The right to abandon & neglect children

Economics Political Theory
61

Insofar as the golden rule prescribes positive action, it deals solely with the realm of morality, not with ethics. “I will give this bum some spare change because I’d want others to give me spare change if I were in his situationn,” not because I have to.

The golden rule can have application to ethics as well, but only insofar as it restricts the positive action of all persons in favour of protecting the natural negative rights held equally by all persons. “I’m not going to force my morals upon you, or make you take any positive action against your will, just as I would not want you to force your subjective moral view onto me or force me to take any positive action I would not otherwise take.”

One certainly can be a Christian and an anarchist. In fact, I read half of an essay earlier this year that argued that Jesus was an anarcho-capitalist.

If there is a God, He/She/It is surely a libertarian and almost surely an anarchist. Note how He/She/It (if He/She/It exists) created a world in which spontaneous order arises without centralised control (and most fluidly when such control is not present). Notice too what little intervention, if any, He/She/It has in our lives. Even when we think we want Him/Her/It to step in and nanny us, He/She/It typically does not.

Finally, as one economist once said, character is built from voluntarily doing what is right. It should thus be of no surprise that it is said God gave us free will.

62

I realize this is off topic…
howeverIt’s funny Nathan that you mention the golden rule, . If you are a christian and a statist then perhaps this will send a little shock. Since your so fund of referring to your christian beliefs.

"Matthew 7:12: […] “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (See also Luke 6:31.)

“But if indeed Jesus actually meant what He said when He spoke these words–and He most certainly did–then this alone is more than enough to prove that Jesus is of necessity an anarchist, and not just any kind of anarchist, but a libertarian, free-market anarchist in particular.”

The reason this would necessarily have to be the case is because it is impossible for any actual government to actually abide by the Golden Rule even in theory, let alone in practice. All governments must of necessity violate the Golden Rule, otherwise they would not be governments but would be something else instead.

“(When the word is used in the sense above) Government (i.e., a State) is that organization in society which attempts to maintain, and is generally successful at maintaining, a coercive regional monopoly over ultimate control of the law (i.e., on the courts and police, etc.)–this is a feature of all Governments; as well, historically speaking it has always been the case that it is the only organization in society that legally obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.”

The above scenario leaves out something extremely vital though, as it merely assumes that this government in question somehow obtains its revenue by voluntary contribution and not by coercion. Yet all actual governments throughout history have obtained their revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for contracted services but by coercion. Thus all governments throughout history steal and extort wealth from their subjects which they call “taxes,” yet at the same time governments make it illegal for their subjects to steal from each other or from the government. Thus here again in taxes we see that historically all governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to them. I say “historically” because while although all governments throughout history have found it necessary to fund their operations through theft and extortion, it is not necessarily the case that all governments in theory must be supported by taxes: one could imagine that most people in a certain society simply voluntarily donate their money to fund a government, as unlikely as that possibility is in practice. So while although a monopoly on ultimate control of the law is a logical necessity of all governments, taxes are not–taxes have simply been a practical necessity throughout all of history in order for governments to function.

“Yet someone who follows the Golden Rule must not do to others what they do not want others to do to them–this necessarily means that one must respect the autonomy of other people’s person and their just property: which unavoidably leads to not just anarchism, as was demonstrated above, but also to the free-market, voluntarist, libertarian order. The rigorous proof of this is that everyone, by definition, objects to others aggressing against what they regard as their own property.”

So if you follow the logic, then from a christian perspective the state cannot exist. And if the state cannot exist, what institution can legitimately coerce (even though such action is inherently illegitimate in the first place) parents to take positive actions with regards to their children (other then an institution enforcing a contract)?

63

Was this the article Mr. Peak?

64

That’s where I disagree with Rothbard. The notion that parents can own their children, even if it’s a “partial” or “limited” ownership, is just absurd.

65

Basically. What I was reading was a .pdf, though, which, if I remember correctly, was an updated copy of that same piece.

66

Thank you for informing me. I just found the pdf. For anyone else interested.

67

Niccolò, you don’t think that the act of conceiving and having a child is a consious decision to take on the positive obligation of providing for that child, or finding someone who will?

68

No, not neccessarily. It depends on the circumstances.

69

It’s seemingly absurd at first, but the children are not yet self-owners. How can they be? A young child has about the same cognitive capabilities as a chimpanzee. I don’t think you would see a problem with owning a chimpanzee in principle. Practicality is a different matter.

70

Rothbard did not say that parents own children. He said they are their guardians until the child demonstrates their objection to the relationship by leaving it.

71

Let’s let the man speak for himself, shall we?

“On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner. But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?”

“Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind.”

“The mother, then, becomes at the birth of her child its “trustee-owner,” legally obliged only not to aggress against the child’s person, since the child possesses the potential for self-ownership. Apart from that, so long as the child lives at home, it must necessarily come under the jurisdiction of its parents, since it is living on property owned by those parents. Certainly the parents have the right to set down rules for the use of their home and property for all persons (whether children or not) living in that home.”

“Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract.”

Of course the ownership isn’t absolute because the child is a potential self-owner, but ownership still applies.

72

I would have the same problem with this scenario that I have with child ownership. Trustee is a much more appropriate relationship for either case, in my view, and ‘ownership’ is not. To put what you just said another way: A chimpanzee has about the same cognitive capabilities as a young child. So why do chimps not have any rights at all? Shouldn’t we treat them as we would toddlers?

73

I’m not arguing against the the “trustee” aspect of all of this. However the reason why a child has rights and a chimp does not is because the child is a potential self-owner. The ownership of the child comes into play because the child is not yet a self-owner. So who owns the child if this is the case? However studying chimp behavior and how they act towards humans who keep them as pets suggests to me that they “petition” for certain rights. Yet chimps have not demonstrated to humans in nature that they are in fact self-owners, while humans do it quite often. When this happens we should respect chimps’ rights.

74

In defense of Nathyn

Although I STRONGLY disagree w/ a lot of his comments and I do NOT like when topics are taken onto tangents, I do appreciate the effect his place at the table has. His posts might not appeal to the more learned folk (learned as it relates to liberty/austrian school, etc), which probably includes many of those on these forums, they appeal to me because I get to see vigorous debate/discussion concerning the basis of liberty. It’s quite educational for my backward, undereducated, trailer trash brain. Also, I’m a total noob in the atheist/theist debates and the comments Nathyn receives reminds me of the ones I receive when I try to HONESTLY discuss my belief in god and their disbelief. I am held in utter disdain. lol. Nathyn may or may not be sincere, but it is serving a purpose in my thought life. [:P]

75

The unspoken presumption here seems to be: someone must own the child - either him/herself or another. Why must this be the case? Can a child not be ‘unowned’ until they can assert self-ownership? This still allows for a trusteeship to be established, though certainly there would be certain ethical dilemmas inherent in this - but there are ethical (and practical) dilemmas associated with child self-ownership, AND with parent-ownership of child. We are human beings - ethical dilemmas will exist for as long as we do, almost surely, and we need to be able to tolerate and deal with them.

That is, I am not sure we need to be dichotomous in our approach to this situation - is there no room for a different category of being, neither self-owned, nor other-owned? The extension to chimps is also valid here - does the fact that a chimp may not be capable of asserting self-ownership (and what exactly is the criteria for asserting self-ownership and just how clear is it?) mean that it must be owned? Why not, again, more of a trusteeship, perpetual if need be, when the issue arises?

The idea that chimps can be owned - despite the fact that most of the arguments for differentiating humans from chimps in a fundamental way (i.e. difference of kind and not degree) cannot be sustained in light of the scientific evidence - and experimented upon, killed, disposed of as their owner wills, is troubling from an ethical standpoint, at least to me. If the difference is primarily one of degree, then how is it ethical to assert ownership, whether over a child or a chimp?

76

I think un-owned is self-owned, meaning you decide for yourself.

If the difference is primarily one of degree, then couldnt you say we dont have the right to kill anything (berries, corn, apples, etc)?

77

This will be my last post on the subject of Nathyn, promise…unless he directly provokes me.

I fully understand where you’re coming from, this other site I frequent has some vigorous debates on occasion with people from vastly different walks of life and many different political/economic viewpoints. Debates get heated, feathers get ruffled, insults get bandied about but everyone knows where to draw the line between ‘no harm, no foul’ and straight up open hostility. Only on one occasion have I seen things get out of hand (VT shooting debate) but when everyone calmed down it was all good again.

Nathyn on the other hand seems to be trying to produce the exact opposite of a good healthy debate. Between his outright misrepresentations and blatantly obvious trolling he has the effect of hijacking the discussion to no good end. His argumentative technique consists of strings of logical fallacies so he quickly reverts to ad hominem attacks out of pure frustration. He claims to honestly want to learn about Austrian economics yet his ‘study’ on the subject seem to be limited to anti-libertarian propaganda and looking for any little thing he can present that shows the believers in the Austrian/Libertarian system are morally corrupt.

I’m sure if someone came on here who thought Keynes was the second coming and Mises was a hack and was willing to defend their position tooth and nail to the bitter end this place would come alive like a California poppy field after the first spring rain. I used to get in epic debates with someone who almost literally believed God spoke through Marx and Plato’s Republic was the blueprint for the future, he even made a genuinely honest attempt to disprove the economic calculation problem. I really enjoyed our exchanges. Nathyn on the other hand has absolutely no interest in ‘adding value’ to this forum from what I’ve been able to determine.

As to my outright open hostility towards Nathyn, I have found that is the best way to deal with trolls and astroturfers. I have no doubts there are some who don’t appreciate this at all, will use it to judge my overall character and will refrain from responding to my posts because they think I will just openly attack them if they don’t agree with my viewpoint. All courses of action have their consequences…

To the staff, members and lurkers, I humbly apologize for my troll baiting activities.

78

loads his crossbow

j/k

79

Berries, corn and apples exhibit differences in kind from humanity. They do not, for example, have self awareness, which chimps most definitely do. They have not demonstrated that they can use sign language to communicate, as chimps have. They cannot exhibit transitive inference in communication as chimps can. Etc.

Again, I don’t see why unowned has to mean self-owned. This is the dichotomoy I referred to before - why must everything be either self-owned, or fair game to be other owned? Surely we are capable of appreciating more nuance and complexity than this forced oversimplification!

80

define ‘unowned’.

Also, you said ‘a matter of degree’, so i assume that since those things i listed have life, they would be w/i that continuum of degrees. I know at the least other animal life could be, birds, fish, bugs, etc.