You would not let a 2 years old even a 6 years old just wander off. Just common sense.
why does being left on a rock in the modern world mean ‘left on a rock to die’, particularly when there are hospitable people like yourself who can care for the child (if you want to).
When a baby is left on the church steps, ‘they are left on a rock to die’… ok…
Well, there are two reasons a child might be abandoned. The first is that its parents are socioapths; this is what sociopaths do actually, sleep around a lot but never stick around to take care of the children.
The second reason might be that the parents want the child but can’t afford to feed it. Every civilized nation has enough empathy to require a social safety net so that this can’t happen - in a last resort, there are emergency food and funds available for the child which have nothing to do with any fluctuating “market.”
Rothbard seems to be arguing that sociopaths who callously abandon their children should not be punished, and that individuals who don’t want to contribute to feeding starbing children have no obligation to do so.
In other words, he’s advocating a sociopathic society; one in which the sociopaths can abandon their children and pay no taxes towards the maintainece of anyone elses children either - but of course they’d be free to hire their labor once they’re useful. The whole burden of doing anything decent will lie only with those who ‘want’ to - which will put normal caring people at a disadvantage in ‘the market’ I might add to those who don’t care. The guy who tithes 10% to charity in a capitalist system will eventually lose out to the guy who keeps all his winnings to himself and reinvests, everything else being equal. The long term result of ‘laissez-faire’ is rule by narcissistic sociopaths.
So Darwin hated laissez faire and eugenics.
The point?
You don’t seem to understand that good thigns can happen even when there is no law compelling someone to do them or pay costs for not doing them.
He is advocating a society of self-responsibility, you see a problem out there with lack of care for child X or struggling family Y ? before you get out your gun and boss everyone around to live how you would have them live, be the change you want to see and do something positive about it whilst maintaining a clear conscience.
The long term result is rule by narcissistic sociopaths.
no, we are against politicians 
Sex is irrelevant. There is the example of artificial insemenation. And anyways conception occurs after sex not during it.
A creates C by having her egg fertilized (in labaratory or in the uterine tube) after which she has it transfered into her womb. What is the purpose of creating human life and having it placed into the womb? What is the purpose of a womb?
In the philosophical sense it would chain her to carrying the fetus until it was viable. After that time it may be evicted as adoption is possible.
In the practical sense it would chain her to nothing, as no one has the standing to speak for a fetus against its mother.
Benjamin, you wouldn’t be eating crow right now if you knew the first thing about US law. The same “sociopathic legal standards” regarding “safe havens” are law in the US, as I suspect in many other countries.
"Rothbard’s position (from Ethics of Liberty) is that parents may at any time repudiate their child, that is, refuse to care for it any longer.
Murray Rothbard: sociopath.
Followers of Murray Rothbard: also sociopaths?
Banned for 14 days. Come back with better manners.
You would not let a 2 years old even a 6 years old just wander off. Just common sense.
There is a difference between wandering of and running away.
I think it is reasonable that people can do things that are normally rights violation when it is clear that it is in the best interest of the person. To take the simplest examples putting your hand in the path of someone who didn’t see the comming tram and is heading out into the tracks.
Naturally if he really wanted to get run over he can demand compensation. In this case it would be miniscule but there could be other scenarios like deliberate suicide where more grave violation have been necessary to prevent it. If the person really want to kill himself after some attempt to restore is mental health he can demand compensation for being pulled of the ledge and forced care and so forth.
If it turned out that you really acted in accordence with the persons will there should however be no compensation because you didn’t really violate any rights if you just did what he wanted.
This can be seen as a slippery slope but not allowing any of this would have really bizzare effects like firemen not being able to pull unconsious people out of burning buildings. Not being able to remove people in chock from accident scenes and treat them and so forth.
The same would apply to kids. You can bring them back home, but if they demonstrate a deliberate intention to leave for good you can’t keep them but have to let em be able to find other parents. Hopefully there will be other adults in society that can seek these kids out and talk to them and come up with a reasonable alternative for them so they don’t wander the streets.
Much more troublesome is kids that would want to stay with parents who beat and abuse them. It is not uncommon at all that children and even many spouses want or at least think they want to say in abusive relationships. But usually they change there mind after leaving such a relationship, so one would probably not have to pay all that much compensation if one was in the business of seperating people like this by force.
It is also very unclear how the state would solve these problems any better. Even in the coutries where this works best social services are still doing a pretty terrible job of sorting out shit like this.
I think as long as we maintain that the “injured” party is entitled to compensation (if they want it) we avoid the slippery slope. The party’s insurance would likely thank you though; Its conceivable that insurance companies would either reward parties for intervening in these kinds of life threatening situations, or else require that the insured relinquish their rights to sue benevolent actors in dire circumstances.