Where does this Biological Trust doctrine come from?
There is only one real objective standard as to when a child has assumed full responsibility for their life–and that is when the child has assumed full responsibility for themselves, meaning they’ve moved out and are entirely financially self-supportive and independent.
Until they, their ability to make decisions for themselves are held in trust by their parent under something like a fiduciary relationship. And the parent can make reasonable and rational decisions for them and enforce them.
For some kids that’s going to be around 21 or so, after college. For others it could be as young as 13.
This would be too when voting rights begin, when you are entirely self-supporting. I’d love to see a society where only those financially self-supportive and productive are able to vote. Meaning those on government welfare lose the ability to vote because of the quid-pro-quo problem between politicians in elections and the beneficiaries of government programs. If you cannot provide for yourself, you dont’ get a vote in the society.
The origin of the biological trust can be described from several points of view. First, it is useful to recognize its utility. Human offspring is unable to do anything to sustain existence for a period of years, and gradually assumes native ownership as he or she becomes more able, however without a faithful trustee, this would not be possible. Therefore if continued human existence is accepted as a value, the biological trust follows as a means of explaining the moral conditions of parenthood and childhood.
If self-ownership is a given, then the trust follows naturally, as the owner is unable to control and maintain his property, and the individuals responsible for his condition (as an owner who cannot exercise ownership rights) are responsible for maintaining his property until he is able to do so.
Experience shows us that if the biological trust is not faithfully executed, then the offspring suffer ill effects. So if human prosperity (any human) is a value, then the biological trust follows.
To be honest, I thought this concept would have been established already. Kind of like how I have been using praxeology for years to prove that authoritarian economics leads to ruin, but I just learned about “praxeology” a few months ago, I thought the parent-child relationship would have been recognized as a trust. It has all the characteristics, and could very well be the first example of a trust.
I personally think that the biological trust is a moral imperative, and originates from the same origin as all other morals.
There most certainly are truths that cannot be proven, see Kurt Godel and his Incompleteness Theorem.