What should be done for a rights-violated child?

[Godless Capitalist]

After seven days and a dozen posts of a clearly explicated position, and you are now asking me what I am saying now, when what I am saying is just the same as what I said when I started?

I'm trying to make sure I understand your position, because no matter how clearly explicated you think it is, it is not clear to me. Why don't you answer my latest questions?

I think I'm done for now.

This has been an interesting thread. Personally, I am not convinced by my own arguments, but the objections raised have all been peripheral and have not directly addressed the core of my argument. Perhaps some other time. 

I'm feeling somewhat the same way, although I am convinced of my own arguments. I have expressed the core of my argument several times and not gotten a satisfactory rebuttal.

[Oakes]

But once again the key here is that the obligation to the child was created by the parents only;

Yes, but when the parents don't fulfill their obligation, the government must intervene and provide the care that the child was denied (otherwise there's no point in intervening). I can understand, though, why you are having issues with this. Childhood is the only situation in which one has positive rights, and for the government to protect positive rights, it might have to engage in positive action (childcare).

it does not create a general obligation of everyone else to care for the child in the same sense that an adult's right to life creates a general obligation upon everyone not to kill him.

A positive right is not a general obligation on the populous; it is an obligation on the government. Like I said to Duncan, you have no obligation to give your money to the government in a capitalist society, therefore neither you nor anybody else is specifically obligated to care for the child.

Why don't you answer my latest questions?

I don't pretend to speak for stephen, but I've answered most of those already. I told you what would happen if there isn't enough money donated to cover the cost of childcare (click), I've said on several occaisons who violated the orphans' rights (click, click), and I've also explained several times (including the previous quote) why positive rights in a capitalist society do not mean you are obliged to give up your property.

[Betsy]

But does he have a right to that guardian? If so, that would be a positive right (rather than a negative right like the right not to be killed). No?

Actually, a child has the right to be cared for by a suitable adult who freely chooses to be its guardian. When a child is suddenly orphaned, just who that willing guardian will be must be settled legally. It is the responsibility of the state to see to it that the kid doesn't die or come to harm until the new guardian assumes responsibility.

I don't see any difference between the state doing that and protecting disputed property when someone dies or goes bankrupt. The state is responsible for the property until the new owner can be determined legally.

[Godless Capitalist]

Betsy, I agree but that is not the issue I am concerned about. What happens if nobody steps forward to be a guardian?

[MisterSwig]

My argument is that it is irrelevent whether you intentionally neglect the child or succumb to outside circumstanes (death): neglect is neglect and the government must intervene.

Well, I don't think it is irrelevant. Have you addressed the obvious difference that in one case the parents are criminally and morally responsible for the neglect of their own child and in the other case they are not?

Also, are you saying that the government should provide care for everyone who becomes dependent upon others through no fault of their own? What principle guides your thinking on this?

Is it the government's purpose to provide housing and food to hurricane victims? Is it the government's purpose to provide an income to financially dependent mothers whose working husbands die from disease?

[Oakes]

Well, I don't think it is irrelevant. Have you addressed the obvious difference that in one case the parents are criminally and morally responsible for the neglect of their own child and in the other case they are not?

Are you suggesting we investigate every orphan's case and give them care only if we find that their parents volitionally chose to neglect them? I think this is flawed reasoning, because positive rights, unlike negative rights, can be violated simply through lack of parental action - therefore they are violated by deceased parents for the same reason they are violated by neglectful parents. Now, for the purpose of legal and moral judgement, obviously the distinction is still important to make.

Also, are you saying that the government should provide care for everyone who becomes dependent upon others through no fault of their own? What principle guides your thinking on this?

No, need or dependency is not the issue here. Yes, the child's need of a guardian to exercise his rights is what creates the responsibility on the parents, but the government's involvement has nothing to do with need. It intervenes when legal responsibility is neglected.

The difference with all other dependents is that nobody was legally responsible for them in the first place - i.e., they could claim no positive rights on anyone. Children are the single exception.

[Betsy]

Betsy, I agree but that is not the issue I am concerned about. What happens if nobody steps forward to be a guardian?

Like I have said, that is unlikely to happen considering how much people value children. If it does happen temporarily, the child would be like unclaimed property. The state would hold onto it and keep it safe until someone shows up to claim it.

[MisterSwig]

No, need or dependency is not the issue here. Yes, the child's need of a guardian to exercise his rights is what creates the responsibility on the parents, but the government's involvement has nothing to do with need. It intervenes when legal responsibility is neglected.

The government intervenes when rights are violated, yes. So, if a parent violates the rights of his child, the government should step in to prosecute the parents and attempt to collect compensation for the child.

But how does this prove that it is the government's duty to provide the child with new guardians? If a thief steals my car, is it the government's job to withdraw some money from the state treasury and buy me a new one? No. If, for whatever reason, I'm unable to get compensation from the one who violated my rights, then I'm left empty-handed.

For example, if a homemaker's husband is murdered, it is only the state's responsibility to find the murderer and bring him to justice. The homemaker is not entitled to a new state-supplied husband or financial assistance. She has to find a new husband on her own or get a job.

So, I think you are mistaken when you imply that "dependency is not the issue here." The way I see it, it absolutely is the issue. Your entire argument rests upon it. I believe you need to prove that because a child is dependent on others, it is entitled to government care. I don't see how you've proven that.

[MisterSwig]

Are you suggesting we investigate every orphan's case and give them care only if we find that their parents volitionally chose to neglect them?

I am suggesting that we investigate every orphan's case to determine whether a crime was committed, but I am not suggesting that it is the government's proper purpose to give orphans care, especially long-term care, in any case. I'm still trying to determine whether there is a case where an orphan is entitled to government care. I'm still slightly open on that issue. But I can't see how this could be.

I think this is flawed reasoning, because positive rights, unlike negative rights, can be violated simply through lack of parental action - therefore they are violated by deceased parents for the same reason they are violated by neglectful parents.

But, if I'm reading you correctly, you are arguing that an orphan has a right to government care. So, even assuming your premise, how does someone violating my rights entitle me to government handouts?

If I pay somebody to build a house for me, and later that person goes bankrupt and defaults on his contract, is it now the government's job to build my house for me?

Also, I just want to say that I find your use of the term "positive rights" confusing. Nobody has a right to the life and property of others (government care). If this is what you mean by "positive rights," then I must challenge your use of this term.

True, in an ideal society government would be financed voluntarily. But this does not mean that everything the government finances is thus proper. What if the people voluntarily choose to finance unemployment benefits or health care vouchers through a government program? Does this then mean that people have a "positive right" to unemployment benefits and health care vouchers?

I still think your argument rests upon the assumption that a child's dependency on others entitles him to government care. And I don't think that is a correct assumption to make.

[Inspector]

This has been an interesting thread. Personally, I am not convinced by my own arguments, but the objections raised have all been peripheral and have not directly addressed the core of my argument. Perhaps some other time. 

I offered to address you in post #50; no reply was given.

[Godless Capitalist]

Inspector, please do post your response. I'd like to read it.

[Oakes]

But how does this prove that it is the government's duty to provide the child with new guardians? If a thief steals my car, is it the government's job to withdraw some money from the state treasury and buy me a new one? No. If, for whatever reason, I'm unable to get compensation from the one who violated my rights, then I'm left empty-handed.

If I pay somebody to build a house for me, and later that person goes bankrupt and defaults on his contract, is it now the government's job to build my house for me?

When your car is stolen, or a house-builder defaults on his contract with you, your right to property is violated. That is a negative right. When a child is neglected, their right to care is violated. That is a positive right.

I am suggesting that we investigate every orphan's case to determine whether a crime was committed, but I am not suggesting that it is the government's proper purpose to give orphans care, especially long-term care, in any case.

So if the gov't prosecutes an abused child's parents, and the child has no inheritance nor is anyone willing to care for it, you would throw it out on the streets? Don't you think the child was better off with bad parents, than with no parents?

True, in an ideal society government would be financed voluntarily. But this does not mean that everything the government finances is thus proper.

Certainly not! The government still has a single function that it must stick to, and that function is the protection of individual rights. I'm not arguing that voluntary taxation gives the go-ahead for any welfare program.

[Inspector]

First, Swig, your fears about the term "positive right" are valid. It means what I think you suspect it means. A positive right is a right to a physical value. A positive right is necessarily a claim on the labor (and therefore the life) of another.

So if the gov't prosecutes an abused child's parents, and the child has no inheritance nor is anyone willing to care for it, you would throw it out on the streets? Don't you think the child was better off with bad parents, than with no parents?

Second, Oakes, you presented that in a very emotionalist way, which I think insults my intelligence. I would think it was unintentional; you should be more careful.

Simply, this has nothing to do with whether I, personally, would leave an orphan to die. The question is whether a GOVERNMENT is failing to protect a RIGHT if IT leaves the orphan to die.

I would note that you used the very same argument structure that leftists use in refusing to give up the welfare state. (i.e. YoU'D jUsT lEaVe tHe pOor tO dIe? U R a mOnSTeR!!!)

Third, I will post my thoughts on this matter when I have more time to collect them.

[Oakes]

First, Swig, your fears about the term "positive right" are valid. It means what I think you suspect it means. A positive right is a right to a physical value. A positive right is necessarily a claim on the labor (and therefore the life) of another.

Voluntary taxation.

Second, Oakes, you presented that in a very emotionalist way, which I think insults my intelligence. I would think it was unintentional; you should be more careful.

Read the second sentence in that quote. The main thrust of my argument wasn't that it is cruel to throw children on the streets; it was that it is useless to save them from their parents, if you will only put them in an even worse situation.

[Inspector]

Voluntary taxation does not change the fact of whether something IS or IS NOT a function of government. As I have said OVER and OVER. Sorry, but I'm a little frustrated here.

And it's good you cleared up the focus of that argument. I was simply pointing out how it looked. I try to give people here the benefit of the doubt, based on their previous posts.

[Oakes]

Voluntary taxation does not change the fact of whether something IS or IS NOT a function of government. As I have said OVER and OVER. Sorry, but I'm a little frustrated here.

That's not what your argument was. I quote: A positive right is necessarily a claim on the labor (and therefore the life) of another. I was simply debunking that argument.

Now, if you want to talk about the proper function of the government, we can do that. I've already acknowledged that the government's sole purpose is to protect individual rights. I don't suggest that voluntary taxation gives the go-ahead for welfare.

[Inspector]

That's not what your argument was. I quote: A positive right is necessarily a claim on the labor (and therefore the life) of another. I was simply debunking that argument.

I'm afraid that you have NOT debunked my statement. A positive right IS, by definition, a claim on the labor of another. LOOK IT UP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_right

[stephen_speicher]

I'm afraid that you have NOT debunked my statement. A positive right IS, by definition, a claim on the labor of another. LOOK IT UP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_right

Perhaps in WikipediaLand, but in ObjectivistLand all rights are considered to be a sanction of a positive, namely the freedom to act, and such rights make no claim on others, except that they not violate those rights. YOU look it up. Oakes had been consistent in his recognition of this fact. (Also, I notice that the angrier you get the more you seem to miss. Attempting to browbeat Oakes will not get you anywhere, at least not anywhere positive.)

[Inspector]

Stephen, you're mistaken. A "positive right" is a right to property. It is an invalid concept, but that is what it means. If you don't accept the wiki definition I gave, please provide an alternate.

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen, you're mistaken.

Does this say anything different from what I said.

"Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." (Ayn Rand, Man's Rights.)

[Inspector]

Does this say anything different from what I said.

"Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." (Ayn Rand, Man's Rights.)

Yes. I would say that the obligation to act as or provide a guardian is something in contradiction to

"As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights."

It's a question of using the terms differently. I'm saying the same thing as Rand is.

It's funny: I was going to find that very same quote!

[stephen_speicher]

Yes. I would say ...

This is a waste of time. I give up.

[Inspector]

This is a waste of time. I give up.

Okay.

To anyone else, I believe I have highlighted the contradiction nicely. Now let's trace it back to its source...

Why does man have a right to life? What gives him this right? Does a child posess the same thing? Can a child therefore be said to have a right to life in the same sense, or does a child exist because a guardian has agreed to sustain him/her? Does anyone besides the guardian, who entered into that arrangement voluntarily, have an obligation toward a child?

What is this guardianship relationship all about?

From abortionisprolife.com

Do parents own their children like they own their house?

Parents do not own their children, but are their guardians. Guardians are individuals who make decisions for the child—in the child's best interest—until the child's mind is developed enough so that the child can make decisions for himself. If a parent gives birth to a child—and claims to be its guardian (which is the prerogative of the parent)—then that parent is responsible for taking care of the child, unless the parent revokes guardianship, and turns the child over to someone else for adoption.

Right there, it says that a parent, if they so choose, becomes the guardian of a child. So even the parent does not HAVE to sustain the life of a child. They can choose to NOT become its guardian and, presumably, leave it to the elements. Nobody else is the guardian of the child and the child has no rights above or beyond those of rights of any adult. The needs of the child that are above those of adults are to be fulfilled by the guardian, presumably, and nobody else.

A child is differant from an adult in that they have needs. But need is not a claim on a value.

[Godless Capitalist]

Right there, it says that a parent, if they so choose, becomes the guardian of a child. So even the parent does not HAVE to sustain the life of a child. They can choose to NOT become its guardian and, presumably, leave it to the elements.

I don't see how you are inferring that from the quote you gave. If you choose to have a child (assuming you had a choice not to have it by having an abortion) you thereby accept the responsibility to care for it.

[MisterSwig]

The government still has a single function that it must stick to, and that function is the protection of individual rights. I'm not arguing that voluntary taxation gives the go-ahead for any welfare program.

Okay. The proper function of the government is to protect individual rights. But protecting someone's rights does not mean providing them with that to which they have a right. If someone cannot gain values on their own, it is not the government's proper purpose to provide them with those values. I still don't see a context in which a child is entitled to government care.

Now, I believe that in a healthy society, orphans will be taken care of by people of good will, and these children will live to become adults. However, to address a lingering issue, if nobody in the entire world wants to take care of an orphan, then the only options I can see are to give it back to the abusive parents (if possible), make it work for its room and board (if possible), leave it to fight for its life in the streets (if its old enough), or euthanize it (if its too young to have a chance).

This may sound cold or cruel. But that's reality. Just because some couple had a child, that doesn't mean I have to take care of it if something happens to the parents. I like to think that I am a decent person, so personally I would do my best to take care of an unwanted orphan. But if I am struggling to survive myself, I'm going to choose my existence over the orphan's.