Should children be contractually indebted to their parents?

Economics Political Theory
1

If I see someone lying unconcious in the street, then I will call an ambulance have them brought to a hospital to be treated. The patient is legally and morally required to pay the hospital. (If the hospital charges them a ridiculous amount - much more than the fair market value of voluntarily procured services - then the person may refuse to pay and a court may find the hospital in error.)

Likewise, if I have a child, which is of too low intelligence to understand its situation, then I can invest in it an upbringing and education even though it isn’t currently capable of entering contracts. In exchange, the child is automatically entered into a contract and I have a right to extract a fair market value from the child’s future labor.

I don’t think this is immoral since, in both cases, a person who is incapacitated is being helped. Also, I think in a lot of poor countries people living on farms intentionally have children to extract labor from them. In a lot of cultures (not so much USA), children will feel indebted to their progenitors and will take care of them in their old age. So I am basically making explicit a common human tradition.

And if there is something immoral about it, would it help to modify the child’s contract? For example, what if they receive a specialized education in physics, but only had to pay back the debt if they actually became a physicist? Or is this whole idea totally immoral? Would you resent having been placed in such a situation?

There are a lot of positive things that could come from the scenario of indebted children. For example, I could pay talented people (scientists, basketball players, whatever) to produce a child for me. Then, I could invest wholly, or in some part, in the child’s upbringing, education, or training. If my entrepeneurial calculations are correct, and the child’s expected talents reap a high reward in a future market, then I will be able to generate profit. At the same time, the child’s future could be much brighter than otherwise. I will be much more attentive to the child’s needs if I have a stake in its future.

If enough entrepeneurs do this then we will have free market forces directly affecting the production of people. We’ve already turned wolves into everything from poodles to St. Bernards. Specialized breeds of people, directed by market forces, could be the next step in our evolution.

2

“The patient is legally and morally required to pay the hospital.”

That begs the question.

“in both cases, a person who is incapacitated is being helped.”

Says who?

3

I think if the patient is unconscious the entire time he doesn’t have a positive obligation to pay back the hospital who willingly treated him without his consent (though I’m sure he wouldn’t mind afterward!)

I’m gonna go out on a limb here, but having a child is an act of aggression. You are forcing that child to come into existence as an unintelligent, unwilling agent and it is your responsibility to compensate the child by bringing him or her to an adult status.

You have no right to the child’s future labor because they can’t willingly enter into a contract, and the child doesn’t owe you anything.

“the child is automatically entered into a contract”

Kinda sounds like slavery.

4

>>“The patient is legally and morally required to pay the hospital.”

*>*That begs the question.

Well, in our current legal system, the person would have to pay. (In fact, you may be required to pay the city for trimming your lawn even if you are of sound mind and didn’t want that service.)

Morally, it’s subjective of course. Most people - who arent’ trying to commit suicide - would welcome the treatment they obtained without permission, and would feel indebted to the hospital. And even a suicidal person might feel indebted even if they didn’t want the treatment, since resources were expended on them due to a well-meaning mistake.

I don’t see how you can adopt the opposite position. Would you prefer that all hospitals refuse to touch an unconcious person lying in the street, because they have no chance of getting paid? I think even an ancap arbitrator would have to bend its will toward something that 99% of its customers agree is reasonable.

>>“in both cases, a person who is incapacitated is being helped.”

*>*Says who?

A judge / arbitrator?

5

I’m gonna go out on a limb here, but having a child is an act of aggression.

This “aggression” stuff needs to stop.

6

I think if the patient is unconscious the entire time he doesn’t have a positive obligation to pay back the hospital who willingly treated him without his consent (though I’m sure he wouldn’t mind afterward!)

I understand your argument. I’m guessing you think there should be an explicit thing (like a will or other document) done ahead of time and listing every conceivable situation that the person would agree to be treated for. I am assuming things can be more implicit and that “common sense” can be depended on. I guess I feel safer with my approach. Even if my document lists 999 cases I want to be saved from, I wouldn’t want case #1000 to befall me.

I think it’s my responsibility to prove (e.g. in court) that a person helping me while I was incapacitated should clearly have known I didn’t want that treatment (say, I had a suicide note pinned to my chest). Otherwise, someone has to pay for services rendered, and it’s going to be me. In a civil matter, like payment for services rendered, any reasonable person would hold the hospital blameless and me guilty of the error of not making it clear that I didn’t want my life saved.

What if there’s no time to write the will? If your baby is born with a life-threatening medical condition - is it unethical to treat it since we need to wait until it’s old enough and we can ask it? Is touching it with metal intstruments without its permission agressing against its body? Or is it ethical to enter it involuntarily into a “living will” just because you think it’s “better” for it?

7

I didn’t say it was wrong for the hospital to treat the guy I said, “He doesn’t have a positive obligation to pay back the hospital.”

8

“This “aggression” stuff needs to stop.”

Ya O.K.

9

By aggression I only mean forcing something on someone without their consent. That’s it.

You forced the man to go the hospital, and the baby to be born (or did they choose correct me here.)

I wouldn’t say all acts of aggression necessarily require a repayment by the aggressor. If it turns out the action made the person better off, as in the case of the man, I don’t see any need for repayment because nothing was taken from him really. And I’m sure he’d appreciate it actually.

But in the case of the baby I think you owe it something, not the other way around. Although you’re not really taking anything away (as it had nothing before) you are still forcing the baby into an existence where it is incapable of taking care of itself. Which is why you don’t owe the little human something for the rest of it’s life, only until he or she can take care of themselves.

10

>>“The patient is legally and morally required to pay the hospital.”

*>*That begs the question.

“Well, in our current legal system, the person would have to pay. (In fact, you may be required to pay the city for trimming your lawn even if you are of sound mind and didn’t want that service.)”

I know that is the current legal system, and it’s wrong. What the current system is now, is irrelevent to what is the libertarian alternative.

“Morally, it’s subjective of course. Most people - who arent’ trying to commit suicide - would welcome the treatment they obtained without permission, and would feel indebted to the hospital.”

Morally? Are you talking in terms of political philosophy, ie. ethics? Because it’s not subjective at all. You do realise there is a thing called insurance?!

Also the fact that the street owner / whereever the accident took place wouldn’t want a ‘death’ or ‘injury’ to happen on their property, since that could affect future revenue (negative publicity) and raise insurance premiums for them.

“And even a suicidal person might feel indebted even if they didn’t want the treatment, since resources were expended on them due to a well-meaning mistake.”

That’s not their problem, nor their fault. It isn’t a result of their actions, they thus have no obligation to pay it back, since they never consented to it in the first place.

“I don’t see how you can adopt the opposite position. Would you prefer that all hospitals refuse to touch an unconcious person lying in the street, because they have no chance of getting paid?”

Eh? “Charity hospitals, Catholic hospitals - no-one was ever turned away, Shriner hospitals, lot of free care was given”. - Ron Paul

All happened before the medical-industrial complex / the state got involved.

>>“in both cases, a person who is incapacitated is being helped.”

*>*Says who?

A judge / arbitrator?

Nope. The point was only the individual can determine that.

11

In Serbia, where I come from, parents tend to invest all of their money in their kids. They basically live a very modest life so that they could pay for their children’s education, buy them a house/condo, or buy them a car. Even later on, they try to help their children financially as much as possible. In return, when parents retire, their kids support them. I think this kind of system tends to develope in traditional societies. Even though nobody enters into a contract, tradition and morals push kids to support their parents when they retire.

12

the thinking going on by baxter and greg is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too sloppy for me to work through.

13

You forced (…) the baby to be born (or did they choose correct me here.)

Forcing a burgler, or even guest who’s no longer welcome, out of your home is not aggression. The fetus/baby is an intruder in the woman’s body and it’s up to her to get rid of it, be it via abortion or giving birth after a full term.

14

“the thinking going on by baxter and greg is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too sloppy for me to work through.”

I’ll admit I’m just pulling this out of my ass (I’m quite the layman) but I await your correction oh great one!

You guys say I’m wrong but still have nothing to say.

“Forcing a burgler, or even guest who’s no longer welcome, out of your home is not aggression.”

I agree.

“The fetus/baby is an intruder in the woman’s body and it’s up to her to get rid of it, be it via abortion or giving birth after a full term.”

In my definition of aggression above I should have thrown in “initially” but I felt that was implied with them being unconscious and a baby.

The baby case is nothing like having a burglar or a guest in your home. Unless you put them there.

In that case, the former wouldn’t be a burglar, and wouldn’t you be committing aggression by forcing a “guest” (see: prisoner) into your home? You would have a responsibility to let them go. (As with the baby when it is able to live outside the body.)

You have a right to make the baby leave the body, but not kill it. (I think.) I used to be pro-choice but now I think it’s tantamount to murder.

15

I think it is more like you are indebted to the child. You brought a child into the world with all the options you have (contraception, abortion, celibacy!), who you know is incapable and defenceless. It is now your moral responsability to care for the child until it is capable. The parents are the ones who are indebted to the child.

16

Patient-hospital and child-parent relationships are very different, thus the analogy is incorrect.

17

I’m going to try to preempt another point one could make.

I’m equating the baby to a prisoner. If you take a prisoner, you have a responsibility to let him go, although you can’t just leave him in conditions where he would surely die (an impossible to survive blizzard outside or something.) You could just take people and drop them off under the sea and say, “well I let em’ go!”

Though if you have a guest who willingly came into your home, you have no obligation as to whether his expulsion will result in his demise.

18

Eek. Lemme phrase it this way: If you could go back in time and have your mother abort you, would you? I think this whole “being born is an act of aggression” thing reeks of anti-humanism.

There’s a simpler solution to the “indebted” problem. Let’s say I give you a thousand dollars to help you with your mortgage one month, just because we’re good friends, and you happily accept.

Six months down the road, I’M the one in financial trouble. So I come to you asking for my thousand dollars back. Under the non-aggression principle are you “indebted” to me? No, you are not.

19

To Azure: Aggression does not necessarily equal morally wrong I think. It sounds weird at first, but in a purely formal way it just means initially forcing someone to do something without their consent. I just can’t think of a better word to throw in there. I know these types of words normally have such a negative connotation, but in a formal way the definition stands. If you can find a better word to fit that definition fine, I can’t as of yet.

Pushing a man out of the way of a moving car and into the way of a moving car are both acts of aggression (if you agree with what that word means.) In both cases you are forcing him into something without his given consent (whether he agrees after or not.) I’m making no recourse to whether I think either of these acts are morally wrong.

What really matters though is whether the person afterwards feels they are a victim of such acts. (Or if he’s dead his insurance company or family.) One of those you could go to court for, the other an arbitrator would laugh you out of the room for trying to get compensation for the man saving your life.

“Eek. Lemme phrase it this way: If you could go back in time and have your mother abort you, would you? I think this whole “being born is an act of aggression” thing reeks of anti-humanism.”

Whatever. A person can appreciate an act of aggression (in the formal sense) against them afterwards, if they turned out better as a result. Colloquially, they wouldn’t even call it an act of aggression I know. I’m stretching the word a little farther than usual OMG! I just don’t see what your example has to do with parents having to take care of their child. Do you think parents have an obligation to care for their child? Why or why not?

I’m quite glad my mother birthed me, but she did at least owe me being taken care of until I was able to take care of things myself.

20

Consciousness has got nothing to do with it. The fetus is an intruder and if the only way of getting rid of it is to kill it, then that’s perfectly within the rights of the woman. I do, however, agree that if the fetus is already viable, then scrambling its brains (or whatever the hell an abortionist does) would be murder. I pretty much echo what Walter Block has to say about this (search for “evictionism” on YouTube if you want a more thorough explanation of this concept).

Also, if you’re gonna bring intent to have a baby into it, you’re going to have to differentiate between unwanted (broken condom, rape, etc.) and wanted pregnancies. I don’t think such a distinction holds merit, though, because even an invited guest would lawfully be subject to force (including lethal force, should there be no other option), if they overstay their welcome.