What should be done for a rights-violated child?

[erik]

There are now waiting lists for both healthy and other types of children at adoption agencies. Many people that want children can't have them naturally or choose not to for other reasons. The fraction of a percent of cases this thread is talking about just would not be a problem in a free society.

Due to the nature of the cases the police are going to be involved. They could easily at little or no expense make the proper contacts to the people that would specialize in this type of thing. They would take over and the adopting party would pay a fee to adopt the child. End of problem. In most cases the child will have responsible parents and so would have money in a trust fund and a lawyer to protect them from those that would be after their money.

[Godless Capitalist]

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.

Well, no, you have not argued that; you have just stated it. The way I look at it, a child has a right to his life in the same way that an adult does i.e. it would be a violation of his rights to kill him. Since the child cannot survive on his own, his parents have an obligation to provide him with food, shelter, etc. But that obligation only exists because the parents voluntarily accepted it by deciding to have a child. That obligation does not apply to anyone else. Now please address that specific issue.

[stephen_speicher]

That obligation does not apply to anyone else.

But also the obligation to help me when my life is being threatened does not apply to anyone else, but it still apllies to the government. You still have not directly addressed my argument.

[Inspector]

But also the obligation to help me when my life is being threatened does not apply to anyone else, but it still apllies to the government. You still have not directly addressed my argument.

That only applies when a person or entity is initiating force against you. Who is initiating force against the child? If he has the right to a guardian (a positive right), then possibly everyone is, since he has the right to our production...

Nobody has positive rights claims on the general populace; not even children.

What is the moral differance between a child who is orphaned by a disaster and an adult that is rendered temporarily helpless by a disaster?

The child must have a guardian, but innocent third parties CANNOT be obliged to become or provide a guardian. Guardianship is a contract that the parents enter into. Nobody else is obliged to fulfill the obligations of their contract in the event of their death.

[Oakes]

I feel kind of stupid that I let this topic go on for days without replying, but I will try to catch up.

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.

I wasn't aware of a third alternative other than initiated and retaliatory force.

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.

I'm not an expert on the philosophy of law, but I believe people are only legally responsible for their children up to the age when human beings have generally grown their mental capacities enough to be independent. I don't believe people can enter the contract of guardianship knowing anything other than that. Now, it's true that some children will never become independent (the physically/mentally disabled), or will grow dependent through time (the elderly), or will become dependent after some freak accident, but the fact that these things can't be predicted when parents are entering the contract of guardianship prevents me from giving these individuals the same rights that children have.

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?

No sir! The parents are the only ones that enter the contract of guardianship, so only they can initiate force through neglect. 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.

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

Just because it is voluntarily-funded doesn't mean it can't be guaranteed. It is quite correct that the private sector will almost always pull through, but theoretically they can still fail. Government care, on the other hand, is guaranteed to be there until and unless the government dissolves.

[Oakes]

The following posts weren't addressed to me but they're a couple days old so I figure it's safe to reply to them.

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!

No, because welfare is not a proper function of the government.

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?

As for your first point, it is the proper function of government to protect individual rights. Children have the individual right to the care of their parents, because they entered such a contract when having the child, and when that contract is broken, the government must intervene and take over responsibility to protect those rights.

As for your second point, if enough money isn't donated to the government, the same thing will happen to gov't child care as will happen to every other part of the government: it will end.

[Godless Capitalist]

Oakes: Yes, "Children have the individual right to the care of their parents" but only by their parents. If the parents fail to supply needed care, the government can step in and force them to do so or appoint new guardians. But the right to care is not a general right, it is an obligation of the parents (like a business contract).

But also the obligation to help me when my life is being threatened does not apply to anyone else, but it still apllies to the government.

The obligation of the government to help you exists only because you delegated your right to self-defense to the government in exchange for getting that help when needed. Also, this obligation does not give the government the right to levy taxes in order to have the resources to help you.

You have not established that children have any general positive rights to care. If they did, that would give the government the right to levy taxes in order to have the resources to help them, which would be a violation of the rights of everyone else.

[Godless Capitalist]

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

Of course; you don't need to ask for permission.

[stephen_speicher]

What is the moral differance between a child who is orphaned by a disaster and an adult that is rendered temporarily helpless by a disaster?

The adult, by definition, has reached a stage where he is fully responsible for his own life, which in this case would include the potential that the adult could have planned ahead, financially or otherwise, for a disasterous event. A child, by definition, cannot assume full responsibility for his own life, and therefore does not have the potential for planning ahead, financially or otherwise, for a disasterous event.

[stephen_speicher]

The obligation of the government to help you exists only because you delegated your right to self-defense to the government in exchange for getting that help when needed.

Right, but a child, by definition, is one who possesses rights but requires a guardian to fully exercise those rights.

Also, this obligation does not give the government the right to levy taxes in order to have the resources to help you.

Did someone here say that the government had the right to levy taxes?

You have not established that children have any general positive rights to care. If they did, that would give the government the right to levy taxes in order to have the resources to help them, which would be a violation of the rights of everyone else.

Non sequitur. Would you also say that people do not have a right to their own life, because "If they did, that would give the government the right to levy taxes in order to have the resources to help them, which would be a violation of the rights of everyone else?"

[Oakes]

Oakes: Yes, "Children have the individual right to the care of their parents" but only by their parents. If the parents fail to supply needed care, the government can step in and force them to do so or appoint new guardians.

Right, but the main controversy of this thread is the unlikely situation when the government cannot find any willing parents to appoint, and thus must resort to (a.) hiring a caregiver with government money, or (b.) leaving the child to die.

But the right to care is not a general right, it is an obligation of the parents (like a business contract).

I never claimed that it is a "general right", if by that you mean that any random passerby would be initiating force by not caring for an abandoned child. It is most definitely an obligation of the parents, but that's where the similarity to business contracts ends. Consenting individuals can enter a contract knowing that if one of them fails to uphold the terms, the law will force him to reimburse the loss. However, a parent-child contract is not a contract between two consenting individuals. It exists solely because a new human life has been created, and the nature of that human life (dependency) creates an obligation on the adult. When that "contract" is broken, it isn't an agreement that is violated; rights are violated.

[Godless Capitalist]

Right, but a child, by definition, is one who possesses rights but requires a guardian to fully exercise those rights.

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?

[Duncan]

I have read so much that is irrational on this thread that I was beginning to wonder if this board is really for objectivists. Some of my objections without naming names (since I dont remember them)

1. someone said something like "objectivism is very clear on that" does this person realize that they shouldnt follow something just because "objectivism" says its so? that sounds like religion to me...

2. If the goverment does not provide for childeren they have not protected them from force? does that mean that if we dont save someone we could be quilty of using force to? think about that (and no there is not a special exeption for children! one could argue there was a special exeption for poor people!)

3. If you have princibles why cant you apply them to everything? even children are not the obligation of other people.

If i were to refute every instance of irrationality I saw in the world I would never be able to do anything else therefor I will stop here but I would urge everyone to think carefully before they post (or before they act).

As for the argument at hand. Parents have a contract to take care of their children. if they abuse them the parents will be jailed (for using force) and their property will be seized (for breach of contract) the siezed property can be used to support the children. If the parents die their property will also be given to the children furthermore parents should always make arrangments for what will happen to their children if they die, some people do not primarly becuase people are in the habbit of thinking the goverement will always take care of them. If the property siezed after parents abuse their children or die is ot enough to provide for the children then to bad. Remember no one has an obligation to support others. ALWAYS USE YOUR MIND do not think with your emotions.

BTW very few (if any) children would end up dying in a society with a rational goverment and certainly less than are killed by their parents now because the goverment does not devote enough resources to defense of induvidual rights.

consider this: the majority of people would make arrangments for their children in the event that they died, the chances of both parents dying well the children are to young to care for themselfs is VERY small if they did and had made no arrangments for what would happen to the children they could the children could be adopted though a private organization for a fee. the number of abuse cases and neglect would plummet since a rational socitiety would not leave much oppertunity for those sort of vices. (without welfare people would be more careful about when they had children and punishmets for initiating force would be sever). Also with the number of unwanted children decreasing (as shown above) so much the demand among people who were unable to have children for adopted children would increase making it profitable for companies to place the children for a fee (hospitals could include recourd keeping on the children so these companies would know where the children were located as part of the bill for child birthing).

As you can see with constistant application of rationality the specter of children and poor people dyting in the streets or any other horrific scene irrational people envision happening under a rational goverment is completely absurb.

I hope I dont sound combative... actually i dont care

[stephen_speicher]

But does he have a right to that guardian?

Of course. Without a guardian the child would effectively have no rights since he could not otherwise survive, and all rights stem from the right to one's life. Rights pertain to the fredom to act and, by definition, a child cannot act on his own to sustain his life.

[Godless Capitalist]

1. someone said something like "objectivism is very clear on that" does this person realize that they shouldnt follow something just because "objectivism" says its so? that sounds like religion to me...

That was, me and yes I realize that. You are inferring something that was not what I meant.

As for the rest of your post, most of it has already been said or addressed by others, and more coherently.

[Godless Capitalist]

However, a parent-child contract is not a contract between two consenting individuals. It exists solely because a new human life has been created, and the nature of that human life (dependency) creates an obligation on the adult. When that "contract" is broken, it isn't an agreement that is violated; rights are violated.

But when you violate an agreement you are violating rights. This applies whether it is a regular business contract or a one-sided one like accepting the responsibility to care for a child.

I'd like to go back to my example of selling someone a book but being unable to deliver it because of dying in a car crash. I have not fulfilled my obligation to the buyer, but that does not give the buyer a right to be compensated for his loss by the government. The government's protection of his rights is limited to paying him back out of my estate. But if I die penniless, the buyer has no further recourse. Similarily with an orphan, the government could appoint a new guardian to care for the child and manage any inheritance on his behalf. But if there was no inheritance it could not supply money to pay for care, any more than it could pay the buyer of my book to compensate him for his loss.

[tommyedison]

Many people on this thread have rightly said that this incident in an objectivist society would be rare.

But what should an objectivist government do if the majority is pro-objectivist but does not understand it just like today the majority is pro-altruism but does not understand it?

And what would happen to the orphans and/or abused children in the remote areas where people don't have enough to live to begin with?

If government's duty in protecting a child's rights consists of sustaining a child financially, provided the child has no parents and inheritance, then does the government also have a responsibility towards the children who are born to parents who are unable to fulfill their children's needs and yet have children?

[Duncan]

Many people on this thread have rightly said that this incident in an objectivist society would be rare.

But what should an objectivist government do if the majority is pro-objectivist but does not understand it just like today the majority is pro-altruism but does not understand it?

And what would happen to the orphans and/or abused children in the remote areas where people don't have enough to live to begin with?

If government's duty in protecting a child's rights consists of sustaining a child financially, provided the child has no parents and inheritance, then does the government also have a responsibility towards the children who are born to parents who are unable to fulfill their children's needs and yet have children?

refer to my last post already! in that case its an unfortunat situation but it is no ones job to provide for anyone else... EVER!

btw even pretty young kids can work so long as its farily simple work so they might be able to live with someone and work for them to earn a living.. in fact on further consideration i doubt any situation in a free society would ever arise where a child would actually die. (though people would have to learn to be careful about when thye have kids)

[Oakes]

1. someone said something like "objectivism is very clear on that" does this person realize that they shouldnt follow something just because "objectivism" says its so? that sounds like religion to me...

That goes without saying. You’re really making something out of nothing.

2. If the goverment does not provide for childeren they have not protected them from force? does that mean that if we dont save someone we could be quilty of using force to? think about that (and no there is not a special exeption for children! one could argue there was a special exeption for poor people!)

You obviously haven’t been reading very carefully. I’ve repeatedly asserted that passersby don’t initiate force by not helping someone, even if that someone is a child. But the child's parents, by virtue of bringing him into existence, are responsible for him, and if for whatever reason they do not provide the needed care, they are initiating force on him and the government must intervene.

3. If you have princibles why cant you apply them to everything? even children are not the obligation of other people.

One of my principles is that lying is wrong. Should I apply it to everything? Is it wrong for a mother to lie to a kidnapper when he asks her where her children are? Principles are meaningless without context.

If the property siezed after parents abuse their children or die is ot enough to provide for the children then to bad. Remember no one has an obligation to support others.

That's right, and in a capitalist society you will have no obligation to give your money to the government, therefore if a child's deceased parents leave him with no property and the government intervenes to protect the child's right to life, you need not support that.

[Duncan]

opps forgot to answer part of your post:

Living in an objectivist society (meaning having an objectivist goverment) does not necesitate an advanced understanding of objectivism or even an understanding at all.

all those people who are unable or unwilling to learn can simply memorize what the goverment will and will not do... its not hard

[Oakes]

But when you violate an agreement you are violating rights. This applies whether it is a regular business contract or a one-sided one like accepting the responsibility to care for a child.

I still think you’re attributing too much similiarity between business contracts and parent-child contracts. The dictionary definition of contract is “an agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.” Violating it would indeed be a violation of rights - negative rights, to be exact.

The responsibility to take care of your child, on the other hand, comes from the fact that children need a guardian, and you are the one who created that need. Therefore, unlike business contracts, in which you agree to give money to a store and the gov’t protects your negative right to the book, by violating a parent-child “contract” you are violating a positive right.

If government's duty in protecting a child's rights consists of sustaining a child financially, provided the child has no parents and inheritance, then does the government also have a responsibility towards the children who are born to parents who are unable to fulfill their children's needs and yet have children?

Yes, but what those needs are will be determined by experts, not me.

[Godless Capitalist]

Of course. Without a guardian the child would effectively have no rights since he could not otherwise survive, and all rights stem from the right to one's life. Rights pertain to the fredom to act and, by definition, a child cannot act on his own to sustain his life.

OK, so if nobody volunteers to be the child's guardian, are you saying he has a right to have one paid for by the government?

Where does the money for this come from? Will it come out of a separate voluntary fund from the one used for police, defense, and courts?

What if there is not enough money donated to cover the costs of the orphans? Who is considered to have violated the orphans' rights? Everyone who donated less than a certain amount?

This last point is where I am having the biggest problem. My obligation not to violate the rights of adults is entirely negative; it does not cost me anything; it just requires that I not murder, rob etc. But the idea that an orphan has a right to a guardian (and food, shelter, etc) implies that someone else must have a positive obligation to supply those needs; that is, that the orphan has a right to the property of others.

[Godless Capitalist]

The responsibility to take care of your child, on the other hand, comes from the fact that children need a guardian, and you are the one who created that need. Therefore, unlike business contracts, in which you agree to give money to a store and the gov’t protects your negative right to the book, by violating a parent-child “contract” you are violating a positive right.

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

[Godless Capitalist]

Living in an objectivist society (meaning having an objectivist goverment) does not necesitate an advanced understanding of objectivism or even an understanding at all.

all those people who are unable or unwilling to learn can simply memorize what the goverment will and will not do... its not hard

So an Objectivist society is going to be a dictatorship run by ARI, rather than a democracy?

[stephen_speicher]

OK, so if nobody volunteers to be the child's guardian, are you saying ...

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 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.

(As to 'Duncan," who waltzed in here at the end gliding on an air of pretentious intellectual pomposity, all I can say is thanks for the comic relief.)