Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Children, Capitalism and Objectivism

Rate this topic


Mammon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been hearing a lot lately about children and there place in a capitalist system. I always hear "What do you do about abusive children!?" I don't think it violates anyones rights to take children out of abusive homes. Also, I don't think children are looters by default. Do you guys think that?

Edit: This is what I said somewhere else in reponse to the "children as looters" comment

No one said children are looters. They are the effects of sex. Children don't choose to be brought into this world, or choose which conditions they are brought into. A child is not an adult and has different rights and needs then an adult. A child is the responsiblity of it's creators, but not their property. The child deserves protection just like any other citizen, if they are in a situation where they are in harm they should be taken out of that situation and placed in a better one. That violates no ones rights.
Edited by Mammon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been hearing a lot lately about children and there place in a capitalist system. I always hear "What do you do about abusive children!?" I don't think it violates anyones rights to take children out of abusive homes. Also, I don't think children are looters by default. Do you guys think that?

Edit: This is what I said somewhere else in reponse to the "children as looters" comment

In a society where abortion is legal, i dont see why getting a kid is in any way different of renting an apartment. By having consentual sex that leads to consumation, and you not aborting the child withing the right timeframe, you accept the terms of "rent", where you agree on taking care of the child until it reaches the mental capacity of rationality and reason. If you breach this agreement by not taking care of the wellbeing of the child, you lose your right over the child, and it will be placed with a family that is more committed to take care of it. You are responsible for your child until it reaches the capability of rationally sustaining its own life, as you yourself have chosen to create this child. Just like you shouldnt be able to bail out on a bank-loan that you werent coerced into, you shouldnt be able to bail out on a child you have consentually created.

If the kid is born really retarded, with no chance of ever developing the capacity of rationality and the capacity to sustain its own life, i do not understand why the freak should have any human rights at all, as it clearly does not fit the characterization of a human being. Nor should the parents have any more responsibility over the child than they do of their pet lizard. If the child has something like Down Syndrome, however, and im not an expert on degrees of disability, then it is a different thing, as people with that syndrome are capable of sustaining their lives, even though they may only be able to do jobs like being a bagboy or something similar.

Also, i dont think you should be allowed to raise children, if you have mistreated an earlier child. Im not saying that you should be forced to abort, and more that the child should be adopted to a moral, rational person/couple after birth. It's a bit like credit, if you think about it.

Edited by JJJJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the kid is born really retarded, with no chance of ever developing the capacity of rationality and the capacity to sustain its own life, i do not understand why the freak should have any human rights at all, as it clearly does not fit the characterization of a human being. Nor should the parents have any more responsibility over the child than they do of their pet lizard. If the child has something like Down Syndrome, however, and im not an expert on degrees of disability, then it is a different thing, as people with that syndrome are capable of sustaining their lives, even though they may only be able to do jobs like being a bagboy or something similar.

Actually, we don't know if there is going to be some cure of the person's retardation. If someone spliced the genes of any animal for its brains, and created something akin to the human body, certainly it would not truly be human, but that's one thing. Severe retardation is another thing, it can be cured because the multitude of faculties are still there, they just can't be used properly because one of them is defective.

Defective != Nonexistant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been hearing a lot lately about children and there place in a capitalist system. I always hear "What do you do about abusive children!?" I don't think it violates anyones rights to take children out of abusive homes. Also, I don't think children are looters by default. Do you guys think that?

Edit: This is what I said somewhere else in reponse to the "children as looters" comment

Is that you, Lightbearer? Hi!

Taking a child out of an abusive home would be protecting its rights. I agree with you that children aren't looters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a society where abortion is legal, i dont see why getting a kid is in any way different of renting an apartment. By having consentual sex that leads to consumation, and you not aborting the child withing the right timeframe, you accept the terms of "rent", where you agree on taking care of the child until it reaches the mental capacity of rationality and reason. If you breach this agreement by not taking care of the wellbeing of the child, you lose your right over the child, and it will be placed with a family that is more committed to take care of it. You are responsible for your child until it reaches the capability of rationally sustaining its own life, as you yourself have chosen to create this child. Just like you shouldnt be able to bail out on a bank-loan that you werent coerced into, you shouldnt be able to bail out on a child you have consentually created.

I am curious, what is your opinion on the matter in the case of situations where, for medical reason, abortion is too dangerous to the woman for the woman to accept it, or too dangerous to the woman for the man to accept so he talks her into not getting it, or too dangerous to the woman for any doctor to be willing to do the operation?

Also, i dont think you should be allowed to raise children, if you have mistreated an earlier child. Im not saying that you should be forced to abort, and more that the child should be adopted to a moral, rational person/couple after birth. It's a bit like credit, if you think about it.

What about if a psychologist certified that they have changed and that the underlying cause for the abuse is no longer a part of them? Should they be allowed then in your opinion?

Also, what level of mistreatment? I assume you mean abuse. There are levels of mistreatment below the level of abuse that don't actually breach anyone's rights. These are minor issues compared to abuse and since they don't breach the child's rights are no reason to deny people access to their children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like you shouldnt be able to bail out on a bank-loan that you werent coerced into, you shouldnt be able to bail out on a child you have consentually created.

I think you *should* be able to bail on *both*. Why? Because people aren't omniscient. You pay the bank a premium for borrowed money because there is a risk that you will not be able to pay them back and they may have to write off the loan. Of course, there are negative consequences involved, as there should be. Likewise, the penalty for being unable to support and raise your child is being deprived of said child. Bailing out is called "giving the child up for adoption". Sheesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious, what is your opinion on the matter in the case of situations where, for medical reason, abortion is too dangerous to the woman for the woman to accept it, or too dangerous to the woman for the man to accept so he talks her into not getting it, or too dangerous to the woman for any doctor to be willing to do the operation?

Im not a doctor, so i dont claim to know about these situations where its dangerous to abort, but if you are implying a situation where it is dangerous to abort, even in an early stage of the pregnancy, then you can always give up the child for adoption after birth.

What about if a psychologist certified that they have changed and that the underlying cause for the abuse is no longer a part of them? Should they be allowed then in your opinion?

Im actually shocked that i failed to add this point in my last post, as it is obviously so that if you can prove that you are no longer likely to cause similar harm to a child.

Also, what level of mistreatment? I assume you mean abuse. There are levels of mistreatment below the level of abuse that don't actually breach anyone's rights. These are minor issues compared to abuse and since they don't breach the child's rights are no reason to deny people access to their children.

The level of abuse, is something that people with more knowledge in this field should explain, as it is pointless for me to give any view on this, as it isnt based on any knowledge. Yes, minor mistreatments(having a party that causes your child to stay awake all night) and major mistreatments(beating your child) are different.

I think you *should* be able to bail on *both*. Why? Because people aren't omniscient. You pay the bank a premium for borrowed money because there is a risk that you will not be able to pay them back and they may have to write off the loan. Of course, there are negative consequences involved, as there should be. Likewise, the penalty for being unable to support and raise your child is being deprived of said child. Bailing out is called "giving the child up for adoption". Sheesh.

Yes, maybe its just my poor english thats at fault again. What i meant in bailing out in bank loans was, not paying it back without any consecuences. By bailing out on a child, i meant: not taking care of it, and just leaving it do die from starvation.

Edited by JJJJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...