be its slave through the Social Security system. We have agreed to allow the government to take from us whatever amount of our wages it sees fit through social security, and income tax for the promise that the government will take care of us in our later less productive years, or if we become disabled, with social security payments and medicare, medicaid, etc. This is neither libertarian nor natural slavery.
Well actually I had thought the article was meant to be facetious.
It does indeed seem to be satirical.
Whomever the parents hire to do so.
And if the adoptive parents object?
“That children who run away are returned to their parents means that the parents do legitimately own the child.”
That statement is an example of circular logic. And its also false on several levels.
- First, we don’t live in a libertarian society so today’s norms are not relevant.
- Second, children today are not returned to their parents. Children are often taken away from their parents.
Perhaps I was too subtle.
Parents are allowed to use a child’s labor only as long as the child agrees to be parented by them. In the same way that an employer can only use a person’s labor so long as the person agrees to be employed.
Why should an 18 year old be allowed to move out and break the parent-child relationship, but a 15 year old can’t? A 12 year old? A 6 year old?
Parents do not own children. They do not own 35 year old children and they do not own 5 year old children. Children, no matter what age, do not have a legal right to their parent’s labor and the same is true in reverse.
Unfortunately, I think people here disagree because of their personal experiences and not logic.
You make no mention of the primary problem of parenting, and that is the issue of consent. Consent does not just mean the ability to act as one wishes, it means understanding to a reasonable extent the repercussions of those actions. This is of course a complicated topic, but comparing an 18 year to a 6 year old is simply comparing apples and oranges. Here’s a comparable argument to the one you made:
Why should an 18 year old be allowed to consent to sex with a 35 year old, but a 15 year old can’t? A 12 year old? A 6 year old?
I’m assuming that you would consider sex between a 35 year old and a 6 year old to be rather problematic. The same goes for a 6 year old who attempts to leave their parents.
This falls apart because in today’s age, parents willfully create children. Without parents, Children are helpless, so creating a child and then claiming not to have any responsibility to care for it is akin to pushing someone off a bridge and claiming it wasn’t you that killed them, but the laws of gravity. An uncared for child will suffer and die as surely as someone being pushed from a height will hit the ground.
Allowed by what? Why must a free man be allowed to do anything? He has the right to do it or he does not.
Having read some 88 responses, I think there are two aspects that are not being addressed: Evolution and Social Standard.
Anyone who abuses their children is violating the basic premise of evolution, survival of the fit. The parents, not being fit, do not successfully pass on their genes. Their offspring do not survive/flourish to reproduce. This is why the question of children engenders such emotional reactions like the question in the first place. It is in our (successful, fit) genes to take care of children.
“Think of the Children!” “It Takes A Village” &etc.
How about bringing suit in the interests of a third party? Is this allowed? Of course. Without a state there is no prohibition on any action, so if you perceive abuse of someone who cannot defend themselves you can bring suit at your cost on their behalf.
Whether that suit succeeds depends upon the social standard of the community. If someone is abusing their children (abuse being by definition “wrong”), the community can use the standard punishments such as boycott and outlawry if those “wrongs” are not corrected.
I fully expect that charitable organizations will exist for children just as People Helping Horses exists, or the ASPCA, or GoodWill Industries and the Salvation Army.
Indeed, a child that runs away has in fact utilized their volition to say “No”. I do not believe in the return of anyone by force into a relationship they do not wish to be in. I also think that a 4 year old cannot make that judgement 100% logically, but humans have evolved children’s attachment to their parents to deal with imperfect parents in just the same way that a kicked dog returns to its abusive master.
Actual child abuse is rare. In an environment of voluntary interaction, where a parents can in fact give up or even sell children if they do not wish to deal with them, I believe the fearful acts which inspire questions like what started this thread will be just as rare if not far more rare than it is now.
It must be admitted that all the titanic intrusion of Leviathan has not prevented child abuse. To assume that without Leviathan child abuse would increase is unsupportable and I would say a straw-man argument. I could just as well say that since the sun comes up when we tear the heart out of a sacrafice, if we don’t tear a heart out the sun will not rise.
I don’t see how evolution enters the picture (and I’m a big fan of H. Spencer).
Look at 20th century’s history. How does total war agree with the survival of the fittest theory ? The western people in 1700-1900 were far more civilized than the same western people in the 20th century. How do you explain that from the genetic/evolutionist point of view ?
(The same objection applies to benevolence(or lack of it) and evolution in the parent-child relationship)
Err, they were? Sure, a lot more people died in wars and such in the 20th century, but there were also something like 8 times as many people alive through the 20th century compared to earlier times (and by the end of the 20th century, far more still). We also only recently have any means to measure and record past atrocities committed. Besides, any wars in the 20th century pale in comparison to the slaughter of native central and northern Americans by Spanish and English settlers. By the end of the 20th century, the country which had the most liberal economy and was able to isolate itself from destructive wars emerged the most powerful (and by this I mean significant destruction of the American people or their capital, not its involvement in foreign wars or the attack on the naval base Pear Harbor).
In any case, it fits with survival of the fittest just fine. Evolution isn’t necissary nice or “good” by our standards.
Is that directed at the first or second point?
First: Allowed by the child.
Second: Thats my entire point. A child does not need permission to move out, because they own themselves.
Childhood covers a lot of years, and many levels of maturity. Some can support themselves at fifteen, others have trouble at 30. The question was asked, who would return a child to its parents? Any parents who would want their own children returned to them should they run away. Not all children run away because of abusive parents. Most of the time a child runs away for a misperceived reason, like he has convinced himself his parents do not love him anymore.
At which age can the child make his own decision to leave home? At infancy? Probably not, since the mind is not developed enough to be able to weigh pros and cons, to make a rational decision. How about 5? By this time the brain is finished growing, Its basic language skills are programmed in the brain, the child can talk in complete but simple sentences, and may be able to read some. Perhaps on his sixth birthday you can offer him a contract, that you will continue to take care of him, and that he will do what you tell him. Does the child at six have the understanding to be able to enter into such a contract? If not, then he certainly cannot rationally make the decision to run away, because he does not understand the consequences.
I think most people misunderstand Freedom. Janis Joplin said it very nicely in the song Me and Bobby McGee. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. Then I heard Paul Harvey say, “Freedom is what you have when you don’t have anything else.”
When you are on an island, with not another in sight, and you are the only one on the island, you are Free. When you are in a crowded subway station, you are not Free. On the island you can stop to urinate where ever you wish, but in the subway station that would be considered anti-social behavior, especially if you got someone’s pant leg wet.
Do you think there is a world full of people ready to take in runaway children, give them everything, and require nothing from them? We possess our property only at the courtesy of those who can take it from us. We could get into a real philosophical discussion about what ownership really is.
Let’s examine this. I have a neighbor who has seven children from 5 to 19 years of age, none of whom can support themselves. Let’s say they become dissatisfied with life at home, perhaps the house is too small, and there are lots of chores. They all decide to leave, to find someone with a bigger house who is not going to make them do chores, after all no body has a right to their labor no body owns them. But that someone with a bigger house is under no obligation to take them in. If they come to your house JonBostwick, will you take them in, feed, clothe, and shelter them, and not require some labor from them. Then you become a slave to them, Or might you see about returning them to their parents?
We could perhaps change our child labor laws, to allow employers to hire six year olds, so they could leave home at that age if they wish, and support themselves.
What of the parent who neglects their child? Should they not be punished? While the parent controls and exercises the child’s rights as a guardian, the child is surely not their parent’s slave. Who is to protect the child from an abusive parent? While I generally despise the power of the state, there is room for a government to protect us from the negligence and abuse of others upon our person. If a parent violates their child’s rights – beating (and not spanking, I’m talking injuries), molesting, neglecting a child – breaches the trust of guardianship. In a stateless system, who steps in to prevent/correct this situation? Perhaps another family member? Even then, usually abusive parents were abused themselves, so it is likely that the situation would be similar if the child was protected by ANY family member. Regardless, even if a good Samaritan (be it a relative, or a neighbor, or someone off the street) decided to do something about the abuse, without some osort of official channel to go through, how would they be able to compel the abusive parent to give up their child?
What age is that? A child stops being a child when he refuses parenting. Age is a non issue. A parent can only act as a parent so long as the child is willing to act as a child.
You seem to have not gotten Rothbard’s point.
“In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.”
(Thanks for the link, I had forgotten where Rothbard wrote that)
This is just nonsense. Children need permission from their parents to do anything, not the other way around, because children are not responsible, rational humans yet. If the child allows the parents to parent him, then the child can rule the household and demand infinite supplies of candy at all times of night. The child must be coerced under the responsibility of the rightful parents, which is why parents are responsible for what their children do.
Do you acknowledge a difference between a responsibility to maintain your life while requiring no labor from another (negative liberty) and existence requiring you to occupy some location somewhere - that can’t be separated?
No one provides you with anything via their labor to exist. To exist is to occupy a location. Whereas to continue to exist requires labor for sustenance.
Who decreed that only “rational” people are self owners? At what age does one become rational? I’m 22, am I there yet?
To borrow a phrase.
The parent rules the household, because the parent OWNS the household. The parent, as property owner, sets the rules for the use of all his property. If a child wishes to recieve the benefits of living with the parent, he must submit to being parented by them. Its a very simple voluntary relationship.
If I child is able to support himself, he is able to leave his parent’s house, and can choose to leave the parent-child relationship. And in reverse, many parents choose to kick children out of the house at 18, I’m sure you are aware of this.
You really should read that Rothbard link.