In the case of an infant losing both parents in an accident: assuming that natural law would dictate the next of kin, what if there were two sets of grandparents who both wanted stewardship of the child. Everything else being equal, the baby is from St. Louis, Granparents A are from California and Grandparents B are from Maine. In this case, is there any real justice that can be done other than tossing a coin?
apply the wisdom of solomon ? [:P]
So long as the child is cared for, justice has been served.
Market forces will resolve this issue. Much like the changing of lightbulbs.
Second question:
What if there is only one set of grandparents who are alive, and willingly wish to take over the stewardship of the child. Does the child automaticaly go to the grandparent, no questions asked? For the transfer of stewardship is there any proper sort of interventionism due to this being a life and not property.
Well if no one else gets involved, then nothing stops the grandparents from taking the child.
If citizen X does get involved by saying that the grandparents are not fit to take care of the child then there is a right to intervention then? If citizen X wants to prevent the child from going to the stewardship of the grandparents, but does not want to take charge of the child is that legit? If it is, what is to happen to the child?
If citizen X wants to prevent the child from going to the stewardship of the grandparents, but does not want to take charge of the child is that legit?
you mean what if the grandparents are all set to steward and then along comes citizen X who wants someone other than himself or the grandparents to be the steward…
it kind of answers itself doesnt it?
I don’t think so. Stewardship is a contract. If the grandparents are not in a position to meet the contract to take the child, why should they have a right to custody? If Citizen X could prove, for example, the grandparents had some malicious intent what justice is there in any law that states the grandparents should assume custody. Likewise if citizen X was not fit to watch the kid (maybe he is terminal, poverty stricken, a cannible, left handed, who knows) by his own admission the child can not be placed under his watch.
Well, i dont think its an issue of natural law; more to be arbitrated out by free market law . ultimately the different parties will have voluntarily agreed to have a judge decide, or they will reject the arbitration and face the consequences. i have said a lot and missed out even more, thats what happens when you answer in few sentances. apologies for the brevity.
I am sorry, this question was phrased rather poorly. Does the right (if there is no indicationotherwise of the decesed parents) to stewardship automatically transfer to the next of kin for them to accept or turn down? So if citizen X (perhaps the parents best friend,) somehow lays a claim on the child’s care 1st, then the belated grandparents lay claim , all other things being equal should the custody go to the grandparents?
i dont think ‘stewardship’ is a concept that can be analysed within the context of ‘natural law’.
obviously you are making a distinction between homesteading and stewardship. if a child property is abandoned and fit for rehomesteading , a 3rd party objector who ‘gets his way’ and stops the first homesteader (Granps) will have initiated aggression against an owner (granps). the fact that we are talking stewardship clues me in to thinking we are talking about law, in the sense of ‘common law’, or ‘produced law’. so its all about insurance companies, pdas, lawfirms,judges,the consumers of law etc.
Huh?.. Ohhhhhh, right. That Solomon.