After reading the 14th chapter of The Ethic of Liberty for the second time, I’m still unclear about some things:
Rothbard makes somewhat of leap to an assertion, albeit a seemingly reasonable one, that children, although owners of themselves, are bound to the rules of their parents until they voluntarily take responsibility for themselves, essentially by moving out. Does this mean that a parent who forcefully prevents his 6 year old child from running away from home is in essence enslaving the child, and could rightfully have legal action taken against him? Should parents be obligated to let their young children free to roam dangerous streets because the child wishes to? Maybe i am missing a crucial prerequisite for reaching adulthood.
Additionally, it is suggested that a mother has a right to abort her fetus, as well as allow her children starve to death. I would agree that both assertions are consistent with one another, and I understand the arguments made against the cases where creation is not applicable, but what of the cases where it is? What is to be said for the mother who willingly engages in sexual activity, whether she intends to have a child or not. Is she not at the very minimum, taking a risk of creating another life? Is there to be no consequence for this? Rothbard seems to dodge this, and instead act like the fetus is an uninvited guest; an intruder.
I suppose an analogy could be drawn between this and inviting a guest into your home, but I’m not sure the analogy holds since the creation of life is a unique occurrence; and one that seems to have some drastic implications that don’t necessarily apply elsewhere. Any thoughts? Clarifications?