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
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6607/children-and-rights/
Children and Rights
Previous post: Our Favorite Mafioso Killer
Next post: Working Paper on “Humanitarian Intervention”
{ 165 comments }
← Previous Comments
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.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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? Â…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
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.
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/
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
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.
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.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.