Children and Rights
The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, writes Murray Rothbard, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. 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? FULL ARTICLE
Comments (165)
TLWP Sam
Well whilst some would say that self-ownership begins at birth, it would probably really mean when a person can take care of themselves alone. Though all-in-all this is an area of 'my morality' versus 'your morality' especially whether human beings engage in group bonding or are rugged individualists as a creature.
Published: May 9, 2007 8:51 AM
Keith
Very logical, but I think the setting of "birth" as the beginning of life or self-ownership (however you said it) is as arbitrary as setting a specific age for being an adult. Is induced labor or Caesarian section just another form of abortion, but where the child simply isn't deliberately killed? Is birth itself just a natural abortion?
I also think you dismiss the obligation or duty a mother has to a child ("contract") too lightly. If a pregnancy continues past a certain point, then I think a mother incurs a duty to the child.
All that being said, I still vote for giving a woman the choice. I'd rather trust her individual decision over that of so many politicians, bureaucrats or other "experts".
Fathers are a different topic.
Published: May 9, 2007 9:12 AM
Jay D
"The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."
Holy crap!
If anything, you have demonstrated, from reductio ad absurdum, that involuntary servitude is not universally unjust.
Published: May 9, 2007 9:15 AM
Bryan Edds
Involuntary servitude is absurd, not the other way around.
Published: May 9, 2007 10:16 AM
Jay D
"not the other way around"
I was once almost libertarian.
Published: May 9, 2007 11:17 AM
Jesus McGee
Jay D -
That some fact about reality is uncomfortable to you does not render it absurd. You needn't accept it of course, but that doesn't negate the fact of its reality.
You are free to think that reality can be shaped by your relativism and subjective wishes, but you won't get what you want in life by employing magical thinking. If anything, you empower those who enslave you and me. You can't change the world around you to your advantage if can't accept what the facts that shape it.
The choice to fail, of course, is your own.
Published: May 9, 2007 11:46 AM
Mike
So, we should be able to sentence others to summary execution because we find them to be a burden on ourselves? Should we be condemning people to death based on our subjective valuations?
Let's reframe this a bit. The mother can designate the unborn child an 'enemy combatant' and sentence him to death.
Rothbard fails miserably in his justification of abortion. He flops back and forth between assigning the child the value of personhood and the value of property. Disposing of your property is one thing. Taking a life is another.
Published: May 9, 2007 11:54 AM
Jonathan Bostwick
Mike,
Execution and neglect are not the same thing. I neglect virtually the entire world population, I've never killed anyone.
Published: May 9, 2007 12:04 PM
David White
The distinction Rothbard makes is between legality and morality. In a truly free (i.e., stateless) society, there would be no laws per se -- i.e., statutes passed by legislatures. Rather, there would be private, court-determined precedents set over time, the likelihood so far as childcare being that parents would be punished to one extent or another for abuses of one kind or another.
Thus is Rothbard right in that (statutory) laws should not be imposed is this (or any other) matter.
Published: May 9, 2007 12:09 PM
Mike
Ideas have consequences. This applies not only in one's personal life but also in the crafting of public policy. Once an idea is accepted in one policy, extensions of it can be applied to many other areas even though the logic is invalid.
When we prey upon the smallest and weakest among us, we are setting ourselves up for a big fall.
This same idea (abortion) can be carried over to the problem of dealing with the elderly who are no longer capable of taking care of themselves.
Even in the cases of rape and incest, it makes no sense to punish an innocent 3rd party (the baby) because of the crime of the father and/or the mother.
Published: May 9, 2007 12:12 PM
Gabriel
"Children's Rights versus Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty" for a short discussion.Published: May 9, 2007 12:16 PM
Jay D
"but you won't get what you want in life by employing magical thinking. If anything, you empower those who enslave you and me. You can't change the world around you to your advantage if can't accept what the facts that shape it."
I actually agree with you, Jesus. But the thing is: I. Don't. Care.
Not if it means the negligent parent is compelled by the law to feed his/her offspring.
Published: May 9, 2007 12:17 PM
JIMB
Unbelievable: Not only does Rothbard starts with a counter-factual, the entire structure of his argument is circular - the fight against statist evil can only be helped by this nonsense.
Rothbard starts with a lone man who cannot reproduce - clearly things did not *start* this way - to develop a morality *for civilization* (far beyond he scope of a 'lone man' or Crusoe / Friday analysis) and ends up by concluding 'no one owes anyone anything' (and in this case even if a *person* is born as a direct consequence of the actions of the parents).
Essential facts are simply ignored (such as the essential characteristics of *family* which have existed for 10,000 years) or deleted from the analysis in what can only be a multitude of logical and factual errors bigger than the NY Times could possibly dream of. Where is Mises going with this: that the *market* is God and children *should be* commodities?
This truly offends every good sense of justice and identification within men to protect and preserve innocent life and gives authority (i.e. no consequences) for committing evil to those inclined to do so. Can't imagine where this is going...
Published: May 9, 2007 12:17 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
Ideas do not have consequences. Actions do.
An unwanted child is punished by reality, laws can not make it wanted. As Rothbard said, laws against a baby market only worsen it's situation.
Published: May 9, 2007 12:17 PM
CM
In what sense "involuntary"? Are we talking about rape?
Published: May 9, 2007 12:29 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
Rothbard is not suggesting that is "good" that neglect happens, all he is saying is that is "bad" to pass a law against it.
Replys like, "But the thing is: I. Don't. Care." show that people do not wish to hold themselves to the same standard of "do no bad" that they seek to impose. The argument that one is not bound by the principle they impose belongs to statist.
Published: May 9, 2007 12:31 PM
Jesus McGee
If you don't accept reality,
You can't get what you want.
Don't get what you want.
Won't get what you want.
If you think the truth a fallacy,
You can't get what you want.
Don't get what you want.
Won't get what you want.
You're just a ship that's lost at sea.
You can't get what you want.
Don't get what you want.
Won't get what you want.
You'll self-destruct on your knees,
You can't get what you want.
Don't get what you want.
Won't get what you want.
And I'm glad!
Published: May 9, 2007 12:32 PM
David White
JIMB,
To quote Mises in Human Action:
"Society is concerted action, cooperation…the outcome of conscious and purposeful behavior. … Individual man is born into a socially organized environment. In this sense alone we may accept the saying that society is -- logically and historically -- antecedent to the individual. In every other sense this dictum is either empty or nonsensical. The individual lives and acts within society. But society is nothing but the combination of individuals for cooperative effort."
These are the "essential facts" from which Rothbard proceeds.
And again, the distinction he makes is between legality and morality, such that it is better for society, via court precedent, to determine the appropriateness of individual conduct and mete out punishment accordingly.
Published: May 9, 2007 12:40 PM
Nick Bradley
Rothbard's position could only be moral in Hoppean Anarchy.
In a totall free society, with an ultra-low time preference and private insurance firms providing security, Abortion would most likely be unacceptable (I didn't want to say illegal).
A woman who has an abortion, or a parent who abandons or neglects their child, would be ostricized by both society and their insurance company. An act of neglect so abhorrent would reflect very poorly on their "security credit score", that the individual would be uninsurable and would become an outcast.
Published: May 9, 2007 1:12 PM
Mike
Jonathan, actions proceed from ideas.
Just because a person is unwanted does not give someone else the right to kill that person.
should we just burn down all the orphanges with the orphans inside?
the issue is not whether the child is wanted. the issue is whether or not it is okay to kill an unborn child.
once you justify the killing of one human, you potentially open the door to justifying the killing of many humans. the basis for making this determination is a subjective preference and therefore cannot be universal.
Published: May 9, 2007 1:17 PM
Michael A. Clem
I don't get what you're saying, Mike. Are you saying that getting children moved from parents who don't want it to parents or guardians who do want it is "preying" on the helpless? Did you read the whole thing or are you just pulling particular sentences out of context?
Published: May 9, 2007 2:45 PM
David White
Nick Bradley,
Thank you for fleshing out what I was saying. And you are quite right that society would not allow such child abuse to go unpunished. Abortion would likely be nuanced according to circumstances, however. That is, some might protest aborting a deformed fetus, but court precedent could well render it acceptable, while an abortion arising from a merely "inconvenient" pregnancy could at the very least be socially stigmatizing if not punishable in some way.
Published: May 9, 2007 2:53 PM
Kenneth Mathews
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain ‘unalienable’ Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”----------------------
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. - George Washington -----------
Libertarians are often gleeful at the failures of conservatism, but are blind to the decline of libertarianism. Rothbard, a brilliant economist, and an otherwise great libertarian finds himself arguing for abortion (infanticide) rather than admit what the founding fathers of this country knew, (despite their failings) that LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS are the gifts of GOD. With the rejection of God come radical evils even out of the mouths of men who desire to do well. An otherwise honorable man here argues that a woman has no obligation to care for her own child even equating a unborn child to some loathsome parasite - this is either absolute madness or absolute evil. The requirements of liberty are best summarized in the Ten Commandments, particularly regarding abortion, ---Thou shalt not Murder. ----"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."—2 Corinthians 3:17.
Published: May 9, 2007 2:57 PM
Tom Rapheal
Kenneth, you are correct that neligence of a child is abhorable. However it is not immoral (does not force something on someone) but unvirtuous (in the extreme). I think that there should be a distinction between morality and virtue, with virtue being relative and morality unrealative. Only unrelative laws should be enforced.
Published: May 9, 2007 3:18 PM
David White
Sorry, Kenneth, but God is not great, and religion poisons everything:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807
Published: May 9, 2007 3:19 PM
Jason
I'm amazed at the people on here who agree with his comments... signing up for selling children, not feeding them, it's ridiculous. What about child pornography, I suppose with your warped ideas that would be acceptable (hey, it's not physical aggression, and they are my property).
The list of potential human abuses is unbelievable... children are humans, not property. It sickens me to realize there are people who appear otherwise rational who can adopt this line of thinking without taking a step back and realizing the path it heads on. (Or maybe,... some of them know the path and choose it anyway?)
Why do Libertarians have to throw out morality, common sense, all of human history when constructing a world view? Can't the market be a big part of the answer, but not the end-all-be-all answer for all the world's problems?
Published: May 9, 2007 3:42 PM
Kenneth Mathews
What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being's body? - (Rothbardian nonsense)
Surely a woman's children have the right to reside within her womb until birth. This is the way God designed mankind to "be fruitful and replenish the earth"
Mr. David White, Rebellion against God poisons everything. False religions, the corruption/misuse of the true religion, and atheism are just particularly destructive forms of rebellion. The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. Psalms 14:1
Tom Rapheal, To not care for your own child to the best of your ability is immoral and illegal. There is a law higher than the laws of men, the law of God. How joyful a burden it should be to love and care for your own children.
Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate. Ps 127:3-5
Published: May 9, 2007 3:49 PM
Johhny
Kenneth, you are correct that neligence of a child is abhorable. However it is not immoral (does not force something on someone)
Published: May 9, 2007 4:01 PM
Tom Rapheal
Jason, you are mistakenly extending unvirtue to unmoral. Also, markets are defined as the free association of people, do you want ufree association of people? There is no third way.
Published: May 9, 2007 4:03 PM
JIMB
D White - How about a fact - on the subject, in the context, and relevant to the discussion.
Rothbard has no facts. That is the point. Your quote is far off-topic as well.
"In every other sense this dictum (that of society preceding the individual) is either empty or nonsensical" (Mises is saying that individuals choose action as opposed to 'groups' choosing action - a completely different subject) THEREFORE (you say) there is no positive duty to children that should be enforced by the state.
No connection.
When hiking in the woods, if the urge should strike, leave the kid, or perhaps carve wood while he is drowning, especially if he's ugly or handicapped - because he won't fetch enough at the local child market to make it worth the drive into town. So you can sell 'em, 'em, abandon 'em, so you can make 'em work (abandonment is a pretty strong incentive) or do worse ... 'all non-violent' of course.
I can't imagine what Mises.org is trying to do with this kookiness. It kills all sorts of good articles put up.
After all, family social organizations are not just 'empty' they are an *essential* part of our nature world-wide which appears to be an observed fact of human existence ... while deriving an entire *ethics* off of 'Crusoe Island Econ 101' certainly doesn't qualify as anything remotely factual or logically supportable whatsoever.
There is not one child that is born an individual ... they fully rely - under the best circumstances - on their parents to be raised, and their future (and that of the rest of the society) depends on the success of that endevour.
Published: May 9, 2007 4:40 PM
David White
JIMB,
The Mises quote simply puts the individual in context, acknowledging the historical precedent without yielding to the existential one -- i.e., it is the individual who acts and is responsible accordingly. (And if the individual is not responsible, who is?)
Beyond that, you obviously haven't read, or refused to understand, what I've said above -- i.e., that Rothbard is distinguishing between legality and morality. You presume the state and thus (statutory) legality; I don't, hich is not to say that I don't espouse morality. I do.
You then presume that I therefore condone all manner of child abuse, which I clearly do not. Read . . . what . . . I . . . wrote.
Let's be clear: You are a statist who believes that (your) god operates in and through it. I'm not and believe, on the contrary, that this is the source of the vast majority of the evil in the world.
Published: May 9, 2007 5:17 PM
Gabriel
If you're interested in seeing the opposing viewpoint, read what libertarian Doris Gordon has to say about abortion and parental obligation:
http://l4l.org/library/congrecord.html
Mrs. Gordon is founder of Libertarians for Life. Incidentally, she is an atheist -- her viewpoint is not simply an attempt by some evangelical Christian to merge Biblical morality with libertarian philosophy.
Published: May 9, 2007 6:13 PM
David White
Gabriel,
The point is that abortion is an issue that reasonable people can disagree on and that society, however tortuously, can deal with without hard and fast laws handed down by the state.
That's all that Rothbard is saying, no matter how difficult it is for many on this thread to understand it.
Published: May 9, 2007 6:51 PM
Kenneth Mathews
Mrs. Gordon is founder of Libertarians for Life. Incidentally, she is an atheist -- her viewpoint is not simply an attempt by some evangelical Christian to merge Biblical morality with libertarian philosophy.
What if man's rejection of biblical morality is the very thing keeping man from liberty? I assume that the goal of libertarian philosophy is to understand the basis for liberty and to establish and maintain it. Mrs. Gordon's conscience brings her to the truth regarding the value of human life and liberty. I hope she continues to follow her conscience until she finds the Creator of the life and liberty she finds worth defending.
Published: May 9, 2007 6:55 PM
Gabriel
The impression I got from reading the article was that Rothbard was, in fact, saying more than that. Consider this quote: "Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children...." (emphasis added)
Mrs. Gordon, on the other hand, argues that parents do have an obligation to their children.
Am I misinterpreting Rothbard?
Published: May 9, 2007 7:04 PM
Gabriel
Let me add additional clarification:
If, as Rothbard states, parents have no legal obligation to take care of their children, then forcing them to do so is unjust regardless of who does the forcing (whether that be angry neighbors, the local priest, the government, etc.).
If, as Mrs. Gordon states, parents do have a legal obligation to take care of their children, then, if they fail to do so, it is entirely just for us to band together and force them to.
That is the difference that I see between Rothbard's and Mrs. Gordon's positions.
Published: May 9, 2007 7:12 PM
Kenneth Mathews
If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being's body? This is the NUB of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body.
The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.
Excerpt from "For a New Liberty" by Rothbard
Is this the LIBERTY of libertarians?
Can Liberty survive the rejection of "thou shalt not murder?"
Published: May 9, 2007 7:19 PM
CRC
Can Liberty survive the rejection of "thou shalt not murder?"
No.
I don't care what anyone (including Rothbard) says. Parent/child is a special case.
It is really that simple.
By bringing another person into existence you do have an obligation to that person until they are reasonably (I recognize the ambiguousness of this word...but, hey, we live in the real world, not the perfect constructions of an intellectual fantasy world) able to care and provide for themselves.
Published: May 9, 2007 7:35 PM
JIMB
David White - Rothbard is proposing a morality and legality - one in which prior action creates no enforceable obligation on the part of the actors to safeguard another human - in this case their own children. In my view that's not the way the world *is* nor is it the way it should be by any measure of justice. I don't want to be presumptuous, but do you really disagree?
Published: May 9, 2007 7:37 PM
Kevin B.
Gabriel,
You were correct when you said:
To force a parent to care for a child is to deny the parent's complete self-ownership. However, withdrawal of support is an option supported by the right of self-ownership.
It is interesting that even on this board there is an obvious failure to consider the effects of forcefully limiting others' rights of self-ownership. In this case, the children, whose care is forced upon others, are inevitably taught that the right to self-ownership is not absolute - that one may oppress others if it satisfies a highly valued desire. Is it any wonder, ourselves having been raised in such an environment, that the violations of others' rights are so often found acceptable in society today?
Published: May 9, 2007 7:37 PM
CRC
This fact (the parent's obligation to a child that s/he has created) is so stunningly obvious, it explains why it is that Rothbard gets totally wrapped around the axle with his tortured logic and constructions.
This chapter could have been far more simply written:
"People who's actions cause the creation of another person have a true, moral and legal obligation to care and provide for that person until the created person is reasonably able to care and provide for themselves. If the creating people do not properly and adequately care and provide for the created person, or otherwise abuse and neglect the created person, the state (or societal structures in proximity to these people) have a true, moral and legal obligation to intervene on behalf of the created person, up to and including the confiscation of property (by force) from the creating people in order to assist in caring and providing for the created person up to the time when the created person is able to reasonably care and provide for themselves. Now, on to chapter 15..."
Published: May 9, 2007 7:46 PM
Kenneth Mathews
It is interesting that even on this board there is an obvious failure to consider the effects of forcefully limiting others' rights of self-ownership. ~ Effects like children not being murdered/aborted but instead being born, growing up and enjoying the blessings of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness like us.
In this case, the children, whose care is forced upon others, are inevitably taught that the right to self-ownership is not absolute ~ Indeed they are taught that rights/liberties come with and are defined and ordered by our responsibilites to God.
Published: May 9, 2007 7:55 PM
Gabriel
What is the definition of murder?
If I shoot someone and he dies, is that murder? I believe everyone would agree that it is.
A slightly more controversial scenario: someone who cannot swim falls into deep water but manages to grab hold of my life preserver. The life preserver is my private property, and I resent the fact that this intruder is using it without my permission, so I take it from him. He drowns. Have I committed murder? I believe Rothbard would argue that, no, I have not. You, Kenneth, would probably argue that, yes, I have. What you would say, CRC? You said that the parent/child case is a special situation. Is this drowning-man scenario another special situation?
Published: May 9, 2007 7:58 PM
JIMB
Geez Kevin - To *force* a person to fulfill a contract (or to pay damages) is just as 'denying of self ownership' as saying they must care for (at least pay for) their own children but libertarians are OK with contracts and prior obligations, but apparently here - as long as it is a child - crimes of negligence don't matter. Listen to yourself. Kids are at the bottom and contracts are at the top?
This stuff is just getting worse by the minute.
Published: May 9, 2007 7:59 PM
JIMB
Gabriel- It's worse than that: you invite a guy to go flying then decide you don't like him so you parachute out and leave him in the plane ....
Published: May 9, 2007 8:09 PM
Kenneth Mathews
What is the definition of murder?
If I shoot someone and he dies, is that murder? I believe everyone would agree that it is.
A slightly more controversial scenario: someone who cannot swim falls into deep water but manages to grab hold of my life preserver. The life preserver is my private property, and I resent the fact that this intruder is using it without my permission, so I take it from him. He drowns. Have I committed murder? YES!!!!
-------------------------------------------------
Is this the REASONING of Libertarians?
Can LIBERTY survive when men (well-educated, libertarians no less) pretend that they don't know what murder is? In order to justify the murder/abortion of children.
The rejection of biblical morality results in the destruction of Life and Liberty. Would you like to defend liberty? then you must defend morality and the foundation of morality, the Bible.
Published: May 9, 2007 8:18 PM
Gabriel
It is important to remember that physical force per se is not unjust. Only the initiation (or threat of initiation) of physical force is unjust. Responding with force to an initiation of force or fraud against you is justified.
For example, if you sign a contract promising to give me ten ounces of gold on May 21st; and, come May 21st, you fail to deliver, I (or a person or group that I hire to act in my behalf) am justified in forcing you to fulfil your obligation to me.
With this in mind, it becomes apparent that forcing parents to care for their children may be just if the parents owe the children care, i.e. if they have an obligation to care for them.
Thus, the center issue becomes whether or not parents have an obligation to their children and not whether or not the parents are being forced to do something. Mrs. Gordon argues that, in fact, parents do owe their children care.
Published: May 9, 2007 8:19 PM
Gabriel
Kenneth, you are making several assumptions that I wish you would not make. I don't label myself as a libertarian (I don't label myself as anything right now). I did not state that I did not know what murder was. I simply asked you how you defined murder. Neither have I attempted to justify abortion or murder. You cannot find any statement of mine that attempts to justify either murder or abortion.
In the discussion here I have neither accepted nor rejected Biblical morality.
Published: May 9, 2007 8:29 PM
Kenneth Mathews
You have my apologizes Gabriel. I didn't intend to offend. Only to warn those who are libertarians or greatly sympathize with there cause that liberty is in decline because of the failures of both conservatism and libertarianism to understand the moral and spiritual requirements of Liberty.
Published: May 9, 2007 8:43 PM
Gabriel
Could you further elaborate on what the moral and spiritual requirements for liberty are? My understanding was that liberty was simply "freedom from force and fraud" which isn't all that spiritual. Are there additional requirements?
Perhaps you mean that the only way to truly reduce the amount of "force and fraud" in society is for the individuals that make up society to become the "new creations" of 1 Cor. 5:17. However, my interpretation of your post was that this was not what you were saying but rather you were indicating that liberty is composed of more than just the absence of "force and fraud."
Let me restate my question for clarity: are you saying that (1) in order for liberty (i.e. the absence of "force and fraud") to be sustained in society, people must be spiritually transformed? Or are you saying that (2) liberty consists of additional rights beyond just the absence of "force and fraud"?
If you are saying #2, then what additional rights do you posit that liberty consists of and how have you determined what those additional rights are?
Out of curiosity, what political label do you think fits you best (e.g. conservative, liberal, etc)?
Published: May 9, 2007 9:14 PM
Jim Tetzlaff
Sorry, What a bunch of horse-shit. I happen to agree with Roe v. Wade, a woman has just 3 month to decide- then she has an 18 year obligation to raise a child. A child is NOT disposable.
Semper Fidelis,
JimT
Published: May 9, 2007 9:14 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
"Can Liberty survive the rejection of 'thou shalt not murder?'"
Liberty can survive the abolition of all government created laws. In fact, Liberty does not begin until that has happened.
Published: May 9, 2007 9:27 PM
Kevin B.
JIMB,
Gabriel caught your misunderstanding of my comment when he pointed out:
My comment came from the position that the parents do not have a contract with the child just because they conceive. That is a potentially dangerous assumption.
Kenneth,
Hypothetically, if God created me, then is He obliged to care for me when I cannot care for myself?
Published: May 9, 2007 9:35 PM
Ted
What of this "special case" nonsense? The difficulty is precisely that *any* affording of parental duty by definition imposes on their self-ownership. If you ignore the distinction between what is legal and what is moral, then confusion results. But this distinction is central to Rothbard's entire position, so why is it *only* abortion/children that gets people so worked up? Anti-abortionists can do *anything at all* (short of aggression) to punish these evil abortionists --- what more do you want?!
Walter Block's recent abortion paper is fascinating, and seems to be quite distinct from Rothbard's view. I think it falls to the legal/moral distinction, but still, he argues it very well.
Published: May 9, 2007 9:50 PM
Lucas Taylor
I do not believe that anyone has a moral or ethical obligation to help someone else generally. However once a person voluntarily begins to help they cannot then discontinue their help and leave the person worse off than they were before. I think this is similar to the abortion issue. Once a women voluntarily becomes pregnant she then has an obligation not to leave the fetus/child worse off.
Another example might make my point better. If you invited your friend on your private plan to take a trip, you could not then revoke your invitation once you were 2000 feet in the air, despite the fact that the plane is your private property.
Published: May 9, 2007 10:19 PM
JIMB
Kevin - What are you arguing? That parents do or do not have this obligation?
In my view they do have that obligation: the parents have created another human being by their actions, and now cannot by negligence or neglect cause it's destruction. You can't dig a hole and let people fall in to their death no matter how much you might like hole-digging...
It's not passive: kids don't fly around in swarms at night and attach to people unawares.
Published: May 9, 2007 10:56 PM
JIMB
Gabriel - Doesn't have anything to do a free-floating obligation: it has to do with you neglecting to take proper care of another human when *you* have put them in that situation.
A market in children has some horribly perverse incentives ... many kids would be bought for profit and forced to work while making self-emancipation difficult or impossible else the kid would suffer "neglect" - you know, food, water, that stuff.
Strange men would pool their money to buy nice looking kids ....
This is why people can't take libertarianism seriously. What a deal killer. 98% good and we are reading the 1/3 of the 1/3 of the 1/3 nutcase garbage from Rothbard. I'd swear there's some sort of insanity going on ...
Published: May 10, 2007 12:03 AM
TLWP Sam
I agree with JIMB, taken without any qualifications this type of argument makes Libertarianism look hollow. It's a case of where it doesn't argue for harsh Socio-economic Darwinism, yet doesn't have much that would prevent it from becoming a reality either. The average philosophy of Libertarianism would inevitably reply, 'well bad people are going to do the wrong thing anyway, legal or not, whereas good people will do the right thing by others even when there are no laws'. If a person decided to engage in 'passive killing' we could only hope most people are decent and say 'you *(#@ing jerk I want nothing to do with you' rather than 'wow he must be a complete and utter #(*@wit to get himself caught up in a dangerous situation and deserved what he got'. But I suppose as long as everyone has guns'n'ammo everything's, in a theoretical Anarchist-Libertarianist society, is going to be all right.
Published: May 10, 2007 12:06 AM
Kevin B.
JIMB,
When you said:
You were arguing that parents have a quasi-contract with the children, correct?
When I said:
I meant that parents do not have any contract with their children. No contract, no obligation. Are there not two requirements to contract, agreement and consideration? To force others to action outside contract violates their personal property rights.
Self-ownership is the logical starting point.
Published: May 10, 2007 1:17 AM
Random Reader
hey, to the people that run mises.org:
Could I suggest adding a way to mod the posts here up/down... I read through this entire thread, and with a few clicks I could have potentially saved the next reader from the odd offense post, while pointing out the decisive posts on both sides of the argument.
Perhaps 5 'mod points' per unique IP address per thread to be spent as the reader pleases (with each post being out of 10 and starting at 5).
Published: May 10, 2007 7:28 AM
Consigliere
I propose a new method for the determination of moral/ethical/legal truth... WWDCD - What would Don Corleone do? Mother starves Don Corleone's grandchild... Bang! Bang!
Published: May 10, 2007 7:49 AM
Nick Bradley
David White,
I think that ostracizing is a simple, powerful way that civil society can use to create order out of chaos.
However, anti-discrimination laws and other tools of the state have rendered ostracization and outcasting virtually impossible.
I believe that in a free society, communities would be much smaller and decentralized; if such is the case, "shunning" tools would be much easier to use.
Published: May 10, 2007 7:55 AM
JIMB
Kevin - You've no contract with a hiker on a normally-used trail that is hit by a falling tree you cut because you neglected to post warnings of falling trees or rope it off yet *you* are responsible for such an injury, and twice so if you then refuse medical help. This is common sense.
If human life is a positive value, then reasonable care of other people *from an act of yours* is necessary; i.e. you are titanically negligent if by an act of yours you cause the death of others with can be reasonably forseen and prevented ...
"Self-ownership" begs the question as to what *right* you have to split apart cause and effect. This is basically changing the definition of a positive act, as any act can be split into 'action' and 'passivity'. You don't control the bullets (passivity) after they leave the gun you've fired (action), but yes you *are* responsible for injury and death if you shoot other non-violent people. Ditto for this subject.
Published: May 10, 2007 7:56 AM
bwp
Hi David White,
I love your writings. Probably the only reason I read these things is to see what you have to say.
Thanks.
Personally I think any one who is religious is incapable a free thinking because they have been indoctrinated, and usually from birth. Obviously some one's religion is dependent only on where in the world they were born and to whom. Unfortunately they often then go on to indoctrinate their own children.
Maybe that's real child abuse, depriving children of a free mind by forcing them to believe in some ancient mumbo jumbo.
Myself I believe a God exists, possibly even two, I just don't think these Gods are attached to any religion. Though anything is possible.
Nah.
Excerpt from http://www.primaryfundamentalright.org/pfrwhatis.html
"The Primary Fundamental Right recognizes that a fetus is part of the mother's body and she can sell it and have it aborted fully or partially at any time she wants. Once a child is breathing outside of the womb then from that point on they own their own body and cannot be sold, so any sale of a baby can only be for the caring of the living child or for the body of the dead fetus."
and....
"Being born safely and getting to the food is probably the first act of self responsibility every newborn has to perform. Probably nothing proves this more than the climb of the embryonic kangaroo 'joey' from the birth canal and up and across its mother's hairy stomach, to the teat inside her pouch."
and last...
"The Primary Fundamental Right removes 'duty of care' as ordered by the negligence laws which means even babies are responsible for their own bodies and cannot legally demand any form of support from their parents. Looking beautiful or crying a lot certainly seems to overcome this legal necessity for guaranteeing everyone's freedom. Their good looks, especially if only seen by their mother, leans towards proving the hypothesis of the existence of an innate self responsibility."
Published: May 10, 2007 8:27 AM
David White
JIMB,
"Rothbard is proposing a morality and legality - one in which prior action creates no enforceable obligation on the part of the actors to safeguard another human - in this case their own children. In my view that's not the way the world *is* nor is it the way it should be by any measure of justice. I don't want to be presumptuous, but do you really disagree?"
Once again, Rothbard is simply arguing against statutory law, leaving it to society to determine to what extent parents are obligated to care for their children. As with laws mandating education, the state has no business mandating childcare for the simple reason that the state has no business, period. For as Jonathan Bostwick said above, liberty begins where the state ends.
Lastly, what is your reply to Kevin B's question, i.e., if we are created by God, then what is his obligation to his creatures? If your reply is that because the first humans disobeyed him, he not only left us to our own devices but doomed us to death --allowing certain among us to return to his graces in an afterlife, while the vast majority must suffer for all eternity -- then what you are saying is that we have but one obligation: namely, to do this monster's bidding and, if we love our children, to see to it that they do his bidding as well.
But of course there is no liberty in this. On the contrary, we daily witness the atrocious, illiberal, and utterly insane behavior that attempts to do this monster's bidding results in. And insofar as this life only has meaning in the next one, it renders all earthly striving -- the build-up of human civilization -- meaningless, rendering liberty -- "the Mother, not the Daughter of Order" -- meaningless as well.
Published: May 10, 2007 8:36 AM
Keith
Wow! What a wonderful method for pulling latent statists out of the woodwork!
I think most of the posters tend to fall into two camps. Those wanting to debate legal or cultural details (e.g., when does a child become a person, what duties do parents have to a child, who gets to decide, etc.), and those wanting to make immediate judgments and make decrees.
Its quite enlightening.
Published: May 10, 2007 9:26 AM
TLWP Sam
Well bwp's response that presupposes a apparently mainstream Libertarians view that a human being as a creature that after birth, achieves the capacity to walk an hour later, grows to full height and strength in a matter of weeks and is an effective adult in a couple of months with little to no help from their parents.
More likely, Keith, when Libertarians go from ho-hum soft-core values (which can be shared with other groups, e.g. no to war = say Liberals, no to government = say Anaro-Socialists, no to welfare = say Conservatives) to their stand-alone unique hard-core values (such as this issue) do they draw the mark in the sand that kick out any Libertarian-leaning others.
Published: May 10, 2007 9:42 AM
JIMB
D White - And all this when Ron Paul is running and Mises.org and libertarian thinking is potentially on the front page ...
Talk about dumb.
Your post has again - no relevance at all - we are debating the proper sphere of state laws in this situation: killing a human by first taking a positive action, then neglecting to exercise reasonable, which is most definitely a 'proper sphere' of violent action, *whoever* does the defending.
I quote:
"This is basically changing the definition of a positive act, as any act can be split into 'action' and 'passivity'. You don't control the bullets (passivity) after they leave the gun you've fired (action), but yes you *are* responsible for injury and death if you shoot other non-violent people."
and
"If human life is a positive value, then reasonable care of other people *from an act of yours* is necessary; i.e. you are titanically negligent if by an act of yours you cause the death of others with can be reasonably forseen and prevented ..."
Published: May 10, 2007 10:17 AM
CRC
Keith,
Are you saying that if a person doesn't come down firmly with the Rothbardian view on this subject that they are suddenly an all out "statist". If so, that's a somewhat dogmatic stance wouldn't you say?
The situation being discussed is clearly different from any other social construction we can create. In no other circumstance is one person responsible, by their own actions, for the creation of another person. This simple fact demands a different treatment.
If the question is a matter of who should be responsible for the execution of justice and protection of person and liberty of yet to be born and otherwise defenseless created persons currently living within the body of a creating person, who would you suggest should be responsible for taking up the protection of the defenseless? If you are to say "society at large" or some such, couldn't you say that the state (in this case) is and can be a proxy for the "society at large" with a specific and delegated responsibility?
Finally, can someone holding this position (parental obligation to offspring) not be a "true" libertarian?
I am no statist (at least by a reasonable definition of that term), I am probably what might be termed a "minarchist". I like the ideal that Rothbard strives for, but it seems that reality, practicality and our basic humanity sometimes get in the way.
Finally, you (and others) might invoke the "slippery slope" argument. That is fine. But beware that the slipperly slope is also a fallacy in argumentation.
Published: May 10, 2007 10:28 AM
JIMB
Keith - Sounds like you made an 'immediate decree' of the time the posters have thought about this stuff with no facts to back it up; and it's also irrelevant to the truth or the falsity of the claims.
Claim: a person has no enforceable responsibility or obligation even if, by an act *on their part*, they put the victim in the situation, and then by neglecting care, cause the death of that person. Unbelievable.
Published: May 10, 2007 10:59 AM
David White
JIMB,
Ron Paul is being wilfully ignored by the mainstream media, and libertarianism isn't close to being discussed in a meaninful way by the media or the general public.
But in any case, since you refuse to acknowledge that Rothbard is not defending child neglect/abuse and is merely arguing against statutory laws mandating it, I don't know what else to say beyond the fact that your answer to my question about a creator god is conspicuous by its absence. Nor is the question off-topic, given that the present discussion stems from a book on liberty, the ethics of which are incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being.
Published: May 10, 2007 11:03 AM
JIMB
D white - Present discussion is the on proper realm of enforceable (state) action. I'd be glad to discuss religion another time ... but not sure you would be happy with that: "I don't know" is a clear and concise position on most of what you've asked for; if the challenge includes Chris Hutchins book (God is not Great), I couldn't take him seriously after seeing him on a 20 min interview.
I'll give you an example: Sceptic comes on a huge monument in the valley made by some unknown worshippers and tears it down. Things go fine for awhile and a city is built in the valley. Two years later the rainfall doubles and the villagers are swept away in the flood. It was a dam, built to the rain-god, but also serving a purpose.
*Before* a person can criticize properly, they must understand why things are (or were) the way they are (or were) and take seriously the context in which the thinking is made. After watching an interview with Chris on Bloomberg, I was impressed how he says that he understands *nothing* about religion (he speculates he "doesn't have the gene"); so I wonder if he isn't in the position of the Sceptic above. To be sure, there are many counter-factual and foolish beliefs, but why?
For the materialists (a lot of libertarians), they hold a contra-factual position being *prevented* by their philosophy from explaining any relationship between matter and mind; i.e. if mind is a state of matter, then how can anyone willfully cause their arm to move (an apparent fact) - after all, matter cannot spontaneously rearrange itself without some force. Hence the religious position (unseen spirits) isn't quite so non-factual as supposed; merely an extrapolation of observed facts (which science does all the time). Early and later civilizations suddently seem far more learned and advanced in philosophy in the context of their knowledge and environment.
Published: May 10, 2007 11:34 AM
Michael Hargett
In discussion of cases of morality there can be despicable wrongs that still do not rise to the level of violating natural law. I think, however, that people confuse the ideas of legal and social justice.
In legal justice if Smith imprisons Jones for his own pleasure, robbing Jones of his right to liberty, and Jones then starves to death in the cell, legal justice (that in line with natural law) would follow that the same is due Smith on behalf of those representing Jones by kin, kiss or contract. Smith could thereby be imprisoned and starved to death himself as repayment of his crime against Jones.
However, in the highly unlikely case of the immoral act of Smith not providing food to his children while himself dining and sustaining his own life, were one of his children to die he would unfortunately hold no legal responsibility for being a cold-hearted monster. No legal justice under natural law could affect him.
Social justice, on the other hand, could render Smith a dead man.
Were, say, Brown to find out about this circumstance and publicize it there is a high likelihood that those in the community would refuse to have transactions with Smith.
His employer would likely fire him, and nobody within the community would hire him, thus they would voluntarily starve him. Any other of his children, not legally bound to remain in his care, could leave freely to enter the arms of a sympathetic individual who would look after them.
Vendors might refuse to trade with him or would make his price of purchase far higher than that of the typical customer.
His cost of living skyrocketing as his prospects dwindled, Smith would either be required to move away (at a great loss because the notoriety of his actions would put the economic power in the hands of those with whom he transacted) or remain and have whatever wealth he retained dwindle rapidly.
This social justice would repay his moral evil.
Published: May 10, 2007 11:48 AM
David White
JIMB,
Leaving aside the God/liberty issue, then, the "proper realm of enforceable (state) action" is a misnomer in that action needn't be, and indeed shouldn't be, statist in order to be enforceable. On the contrary, because society is perfectly capable of governing itself without a territorial monopoly on the use of force, statutory laws -- which have metastasized out of all proportion and must continue to do so by the very nature of the legislative process -- cannot but become tyrannical. And of course they have.
As for child abuse/neglect, a free (stateless) society would doubtless consider it a form of aggression, court precedents punishing it according to its severity.
Published: May 10, 2007 11:50 AM
JIMB
David White - Still off-topic: the core questions are (1) whether an obligation exists and (2) whether it can be violently enforced (by anyone, including a state). Both answers are yes, by the arguments above.
Published: May 10, 2007 12:28 PM
JIMB
Michael - The question is whether this is murder or extreme damage to another person by a positive act on the part of the perpetrator(s). It is. Therefore it is subject to violent censure.
Imagine the lawsuit if at night you drove off the end of a road to a 100 ft drop because a private co didn't put up fair warning. Come on ... this is so far out of the zone of reasonable don't even know where to begin, except to say "that's why people can't take libertarianism seriously".
Published: May 10, 2007 12:39 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
Michael,
Amazing explanation of punishment fitting the crime. A violent offender being punished violently and a passive offender being punished passively.
Published: May 10, 2007 12:56 PM
David White
JIMB,
What a thick skull you have. If society deems parental child abuse/neglect to be aggression, then ipso facto it considers parental childcare obligatory. It just doesn't need the state to enforce it.
There is no mystery to this, as humanity bore witness to this long before the state came to be. And yet to you, the state must override the natural order.
What nonsense, especially from a Christian -- i.e., why do you blythely render unto Caesar?
Published: May 10, 2007 2:02 PM
JIMB
D White - You are in agreement there is an obligation thus it *can* be enforced, violently if necessary?
Published: May 10, 2007 3:03 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
No, 100 times over, No. Neglect can not be punished with violence because it is not violent.
Published: May 10, 2007 3:27 PM
Jordan
If parents have a moral obligation to care for their children, are we to ban adoption as well?
It is my understanding that Rothbard is claiming that children as potential self-owners posess certain inviolable rights that non-humans do not--that is, the right to not be aggressed against--such that any "market for babies" would only constitute a market for the caretaking-parental privileges and not some sort of "child-ownership market".
Neglect of a child would be seen as a forfeiture of cartaking privileges and these privileges could be taken over by whomever has the next-best claim (or, perhaps, the first person to claim it).
Rothbard's claim is that abortion--at least the removing of the fetus, up to and including death when necessary--does not constitute an aggression because the fetus, when not desired, is in violation with the mother's self-ownership rights. An analogy would be a home intruder, perhaps.
I personally have not decided my position on the issue. I find the airplane analogy intriguing, but what about people who take precautions to avoid pregnancy? Is copulation then analogous to inviting someone onto an airplane?
Published: May 10, 2007 3:44 PM
David White
OF COURSE there is a moral obligation not to neglect one's children. Call it an "offense of omission" or whatever, but to withhold food, clothing, or shelter from your child is surely an act of aggression against an innocent life for which you are primarily responsible, followed by family, friends, and the larger community.
The state is no more necessary in this regard than it is in any other facet of life.
Published: May 10, 2007 3:48 PM
Kevin B.
JIMB,
Owning oneself requires the right to unobstructed action. When interacting with others, our action is limited by their equal rights.
Your hiker scenario is easily judged, but, regardless, it is altogether different from the scenario of reproduction, etc., so that there is little relevance here. The same applies to your shooting scenario.
Let us set aside our emotions, so that logic dominates our judgement.
It is worthwhile to note that, when it comes to human interaction, there must be more than one actor involved. Let us simplify the situation by leaving out the father for a moment. Your claim of parental obligation between the mother and child begins with only one actor, the mother. The potential human does not exist until it is created. Does merely the act of creating a person obligate the creator to further action? How could it, unless there is prior agreement? Remember that we have free will, limited only by the equal rights of others. Obligation in this case entails the transfer of rights from one person to another without even implied prior agreement - theft! So if the parent is not obligated to care for the child, then is the parent still violating some inherent right the child has? We do not inherently have the right to take from others without permission to save our own lives, therefore the mother may stop caring for the child without preventing any action or violating any right of the child. The child has a right to life, but this right cannot violate the rights of others.
I agree with Michael Hargett that there would probably be limits to child neglect/abuse in a free society. Different communities would probably have different rules, but for the society to be truy free, then self-ownership must be absolute. In such societies, one would agree to rules on child neglect before they may be violently enforced, but withdrawal of services/support, unless there is prior agreement, is always an option.
Published: May 10, 2007 4:20 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
"The child has a right to life"
But you must be careful to phrase it as a negative right. The right to not be killed.
Published: May 10, 2007 4:31 PM
Kevin B.
Jordan,
For the airplane analogy to be more relevant, it would have to involve the creation a person once you are already in the air. They never agreed to come on board but merely appeared when you fly around. If people *popped* into existence on your plane, would you then have an obligation to perform action for them? Do they have the right to occupy your airplane?
Published: May 10, 2007 4:35 PM
Kenneth Mathews
Hello Gabriel, excellent and tough questions - only a portion answered below. Will try to compose strong answers to the rest later.
-----------------------------------------------
Gabriel asks:
Could you further elaborate on what the moral and spiritual requirements for liberty are? My understanding was that liberty was simply "freedom from force and fraud" which isn't all that spiritual. Are there additional requirements?
Liberty is not "freedom from force and fraud" but "freedom from evil men sucessfully using force and/or fraud to accomplish their evil goals. In this life we cannot escape all evil but it can be suppressed to low levels by the proper teaching and enforcement of just laws. A society that suppresses evil conduct by force (when appropriate) and, far more importantly, by diligently teaching each new generation the moral laws that God has given us - will be Free. A society that does not do these things will ultimately not be Free.
-------------------------------------------------
Gabriel asks:
Let me restate my question for clarity: are you saying that (1) in order for liberty (i.e. the absence of "force and fraud") to be sustained in society, people must be spiritually transformed?
Yes, men must be spiritually transformed. Liberty cannot survive if men reject basic morality. Try to concieve of a society that is reasonably free and stable over the long term if a majority or even a large minority reject say the Ten Commandments
Thou shalt have no other Gods/There is only one God all other gods are fantasies and lies of man. If man a sinful creature creates his own god he will create a god and laws to justify his primarily his own sinful and foolish desires.
No graven images/idols - See Above
No taking God's name in vain/ If a man does not respect and honor God how long will he obey the laws of God which are the foundation of liberty
Keeping the Sabbath Day/ A reminder to man that he is God's creation, and liberty is a blessing that comes from the Creator as natural outcome of obeying his laws
Thou shalt not murder/Right to life
Thou shalt not steal/Right to property
Thou shalt not commit adultery/Stability of marriage/family life
Thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury)/The establishment and maintainance of an uncorrupt judicial system
Thou shalt not covet (envying, malicious lusting after what belongs to someone else)/A moral guard against the "temptations" of Socialist/Communist/Welfare State propaganda
------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Asks:
Out of curiosity, what political label do you think fits you best (e.g. conservative, liberal, etc)?
I call myself a conservative but, I believe so-called fusionism is the right track. But any political philosophy that rejects God and argues and rebels against his laws is doomed to ultimate failure whether it be liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, communism , fusionism etc.
Published: May 10, 2007 5:01 PM
Kenneth Mathews
Gabriel forgot one: (Ten Commandments)
Honor thy mother and father/ family welfare and stability with mutual advantages to parents and children
Published: May 10, 2007 5:13 PM
David White
The right to life, liberty, and property assumes the ability to sustain the first via the second, which can only be accomplished via the acquisition of the third. As it is self-evident that (young) children to not have this ability, it is nonsense -- indeed, perniscious nonsense -- to suggest that those who brought them into this world do not have a moral obligation to care for them until they are able to care for themselves.
Yes, this becomes murkier when, for example, the emergent child (fetus) is known to be so deformed as to be incapable of ever taking care for itself on its own, but society is fully capable of making this determination, if not to the satisfaction of all, then at least to the satisfaction of enough for human civilization to not only perpetuate itself but to progress.
For those of us who believe this this world is THE world, we have no other option but to forge ahead in this manner, hoping that technology advances to the point that controversial issues like this become non-issues.
And as liberty is the means to this end, let me again quote one Vladimir Lenin on the subject:
"It is nonsense to make any pretense of reconciling the State and liberty."
Published: May 10, 2007 5:23 PM
Kevin B.
David,
Equal rights, not the whim of a group of people, must be capable of delivering the determination.
If it is wrong "to suggest that those who brought them into this world do not have a moral obligation to care for them until they are able to care for themselves," then the obligation in that earlier case would extend forever.
Of all the posts I've read in support of such an obligation, none have offered a logical foundation for such an obligation but merely emotionally self-serving tyranny and faith. Anyone?
Published: May 10, 2007 5:48 PM
David White
Kevin,
"Equal rights, not the whim of a group of people, must be capable of delivering the determination."
It's not whim, it's society's struggle to do the right thing under constantly changing circumstances. There was a time, after all, when the deformed were "neglected to death" for the simple reason that medical science didn't exist. Now it does; hence the journey into the womb to the point of ultasound and the like revealing ghaslty "mistakes." What to do? Do away with medical science and return to neglect?
Of course not. Today's problems can only be solved with tomorrow's solutions.
To believe in man is to believe in mind.
It is our only hope.
Published: May 10, 2007 6:28 PM
Kevin B.
David,
I don't advocate doing away with medical science, etc. Let's not be silly.
To do the right thing is not to violate others' rights. That is not the right thing.
Published: May 10, 2007 6:38 PM
JIMB
Kevin - You've got it all backwards. There is not an ounce of morality as a necessary conclusion from the fact that the mind controls voluntary body functions ("self-ownership").
But instead if we are to start anywhere, we start with *justice* and fair play. It is not self-ownership that makes good society possible, but *justice* because a just society allows more fully the expression of self-ownership which we wish to happen for everyone - including children. You cannot reverse the cause and effect and start acting as if "self-ownership" has any independent truth-force apart from justice.
On a practical basis, your claim is you can speed 100 mph through a town regardless of limits because you've not agreed that you won't; or in abstract terms, a person has *no* positive duty outside his own agreement to restrain his actions from hurting, killing, or maiming other persons.
My response: totally false. Philosophically, intellectually, logically, factually.
You don't get to choose what comes in the package, Kevin. You don't get to play God and renounce your culpability by intellectually divorcing cause and effect: the causes follow and are attached to the effects. You cause a human, you are definitely responsible *and should be* for that person.
[Maybe we should define "self-ownership" in favor of the child ... seems a tad biased here that adults with all the power get to define it in their favor: almost as if the child is sub-human...]
Published: May 10, 2007 7:18 PM
Maureen Trovato
Do any of you have children?
David- Rothbard sounds like the stunted Sicilian genius, Vizzini, in The Princess Bride when he tries to argue this topic.
JimB and Ken M - I like you
Here's the problem, David - Yes, Rothbard is only arguing "statutory" mandates so I can almost "see"
what he(you) means but he can't stop there. He must acknowledge that there is a source for moral mandates that govern our "other" behavior that isn't related to simply materialist judgements.
The truth is self-ownership is NOT absolute because you don't live in a vacuum. You do live in a "group", you will always live in a group unless you become a hermit, in which case you are exercising the most extreme form of liberty. So, who was it that said earlier that "You can't change the world around you to your advantage if can't accept what the facts that shape it." seems to me can't accept the fact that people who think religiously are a part of shaping the world, too. Rothbards' whole arguement goes awry when he doesn't accept this fact or at least acknowledge it! The whole argument becomes quite inane and absurd. A "baby market" ??? come onnnnn! You can't possibly have allowed yourself to be talked into that one. Where is your heart? There must be a blind spot right over it. You seem to forget that we are talking about killing an innocent baby to uphold what principle?
Published: May 10, 2007 7:49 PM
David White
Kevin,
All I'm saying is that since (young) children are incapable of acting on their rights, their parents are morally obligated to act on their behalf. Surely this is self-evident.
JIMB,
You're talking in circles again, as justice cannot be its own foundation but must proceed from principle. Self-ownership is either the foundational principle or it is not. If it is, then justice must serve it; if it is not, then justice must serve whatever the alternative is.
Do you have an alternative to self-ownership? If so, what is this alternative, and what are his/her/its obligations in this regard?
Published: May 10, 2007 8:01 PM
Michael Hargett
I am a Christian myself, well versed in scripture, and, while I am a firm believer in absolutism in the question of sin and the afterlife, on earth it is a different matter.
Anybody citing the Ten Commandments (why people only select the 10 rather than the 613 found in the Law of Moses as required by God is beyond me) need also remember that all sin demands a punishment of death.
If you believe the Bible...
(If you don't, feel free to ignore this)
The laws, while a currently a perfect standard for all mankind, were given originally to a divinely chosen people, Israel, for the purpose of carrying out the will of God with supernatural power, not human. (Note: According to the Bible all leaders of Israel were either led by the Spirit of God to success or by their own carnal desires to ultimate failure. Divine authority granted them leadership and decision making skills, be they prophet, priest, judge or king.)
Long story short: According to the Bible, they failed. God's chosen people failed to meet God's standard. They disobeyed and rejected God the Father, disobeyed and rejected God the Son, crucifying him, and disobeyed and rejected God the Spirit, unwittingly opening a new opportunity for Gentiles to encounter God on an individual basis rather than through the channel of Israel's Abrahamic promise and Mosaic law.
As such, the Bible shows that the divine authority granted them to enforce their laws in the name of God dissolved. God himself would be the arbiter of his own code.
Therefore, it is no longer appropriate to execute somebody for disobeying any of the ten commandments (or any of the full 613 commandments listed by God in the Bible).
What then remains? If people cannot be punished simply for breaking God's laws, instead awaiting their eternal reward in that case, what code can we exist by?
God will enforce his own commandments. Men, incapable of adhering to God's total law, and not entitled to enforce the law without having themselves either a full capacity to follow divine law wholly, or at least divine authority, resort to the only just law man can enforce: the natural law of self ownership.
Published: May 10, 2007 8:45 PM
averros
All this sorry anti-Rothbardian hoopla only goes to show that a lot of people think that "I don't like it" is a proper justification for sending in police or a mob to do violence to the unlikeable person.
One may not like how his neighbour cares (or does not care) about his children. That does not give him any RIGHT to go punish the transgressor for his neglect, "murder", etc. All you can do towards an unlikeable person is to refuse having any business with him - and to talk to others so they can choose for themselves if they wish to do the same.
Mind Your Own Business, folks, won't you?
Besides the problem with child neglecters, those who abort, etc, is self-correcting. They simply take their defective genes out of gene pool.
Published: May 10, 2007 8:46 PM
TLWP Sam
It was nice of averros to admit that Libertarianism ultimately invokes Social-Darwinism. Of course, Libertarianism is Economic-Darwinism, the most productive workers, business operators, investors, self-employed people get the most money and have the best life prospects. And, of course, I'm sure people would agree this works out for the best especially up until the last 100 - 150 years or so, people were the offspring of the best genes because there charity couldn't really be afforded in earlier times hence only the productive would have survived long enough to reproduce. However I s'pose the great problem, thanks to charity but mostly welfare, is that the worst humanity has to offer do now survive and reproduce. I'm sure we have heard about how in some situations parents on welfare are better off then some working parents. It seems thanks to Socialism the shit of humanity has risen to disproportionate levels and starting to take over and sidelining the honest, hardworking folk.
Published: May 10, 2007 9:22 PM
Michael Hargett
-BEGIN JIMB-
Michael - The question is whether this is murder or extreme damage to another person by a positive act on the part of the perpetrator(s). It is. Therefore it is subject to violent censure.
Imagine the lawsuit if at night you drove off the end of a road to a 100 ft drop because a private co didn't put up fair warning. Come on ... this is so far out of the zone of reasonable don't even know where to begin, except to say "that's why people can't take libertarianism seriously".
-END JIMB-
Put simply, JIMB, you're comparing apples and oranges. However, for the sake of those keeping track I will QUICKLY provide an answer to your riddle:
SCENARIO A:
MOTOCORP builds, owns and operates highways and permits drivers, by annual contract, to use their roads for A FEE. In the paperwork they include a clause on the topic of safety and guarantee that at all outages notices will be posted 2000 feet prior to any danger.
JONES, a customer of MOTOCORP, hops in his Ferrari and, late for his son's Water Polo championship takes a turn down Wickham Road. It's dark and there is no sign posted that Wickham Bridge is out. The Ferrari and JONES tumble end over end into Example Ravine.
MOTOCORP has not violated JONES' right to life, they have neglected to honor a contract and thereby owe the estate of JONES at minimum the price of a Ferrari and whatever dollar amount JONES himself was insured for with his life insurance company.
SCENARIO B:
ENGELS, who refuses to pay service fees to drive on roads because the road was meant to be free and the man can't keep him down, hops in his Jetta to get to the Sierra Club rally for promotion of global cooling.
While fumbling with his iPod, looking for his podcast of NPR's latest episode of "All Things Considered," he doesn't notice that the bridge on Wickham Street is out. No sign was posted, either.
What is owed to the estate of ENGELS? Nothing. As a matter of fact, the ENGELS estate owes MOTOCORP the cost of cleanup of his demolished car as well as the fees for unauthorized road usage.
SCENARIO C:
CHEEP-RODEZ builds, owns and operates low-quality roads at cut-rate prices. They only charge an average of 10 cents per mile while MOTOCORP charges $1.00 per mile for use of their roads. Still, not many people use CHEEP-RODEZ because they do not maintain their roads and make no guarantees about posting signage.
UNWITTINGUY gets in his 1998 Oldsmobile 88LS and, late for work, zooms down Oops Blvd. He tosses the fee in the basket, and the gate almost doesn't open, groaning under the weight of the arm.
He comes upon a traffic jam where all the lanes diminish to one because SLOWGOES Construction is building a new toll booth. He sees Yeehaw Avenue is open and turns down it only to find that Yeehaw was named for a reason, the bridge ends in a ramp. UNWITTINGUY goes to meet his maker.
In this scenario, as no contract was implied or stated there is no legal recourse on the part of either party. It is a mutual loss because UNWITTINGUY will not pay damages to CHEEP-RODEZ for the damage to their property and the estate of UNWITTINGUY will receive no damages from CHEEP-RODEZ for his loss of life and property.
I don't see the confusion.
Published: May 10, 2007 10:23 PM
Scott D
Currently, the price of adopting a child is zero, but with a high transaction cost. My heart is with the solution that would find better homes for thousands of children, while simultaneously providing children to thousands of desiring families. Eliminate the trivial objections, such as children sold into slavery (not permitted due to self-ownership principles), and all you have left is argument from emotion.
It is an astonishly elegant solution to the horrid inefficency and injustice of adoption, while at the same time being a strong deterrent for abortion. Who wants to pay to abort a fetus when you could bring the child to term and sell your child-rearing rights? People balk at this, saying that human life is too valuable to put a price on. If this were really an issue, shouldn't we be concerned that parents who choose adoption are giving away a life for free?
Good grief, money is not the root of all evil. Quite often, it can be the incentive for people to do great and wonderful things.
Published: May 10, 2007 10:44 PM
JIMB
David White - You will not get around the fact we are discussing fatality from a positive act on the part of some individuals against other(s).
As far as 'self-ownership', it is a non-concept in the sense you are using it. There is no morality implied by the fact that your mind controls your body's voluntary functions, and no morality can be derived from it.
I believe you are on the hook my friend, no matter how much you try to wriggle out of it.
Published: May 10, 2007 11:22 PM
JIMB
Michael - You've provided no argument. The example wasn't a riddle, it was an example of principals of common-law justice - and justice (in my view) leaves the mind of some libertarians as soon as they read what the Holy Lord Rothbard Hath Written .. Thank heavens libertarianism is broader than this stuff; but I've got to say again "this is why so many people won't take it seriously".
Published: May 10, 2007 11:44 PM
JIMB
Scott - Hardly a decent analysis when you read only one side of the balance sheet. There is a market in children ... ever check out what it is about?
A child market would be used as a profit center for illegal cross-border trade. Far from eliminating government, it would make enforcement more necessary, unless you don't care at all about the kids.
And if ever the price fell under the transaction cost for a time, mass numbers of unwanted children would be left to die.
Talk about destruction of the observable natural order. If you can't see that a woman and a man having their own children *is* the natural order given 10,000 years of human history, I am not sure what fact will convince you. Open your eyes.
Published: May 11, 2007 12:19 AM
JIMB
Averros - Ah yes, spoken like a true champion of individual liberty and justice to the helpless and innocent: "Besides the problem with child neglecters, those who abort, etc, is self-correcting. They simply take their defective genes out of gene pool."
Is that collectivist tripe I hear?
This kind of evil won't likely stay non-violent. My guess is within 2 generations it would break out and be 10x worse than the social problems the libertarians thought they were solving.
Published: May 11, 2007 12:27 AM
Jonathan Bostwick
JIMB,
I'm confused how you can accuse someone else of being a collectivist while in the process of imposing fiat collectivist justice.
Published: May 11, 2007 12:41 AM
TLWP Sam
Here's a link to a Libertarian article where the auhor would probably agree with averros:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner269.html
and it's interesting to see that this guy reckons that charity is bunk, that it's really private Socialism.
Published: May 11, 2007 1:41 AM
Scott D
So let's prohibit guns, too, since it's only the criminals who will buy those when their sales is made illegal.
Gun stores would be profit centers for black market arms dealers.
Again, this parallels gun control. A criminal who wants to sell children into slavery will do so, and would be breaking the law in either case.
You really do think that people are evil at heart, don't you?
So you do not believe that adoption itself is moral?
Published: May 11, 2007 7:37 AM
Keith
"Are you saying that if a person doesn't come down firmly with the Rothbardian view on this subject that they are suddenly an all out "statist". If so, that's a somewhat dogmatic stance wouldn't you say?"
No, I was making an observation that it appears that most people responding here trend toward one camp or the other (i.e., state set rules versus individually set rules). Rothbard has made a logical argument for his position. Many people have responded by quoting the bible or stating their own personal opinions, which they think others should be forced to follow. Other people have responded by discussing the details of the logic of the orginal argument (e.g., when does an embryo/fetus/child become a person with rights, what duties does a mother/parent have to a child, are these set points in time or do they change gradually over time, etc.).
As for the religous positions, I don't consider those to have one bit of logical support. They can be accepted as a cultural standard, but if you want me to accept the rules of your god, then prove to me he exists.
In the end I think we're arguing about what our culture will accept. Our culture already allows for murder in several situations (self defense, war, accident, state execution, etc.). If you consider abortion murder, then you need to be ready to defend it as an unacceptable kind of murder. If your argument isn't logical, then I probably won't be persuaded by it.
Published: May 11, 2007 7:45 AM
M-la-maudite
Interesting exchange - Breaking down my comments for the sake of readability…
Re/ why people don't take libertarianism seriously:
Depressingly, i think that people don't take libertarianism seriously precisely because of its strong commitment to freedom -nothing to do with Rothbard's position on children (especially, since hardly anybody outside of libertarian circles has read his work on the topic). By opposition, the majority of people in Europe and, i believe, in the US, are scared by a philosophy which is entirely resting on individual freedom. Said people value security over liberty, and are ready to trade-off any amount of the latter for a marginal increase in the former. They also resent criticism of established ideas and traditional institutions, which they deem conducing of more security; the state being the chief example of such a "public good", the enforcement of conventional morality on the unwilling another obvious one. Besides, libertarianism implies being personally responsible for one's own actions, which loads of folks would rather avoid. Terribly sad but (i fear) descriptively accurate.
Published: May 11, 2007 9:04 AM
M-la-maudite
Re/ Rothbard, self-ownership and abortion:
Rothbard's line on abortion is not that extra-ordinary at all. It comes logically from the application of the self-ownership principle to all, including women. Besides, it is a common line of defence shared by many feminist philosophers (e.g., Judith Jarvis, and McKinnon) and, therefore, not a specifically radical or exceptional claim. The main argument is that abortion is a form of self-defence against an alien body intruding into yours. If you’re the owner of your own body, you should be able to decide what or who is allowed into it, when, and for how long. The alternative deprives women from equal control over their own life and self.
Published: May 11, 2007 9:06 AM
M-la-maudite
Re/ children's rights and markets:
It's actually ALREADY happening today, on a regular basis, though obviously outside of the accepted legal frame. People in the third world who can't feed their kids otherwise sell a new born baby to Western couples who are not eligible for adoption. It's happening more and more in Europe nowadays. Since the state is having a monopoly on legal adoption networks, the system is not working at all anymore (like anything else managed on statist lines). So, many couples are no longer able to adopt; because they are not mainstream enough, aren't the minions of any politician, don't want to bribe the administration to get a kid, etc. As a result, a black-market in babies has developed. When there is offer, demand, and advantages for all involved parties (including, here, the babies), a market will eventually emerge. I don't see where exactly the problem lies.
Published: May 11, 2007 9:07 AM
M-la-maudite
Re/ the debate and logics:
I understand that some people might be deeply shocked by Rothbard’s views or more generally by libertarianism. Yet, this shouldn’t prevent anyone from arguing the question from rational premises and using logical arguments. Expressions of indignation, appeals to emotions, and reliance on the way a supernatural being is supposed to have created a supposedly natural order are neither rational nor logical. As such, they can be shared or not depending on one’s personal preferences and subjective opinions, they can’t be argued for or against.
Published: May 11, 2007 9:08 AM
M-la-maudite
Re/ coercion and morality:
As David already explained quite a few times, law is only the enforceable part of morality -not the whole of it. It is a common claim against libertarians and early liberals like J.S. Mill that they are indifferent to both social morality and human suffering. This criticism comes from a misunderstanding of the libertarian and classical liberal position on ethics.
The libertarian idea is that an ethics of non-interference and respect is the only legally enforceable part of morality. Namely, coercion is a wrong in itself and therefore only mandated to prevent further coercion; i.e., in cases of aggression or positive harming of another individual’s physical integrity, liberty or property. Nothing else justifies recourse to coercion because coercion is worse than anything else. In particular, state law and policies are always based on coercion, unless everyone in a given territory has decided to put together their private properties and to contract willingly (i.e., give their actual and informed consent) into a form of association or another. As such, states power (with the exception of pure consent-based associations) can’t be used to protect morality, because it is itself the most immoral of things.
However, this does not mean that people are not morally bound to take care of their (born) kids, or even to help people in need. Most libertarians would agree with a moral duty to raise your own children till they are old enough to care for themselves; quite a lot of us would even recognise that we have a moral duty to assist people in dire need, on grounds of humanity. Yet, those are moral duties that should neither become legal duties nor be sanctioned by state actions. You can refuse to interact with people if you’re disturbed by their immorality, you can try to give them advices or discuss with them so that they change their views and behave more morally, you can’t coerce them into it. Last, the ultimate punishment for a moral wrong is the wrong itself, the fact that you’re disconnected from appropriate morality and your life thereby looses some value.
Published: May 11, 2007 9:10 AM
M-la-maudite
Re/ the basics of libertarian philosophy:
I guess, it shouldn’t be necessary to go all over that here again. But it seems appropriate for a common discussion platform to agree on the key concept, since some posts were asking for a justification of libertarian principles. So, let’s give a (summary) try at it.
As already mentioned a few times by quite a few people, the concept of self-ownership is one of the traditional foundations of libertarian philosophy, especially of the natural law and rights variant to which Rothbard belongs. Self-ownership is a concept developed by John Locke (who incidentally was a Christian, as well as one of the founding fathers of liberalism). For a full and detailed defence of it, Locke himself is a good starting point. The core idea is (as the concept clearly conveys) that you own yourself and are thus your own master, sovereign, boss, etc. You control your body and your life, as it pleases you, as long as you don’t interfere with others’ ownership of their own self. Hence, an ethics of non-interference and respect.
A few alternative foundations for libertarianism and natural rights have been provided by liberal philosophers. A few classical examples are: autonomy; equal liberty; the distinctness or separateness of persons, and ensuing need to treat them as ends in themselves; the reflexivity of value; the possibility of engaging in action; the pursuit of personal projects; and the construction of one’s self, through a meaningful life plan. I can’t develop much more those points here but i’m ready to oblige on request and discuss them further -:)
Cheers, M-
Published: May 11, 2007 9:12 AM
TLWP Sam
Well, to M-la-maudite and others, I don't mind listen to Minarchist Libertarian talk inasmuchas such folk (RogerM?) seem to be concerned about society at large and looking towards the future with growing cities, whizz-bang technology, flying cars and stuff . . .
On the other hand, articles such as this keep giving me the image of Anarcho-Libertarian as survivalist hermit misanthropic nutcases who's dream is to have their own plot of land to work and a rifle to shoot dead anyone who dares trespass. Yet it seems lotsa Anarchos have a desire for the good life nonetheless and grit their teeth in dealing with other people in the ho-hum modern world.
And what's with this all-or-nothing approach with Anarchos? No third way crap? I either let my fingernails grow naturally or I rip 'em out? I can't sensibly clip them to a reasonable length? Either I abstain from alcohol or I become a roaring drunkard? Nope there's no thing as moderation? That to think having some government with some barebones functions automatically makes someone a filthy Stalinist Commie Wanker? I mean sheesh.
P.S.:
Q: How do you know if a person is a Libertarian-crank-virgin?
A: If their Hayek is intact.
Published: May 11, 2007 10:30 AM
Michael Hargett
JIMB
Morality has no part in laws of nature. It is sad and awful that babies are stillborn or develop horrible diseases and perish. It is also unfortunate that the laws of motion don't allow an airplane to stay aloft if a wing is knocked off by a meteor.
It is fascinating that only when human action enters the equation is morality applied to a law of nature, thus "negating" it.
The natural law of self-ownership states that I have a right to my own property.
If I don't give my property (food) to a starving child 500 feet from my front door I am unkind, but if I don't provide food to a starving child inside my home I am a criminal? I do not bar the child from leaving, nor do I bar anyone else from giving the child food.
Have I done anything more than not give my property as a gift to the child for consumption? By what right has the child any claim on my property other than by the priveliges and authorities I bestow?
It is illogical and immoral to have the subjective "common law" trump the objective natural laws. Just because it occurs and is presently in use doesn't make it right.
While I could pass legislation requiring that all babies and children live to 21 years of age and any who die do so at the responsibility of their parents, who will, in turn be executed. How can this law apply universally?
Published: May 11, 2007 10:49 AM
M-la-maudite
Hi TLWP,
Anarcho or not, I (for one) wouldn't mind the flying cars at all -:)
Now, kidding aside, minarchism or anarchism is for me mostly a question of degree and of the extend to which you push logical consistency. So, i actually don't mind at all people being more moderate than me on this issue, as long as they go for less coercion and state power. If you want more freedom and less government, we're on the same boat; if you don't, you're a whatever-you-wish-to-name-them statist. Period.
At the end of the day, anarchists are just self-coherent liberals (classical liberals, that is). Just compare for yourself: liberalism - the best government is that which governs the least; anarchism - the best government is that which doesn't govern at all. Same story, just takes the logical conclusion of shared premises!
PS: that was funny; and requires a pinch of Hayek, along the lines of the general discussion... - "if we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognise that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion".
I guess, that speaks for itself, M-
Published: May 11, 2007 1:23 PM
Kevin B.
TLWP Sam,
An-caps are either accused of having an all-or-nothing approach or of being sell-outs. It isn't surprising, since accusations are much easier to make than logical arguments.
As an an-cap, I have a goal. I'll either move toward it or be pushed away from it. If I hesitate to make a move, then it is because I am unsure whether the move would actually be profitable or not.
I tend to think of anarcho-capitalism to be the third way.
Published: May 11, 2007 2:03 PM
Kevin B.
Any method that increases liberty tends to be the "third way," libertarianism included. The first "two ways" are usually both the same thing - statism.
Published: May 11, 2007 2:48 PM
JIMB
Jonathan - The duty not to cause death to others by first a positive act then refusing care is hardly fiat. If those truths don't strike you as observable obvious clear fundamental facts of human nature worthy of enforcement, then there's no further discussion possible. Clearly libertarians have not renounced *violence*, they just want it applied abitrarily; this stuff isn't even consistent.
Again "this is why no one can take libertarianism seriously"... not to mention the "either with us or against us" mentality.
Published: May 11, 2007 3:40 PM
JIMB
Michael - You didn't refuse help, you *caused the situation* and THEN refused help, thus you are culpable.
The facts are clear. You appear not to like it because they convict anarcho-Libertarianism of it's utterly vacuous foundation and shocking counterfactual arguments. Don't get me wrong. traditional Libertarian arguments about other issues are not bad or wrong, but Rothbard took a really bad turn here.
Published: May 11, 2007 3:59 PM
Kevin B.
JIMB,
The point you haven't grasped is that to refuse care is not a positive act of aggression. To demand care is a positive act of aggression.
To commit acts of aggression when it suits you is arbitrary. JIMB, you say that it should be obvious that parents have an obligation to provide care, but without any reasoning it is just your opinion. It is "obvious" to some people that their religion is the *right* one, but I'll be damned if they've ever offered me more proof than the simple statement of their opinion.
I'm assuming that you agree to the non-aggression principle. I challenge you to offer logical reasoning in attempt to prove that refusing care is an act of aggression.
Published: May 11, 2007 4:05 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
JIMB,
"Jonathan - The duty not to cause death to others by first a positive act then refusing care is hardly fiat. If those truths don't strike you as observable obvious clear fundamental facts of human nature worthy of enforcement, then there's no further discussion possible. Clearly libertarians have not renounced *violence*, they just want it applied abitrarily; this stuff isn't even consistent.
Again "this is why no one can take libertarianism seriously"... not to mention the "either with us or against us" mentality."
Fiat is not a matter of content its something that is forced upon you. If it was true that something was an "obvious clear fundamental facts of human nature", it would not need fiat enforcement. It would enforced by liberty.
You don't believe this would be enforced in a state of liberty, so you must not believe in its status as "fundamental" human nature.
You keep mentioning that many people don't believe in liberty. Well, those people aren't here, which makes it hard for you to hide behind them. You'll have to come up with your own arguments.
Published: May 11, 2007 5:52 PM
Michael Hargett
JIMB,
Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion.
My wife and I have a child who turns out to be severely mentally and physically handicapped. He will never progress psychologically or intellectually beyond infancy and he will be entirely incapable of physical automotion. He is, however, hearty and healthy enough to live to be 90 years old in spite of these other restrictions.
He is incapable of asserting his rights to life, liberty or property. He is nothing more than a parasite who will drain both my wife and myself to nil on a physical, mental, financial and psychological level. I attempt to make him available for adoption and no takers emerge.
By your argument I "created this situation" and now what can I do with it? Do I have an obligation to care for this invalid until I die?
The religious right can spout off all day long about it making Baby Jesus cry, but it doesn't change the fact that I have no more obligation to a 30 year old infant than I do a 30 second old one.
The language is coarse, but the irrationality of the ethic cum law that you declare universally applicable needs to be placed under the harsh light of logic and reality.
Published: May 11, 2007 6:54 PM
JIMB
Jonathan - People that violate contracts, murder others, and don't fulfill obligations require 'fiat enforcement' so I guess we can throw out another attempt to spin this brand of anarcho-libertarianism into anything resembling coherence.
I suggest also you use regular language .Parsing YARAC (yet another redundant anarcho concept) isn't necessary.
Again: you put someone into a situation, when they've no choice in the matter, and then you remove their support so that they die, *you* are committing a crime against that person.
I trust you can see from the context "human nature" was meant as - the nature of being human as opposed to destroying our unique capacity for justice which makes us human and instead devolving into sub-human existence.
So, I'll repeat: "If those truths don't strike you as observable obvious clear fundamental facts of *justice* worthy of enforcement, then there's no further discussion possible". Your call...
Published: May 11, 2007 11:46 PM
JIMB
Michael - Oh and the Nazi's had a remarkable string of arguments along that line ...
You took the risk, too bad it didn't work out. Now you've zero right to end the life of someone else because *you* took that risk and *you* knew the score ahead of time.
And it IS universally applicable as *all people were children*. Duh.
There are people on this thread (I hope it is not really true) that appear so committed to this weirdo brand of libertarianism they refuse to acknowledge that ending the lives of human beings from a known *positive act* is evil.
Already you guys are rationalizing this new religion (true zealots, no matter *who* is hurt) and providing intellectual cover for evil.
Published: May 12, 2007 12:17 AM
JIMB
Kevin - You commit act A which places a person B completely relying on you, then you neglect person B so that he/she dies. How is that situation analagous to your example of 'demanding care' nonsense?
It is obvious to the point of stupidness if you can eliminate your prior acts from consideration you can commit any crime you want.
Example: Prior Act: You plant a bomb where the victim will walk. Next Act: you intentionally neglect to prevent the person from walking through the blast range and they die - hey, you're not responsible! After all the victim can't *demand* that you warn him or help him.
Like you couldn't have figured that out 100 posts earlier - you just don't want to. It's not the rest of us that "don't like" the implications of Rothbard's so-called logic, it is the libertarians that "don't like" the facts.
Published: May 12, 2007 12:44 AM
Jonathan Bostwick
"People that violate contracts, murder others, and don't fulfill obligations require 'fiat enforcement'"
No they don't! A contract by definition is not fiat, its freely entered. I need no government to tell me murder is wrong and no government is needed for it to enforced. Which brings us to "obligations", and since you've been unable to prove any "obligation" it seems your plea to human nature leaves us right where we started.
Published: May 12, 2007 1:33 AM
Jonathan Bostwick
"You took the risk, too bad it didn't work out. Now you've zero right to end the life of someone else because *you* took that risk and *you* knew the score ahead of time."
So children resulting from rape are not protected by your fiat justice because their parent did not choose them?
Maybe you've already forgotten what Rothbard wrote.
Published: May 12, 2007 1:36 AM
Michael Hargett
Jonathan Bostwick-
I think I already know JIMB's answer to your question, "Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the child has the misfortune of being the result of rape doesn't mean that he forfeits his right to life!"
Of course, this response completely negates his argument from before because his ultimate rationale was never "you made this bed, so now you have to lie in it." Instead it is "every life is God given and must be protected."
JIMB has and will continue to throw up disingenuous and dishonest smokescreens, but his central ethic is that any life incapable of sustaining itself must be sustained by those responsible.
This is good. Now we have cut through the fog and can see what notion to attack.
Published: May 12, 2007 7:02 AM
Michael Hargett
THE FOREVER CHILD
A baby is born as his poverty-stricken mother dies. The father is dead also. The infant is the last of his line; no other relatives exist.
He is a permanent invalid, so he will never be capable of self sustenance. If sustained for his whole life he can live to 75 years old. He will, however, be a Forever Child.
The midwife holds the infant aloft. Today she welcomes to the world a life. The feeling of renewal comforts her because she has lost her entire family and everything she owns. Her left arm tingles. She sets the infant down to massage her bicep. Her heart bursts and she dies suddenly.
The midwife is dead and with her anybody by kiss or kin capable of assuming ownership of her obligations.
The child has no family upon which to rely. There is no inheritance to provide for the child for the next 75 years.
No party is willing to adopt the child.
Who takes responsibility?
The moralist establishes the state at this point.
The moralist assigns collective guilt to all for not wanting to permanently invite this bundle of life into their homes. The moralist decrees that because this child has a right to life, free of neglect, he must take funds from everyone in order to care for the Forever Child (hereby stripping all of the right to property).
When no party comes forward to work for the moralist's orphanage, he decrees that everybody must work for the orphanage as "community service," taking turns in caring for the Forever Child (hereby stripping all of the right to liberty).
The moralist, for the good of one child's "absolute right" to non-neglect has now abridged everybody else's rights to liberty and property.
Ultimately, if anyone fails to comply with the mandates of the moralist and resists with enough resolve, he also forfeits his right to life.
Therefore, the moralist has no belief in the absolute right to life, in spite of what he says. His position is, therefore, immoral, creating a contradiction.
Published: May 12, 2007 7:53 AM
TLWP Sam
I quite like New Hampshire's honest motto, 'Live Free or Die'. Maybe in New New Hampshire their motto could 'Anyone Caught Not Living Free Gets Executed On The Spot'. Oh well. At least in Libertopia everyone gets to own a gun. Mega way sweet!
Published: May 12, 2007 8:43 AM
R. W. Wright
I'm starting to see a pattern. Are you always this incoherent?
Published: May 12, 2007 2:17 PM
TLWP Sam
Apparently tongue-in-cheek half-arsed humour doesn't carry to well in plain text R.W.W.
Published: May 12, 2007 10:45 PM
JIMB
Michael - I'll talk for myself thanks. (Its predicable, you've got everything backward including this: I would argue the *exact opposite* of what you assumed).
Write a story to yourself, looks like you've got a good start.
I'm out.
Published: May 13, 2007 12:12 PM
JIMB
Jonathan - In that case, the father is solely responsible for the child and should compensate the mother; the mother retains no responsibility for the child unless she accepts it (she has a period of time to decide after birth, if she carries the child to term).
Published: May 13, 2007 12:50 PM
JIMB
Jonathan - Shooting a person in the woods and 'leaving them to die' is just as murderous as shooting them dead between the eyes with an instant effect.
Except the first even is more reprehensible, because then you can excuse yourself from responsibility - just as you are trying to do here. If it is true that people organize groups for defense of their weaker members against invaders and internal evil, the prescription against killing by neglect *certainly* qualifies.
Published: May 13, 2007 1:19 PM
JIMB
Jonathan - "killing by neglect" should of course read "putting a person at your mercy without their choice and then killing them by neglect".
I don't believe anyone will change their minds, but I think other readers should know just how evil this is.
By now - if anyone is even left - everyone has got the point 10x times over.
Oh, and 'thanks' to Mises.org for putting up the worst of Rothbard; really helps the fight against the state and attracts what appears to be complete lunatics. I'd rather see some old-style conservatism -- you know, the stuff that ACTUALLY DID build a country, for all it's faults and missteps.
All the best ...
Published: May 13, 2007 1:30 PM
M-la-maudite
JIMB,
Mises.org is not "putting up the worst of Rothbard" but most of his writings online. They tend to be logically and properly argued. More specifically, from anarchist premises and logical deduction, there is nothing crazy in his conclusions in the article posted. It doesn't mean, of course, that you or anyone else needs to agree with them.
They are also representative of an analytical vision of the world and philosophy, anarcho-capitalism, in which a lot of people here believe. They obviously are NOT conservative, but anarchists or minarchists, and therefore won’t be convinced by blunt assumptions that conservatism is a better way or that anarchism is madness.
If you want to convince anybody here, you'll need to present some rational reasons for us to change our mind. Speaking of "evil" or calling people "lunatics" doesn't help your case: such mischaracterisation is not based on any rational argument, and it is just alienating everyone who believes in freedom from coercion and has tried to argue their own point in a civil manner.
On the substance, and for the Nth time, Rothbard doesn't claim (and neither does anybody else on this forum) that people should let their own kids die of hunger. He just says that it's none of the state's business, because the state shouldn't be in the business in the first place. Period. Essentially, THAT is what we're agreeing with.
Cheers, M-
Published: May 13, 2007 2:29 PM
Dave
What the heck is "old-style conservatism " and, how is it "the stuff that ACTUALLY DID build a country?" (Whatever THAT means)?
Also, I agree with M-la-maudite. Present a rational case and people will listen, call them lunatics and/or evil and you will be treated the same- which is exacly why I have not attempted to argue with you.
I am curious, however, about your answer to the questions I gave in the first paragraph.
Regards,
Dave
Published: May 13, 2007 3:51 PM
Dave
Oh, by the way, I was adressing JIMB in my prior post.
Published: May 13, 2007 3:53 PM
Bisaal
What does Rothbard mean by "extra-uterine fetus"
Published: May 14, 2007 4:19 AM
Michael Hargett
Extra-uterine fetus is an amusing euphemism for an infant incapable of self sustenance.
Published: May 14, 2007 6:14 AM
JIMB
Dave - You can review the arguments above. CTRL-F enter 'JIMB' and you can see my posts and replies. If you want to present something *new* by way of argument I might be inclined to discuss.
Good Luck
Published: May 14, 2007 1:00 PM
Reactionary
Thank you mises.org for again confirming that anarchists, to be true to their creed, must deconstruct even the nuclear family, an institution that pre-dates the state.
Like the Marxists, they can never be anything but permanent levellers of organic society.
Published: May 15, 2007 9:27 AM
EconAndre
Thanks everybody for this fascinating discussion. I'm a few days behind on my reading, but I will post anyway.
If God does not exist, anyone can do anything to anyone else. There is no responsibility. Every individual must make his own lonely reality. Check out Albert Camus and the existentialists.
Rather, whether they like it or not, parents (and everyone else--students with late homework...) need to "Take Responsibility for Their Excuses". This quote is from Dr. Jeff Meyers.
By the way, God does not need to give us any excuse because He is God, the Creator, the Sovereign Lord and Judge of the Universe, according to what He reveals about Himself in the Bible. Additionally, this sovereign Judge has offered to pay the damages of violation and aggression against human and property rights hanging over defendants for such acts as lying, stealing, murder, and even thinking in your mind of murdering someone. But the defendant is not free and declared innocent until he takes the deal. When he accepts the deal, the legal demands of the the law are satisfied, he gets to go free, overwhelmed by the Judge's mercy and grace, forever thankful to God, who Himself took the wrath. If the defendant rejects the deal, then he pays the price himself--forever.
For an intellectually rigorous treatment of abortion, preferences, and other philosophical issues, check out www.desiringgod.org.
Make it a great day!
Published: May 15, 2007 12:50 PM
JIMB
EconAndre - You choose to believe or not, which negates the assertion ...
re: "If God does not exist, anyone can do anything to anyone else [factually speaking, all sorts of evil *is* already done irrespective of belief or reality of God's existence]. There is no responsibility [not quite - we do know better and worse and we do have the ability to put ourselves "in someone's shoes"]. Every individual must make his own lonely reality [and since *you choose* what to believe about as-yet unknown things, that statement is true no matter what you believe]...."
No definitive answers present themselves - especially since if God wanted everyone to be able to take the deal, he'd make it clear he existed (although Christianity does handily solve the mind / matter and subjective / objective duality, doesn't it?). Don't get me wrong, I think the anti-God arguments are also seriously flawed and too easily accepted ("prove to me God exists" -- just *what* could qualify that couldn't be denied on the grounds that the phenomenon are as-yet-unexplained-but-not-God?)
On topic: Rothbard could have taken the straightforward view that a person placing another human at their mercy without the permission of the subject then killing the subject by neglect is a crime (duh) which it is and should be preventable by violent means.
Published: May 15, 2007 3:20 PM
RogerM
JIMB: "...if God wanted everyone to be able to take the deal, he'd make it clear he existed..."
And how could he make it any clearer than he has? The existence of the universe has always been his main proof, so men invented the "big bang". Next came the personality of mankind which always insisted on meaning and morality, so man invented evolution and psychology to explain those away. He revealed himself to certain people, but others called them liars. Finally, he sent his son, but people called him and his followers liars, too. So if you have any advice on how to convince people that God exists, I'm sure he would listen; at least I would. But the truth is, you can't convince people who rule out all possible forms of evidence before the argument begins. If science rules out miracles, the universe, and mankind as evidence of God, then what evidence would you suggest God use?
Published: May 15, 2007 4:58 PM
JIMB
RogerM - That was already covered in the post above. I take it you are on board with the sentiment that Rothbard is way off base here. I wish more had jumped in on that side. I would have liked to hear those arguments.
I sure liked Reactionary's brief and excellent comment.
Published: May 15, 2007 5:15 PM
JIMB
RogerM - One other thing - you havent made the case that Christianity is true and deism false ... hence the issue with 'God proving himself to every man'.
Published: May 15, 2007 5:46 PM
Kevin B.
RogerM,
I find it very easy to convince other people that I exist, and I'm only human.
JIMB: "Rothbard could have taken the straightforward view that a person placing another human at their mercy without the permission of the subject then killing the subject by neglect is a crime (duh) which it is and should be preventable by violent means."
Such a view lacks important logical steps to be a valid conclusion.
Is the act of creating another human a trespass? If not:
Given that the creator owns itself and that the created owns itself, how does a creator become obligated to care for its creation without the created violating the creator's self-ownership?
Published: May 15, 2007 5:50 PM
JIMB
Kevin - "Do unto others" is a more solid concept than what you propose. So are the basic principles of common-law justice, from which this argument was based.
Published: May 15, 2007 6:08 PM
Kevin B.
JIMB,
I thought you were trying to base your argument on logic. No wonder we disagree.
By the way, I do not see how a religious (faith-based) commandment could be considered a "more solid concept" except for my observation above.
Published: May 15, 2007 6:22 PM
JIMB
Kevin - So you declare (by what logic at all?)- that willingly putting another human at your mercy without their consent and then withdrawing your support so that they die *is not* a violent crime? You yank away the ladder as your buddy just starts climbing down from the roof where you sent him and then let "nature take its course" and then claim you *should be allowed* to remain free of violent punishment?
Or do you, as common law dictates by the known principles of justice and common sense (not to mention the many examples given) think that just maybe this stuff is way off-base. And have you read the comment by reactionary as well?
My suggestion is to give up on this part of Rothbard. He's dead wrong and libertarians in this case "just don't *like* the facts".
Published: May 15, 2007 6:38 PM
Kevin B.
JIMB,
To answer your question:
"...willingly putting another human at your mercy without their consent..."
In this case, the human had no rights until they are in my mercy. Placing them at my mercy is not therefore a violation of their rights.
"then withdrawing your support so that they die *is not* a violent crime"
You haven't offered a point of agreement between the new human and me, therefore I owe no support. If I have the right to withhold support, then the human's death is not a violation of its rights.
"You yank away the ladder as your buddy just starts climbing down from the roof where you sent him and then let "nature take its course" and then claim you *should be allowed* to remain free of violent punishment?"
Did my buddy exist before he was on the ladder? If I offer my buddy a ladder and he accepts, then perhaps we had an implied contract. Besides being irrelevant, your question possesses too many variables.
"Or do you...think that just maybe this stuff is way off-base."
I do not.
"have you read the comment by reactionary as well?"
Poo-poo.
'"just don't *like* the facts"'
Your best argument so far was "Do unto others." Faith = fact?
Published: May 15, 2007 7:01 PM
JIMB
Kevin - I don't expect you will change your mind in this exchange - I just hope someone else reading this will say "Yeah! That's right! Those anarcho's have lost it!"
Because they sure have.
After all, we are debating rules for society, not a lone Crusoe individual man on an island (way back in the first 10 posts ...). NO SOCIETY ever was continued by a single man for longer than one generation. Starting with a counterfactual, and reasoning from foolishness, we end up at lunacy.
You can't give the ladder and then pull it away and act as if 'you weren't at fault'. That's a violent act of murder - and if you can't see the obligation in this, then you are intentionally blind. Libertarianism will still be just fine, but Rothbard's brand is anything but sickness.
You have the last word. Take care to say something new. All the best.
Published: May 16, 2007 1:21 PM
JIMB
Kevin - Obviously should have read "Rothbard's brand is sickness ..."
Maybe I'll get lucky and read a real argument here ... but I have to let this thread go, so here's your chance to get me with a new one.
Published: May 16, 2007 1:26 PM
Kevin B.
JIMB: "You can't give the ladder and then pull it away and act as if 'you weren't at fault'. That's a violent act of murder - and if you can't see the obligation in this, then you are intentionally blind. Libertarianism will still be just fine, but Rothbard's brand is anything but sickness."
I already pointed out how your ladder scenario is irrelevant.
JIMB: "Maybe I'll get lucky and read a real argument..."
Kevin B: "You haven't offered a point of agreement between the new human and me..."
What kind of argument are you waiting for? What do you expect an argument against? You haven't offered any reasoning for obligation. I am obligated to care for my creation? Why? What is your basis? Put some measurable logic on this thread for once.
JIMB: "I don't expect you will change your mind in this exchange..."
That's the spirit.
Published: May 16, 2007 3:37 PM
TLWP Sam
But in all fairness isn't JIMB here trying to point out the danger of Dark Side Libertarianism? Namely that not-nice folk can, in a Libertarian society, legally engage in harmful behaviour to others yet wipe their hands of any responsibility on the grounds their involvement was 'too indirect'? I'm sure people could point elsewhere in, say religion, where a certain system has been a motivator for improvement in society when used by decent folk, yet has been a motivator for terrible crimes (though legal because they were doing 'the Lord's work') by the wrong folk and therefore rejected. Is is possible that there are grey areas where Libertarianism can be used for the wrong reasons and make other folks reject it for what they perceive would be the right reasons considering the misuse they see before them?
Published: May 17, 2007 5:53 AM
Kevin B.
TLWP Sam,
"Dark Side" libertarians? Happen to watch Star Wars recently? ;)
Seriously though, if your goal is to minimize human suffering, then you must maximize your recognition of self-ownership.
Would a parent be able to neglect a child? Perhaps I say, because although maximized rightful liberty may allow neglect, it also allows community neglect of the neglectful. It also allows the prior agreement of individuals to ban neglect amongst themselves. Show others the benefit of compromise, not the demand of obedience to your tyranny.
Wouldn't you agree that rightful liberty is a diametrical opposite of forced welfare?
Published: May 17, 2007 12:55 PM
Vince Daliessio
Folks, Rothbard's point is not that it is in any way OK to harm, starve, or otherwise deprive a child of life and basic support. His point is that the law is the WORST guarantor of this, and that private arrangements are the BEST. See this incident for proof that the state is the worst guarantor of the welfare of children;
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/20040213_childabuse_collingswood_report.html
In a similar vein, he is not arguing that abortion is good or desireable, but that the use of the law to prevent it violates more rights than it preserves.
In no way was Rothbard arguing FOR abortion or child neglect (or for the morality therof), but rather AGAINST state intervention in these two marginal areas, and anyone who argues the contrary is ignoring Rothbard's own words;
[2] What we are trying to establish here is not the morality of abortion (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion. What we are concerned with in this book is people's rights to do or not do various things, not whether they should or should not exercise such rights. Thus, we would argue that every person has the right to purchase and consume Coca-Cola from a willing seller, not that any person should or should not actually make such a purchase."
Allowing the state positive-law jurisdiction invites extreme abuses of the rights of all.
BTW, I was bowled over by this footnote;
"How should a 'right to be wanted' be defined and enforced? The necessarily broad and vague enforcement guidelines could recreate the hazard of current laws, again requiring the State to make broad discretionary judgments about the quality of a child's life." Hillary Rodham, "Children Under the Law," Harvard Educational Review (1973): 496.
Certainly a different conception of children and the law than Ms. Rodham holds today;
http://www.libertyguys.org/home/detail.asp?ArtID=1569
Published: May 23, 2007 12:19 AM
TLWP Sam
Are you sure Vince Daliessio?
" . . . But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." . . .
That article stated that a parent can't pro-actively harm their child but they neglect the child to his/her death.
Published: May 23, 2007 1:03 AM
esma
Not without my children
In the middle of civilized Europe, first decade of 21st century, mother and children being forcibly seperated. Children on a run, their only mistake to become baptized, Christians. German Government closing blind eyes. Who we are? Where are we going to? Is EU the same place that we been fighting for through ages?
Please visit this site and leave your comments. Every voice and opinion counts.
http://petition.germanasylum.de/WordPress/
Published: May 30, 2007 1:50 PM
gksinclair
To; M Rothbard,Article childrens Rights
My earlier comment didn'r have security code so I assume I have to re-write this. Since man was created & inhabited the earth there never was any question concerning the right of birth, the familyplace in society or parents obligations to children. As a christian and follower of Jesus who created man & the world these obligations followed natural progession as he laid them out.Your Secular humanist & sociaslist thought are in direct opposition to Jesus.Any body that promotes the murder of babies in the womb & advocates some goofy idea the mothers have a right to do so & says babies/fetus' are parasites has got to be intellectualy twisted & moraly bankrupt.I will not have anything further to do with libertarians, or Von Mises. May you never have any say in the affairs of men. GKSinclair
Published: June 3, 2007 5:35 PM
Jesse
gksinclair,
Was that meant to be satire? If so, it was fairly well done. It is indeed difficult to believe anyone could be so irrational. Sadly, some people actually "think" that way.
Published: June 4, 2007 10:43 AM
TLWP Sam
It was interesting to note there was a Simpsons episode about Rothbardian childrens rights. It was one of those Haloween episodes set in a fairy tale medieval period whereby the parents can't afford to feed Bart and Lisa so Homer ejects them from the family home into the woods. When Marge finds out she's angry about what he did and complained that he should sold them into slavery instead. Meanwhile Bart and Lisa, abandoned in the woods, actually come across the remains of their older siblings who likewise were abandoned! Fancy that.
Published: June 4, 2007 10:55 AM