What should be done for a rights-violated child?

[stephen_speicher]

Objectivism is very clear about this: one person's misfortune does not create an obligation for anyone else to help them. It doesn't matter if it is a child ...

I have not read any of the other posts in this thread, so I do not know the full context, but I disagree with what is said here. All human beings have rights by virtue of being born, and by definition a child requires a custodian to protect and assist in exercising his rights. If the rights of that child are not being properly exercised by the custodian, the State has the obligation to intervene and protect the rights of that child. If that child has no custodian, whether through death or abandonment, likewise the State has the responsibility to protect the child's rights. Exactly how this is done is a matter of law, but I think the responbsibility towards the child is quite clear in a civilized society.

(Note that in most cases like this the child would undoubedly be cared for by private individuals or charities, but the protection of rights is the primary reason for a government, and a child requires a custodian for the protection and exercise of his rights.)

[Betsy]

How is it the proper function of government to look after orphans? Does a child have right to have a caregiver provided to them?

The government neither looks after an orphan nor becomes the orphan's caregiver. It simply ADMINISTERS the laws that protect the rights of children just as it administers other laws pertaining to the definition and protection of rights.

In this case, a government agency or court process determines who can and should be the new guardian of the child, whether it should be a temporary or permanent arrangement, etc.

A parent or guardian is a trustee for the child's rights until the child is old enough to exercise his rights without assistance. When the parental relationship ends before the child is of legal age, there are laws that define how his rights are to be protected. In this respect, it is similar to other laws dealing with the unplanned termination of other trustee relationships. A stock brokerage firm is holding my shares of stock for me. If they go out of business, there are laws that define what is my property and what happens to it.

[MisterSwig]

[Y]ou seem to be saying that it is actually bad that the government is helping orphans, but can tolerate it more than the government helping faith-based organizations. Am I reading wrong?

It is bad that the government is forcing you to finance a lot of government services. Government services should be voluntarily financed, whether they are a proper purpose of government or not.

With that said, I believe that it is good to help innocent orphans. It is good to do a lot of different things. But not everything that is good to do is a proper purpose of government.

I remain unconvinced that [orphans] don't have a right to a caregiver.

What makes you suspect they do?

A right is not a claim on someone else's life.

[Oakes]

In this case, a government agency or court process determines who can and should be the new guardian of the child, whether it should be a temporary or permanent arrangement, etc.

But in this thread, we are talking about the situation where nobody is willing to take care of the child.

What makes you suspect they do?

Because of what I said before: Children, by nature, are dependent on adults to survive. Therefore, lack of care is an initiation of force. Therefore, the government must protect the rights of abused/neglected/orphaned children by providing them with care.

A right is not a claim on someone else's life.

It wouldn't be a claim on someone else's life, because nobody is being forced to care for the child, nor is anyone being forced to pay for the care (because taxation is voluntary).

[Inspector]

Forcing someone to kill someone else is an initiation of force. Killing someone is also an initiation of force. Both people are intitiating force. Only the first, however, is legally responsible.

No, I am fairly certain that the person who is under threat is NOT initiating force. The force has ALREADY been initiated by the original actor and it remains in play. The person who is being coerced is not INITIATING force. He is USING it, but not INITIATING it.

In either case, of course that person is not responsible for that action.

[Godless Capitalist]

I have not read any of the other posts in this thread, so I do not know the full context, but I disagree with what is said here. All human beings have rights by virtue of being born, and by definition a child requires a custodian to protect and assist in exercising his rights. If the rights of that child are not being properly exercised by the custodian, the State has the obligation to intervene and protect the rights of that child. If that child has no custodian, whether through death or abandonment, likewise the State has the responsibility to protect the child's rights. Exactly how this is done is a matter of law, but I think the responbsibility towards the child is quite clear in a civilized society.

(Note that in most cases like this the child would undoubedly be cared for by private individuals or charities, but the protection of rights is the primary reason for a government, and a child requires a custodian for the protection and exercise of his rights.)

I'm not following this. What rights do you think a child has aside from those an adult has? Certainly the parents who created the child incur an obligation to care for the child until s/he is an adult. I suppose that could be called an additional right. I do not see, however, how that obligation/right applies to anyone other than the parents. Why do you think anyone else has a responsibility toward the child?

[Godless Capitalist]

Because of what I said before: Children, by nature, are dependent on adults to survive. Therefore, lack of care is an initiation of force. Therefore, the government must protect the rights of abused/neglected/orphaned children by providing them with care.

Lots of other people are also dependent on others to survive: the seriously physically and mentally disabled, the very old, etc. Objectivism doesn't consider them to have a right to be provided with care.

A right is not a claim on someone else's life.

It wouldn't be a claim on someone else's life, because nobody is being forced to care for the child, nor is anyone being forced to pay for the care (because taxation is voluntary).

It's still not a proper function of government, though, regardless of how it is paid for. If you pay your taxes expecting them to be spent on national defense but instead they are spent helping orphans, you are not getting what you paid for.

Or do you propose a separate "orphan tax" specifically for that purpose? If so, there is no need for government involvement at all; just donate the money to a private charity that helps orphans.

[MisterSwig]

Children, by nature, are dependent on adults to survive. Therefore, lack of care is an initiation of force. Therefore, the government must protect the rights of abused/neglected/orphaned children by providing them with care.

I'm confused by your argument. How are you linking the premise of "dependency" to the conclusion of a child's right to a caregiver? And in what context is "lack of care" an "initiation of force"? Are you suggesting that anyone who does not care for an orphan is initiating force against that orphan?

It wouldn't be a claim on someone else's life, because nobody is being forced to care for the child, nor is anyone being forced to pay for the care (because taxation is voluntary).

Are you simply saying that an orphan has a right to care, if he can get it through voluntary means? Just as someone has a right to property, if he can get it through voluntary means?

If that is what you are saying, then the government is not obligated to provide a caregiver to an orphan, just as the government is not obligated to provide a home to the homeless.

It is actually the right of others to help or not help orphans. And if a group of citizens want to set up some sort of state-managed orphanage, voluntarily financed, then I think that is a decent idea (though not a proper purpose of government). I seriously doubt state orphanages would be necessary in a capitalist society, though. I'm sure private charities or businesses could do the job.

[stephen_speicher]

I'm not following this. What rights do you think a child has aside from those an adult has?

Since, by definition, a child cannot survive independently, he has a right to be cared for and educated by his parents or guardians so that he can assume adult responsibility for himself.

Certainly the parents who created the child incur an obligation to care for the child until s/he is an adult. I suppose that could be called an additional right. I do not see, however, how that obligation/right applies to anyone other than the parents. Why do you think anyone else has a responsibility toward the child?

I thought I explained this in the above. In short, the main purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, and if the parent or guardian who acts as the custodian of the child's rights does not properly exercise those rights, the State should intervene to protect the child's rights since the child cannot exercise those rights himself.

[Godless Capitalist]

Since, by definition, a child cannot survive independently, he has a right to be cared for and educated by his parents or guardians so that he can assume adult responsibility for himself.

The key here is "by his parents or guardians." The "parents or guardians" voluntarily agree to take responsibility to care for the child. The child has a right to expect that care, but only from those specific people, not from other individuals or the government. The child's dependence as such does not create a general right to care, any more than a severely disabled person's dependence creates a general right to care.

To me this is similar to my entering into a business contract. Suppose I agree to sell someone a book. They mail me a check, which I cash and spend. I head off to the post office to mail them the book, but on the way I get into a car crash. I am killed and the book is destroyed. I am not able to fulfil my obligation to the book buyer, but his only recourse is against my estate, not other individuals or the government. His right to the book he paid for is enforcable only against me, so if I cannot hold up my end of the deal there is nothing else he can do.

[stephen_speicher]

The key here is "by his parents or guardians." The "parents or guardians" voluntarily agree to take responsibility to care for the child. The child has a right to expect that care, but only from those specific people, not from other individuals or the government. The child's dependence as such does not create a general right to care, any more than a severely disabled person's dependence creates a general right to care.

Let's concretize this. Shots are heard and the police are called. The police discover that a man and a woman were robbed and shot dead, leaving their two month-old baby. There are no relatives, friends, neighbors, strangers, etc. who claim the baby. Does the policeman, qua agent of the government, leave the unwanted child in the crib to die, or does he protect the right to life of the child?

[Betsy]

But in this thread, we are talking about the situation where nobody is willing to take care of the child.

That is not going to happen in a free country. Children are a great value to a great many people. (There's even a long waiting list to adopt retarded children.)

But assuming, for argument, that nobody would be willing, then it is safe to assume that the child himself would be willing to pay for his own care. The state would find suitable guardians and pay them for child care and, when the child is grown, the grown child would reimburse the costs.

[Godless Capitalist]

Betsy, I don't think that would be a proper function of government. The government could not require the orphan to later reimburse the costs, since the orphan did not voluntarily enter into an agreement to do so. (It would be like my parents insisting I pay them back all the money they spent raising me. If they asked for money I would give it to them, but I could not be required to do so.) Since the government would be spending money supporting orphans with no assurance of being repaid, it would essentially running a welfare program.

Let's concretize this. Shots are heard and the police are called. The police discover that a man and a woman were robbed and shot dead, leaving their two month-old baby. There are no relatives, friends, neighbors, strangers, etc. who claim the baby. Does the policeman, qua agent of the government, leave the unwanted child in the crib to die, or does he protect the right to life of the child?

According to my understanding of Objectivism, if nobody volunteers to care for the child it would left to die (hopefully someone would at least euthanize it so it would not suffer). The orphan's needs do not impose an obligation on anyone else to care for it; that would be altruism.

[Betsy]

Betsy, I don't think that would be a proper function of government. The government could not require the orphan to later reimburse the costs, since the orphan did not voluntarily enter into an agreement to do so.

That's right. It would be up to the orphan, but let's keep the context.

In a free capitalist country, this would hardly ever happen. Justice leads to the rational valuing of innocent children and the desire on the part of almost everyone to see that children don't suffer unjustly. In addition, many people value being parents. There are far more would-be parents than there are adoptable children. Even in earlier times, when we were less prosperous and healthy than we are now and there were many more orphans, charities voluntarily took up the slack.

[Inspector]

Does the policeman, qua agent of the government, leave the unwanted child in the crib to die, or does he protect the right to life of the child?

(emphasis mine)

Concretize this please. What will the government do, specifically? Who will pay for it?

[stephen_speicher]

According to my understanding of Objectivism, if nobody volunteers to care for the child it would left to die (hopefully someone would at least euthanize it so it would not suffer). The orphan's needs do not impose an obligation on anyone else to care for it; that would be altruism.

You are neglecting the distinction I have repeatedly made. It is not the "needs" of the child per se that is the issue, but rather the child's rights. An adult in need remains responsible for his own life, but, by definition, a child requires a guardian to protect his right to life.

[Inspector]

You are neglecting the distinction I have repeatedly made. It is not the "needs" of the child per se that is the issue, but rather the child's rights. An adult in need remains responsible for his own life, but, by definition, a child requires a guardian to protect his right to life.

Please reconcile this statement with the one that "there can be no such thing as the right to violate rights." Since a guardian must provide material, and if he does so by the child's RIGHT, then that means the the child has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor.

I'm obviosly missing something in your reasoning here Stephen, since I know you would not support such a position.

[stephen_speicher]

Concretize this please. What will the government do, specifically? Who will pay for it?

As I said in an earlier post, the specifics of how it is done would be a matter of law, but the principle involved is the protection of individual rights. We provide facilities to house criminals on the principle of the protection of individual rights. Likewise we should provide facilities for the insane on the same principle. And likewise we protect the right to life of a child who, by definition, requires a guardian to properly exercise this right.

(I am using "facilities" to stand for the idea. Whether the government actually provides the facilities or contracts it out is a detail for the philosophy of law. Likewise the means for protecting the child's right to life. But note that this latter would be such a rare occurrence since private individuals and charities would undoubtedly usually resolve the issue.)

[stephen_speicher]

Please reconcile this statement with the one that "there can be no such thing as the right to violate rights." Since a guardian must provide material, and if he does so by the child's RIGHT, then that means the the child has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor.

Did you forget that in a proper society financial support for the government is voluntary? Besides, your reasoning makes no sense. The same bad argument could be made about criminals. "Since [incarcerating a criminal] must provide material, and if [the incarceration] does so by ... RIGHT, then that means the [incarceration of a criminal] has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor."

[Inspector]

Did you forget that in a proper society financial support for the government is voluntary?

No, and while that mitigates the issue, it does not resolve it. If that made everything okay, then you could have a welfare state! Obviously not!

"Since [incarcerating a criminal]must provide material, and if [the incarceration] does so by ... RIGHT, then that means the [incarceration of a criminal] has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor."

Where on earth did you get the idea that incarcerated criminals would not pay for themselves?!? YES that WOULD be a violation of my rights!

[Godless Capitalist]

You are neglecting the distinction I have repeatedly made. It is not the "needs" of the child per se that is the issue, but rather the child's rights. An adult in need remains responsible for his own life, but, by definition, a child requires a guardian to protect his right to life.

I don't see where you have established that a child has a right to have his needs provided for by anyone except the parents. To concretize this, does the "right" of A. Orphan to life make it acceptable for the government to put a gun to the head of myself, G. Capitalist, and demand that I hand over some amount of money to be used to support A. Orphan's life?

Just saying that everything will be voluntary does not solve the problem. First, I do not accept that it is a proper function of government to look after orphans. Secondly, what if not enough money was donated? (Similarily with criminals etc. If not enough money was donated we might have a very poor police system and some criminals might have to be let free.)

By the way, I do agree with Betsy and Stephen that this unlikely to be a real issue in an Objectivist society. It does illuminate the wider issue of the nature of the rights of children, though. I am surprised at Stephen's position, so I really would like to know which of us is mistaken and why.

[stephen_speicher]

Where on earth did you get the idea that incarcerated criminals would not pay for themselves?!? YES that WOULD be a violation of my rights!

Oh, I see. So if the criminals did not earn enough to keep up the whole prison system then your rights would be violated. Are your rights also violated if the police and the military do not pay for themselves?

[Inspector]

Oh, I see. So if the criminals did not earn enough to keep up the whole prison system then your rights would be violated. Are your rights also violated if the police and the military do not pay for themselves?

Alright, point taken. But the criminals SHOULD properly pay for themselves... if they do not, it will be via accident rather than design, and yes, I think that would constitute the criminal violating rights, if he left the state a bill for his care (like for example if he were to hang himself).

If the criminal refused to pay then the state could simply add bills to his "account" or decrease the quality of his care.

Anyway, if you are right, then you should not need to explain this to me in terms of criminals and prisons. How does the child having a right to be cared for not violate my right to own and dispose of the products of my labor?

[stephen_speicher]

I don't see where you have established that a child has a right to have his needs provided for by anyone except the parents.

I don't see where you have addressed the argument that I made. I argued that a child has a right to his own life and all of the rights that follow from that, and, by definition, a child requires a guardian as custodian for those rights because he unable to exercise them on his own. Since the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, the means of protecting the individual rights of the child who has no guardian is to act as the guardian in some form, the details of which should be provided by law. Now, you may disagree with this, and you may even be right, but you have not made a rebuttal to my actual argument.

[Inspector]

I don't see where you have addressed the argument that I made. I argued that a child has a right to his own life and all of the rights that follow from that, and, by definition, a child requires a guardian as custodian for those rights because he unable to exercise them on his own. Since the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, the means of protecting the individual rights of the child who has no guardian is to act as the guardian in some form, the details of which should be provided by law. Now, you may disagree with this, and you may even be right, but you have not made a rebuttal to my actual argument.

I believe that I have an answer to this, if I could step in?