Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Murray Rothbard Versus Children's Rights

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On FormSpring, someone asked me whether I agreed with the following 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, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights.

Unfortunately, FormSpring managed to delete the question and my reply. Or so I thought for a while: it was actually just delayed in posting. In any case, here's a slightly edited version of my FormSpring answer:

Oh my god, no no no. That's horrid libertarian drivel. (I wrote that, then I googled the quote. I was right: it's from Murray Rothbard's
The Ethics of Liberty
.)

Parents are obliged to care for any child brought willingly into existence (i.e. not aborted) and then brought home (i.e. not adopted). By doing so, the parents create a creature with a right to life, yet utterly dependent on themselves, and they exclude others from caring for it. To do that, then withhold the food, clothing, or education that the child needs to survive in order to become a self-supporting adult -- that would be a monstrous violation of that child's rights.

Parents are obliged to care for their children for the basic reason that the owner of sailboat cannot simply leave a passenger swimming in the middle of the ocean. Contrary to concrete-bound libertarian nonsense, to do that would be an initiation of force and a violation of rights. That's because the captain has assumed responsibility for safely transporting the swimmer, knowing that the swimmer's life depends on his doing so. The swimmer has a right to be returned to land, where he can fend for himself. To leave him in the ocean would be murder.

The child is like the swimmer, except without the benefit of consenting to the journey. His parents created him as a dependent being, and they are obliged to nurture him in some very basic ways (e.g. food, clothing, shelter, basic education) until he can fend for himself. Or they must find someone else willing and able to assume that responsibility.

If people want to know why I recoil from the term "libertarian," the fact that views like Rothbard's on parental obligations are standard fare should be a clue. Sure, he might talk about rights and free markets, but clearly, his whole understanding of those topics is warped by concrete-bound rationalism about initiating force. If implemented, the practical result of his ideas would be a monstrously barbaric society. I don't support that, and I won't tolerate it. I oppose it!

The people who advocate views like Rothbard's -- or tolerate them from their political allies -- are not my political allies, except perhaps on some very narrow, concrete issues. And I don't wish to make common cause with them, nor be included among their number. The mere thought of Rothbard's views in practice turns my stomach, and I hope that other lovers of liberty have the same reaction.

3372618-1126475313902094584?l=www.dianahsieh.com%2Fblog%2Findex.shtml
p0JqZAD_FVM

Cross-posted from Metablog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents are obliged to care for their children for the basic reason that the owner of sailboat cannot simply leave a passenger swimming in the middle of the ocean.

That's a really excellent argument and explanation to that problem, Diana. It's one I've always had a great deal of difficulty providing a good argument for. Not to convince myself, so much as other people. I think that puts it in a very nice, concrete perspective. I wonder though, if it would be correct to consider this an implied contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, I have tried explaining this point to libertarians who are "confused" about how children should be handled.

I used the analogy of someone being shoved into a room, and locked in. If that person starves to death it is the fault of the shover.

I see bringing a child into this world as similar (although possibly much more benevolent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand the argument. Are you arguing that a child's right to provision stems from the parents' act of bringing the child into existence? If so, I see a few problems with it:

Does this right end, or are children entitled to parental support from womb to tomb? If it does end, when, and by what principal? Does it end when they are capable of supporting themselves? What does it mean to be "able to support yourself"? The concept of a "tacit agreement/contract" seems to me very close to the collectivist argument that we tacitly agree to whatever the Constitution says, and whatever its interpreters determine it to say, by staying in the country.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiment and I would love to see an objective reason why a parent is obligated to take care of their children. But the questions above vex me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this right end, or are children entitled to parental support from womb to tomb? If it does end, when, and by what principal? Does it end when they are capable of supporting themselves? What does it mean to be "able to support yourself"?

This first set of questions is undoubtedly very important for in-depth rights theory, but in general I don't think it's a huge weakness of a theory of rights to not have definitive answers to all or even most borderline cases or technical questions. In delving into questions such as these, it is always helpful to know where your principles came from: from what contexts and for what reasons they were derived. That is one of the strengths of a rights theory built on Objectivist foundations: there are answers to questions like "why do we need rights? why do we have them? Where does the importance for sticking to the contracts you enter into come from? And therefore when is it appropriate to breach a contract you've entered into?" Theories formed through the procedures of Objectivist philosophy, using principles drawn from observable facts of reality, have a much easier time dealing satisfactorily with these questions than most others.

I realize this doesn't answer your questions, but they made me think of it, and since I didn't really have satisfactory answers to your questions, I put this instead :-)

The concept of a "tacit agreement/contract" seems to me very close to the collectivist argument that we tacitly agree to whatever the Constitution says, and whatever its interpreters determine it to say, by staying in the country.

The problem with this "staying in the country" argument is not the presence of an implicit contract, but rather the notion that the government, or the framers of the Constitution, have any significant sort of "stewardship" over the land of the United States. Land is owned by private individuals, not governments. This is the central fallacy of that argument.

Implicit contracts certainly do exist. If I take a ride on someone's private airplane, for example, he cannot decide to make me leave when we're 15,000 feet up. By taking me on, he's implicitly agreed to let me land with him.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this right end, or are children entitled to parental support from womb to tomb? If it does end, when, and by what principal? Does it end when they are capable of supporting themselves? What does it mean to be "able to support yourself"?

This is the essence of it, yes. When one chooses to bring a child into existence, one does so knowing that children require extensive support before they mature enough to be capable of acting as independent adults. Your choice brings with it the responsibility of bridging that gap. Your counter-argument seems to turn on the idea that it isn't possible to objectively determine the difference between a child and an adult. Is that your position?

The concept of a "tacit agreement/contract" seems to me very close to the collectivist argument that we tacitly agree to whatever the Constitution says, and whatever its interpreters determine it to say, by staying in the country.

I don't see the analogy. The assumption there is that the government (or 'society') owns the country and is therefore entitled to specify the conditions one must follow to remain within it. But that assumption is false -- the country is not some kind of collective property. In the childhood case you have taken a readily determinable action to bring a dependent entity into existence, and you are morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the essence of it, yes. When one chooses to bring a child into existence, one does so knowing that children require extensive support before they mature enough to be capable of acting as independent adults. Your choice brings with it the responsibility of bridging that gap. Your counter-argument seems to turn on the idea that it isn't possible to objectively determine the difference between a child and an adult. Is that your position?

Partially, yes. Do children have rights adults do not? Can a child demand support from his parents while an adult can not? That's the first part and needs to be answered before we can move on to whether there's an objective way to delineate adulthood. If all humans have the same rights, then we shouldn't need to determine whether they're adults or not.

However, if children do have this additional right that entitles them to force the actions of another individual, then we'll need to objectively determine the difference between a child and an adult. How is this done?

I don't see the analogy. The assumption there is that the government (or 'society') owns the country and is therefore entitled to specify the conditions one must follow to remain within it. But that assumption is false -- the country is not some kind of collective property. In the childhood case you have taken a readily determinable action to bring a dependent entity into existence, and you are morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your actions.

Both you and Dante basically gave the same response, so I'll just address both here.

I understand the flaw in the collectivist's argument; it's based on a flawed premise. The argument that some implied contract exists between a parent and a child is also based upon a flawed premise - that parents and children can enter into contracts. Contracts require that the parties are capable of rationally understanding the terms of the contract. We certainly wouldn't claim that a newborn child understands much of anything, much less his obligations (are there any?) under some implied contract with his parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partially, yes. Do children have rights adults do not? Can a child demand support from his parents while an adult can not? That's the first part and needs to be answered before we can move on to whether there's an objective way to delineate adulthood. If all humans have the same rights, then we shouldn't need to determine whether they're adults or not.

Children and adults have the same basic rights. This is not contradicted by the fact that children can demand support from their parents while adults cannot. After I have completed a month's worth of work for my employer, I can demand a paycheck from him, while someone not employed by him cannot. I share the same basic rights with this other person, but only I am a party to the contract with the employer.

The reason that children can demand support from their parents is that the parents are beholden to the implicit contract. The reason that adults cannot demand the same support is that the contract there has already been fulfilled. The contract was fulfilled the instant the child became a potentially self-supporting adult.

However, if children do have this additional right that entitles them to force the actions of another individual, then we'll need to objectively determine the difference between a child and an adult. How is this done?

Anyone has the right to force others to hold to the contracts they have entered into, not just children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the same basic rights. ... ...After I have completed a month's worth of work for my employer, I can demand a paycheck from him, while someone not employed by him cannot. I share the same basic rights with this other person, but only I am a party to the contract with the employer.
Yes, this came up in another thread and it is worth repeating. When one says that all people have the same rights, one means that they live under the same set of principles. By applying those principles equally to all men, one may find they may entail jail terms for some and specific claims by others (as in your employee-claims-wages example) .

With that said, "implicit contract" does not describe the scenario of one's legal obligations toward a child. From a legal perspective, they seem closer to legal obligations for restitution that one may face in non-contractual situations: e.g. where you may legally owe someone something because of the situation you put them in via your actions, even though the two of you had no contract.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partially, yes. Do children have rights adults do not? Can a child demand support from his parents while an adult can not? That's the first part and needs to be answered before we can move on to whether there's an objective way to delineate adulthood. If all humans have the same rights, then we shouldn't need to determine whether they're adults or not.

However, if children do have this additional right that entitles them to force the actions of another individual, then we'll need to objectively determine the difference between a child and an adult. How is this done?

Children do not have additional rights that adults do not. Children have the same rights as adults, but the application is different. It would be the parent who would be violating rights by neglecting the child.

The particular right involved would be the right to life, the same right that is the justification behind the crime of murder.

I reject the contract analysis because a child is not capable of consent.

An objective standard for when a child becomes an adult is simple to achieve. A combination of "Age of majority" and "Emancipation of minors" can handle every case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if children do have this additional right that entitles them to force the actions of another individual ...

Last time I checked it is the parent who decides to have a child and not the other way around. It is also the nature of our species that our offspring is born immature and takes a long time to reach independence. It is a fact of reality that by having a child you create yourself a dependent. That is the context here that you have dropped.

Now, in most cases, this period of dependency is expected to end at some point. But there are cases in which it is never reached (for example, mental infirmity due to an accident) and a parent continues to be responsible for providing support - it does ends up being "from womb to tomb".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone's pretty much dinging me on the same things, so forgive me for replying to all in one post. I might not quote you specifically, so if you feel I've missed an important part of your argument, please repost it.

Children and adults have the same basic rights.

The problem I have with this argument is that it sounds an awful lot like the collectivist claim that it's okay to take wealth from some and give it to others because everyone has the right to do it. If you're rich now, you have to "contribute," but if you ever get "down on your luck," you can "take." Everyone has the same basic right to welfare (despite the fact that some never avail themselves of that right). In a simple syllogism, their argument would look something like:

1) Poor people have the right to demand support from everyone.

2) Poor people and rich people have the same rights.

3) Therefore, rich people have the right to demand support from everyone.

We can how this is flawed because the first premise is flawed.

Your argument would be:

1) Children have the right to demand support from their parents.

2) Adults and children have the same rights.

3) Therefore, adults have the right to demand support from their parents.

Why is this not flawed?

When one says that all people have the same rights, one means that they live under the same set of principles.

What is the principle underlying a parent refusing to support his adult child?

With that said, "implicit contract" does not describe the scenario of one's legal obligations toward a child. From a legal perspective, they seem closer to legal obligations for restitution that one may face in non-contractual situations: e.g. where you may legally owe someone something because of the situation you put them in via your actions, even though the two of you had no contract.

Yes, this was the point I was attempting to make. I think this is the best way to describe the relationship between parent and child. However, I still need to understand the demarcation point between "child" and "adult." At what point can a parent morally, and under objective law legally, throw off the shackles of their children (to wax poetic :( )?

An objective standard for when a child becomes an adult is simple to achieve. A combination of "Age of majority" and "Emancipation of minors" can handle every case.

The former seems arbitrary to me, and the latter seems to be child directed - by which I mean the child seems to be controlling when he'll consider his parents' debt paid - and that's probably the way it should be. I can see the latter working in an objective court of law. If some erstwhile, self-supportive adult tries to demand parental support, it can be proved that he has already forgiven the debt his parents owe him for bringing him into the world dependent by striking out on his own.

But what about the child who never leaves his parents? Is there some recourse for the parents, or does the debt go on?

Last time I checked it is the parent who decides to have a child and not the other way around. It is also the nature of our species that our offspring is born immature and takes a long time to reach independence. It is a fact of reality that by having a child you create yourself a dependent. That is the context here that you have dropped.

LOL! I think you're safe checking who has children, parents or children, every few millenia. However, I don't think I'm dropping any context. My question was only whether children have additional rights from adults. I can certainly have the right to a hamburger... if I pay for it, but those aren't the kind of rights we're talking about. We're talking about rights as derived from Man's nature.

Now, if we're going to argue that it is Man's nature to be born dependent, and that it is by the parents' actions that Man is born into dependency, therefore it is their moral and legal responsibility to provide support until the child is independent, then I can agree with that. However, I think there are more questions to be answered: Does the right end, and if so, based on what principle?

With SoftwareNerd's explanation, we can argue that the right doesn't exactly end so much as it cannot be applied - an independent adult can't demand support from his parents because he is, by definition, no longer dependent. But then that begs the question: when is a child, objectively, no longer a child?

Now, in most cases, this period of dependency is expected to end at some point. But there are cases in which it is never reached (for example, mental infirmity due to an accident) and a parent continues to be responsible for providing support - it does ends up being "from womb to tomb".

That brings up another question: is a child's right to demand support based upon his ability to provide for himself, or something else? If a child becomes an independent adult, then suffers some accident which precludes him from supporting himself, are the parents on the hook again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents have the moral responsibility to provide for their children. Period. There is no equivocation to it. One who refuses to do so is a POS, in my opinion. I have raised two to adult-hood, and have one that is twelve. No where in these arguments do I see the concept of familial love taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with this argument is that it sounds an awful lot like the ...

The former seems arbitrary to me, and the latter seems to be child directed - ...

However, I don't think I'm dropping any context.

Fuzzy thinking does not lead to clarity in writing or arguing.

First, it is not really the children doing the demanding of support, it is your neighbors and fellow citizens. If you are not doing it voluntarily there is something wrong with you.

Second, just because a range of ages for adulthood are possible does not make a particular selected age (18) arbitrary. I remember Dr. Peikoff speaking on this topic but not which podcast or lecture series it is from.

Third, since we're talking about rights as derived from Man's nature it is dropping context to neglect the nature of children, the facts that children have rights and yet cannot be independent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuzzy thinking does not lead to clarity in writing or arguing.

You're absolutely right. I should have been more absolute in what I wrote, since I've yet to see an argument which refutes it. Thanks for the advice.

First, it is not really the children doing the demanding of support, it is your neighbors and fellow citizens.

So, it's my neighbors and fellow citizens who have the right to force me to act for the benefit of another individual?

Second, just because a range of ages for adulthood are possible does not make a particular selected age (18) arbitrary.

Then why pick any one age?

Third, since we're talking about rights as derived from Man's nature it is dropping context to neglect the nature of children, the facts that children have rights and yet cannot be independent.

I've mentioned this several times, so how is it I'm dropping context?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with this argument is that it sounds an awful lot like the collectivist claim that...
Yes, it is similar, but showing that the principle does apply equally is not the argument for children's rights. It is merely a way to clarify that a single principle is being applied, and it leaves completely open whether the principle is right or wrong. When you say that rights are being applied unequally, then you appear to be saying that two different principles are being applied. So, the response simply shows that the principle does apply to all, if correctly stated. Such a response does not argue for the validity of the principle. The argument for the principle itself was made in some earlier posts: when one's actions put a human being in a situation, one has a certain degree of responsibility for that situation.

From a legal standpoint, one would consider additional things:

for instance, how predictable was the situation? (in this case, completely predictable, the nature of babies, and their need for support is well-known!)

also, did one have the chance to take a rectifying action? (again, yes, because one has many months in which to terminate the pregnancy)

1) Children have the right to demand support from their parents.

2) Adults and children have the same rights.

3) Therefore, adults have the right to demand support from their parents.

Why is this not flawed?

What is the principle underlying a parent refusing to support his adult child?

Premise #1 has to be questioned. Why is it so? It is because when we say "children" we mean humans who are so young that they are unable to take care of themselves. So, saying "children" and meaning that to include human beings who can take care of themselves falsifies the premise. Even the term "parent" is ambiguous. If we're talking about the mother, who went through with the pregnancy voluntarily, then it's fine. However, if we're talking about a father who wanted the pregnancy terminated, then the premise is again not true. You might re-phrase premise one (loosely) as something like: Helpless-children have the right to demand support from their voluntary-parents. (I realize the terms could be improved further; consider this a draft that corrects the ambiguities in Premise #1, but needs further refinement.)

Once premise #1 is re-framed to make it clear that it is the helplessness of the human that qualifies him for support from the person who voluntarily put him in that situation, the rest of the syllogism falls apart.

Yes, this was the point I was attempting to make. I think this is the best way to describe the relationship between parent and child. However, I still need to understand the demarcation point between "child" and "adult." At what point can a parent morally, and under objective law legally, throw off the shackles of their children (to wax poetic :( )?
Well, for a moment, leave aside the exceptional cases of insane or severely disabled people. Wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between a three year old's inability to take of itself and a 15 year old's ability to do so? If so, it becomes a question of figuring out the details of those differences: of what do those differences comprise? I think the way the law currently works is the best -- fix a particular age that is in the right ballpark, and allow exceptions only on petition to the courts, allowing the judge to look at the detailed factors that demarcate extremely young humans from extremely young adults, and judge a particular case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents have an obligation to care for their children because they put them in the situation of not being able to care for themselves. Just as if a rich person took some negligent action that resulted in a poor person being injured, the rich person would be obligated to pay damages to the poor person for whatever the injury cost them.

It's not that children, by nature of being children, have a right to be taken care of. Orphaned children don't have the right to demand care from any other adult, unless one adopts them and contracts with the state or adoption agency to act as parents. The child has a right to the parent's care because without the parents, they wouldn't be in the situation of not being able to care for themselves.

It's not 'collectivist' to have to clean up your own messes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about orphaned children? Do they have a right to demand support from others?

If a child has no parents, and no one has voluntarily taken on its responsibility of guardianship, can the child demand support from the State or from neighbors or anyone?

Edit: Sorry, bluey read my mind 6 minutes ago. :(

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once premise #1 is re-framed to make it clear that it is the helplessness of the human that qualifies him for support from the person who voluntarily put him in that situation, the rest of the syllogism falls apart.

Agreed. Parents don't have an obligation to provide for their children simply because the parents brought the child into existence; parents have an obligation to provide for their children because they voluntarily brought their children into existence knowing their children would be dependent beings. For those who have a clear understanding of rights, I think Diana was clear in this. However, for those who don't have a clear understanding of rights, I think her argument could be miscontrued as meaning children have additional rights; i.e. some class of citizens have different rights from other classes of citizens.

Well, for a moment, leave aside the exceptional cases of insane or severely disabled people. Wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between a three year old's inability to take of itself and a 15 year old's ability to do so? If so, it becomes a question of figuring out the details of those differences: of what do those differences comprise? I think the way the law currently works is the best -- fix a particular age that is in the right ballpark, and allow exceptions only on petition to the courts, allowing the judge to look at the detailed factors that demarcate extremely young humans from extremely young adults, and judge a particular case.

But age as a criterion is arbitrary precisely due to the existence of those details. We need to look at the details and develop an objective law around them. What defines "self-sufficiency?" It would have to be based in one's capability for rational thought, yet that's also a can of worms - does a third party (i.e. a judge) determine whether any particular individual is capable of rational thought? If so, what objective evidence would they use? How would anyone prove they have a fully developed rational mind? Is a fully rational mind even necessary to prove self-sufficiency?

Imagine a scenario where someone refuses to provide for their 18 year old child beginning on the child's 18th birthday. How would it be proved that the child is still entitled to parental support? For that matter, who would be obligated to prove it? The child certainly couldn't do it because that would presume a level of rational thought indicative of self-sufficiency (the child knows enough to develop a rational argument intent upon protecting his rights). Similarly, the child couldn't employ the services of a lawyer because that also presumes a level of self-sufficiency (the ability to understand, and enter into, contractual agreements). It's the state's obligation to protect the rights of the child, but how would the state even get involved? In an objective society, how would this particular violation of rights come to the attention of the state?

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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