I read this chapter or maybe part of a chapter from the Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard
I’m very confused as to what Rothbard thinks a “trustee-ownership” of a child is. This is a quote where he explains what it is:
“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.”
So a mother has ownership of child, except she can’t aggress against him/her at all, so that would mean everything the child would be doing is of his free will. So what exactly does she have the ownership to?
As Rothbard says, the only thing a parent can legally force their children to do is follow established rules within their property or else the child can be kicked out. But this is also true for any person that comes into their house, so how does a parent own a child anymore than a neighbor coming to visit?
Isn’t a child just technically a visitor that the parent’s allow to stay with them for a long period of time?
Is there an institution in a libertarian society that deals with property disputes? Even with persons that cannot pay for the services themselves; [defend themselves - i.e children]
“But how could a poor person afford private protection he would have to pay for instead of getting free protection, as he does now?” There are several answers to this question, one of the most common criticisms of the idea of totally private police protection. One is: that this problem of course applies to any commodity or service in the libertarian society, not just the police. But isn’t protection necessary? Perhaps, but then so is food of many different kinds, clothing, shelter, etc. Surely these are at least as vital if not more so than police protection, and yet almost nobody says that therefore the government must nationalize food, clothing, shelter, etc., and supply these free as a compulsory monopoly. Very poor people would be supplied, in general, by private charity, as we saw in our chapter on welfare. Furthermore, in the specific case of police there would undoubtedly be ways of voluntarily supplying free police protection to the indigent — either by the police companies themselves for goodwill (as hospitals and doctors do now) or by special “police aid” societies that would do work similar to “legal aid” societies [p. 220] today. (Legal aid societies voluntarily supply free legal counsel to the indigent in trouble with the authorities.)
You don’t think there would be Children Organizations? “Friends of babies”? Really? lol.. “Why won’t someone think of the children!”
No, it makes perfect sense to me, I think if Rothbard left it at that, then I would be less confused. What I’m just trying to understand, is what “trustee-ownership” means if nothing can be done to a child against his will?
Rothbard goes on to say that you can sell this “trustee-ownership” to other people.
I don’t get that, according to Rothbard, the parents can do nothing against a child’s body without his consent, so it seems that technically the only thing that the child could do is willinging be a “visitor is another house” if the foster parent agrees. Why do the parents have a say in it?
Why do the parents have a right to sell a child?
It just seems like the logic is a bit screwed up.
Or perhaps the “trustee-ownership” that he talks about refers to just babies and children unwilling to make decisions, is this it?
Property cannot argue for itself in a dispute, and neither can children. What you are saying is that a children’s organization would have an equal claim to own the children as the parents. Now unless the parents enter into some prior agreement with an outside party (godparents in a marriage contract, for example), no organization can even make the claim that they deserve ownership of the children.
Ok. Essentially it is easier to understand as “guardianship rights”. The parents own the right to guard the child.
Or the child could reject the notion, and through his actions - recognise his self ownership.
“But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or “runs away” from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.”
I think the parents have a say in it, when the child / baby does not / or cannot.
Well they don’t, they are selling the guardianship rights.
Unwilling / unable. Furthermore, if a kid gets kicked out or runs away from home because of abuse etc or for whatever reason, they could try stay at a friends, get adopted into a family, orphanage, Boys town?, live on their own and become independent.
All seem better alternatives than remaining in an abusive home (assuming), or become children of the state! (eek)
The difference is, children have the potential too.
No that is not what I am saying. The parents have first claim, naturally.
‘Ownership’ is the wrong word, no-one can own the child as their property. Because you can do whatever you want with your property, as long as it doesn’t violate others.
If the parents fully owned the child, which is what you seem to be saying - then it would be legal to take the child, into the middle of time square and put a bullet through their brain.
Surely you’re not going to stick by such a position… are you?
What the parents “own” is the guardianship rights. When they stop guarding the child, and in fact aggress against it - then you have problems.
Define “distinct authoritarian streak”. If you mean adherence to the non aggression axiom, sure.
I’m quite surprised that you are so wrong about this Stranger. Normally, I agree with you on things. I wrote a fair deal on this before here and don’t have time to repeat it all right now.
I call “trustee-ownership” guardianship. Children are special cases, vs. mere res, because of their potential to become actor-producers or moral agents as well. Actions such as rape or mutilation which are blatantly unhelpful to a child in reaching adulthood nullify your claim to a child as “property”. Once unowned, another person might take guardianship and represent the child against their abuser. You simply can’t “own” human beings in these ways unless they had been moral agents and made a contractual agreement.
You don’t stake out and maintain ownership of an acre of land in the same way as a pizza or a child. The nature of the thing in question guides us.
Authoritarian - favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom
The term “distinct authoritarian streak” pertaining to some authoritarian positions in some of your posts.
Some examples -
Emphasis is all mine.
These examples along with your belief in an objective morality, which AJ pointed out goes directly against the idea of voluntary choice, illustrate a certain, although unnoticed by yourself, strain of authoritarianism in your beliefs.
None of my posts involve a violation of the NAP, or anyone elses free will. You’ve got it the other way around.
That is the logical conclusion of Strangers position. I am arguing against it. Did you not read the very next line?
“Surely you’re not going to stick by such a position… are you?”
It would be great if you included context. That being said, nothing in my position is authoritarian - far from it. It stems from natural law → natural rights → natural justice.
A child is not fully owned by it’s parents (their property). What about that statement is authoritarian? In my opinion, anyone who denies it - is a wannabe authoritarian. I mean, how else could you explain a position where you want to own another human life as your property?
Are all baseless and in no way support your ill-founded and erroneous conclusion.
The context of your sentence implies that you believe there should be a uniform legal system under which property violations are to be considered. This is is inherently authoritarian as there will be people unwilling to live by your laws.
You are trapped in the statist paradigm.
Your judgement that retaliation against a violation of property rights must be proportional is authoritarian. You wish to assert your subjective opinion on others as to how they can defend their property.
Is not fully owned? Are they partly owned? Are you making a concession here?
The quote I used has to be considered in the context of your post. You suggested there could be an institution that could justifiably violate a parents property rights with regard to its child.
Its cus on child-rearing, you already know what the right answer is: That parents always should do the right thing by the child etc etc.
So you have to fumble around with libertarianism, adjusting definitions until you get the answer you want.
[8] Cus we are libertarian philosophers! We say we value liberty - but we’re still human so we also value other stuff - then lets tweak our theories till it all fits together - so we don’t have to admit to double standards! [8]
Neither can a person in a coma caused by a beating. Would you then say that no one can obtain restitution for the comatose person? Think before you post.
No, he isn’t. He’s simply saying that there would be a group which would argue on behalf of the child. Clearly, the parents have no right to simply murder the child, right? They are the guardians, not the owners as we might think. It is a custodial ownership–caretaking. And it is from that standpoint the advocacy group would make certain claims.
So me if and the missus want baby back ribs we can take Tommy out of the crib and do the butchering ourselves. Or do we need a licensed professional? [;)]
Historically there has not been anything to stop this from happening, particularly in times of famine. If no one knows that you are butchering your own baby (your home being sovereign and inviolable) then no one can accuse you of violating their rights.
Wait what? Excuse me, but if they have rights therefore they cannot be owned, it’s a logical contradiction to apply rights then to claim in the same or another sentence that you own them. Either they are owned, therefore are slaves, or they are not owned and therefore are free. Law of Excluded Middle is a bitch.
And if no one knows that you’ve kidnapped a woman and have her chained in your basement, repeatedly raping her, no one can accuse you of violating her rights.