Since libertarianism is based on voluntary actions, it follows that no duties exist, right? Does this mean that parents have no obligations to their children? Can they leave them to die in the forest if they want to? Or should the state force them to bring them up and take care of them untill the children reach a certain age?
And since libertarianism is based on liberty, if follows that no person can own another person, right? Does this mean parents have no right to force their children to do something they don’t agree on? Does it also mean that parents have no right to stop their children if they want to move to another family?
My house, my rules. Kids will have to do what I say as long as I’m providing them food and shelter. Or they can choose to leave.
Any caring soul should be able to buy my child from me if I’m neglecting it, and they could then take better care of the kid themselves.
I believe that bad parents (leaving your kid in a forrest) would probably be shunned by a good chuck of society. Its been said before but, reputation would probably be very important in a free society.
You may find a lot of dissagreement on this topic.
correct. the superhero mentality that government can save the day and solve all problems needs to be NAP purged. And in a libertarian society running to the law to solve all problems is a left-over grip on government residue and needs to be NAP purged too. It’s like running to parents for everything. Eventually people in general need to suck it up, grow up, mature, and not use coercion to solve everything. It’s a tough intelligible species to swallow at times…
You are right on the mark, with one exception, The state has no business in any matters of child care. Libertarianism does not judge on moral and ethical questions, they are left to the individual to decide. Libertarians believe, that people can solve their issues, including the question on how to raise children, by themselves and do not need a “big daddy -government” that tells them what is right or wrong.
Take the example with the child to die in the woods. First of all, if people would usually let children die in the woods, mankind would haver been extinct before even the slightes thing you could call a state existed. People usually, by their nature, tend to love their offspring and do almost everthing in their power to ensure their survival until they can take care of themselves. Humans do not need any do-gooder-super-human entity to survive. They are, by nature, endowed with the resouces, including love for their children, to ensure they can survive and grow.
Now, any person that abuses a child commits a criminal act. But not anyone that stops supporting the survival of a child commits a crime. Humans have no right to survive, just a right to be not aggressed against. If there was a, say, famine and you had to decide whom to give the nutrients, yourself or your child, or, if you have more than one child, one of the childs, would you commit a crime by choosing to survive yourself instead sacrificing your own life for your offspring? Sure not. You might find it ethically right to sacrifice yourself and this is a respectable believe, but, if you don’t, you do not commit a crime in deciding to take the food for yourself, even if that means your children die.
Hopse that helps to clarify the libertarian point of view a bit
If a complete stranger wants to abuse their children, that’s none of my business. I find that offensive, but I don’t have the legal standing to interfere.
A State bureaucrat might say “FSK is abusing his children when he teaches them ‘Taxation is theft!’” If I have the right to teach my children “Taxation is theft!”, then other people should be allowed to teach their children stupid false beliefs.
Once you allow others to interfere in the parent-child relationship, then all sorts of abuses occur. Once a child reaches a certain age, they do have the right to be separated from abusive parents.
The child has liberty too. The child, like any other person, can’t be physically aggressed against. Where to draw the line? Can a parent spank their child? idk to be honest
Well, you drew the line already, a child is a human being and therefor the initiation of aggression against a child is a crime. What other line do you think of?
Spanking is aggression no doubt. The second question is was it the initiation of aggression or not. And to be clear, no third party has any business to decide what parents are allowed to do, the only party that can actually make that claim, as in all other matters, is the one that is being aggressed against.
true, I did draw the line and if the NAP and thus liberty are to maintain their integrity, then no child spanking.
It would have to be proved, meaning with evidence, witness testimony, etc… in stating by fact which person initiated the aggression. True. That’s justice through and through.
To elaborate on your point a bit, the welfare state is actually devolutionary. It operates largely as an incentive for women to breed with irresponsible losers.
Another artificial and damaging construct that would disappear in the absence of government subsidy would be the atomized “nuclear” family. Clans would be the smallest familial unit in a free society.