A guy in Alabama had thrown a couple of his kids off of a bridge:
He didn’t murder them. The water did because they couldn’t swim on their own – the same way that abandoning children leaves to their death because they can’t survive on their own.
Under market anarchism, how would these kids’ lives have been protected? Since they are not free to make contracts and all rights are protected by contracts, children under Anarchy have no rights until they’re old enough to defend them with violence.
Now, you could establish a Constitution that makes there be a responsibility to care for children – but then that goes against Rothbardian nonsense – although it’s something John Locke himself supported.
Now, I would say, that by having a child you enter into a contract that makes it your responsiblity to care for them or quarentee their well-being since, as everyone knows, children are unable to care for themselves until certain age.
First you need to understand the difference between nominal and real prices, then we can discuss your (in)ability to grasp the finer points concerning market Anarchy.
Considering the one achieved his doctorates in one of the most prestigious universities for economics of his time, and the other didn’t last a year with educated men in the field, only a complete imbecile from a community college puking out the pure quantity theory of money (a century after its demise) and delivering to us laughable quotes like these,
could get things SO ar/se-backwards.
OH MAN! Nathyn, do yourself a favor and switch to something easier than economics… Like prob. and stats.
Most people would say that if you do something to a person, and that action has a worse than normal consequence for that person because of some pre-existing feature of that person, then accountability for the worse than normal consequence lies with the person who committed to invasive act.
In other words, let’s say I see Eric Lindros in an alley, and I bonk him on the head with a mallet. The strength of my bonk would not have caused significant harm to a normal person; perhaps they would have been annoyed, but no real harm would have been done. However, since Lindros is a concussion-prone guy, my mallet strike gives him a concussion. Even though my act would not have normally caused a concussion, it still seems like I should be held accountable for the concussion Lindros sustained as a result of my action. In the same way, throwing someone off a bridge might not usually result in their death. But if you throw someone off a bridge, and they drow because they can’t swim, then it seems like you’re the one to blame for the death.
I’m not sure why an anarcho-capitalistic order would not recognize that this was the case. What would be done about this sort of thing in anarcho-capitalism is up for debate. But it doesn’t seem like there would be anything particularly difficult about this kind of situation which wouldn’t be equally problematic for dealing with your typical garden-variety murders.
The man was arrested, he’ll be given life in prison (as opposed to being executed or made a slave), and the rest of his wife’s kids are still alive.
To my knowledge, actually, the government does sometimes subsidize groups like the YMCA. They certainly do so through making non-profits tax-exempt and they provide swimming classes. Through what you call “wealth distribution” to pregnant and nursing mothers (see Mothers’ Rights) they are able to afford making sure their children have enough to survive.
Also, keep in mind, I’m not making the emotional argument, “For the children.”
I’m saying that not caring about the deaths of children is evil, the rights of children to be free from death or abuse by their parents is an individual right, and Rothbard was evil for opposing it. His book, “The Ethics of Liberty,” could just as easily have been called, “The Evil of Liberty.” No actual different citations need to be made. You just need to take a careful look at his sources and his silly arguments.
One of them was old enough to swim, I think. Is it not attempted murder to dump your kid in the woods?
Also, whether it’s murder or not is not the issue here: We all agree this is immoral, right?
The question is: Should it be illegal to drop your kid in a river, dump them off in the woods, and so on? Why should it matter whether they be killed instantly from drowning as opposed to being killed in the near future, by starvation or being eaten by a wild animal?
I do. You need to understand the difference between nominal and real freedom.
America = Hitler? [:D] Also, “Fulton Huxtable” is clearly a fake name. Some tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist who won’t even use his real name isn’t worth reading.
Can’t you guys use better sources than Youtube and Loose Change?
I look at the question posed in the opening post Under market anarchism, how would these kids’ lives have been protected? and I wonder if market anarchism must protect them. Market anarchism will probably lead to better protection due to well defined property rights.
The way I look at this event is by asking:
Where did this event occur?
and
Who owns that land?
Therefore, under market anarchy, I would expect that the owner of the bridge and the river would likely supervise their property. It would not make sense for them to let people freely act recklessly on their property.
Throwing kids off a bridge with the hope that they’ll drown is considered murder (or attempted murder) in our present society and could just as easily be considered murder (or attempted) in any anarcho-capitalist society. Are you seriously trying to say that this father is not violating the non-aggression axiom? That you think natural rights libertarians sanction this type of behavior? I have to ask, did you think about this for at least 1-2 minutes before posting it?
Abandoning a young child in the woods is also murder/attempted. It is an act of fraud because it is a violation of contract. Let’s say that Pa takes little Johnny out “camping” and then drives off without Johnny when he isn’t looking. Little Johnny was under the impression that Pa was going to stay with him, though it wasn’t written out on paper and signed. Thus Pa is guilty of fraud for making little Johnny think that he would go on a safe camping trip with Pa’s protection. I’m not sure if this is what Rothbard believed but its what I believe.
I have some disagreements with Rothbard myself but all you’re doing in this thread is absurdly redefining the concept of aggression to try and say that Rothbard was OK with murdering children.
Was it immoral for a man to forcefully throw children that happened to be from his loin into a river to die? Yes, of course!
Is it immoral for a man to neglect children that happen to be from his loin? Not necessarily.
The difference here is a direct infringement of property rights. On the one hand, the man forcefully threw his children off a bridge with the intent of watching them drown. It doesn’t take a “political genius” to understand that concept, does it?
Your intent on speaking ill of the dead, i.e. Rothbard, without him able to defend himself is certainly admirable, after all, this is what we come to expect from “political geniuses,” but you’re clearly misrepresenting the facts.
A. You can roll your eyes all you like, but the fact remains that forcing human beings to be chained to other human beings that happen to share similar DNA strands is a form of enslavement. If you choose to be enslaved by social concepts nailed on your thick, little skull, that’s fine, but when you explain things to people logically, we like to do something called taking the variable to its logical ends.
B. As a parent I can tell you, very, very, very few parents actually engage in some form of abuse, and even fewer abandon their children. Arguing that a state needs to exist to protect so few people at the expense of everyone else really doesn’t seem Pareto-Optimal to me.
C. The alternative to the arrangement is worse than leaving the children out in the wild. When the neglected and abused are left with the option of the government intervening in front of the public to scold them, only making things worse behind closed doors, or the option of joining a government, concentration camp for kids, the proposition of a state doesn’t seem to fix the issue.
As opposed to your idiotic ones? I don’t recall Rothbard saying anywhere that abusing children is alright - quite the opposite. Rothbard did not believe positive obligations to children existed on part of parents, and thus one may disassociate with them. I part ways with him here, but I don’t see how this makes him “evil”.
The question is, how is throwing someone off a bridge with the intention of killing them analogous to disassociating with someone towards which you have no obligations whatsoever (Rothbard’s actual argument)?
“Applying our [libertarian] theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children…The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child…” (“The Ethics of Liberty,” M. Rothbard, p. 100). How does this case reflect a contradiction to the Rothbardian theory? A Constitution which requires a state apparatus for its creation, yes that is anti-Rothbardian. But to say that the absolute theory of property rights does not also apply to children according to Rothbard-libertarianism just does not make sense. That is the whole point of his theory, that it should apply equally to everyone. Perhaps also reading “Society Without a State,” also by Rothbard (1975), would help alleviate any doubts you may have about the libertarian justice system. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html)
“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.” (“The Ethics of Liberty,” M. Rothbard, pp. 100-101) Another reading of this book might be necessary for you, or at least the chapter on Children and Rights particularly for this thread.