Child Slavery

[E_R_Olovetto]

I don’t want to discuss the issue of child labor so much. I am talking about “slavery” as in the right (of a person who owns another person) to punish them legitimately as they see fit (rape, torture, death, etc.)

A select few here (Stranger & Spideynw), who otherwise maintain somewhat libertarian positions, claim that children have no rights. They say that parents may do whatever they like with their child, but I have soundly refuted their position across several threads. Eventually, I will offer a comprehensive analysis of this antiquated conception of rights, and attempt to advance the libertarian theory of children and parent’s rights in a new direction. (See a recent Mises Daily, where the focus is still in part on “the ability to consent”.)

I have one more line of questioning for you two. (I find it hard to believe that many others out there are in agreement, but if there are, please feel free to contribute.)

See Kinsella’s How We Come to Own Ourselves.

So, when does the child become a self-owner? Or does he? The libertarian seems to be faced with a dilemma.

Possible Solutions to the Dilemma

Several possible arguments might be put forward to avoid the uncomfortable specter of children in bondage. First, it could be noted that the main political issue in society concerns third parties who want to dominate and control others. Slaveowning parents do not seem to pose the most pressing danger. For the typical case of conflict, the first-use principle suffices to prove self-ownership of one’s body vis-à-vis the third party claimant. Still, this leaves open the possibility of parents owning their kids.

Second, it could be argued that even if the parent does own the child, in most cases a decent parent would manumit the child at a suitable age. This is probably true, but the possibility of a brutal parent selling his son or daughter into slavery is still unsettling. Third, perhaps one could try some kind of “regression theorem” based on this … back to “Adam.” But this seems unlikely to be fruitful.

Fourth, it is not difficult to envision a scenario in which most lines of descent, at some point, become permanently “liberated” or “manumitted” by the benevolent actions of a key ancestor. Great-great-great-Grand-dad manumits his child on the condition that he free his issue, and so on. In this way, eventually all or most lines of descent become freed by some distant act in the past of a benevolent ancestor. But still, this leaves open the possibility that some might not; and, in any event, it admits that at some points in time, child-slavery exists and is permissible.

Finally, and to me most decisive: the libertarian could argue that the parent has various positive obligations to his or her children, such as the obligation to feed, shelter, educate, etc. The idea here is that libertarianism does not oppose “positive rights”; it simply insists that they be voluntarily incurred. One way to do this is by contract; another is by trespassing against someone’s property. Now, if you pass by a drowning man in a lake you have no enforceable (legal) obligation to try to rescue him; but if you push someone in a lake you have a positive obligation to try to rescue him. If you don’t you could be liable for homicide. Likewise, if your voluntary actions bring into being an infant with natural needs for shelter, food, care, it is akin to throwing someone into a lake. In both cases you create a situation where another human is in dire need of help and without which he will die. By creating this situation of need you incur an obligation to provide for those needs. And surely this set of positive obligations would encompass the obligation to manumit the child at a certain point. This last argument is, to my mind, the most attractive, but it is also probably the least likely to be accepted by most libertarians, who generally seem opposed to positive obligations, even if they are incurred as the result of one’s actions. Rothbard, for example, puts forward several objections to such an approach.[2]

I assume that you base the (often joint) ownership of children on the fact that they are created by their parents or else somehow legally transferred. On what basis does the child become free ever?

[Stranger]

@E. R. Olovetto

I assume that you base the (often joint) ownership of children on the fact that they are created by their parents or else somehow legally transferred. On what basis does the child become free ever?

When he wants to.

[Catalan]

In a free society it would be OK for a father to sell his daughter for sex, against her will?

[Stranger]

@Jonathan M. F. Catalán

In a free society it would be OK for a father to sell his daughter for sex, against her will?

What do you mean by OK?

[Catalan]

@Stranger

What do you mean by OK?

Ethically acceptable.

[Stranger]

@Jonathan M. F. Catalán

Ethically acceptable.

The question is nonsensical.

[E_R_Olovetto]

What if the parent restricts the child? I think this approach is inadequate as well without recognizing that parents do not have complete “ownership” in the sense that you maintain. Say a parent won’t buy their 4-year-old a certain present for Christmas, the child runs off and some person offers to take them in, does the parent have no right to take back their child (who is otherwise considered a slave in your hypo)?

[Stranger]

@E. R. Olovetto

What if the parent restricts the child? I think this approach is inadequate as well without recognizing that parents do not have complete “ownership” in the sense that you maintain. Say a parent won’t buy their 4-year-old a certain present for Christmas, the child runs off and some person offers to take them in, does the parent have no right to take back their child (who is otherwise considered a slave in your hypo)?

What does it mean for a four-year-old to run off? How far will he get before the adults catch him?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Jonathan M. F. Catalán

@Stranger

What do you mean by OK?

Ethically acceptable.

For the purpose of the thread, I would like to make a distinction between the ethical-aesthetical and the moral-legal.

I would mean by “OK”, does anyone have a legal right to punish a parent for selling their daughter as a sex slave?

[Stranger]

@E. R. Olovetto

For the purpose of the thread, I would like to make a distinction between the ethical-aesthetical and the moral-legal.

That’s the problem with your theory. The moral and the legal are two entirely different and separate concepts.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Stranger

@E. R. Olovetto

What if the parent restricts the child? I think this approach is inadequate as well without recognizing that parents do not have complete “ownership” in the sense that you maintain. Say a parent won’t buy their 4-year-old a certain present for Christmas, the child runs off and some person offers to take them in, does the parent have no right to take back their child (who is otherwise considered a slave in your hypo)?

What does it mean for a four-year-old to run off? How far will he get before the adults catch him?

Suppose that they don’t. Maggie goes outside to play and talks to Mr. Jones about how mean her parents are and asks to live with him. Mr. Jones says, “Sure Maggie, come on in and I will show you to your room.” Mr. Jones calls Maggie’s parents and informs them that their daughter doesn’t want to live with them anymore and he will be taking care of Maggie. I think what you are saying is that courts would side with Mr. Jones’ claim to “ownership” being superior.

[wilderness]

@Stranger

@Jonathan M. F. Catalán

Ethically acceptable.

The question is nonsensical.

I read the question. The grammar was great. The question fulfilled the obligations of being a question, meaning, there is a possibility of answers. It made sense.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Stranger

@E. R. Olovetto

For the purpose of the thread, I would like to make a distinction between the ethical-aesthetical and the moral-legal.

That’s the problem with your theory. The moral and the legal are two entirely different and separate concepts.

I haven’t explained my theory or what I make this distinction based on yet. Would you like to do so for me? I would prefer that you stay on topic and answer your questions for now. Thank you.

[Stranger]

@E. R. Olovetto

Suppose that they don’t. Maggie goes outside to play and talks to Mr. Jones about how mean her parents are and asks to live with him. Mr. Jones says, “Sure Maggie, come on in and I will show you to your room.” Mr. Jones calls Maggie’s parents and informs them that their daughter doesn’t want to live with them anymore and he will be taking care of Maggie. I think what you are saying is that courts would side with Mr. Jones’ claim to “ownership” being superior.

What am I supposed to do with this? You are making up scenarios that seem to only make sense in some alternate bizarro universe.

[wilderness]

@Stranger

@E. R. Olovetto

Suppose that they don’t. Maggie goes outside to play and talks to Mr. Jones about how mean her parents are and asks to live with him. Mr. Jones says, “Sure Maggie, come on in and I will show you to your room.” Mr. Jones calls Maggie’s parents and informs them that their daughter doesn’t want to live with them anymore and he will be taking care of Maggie. I think what you are saying is that courts would side with Mr. Jones’ claim to “ownership” being superior.

What am I supposed to do with this? You are making up scenarios that seem to only make sense in some alternate bizarro universe.

It follows all the laws of gravity. There is the possibility of a Mr. Jones and a Maggie being applied to people. Surely a room will exist in a person’s house. And a maggie can speak and wants to live with Mr. Jones. It’s not bizarro.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Stranger

@E. R. Olovetto

Suppose that they don’t. Maggie goes outside to play and talks to Mr. Jones about how mean her parents are and asks to live with him. Mr. Jones says, “Sure Maggie, come on in and I will show you to your room.” Mr. Jones calls Maggie’s parents and informs them that their daughter doesn’t want to live with them anymore and he will be taking care of Maggie. I think what you are saying is that courts would side with Mr. Jones’ claim to “ownership” being superior.

What am I supposed to do with this? You are making up scenarios that seem to only make sense in some alternate bizarro universe.

I don’t think so. What is unrealistic with a child feeling that they hate their parents and running away, then being offered a place to stay and liking it there? I am not saying that children never have a right to run away. I am saying that it is not always the case.

Also, you merely said, “When they want to”. This doesn’t seem to mesh with your theory that a parent is justified to lock a child in a dungeon, rape, then murder them on a whim. Do they have to escape or can they just assert that they want to go live with a possible “Friends of Babies” if such an organization developed in an otherwise free society?

edit again: It is funny that you are quickly handwaving when faced with the logical conclusion of your own theory. I await Spidey, he could be a tad less intellectually dishonest.

[wilderness]

@E. R. Olovetto

I don’t think so. What is unrealistic with a child feeling that they hate their parents and running away, then being offered a place to stay and liking it there. I am not saying that children never have a right to run away. I am saying that it is not always the case.

Right. Logically it is possible. Nothing illogical prevents this from being an actual case.

[Stranger]

@E. R. Olovetto

I don’t think so. What is unrealistic with a child feeling that they hate their parents and running away, then being offered a place to stay and liking it there?

It doesn’t happen. It is not considerable.

[wilderness]

@Stranger

@E. R. Olovetto

I don’t think so. What is unrealistic with a child feeling that they hate their parents and running away, then being offered a place to stay and liking it there?

It doesn’t happen…

You don’t know that.

@Stranger

It is not considerable.

You are obviously doing that.

[Stranger]

@wilderness

You don’t know that.

Scientifically, the absence of something cannot be proven. The existence, on the other hand, can.