Well, I guess “selling” is too strong a word, since children aren’t property. Trading homesteading/care rights?
Contractual relationships are by definition designed to bind the parties involved to a certain action. For example, clients of PDA reasonably expect protection from assault and murder. The fact that you may assault or murder one of my clients and are not aware of the fact that they are a client of my PDA does not mean that the PDA will not take action. So the clients of the PDA can have any agreement it wants regarding resolution of criminal or civil actions.
Regarding sex with PDA clients it is equally reasonable that the PDA may require some action on the part of it’s clients to provide information to their partners that they are protected by a certain PDA and that the relationship will be governed according to those rules. However, even in absence of that it is reasonable to expect that when anybody has an interaction with someone else that may cause harm or other obligations and that some conflict could arise that they bear responsibility for their actions.
In most cases the primary purpose of a PDA is to protect their clients persons and property and to resolve conflicts. It is reasonable that the PDA will have policies in place to cover common conflicts such as child support. It is reasonable for PDA’s to expect that those individuals that intentionally interact with their clients accept the circumstances of the interaction. Having a contractual relationship with a PDA is no limitation on any person other than the client of the PDA. Anyone else is only limited to the extent they voluntarily choose to interact with the client of PDA.
As far as cancellation of the contract this will depend on the PDA but for example the SDK of the Liberty Colony allows clients to cancel the contract at anytime but the contract is enforce for all issues up to the point of cancellation. People should be allowed to live how they choose and to be able to define the nature of relationships that they have with others.
Most of the arguements offered against contracts in this forum are essentially the liberal arguements based on emotion. I want to do what I want no matter what because it feels good for me and I am not responsible for anything. That is how some of you arrive at the idea that is acceptable to throw babies in trash bins because they are incovenient for you and that this should be deemed acceptable. It is flawed reasoning which leads to advocation of murder of innocents.
Sex, then, being a criminal action? The reason PDAs can persue retribution is because some right a client posessed was violated. If someone has sex with one of your clients and no contract was made between the two as far as possible parental duties, the PDA has no right in using force against the “independant” partner.
Huge straw man.
I thought that was slippery slope.
You could consider it that as well, but he initally began that the people who were against parental obligations were FOR putting babies in trash bins, or at least would support someone’s “right” to do it.
I didn’t say sex was a criminal action. When a person has sex with another person this is direct action with another person. When you have direct contact and interactions with others it is reasonable that you be responsible for your actions whether you have an explicit contract or not. It is reasonable for an individual to say I have an agreement with a PDA which governs the possibility of pregnancy with another person and that if we have sex you will be bound by the remedy and enforcement powers that I authorize under that contract. The other person can either choose then to have sex with the person or not. What you and some of your associates want is to knowingly have sex with a person with whom you agree to certain obligations but then once the obligation arises you want to say well no one can make me do anything. That is not freedom, that is what we teach to children as being irresponsible.
In fact a very simple way to avoid any conflict is for you the independent to make contracts with people with whom you have a relationship to avoid any confusion as to what obligations exist. What you perceive as some grand problem has a very simple remedy if you believe in free societies where contracts and obligations matter.
so what if two different PDAs have different rules. Who’s rules stick?
Hold on there buddy! How the HELL did you ever come up with the idea that ANY of us are advocating throwing babies in trash bins because they are inconvenient? Please, for the love of God, show me ONE SINGLE QUOTE where anyone said ANYTHING like that!
There is a WORLD of difference between walking out on a child and throwing a child in the trash to die. Leaving the care and upbringing of the child to mother, the father or some other person is perfectly fine and lawful. Putting a child in the trash where harm can come to them or wherein they might die is NOT lawful and is an obvious violation of the babies right to life. In one instance no ones liberty is violated (that of walking out and leaving the care of the child to another) whereas the other is an obviously violation of someones liberty (the child). One is not a crime the other is.
The more you post the more I am convinced that you know absolutely NOTHING about what you are talking about because you get even the most basic things wrong. Your “Liberty Colony” is lame and cowardly and a complete waste of time.
KingMonkey, you state yourself that you believe that the mother and the father are not obligated to the child and you assume there will always be some third party willing to fill your obligation. If there is no third party then you end up exactly where the above quote states that the baby is “put out on the street”. You say you want a free society but if you don’t want to meet your obligations you expect there to be available some person or institution (adoption agency) that will step in for your lack of responsibility, maybe like the state. What you really dislike about my comments is that you are forced to show your true colors regarding freedom and how your ideas can not stand the test of logic and reason.
Why wouldn’t there be a third party?
There will always be a third party. There will always be people who want to adopt children for various reasons. They either can’t conceive naturally or simply do not want to go through the ordeal of pregnancy and giving birth. In a free market society, adoptions should be processed much quicker, allowing for the children to be with their new parents much quicker.
Couldn’t I adopt several children and use them as inexpensive farm hands, or something similar? It might be a clever business move.
Well, I never said “put it out on the street” that was someone else. And why wouldn’t there be an adoption agency in a free society? In fact adoption agencies would be more numerous and would work far better than the hamstrung ones we have under the control of the state. You don’t need the state to offer adoption services. Private organizations would do that much more efficiently and fairly.
Please explain how I am “forced to show [my] true colors regarding freedom and how [my] ideas can not stand the test of logic and reason”? Really, please, dazzle me with your brilliance and insight concerning this.
From Defending the Undefendable (Chapter 32) by Walter Block
This argument is superficially persuasive, but suffers from a significant, yet subtle flaw. People are responsible for the results of their actions, true, but in this case the result is the creation of a new life. It’s common to speak of the responsibility purported to be established in terms of a third party harm, such as your accident example. This is dangerous ground, especially for pro-lifers in that it indirectly grants the false premises under which the mainstream pro-abortion bunch unfortunately labor.
No one is ever harmed by being concieved and born.
It doesn’t matter what circumstances, or physical and mental condition it occurs under, coming into existence is never a harm. After throwing out the spurious third party harm analogy, what you are left with is the premise that the mere existence of a child necessarily places a positive obligation on someone. It is only from that premise that you can conclude that that someone must be the parents who created it. Since it is well established that postive obligations do not exist, those taking the position that this is the one exception have some work to do in proving it.
I agree that a child has all the rights of an adult human, subject to their capacity to exercise them. Abortion after the child is viable outside the womb is murder, especially partial birth abortion. However, no-one has any positive obligation to care for a child, not even it’s parents. Not even the mother who is carrying it in her womb. The only oblgation they have is a negative one: should they wish to abdicate their natural role as guardian, caretaker, and proxy for the child’s rights, they cannot interfere with another who voluntarilly chooses to take on that role. If no-one can be found to take on that role, then neither the child nor anyone on his behalf, has the right to force another to do so.
It sounds cold, and may in fact be so, but warmth is not a basis for morality and law. It is however, a valid, useful, and even necessary basis for social activity within the bounds of morality and law. If the anti-abortion crowd had devoted half as much energy to caring for unwanted children as they have lobbying government for laws forcing others to do so, they would have made a positive contribution to society.
Well, now, that depends. A person may be harmed, or not harmed, by being whipped, for instance. If they get off on it, it isn’t harm. Similarly, if a person is conceived only to suffer being torn apart and sucked up while still in the womb, one could say that that was a harmful act. A child born only to die could be said to be harmed by birth.
How is there an implicit contract in conception? Contracts only exist where there is an exchange of ownership. No one has any obligation to a child, whether you voluntarily bore it or not.
So that child would have been better off never having existed? Oh, wait, there would be no child to be better off. He simply wouldn’t be. Harm can only come to that which exists - it’s a moot question to the non-existent. Don’t confuse harm that comes to one who already exists with existence itself being a harm.
Yes, if you create a being merely to end its existence in some gruesome or horrible or otherwise involuntary fashion, you have violated it in a terrible way. Is that not so?
Yes, because you’re violating it. Not helping or servicing it is not violating it.