What should be done for a rights-violated child?

[Oakes]

Inspector, you're still ignoring the fact that taxation is voluntary in a capitalistic society, so until you explain why under such circumstances a positive right is a right to your property, there's nothing else I can say. Also, I share in GC's confusion over your belief that parents can choose after the fact whether or not to care for their children. However:

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.

It shouldn't matter whether she had the choice to have an abortion. She accepted responsibility the minute she decided to have sex. Unless of course she was raped, in which case the aggressor accepts responsibility (not that the state would actually let him have custody of the child, but they could take his property).

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.

Well I don't know how else to convince you, other than emphasizing that children are fundamentally different in the eyes of the law, so you shouldn't be so quick to make these sweeping, context-ignoring proclaimations. Children are the only ones who can demand upon someone else (their parents) the right to something; when you demand payment for a service, on the other hand, you are essentially demanding that your customer not steal from you. The former right is protected with a positive service; the latter right is protected with a negative one (the police).

[Inspector]

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.

Well, I am getting it from here:

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

it says "and claims to be its guardian." What it means by "prerogative" is unclear. It might well mean what you are saying. That is why I used the word "presumably."

[Inspector]

Inspector, you're still ignoring the fact that taxation is voluntary in a capitalistic society, so until you explain why under such circumstances a positive right is a right to your property, there's nothing else I can say.

I will attempt to clarify. Suppose for a second that someone claimed a right which you and I would not consider valid; for example: "I have the right to a job."

Now, suppose that the government has voluntary taxation. The government's job is to protect rights and if the government accepts that man's "right to a job," then it is doing something improper... and that is entirely independant of whether or not the taxation is voluntary.

Now, it is my position that children do NOT have a "right to a guardian." They have the right to be protected/provided for by THEIR guardian, but they do not have a right to a guardian.

The fact that taxation would be voluntary is entirely beside the point of my argument.

Also, I share in GC's confusion over your belief that parents can choose after the fact whether or not to care for their children.

I misread the quote where it says "prerogative." I thought that it said "option." Of course, what exactly "prerogative" means is not entirely clear, either.

Children are the only ones who can demand upon someone else (their parents) the right to something

I would say that their demand is part of the child/guardian relationship and is not a "right" per se. I would agree that they can claim it from the parent, but not from anyone else.

If it were a "right" then you and Stephen would be correct, since a government's job is to secure rights. But I don't think it is a right.

[Inspector]

It shouldn't matter whether she had the choice to have an abortion. She accepted responsibility the minute she decided to have sex.

I totally, completely disagree with this.

Oakes, I'm going to try to remain calm, because I know that you're young...

[Inspector]

To clarify:

"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."

Here, Rand is speaking on an ethical level, where rights can be said to be expressions of a positive, i.e.: "man has a right to his life." Rather than a negative "thou shalt not."

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.)

Right there, she then says that rights only impose negative obligations. Contradiction? Of course not. Because on the political level, that is exactly what rights are. When I use the terms "positive right" and "negative right," I am speaking strictly on the political level, just as Rand is in the second part of the quotation.

This second part of the quote is the essance of my opposition to the idea that children have the "right" to a guardian. Such a right would necesarily impose a positive obligation on others, which is in direct opposition to Objectivist thought as evidenced by the quote above and also by when Rand said "There can be no such thing as a right to enslave."

I hope that is clearer.

[MisterSwig]

Well I don't know how else to convince you, other than emphasizing that children are fundamentally different in the eyes of the law, so you shouldn't be so quick to make these sweeping, context-ignoring proclaimations.

You speak of "the law" as if it were the dictator of individual rights. It isn't. The law, no matter what its eyes "see," does not determine whether a child has an objective right to government care. Man's nature determines that. An objective right exists or does not exist, regardless of what the law of the land has to say about it.

You began this argument by implying that an aspect of a child's nature, its dependency on others, gives it a right to a state-provided guardian. I was interested in that position, because it dealt with the essential issue of this debate. But after I challenged you, you then stated that "dependency is not the issue here." You kept bringing up concepts like "protection of individual rights," "positive rights," and "the law," as if invoking these ideas somehow proved that children have a right to government care.

You have basically abandoned your "dependency" argument. You are now focused on issues that are non-essential to the existence of objective rights. You are simply repeating arbitrary, unproven assertions and unjustly accusing me of the very thing which you seem to be doing yourself, namely "ignoring context."

I have no interest in quibbling over non-essentials. I now believe that your argument is based in emotion and "instincts":

So listen to your gut instincts more: It is wrong for the government to abandon a child. Now evaluate why you feel this emotion for children but not adults: Children by their nature are dependent on others to survive. Now create the principle: Neglect of children is an initiation of force.

Therefore, this is my last post to you on this issue.

[Oakes]

Now, it is my position that children do NOT have a "right to a guardian." They have the right to be protected/provided for by THEIR guardian, but they do not have a right to a guardian.

How do you protect such a right without being willing to provide the service when the children are denied it?

I would say that their demand is part of the child/guardian relationship and is not a "right" per se. I would agree that they can claim it from the parent, but not from anyone else.

What do you call such a demand, if not a right?

This second part of the quote is the essance of my opposition to the idea that children have the "right" to a guardian. Such a right would necesarily impose a positive obligation on others, which is in direct opposition to Objectivist thought as evidenced by the quote above and also by when Rand said "There can be no such thing as a right to enslave."

Inspector, you're STILL ignoring the fact that taxation is voluntary in a capitalistic society, so until you explain why under such circumstances a positive right is a right to your property, there's nothing else I can say.

[Oakes]

You speak of "the law" as if it were the dictator of individual rights. It isn't. The law, no matter what its eyes "see," does not determine whether a child has an objective right to government care. Man's nature determines that. An objective right exists or does not exist, regardless of what the law of the land has to say about it.

Oh please, you're playing with semantics. You know damn well I was talking about the law in a capitalist society.

You began this argument by implying that an aspect of a child's nature, its dependency on others, gives it a right to a state-provided guardian.

My bold. Your problem is that you extracted something that wasn't there. If I argued solely on dependency, all forms of welfare would be necessary. My argument is based on the specific fact that children are the only beings who have a positive claims on other beings (their parents), and that those rights can only be protected with positive action.

You have basically abandoned your "dependency" argument. You are now focused on issues that are non-essential to the existence of objective rights. You are simply repeating arbitrary, unproven assertions and unjustly accusing me of the very thing which you seem to be doing yourself, namely "ignoring context."

I'm not sure what to do with this paragraph, seeing as how you layed on a lot of hard-hitting accusations with nothing to back them up.

I have no interest in quibbling over non-essentials. I now believe that your argument is based in emotion and "instincts":

You took that quote WAY out of context. That person knew there was something about the nature of children that made them deserving of childcare, but instead of listening to his "gut instincts", he took the round-about way and rationalized it. Far from condoning the use of emotion, I was actively discouraging it.

[Inspector]

What do you call such a demand, if not a right?

It IS a right, but not the right that you claim. The parents enter into a type of contractual relationship when they become guardians. The child has the same right that anyone else with a contract has. And similarly, like anyone else who has someone reneg on a contract, the government is not their insurance agent. The government can and should attempt to force the parents to pay for the child if they are negligent.

You are claiming that children have "a right to a guardian." I am claiming they have "the right to be guarded by THEIR guardian."

Inspector, you're STILL ignoring the fact that taxation is voluntary in a capitalistic society, so until you explain why under such circumstances a positive right is a right to your property, there's nothing else I can say.

Please try to actually answer what I have said. That, or clarify what you are saying, because I do not see how I am ignoring the fact that taxation is voluntary. As I said, something which is NOT a right is NOT A RIGHT. A voluntary taxation system DOES NOT CHANGE THIS. Please re-read my post:

I will attempt to clarify. Suppose for a second that someone claimed a right which you and I would not consider valid; for example: "I have the right to a job."

Now, suppose that the government has voluntary taxation. The government's job is to protect rights and if the government accepts that man's "right to a job," then it is doing something improper... and that is entirely independant of whether or not the taxation is voluntary.

Now, it is my position that children do NOT have a "right to a guardian." They have the right to be protected/provided for by THEIR guardian, but they do not have a right to a guardian.

The fact that taxation would be voluntary is entirely beside the point of my argument.

[Oakes]

The parents enter into a type of contractual relationship when they become guardians.

Did the baby ever sign it? What kind of contract is this? Contracts are law-protected agreements between multiple people, and protecting them is a matter of protecting negative rights. Children, on the other hand, are not having any negative rights violated when they are neglected or orphaned. Their "contract" is far different from the ones you are comparing it with.

Please try to actually answer what I have said. That, or clarify what you are saying, because I do not see how I am ignoring the fact that taxation is voluntary.

You are ignoring it because you said that a positive right is a "positive obligation on others", and then you referenced Rand saying "There can be no such thing as a right to enslave." Now, if you are under no compulsion to pay taxes, exactly who is being enslaved?

[Inspector]

You are ignoring it because you said that a positive right is a "positive obligation on others", and then you referenced Rand saying "There can be no such thing as a right to enslave." Now, if you are under no compulsion to pay taxes, exactly who is being enslaved?

On my drive home, I think what you are saying "clicked."

To answer, a positive right is incompatable with a voluntary taxation system. A negative right bears no obligation on anyone else. By doing nothing, they are fulfilling the requirement of any negative right.

A positive right, however, requires action on the part of others to be fulfilled. Suppose that someone claimed the "right to have a million dollars." Anyone NOT providing him with a million dollars is violating his rights.

And, of course, what I said before about comparing it to a welfare state also not being proper, even if taxation is voluntary, still stands.

Did the baby ever sign it? What kind of contract is this?

A unique one, to my knowledge..

Contracts are law-protected agreements between multiple people, and protecting them is a matter of protecting negative rights. Children, on the other hand, are not having any negative rights violated when they are neglected or orphaned.

If their parents intentionally neglect them, then yes they are having their negative rights violated; their contractual right to a guardian.

Of course, if they are not being neglected intentionally, then no they are not having any negative rights violated. Which is precisely why I am arguing that it would not be the government's responsibility to handle that.

[MisterSwig]

If [children's] parents intentionally neglect them, then yes they are having their negative rights violated; their contractual right to a guardian.

I think it is a mistake to view a child/parent relationship as a "contractual" one. If anything, the "contract" would be between the parents and the state, or the parents and the hospital (if there is one) that delivered the child. You could not possibly enforce some imaginary "contract" between an infant (who is not mentally capable of entering into a legally binding contract) and its parents.

If the relationship is contractual, then the parents would have to agree to terms on behalf of the child, since they are the child's guardian. And what is the point of that? The parents could very well change the terms of the contract at will, or choose to reject the contract. Then the child is left with no rights whatsoever.

I tend to think that children are more like property--a unique type of property that possesses objective rights. Unlike other types of property, you cannot rightfully do whatever you like to a child, due to its nature as a human being. What you can and cannot rightfully do to your child would need to be recognized, of course. For example, once the child becomes an adult capable of taking care of himself and who wants to move out, you cannot deny him his right to liberty.

[Inspector]

Good points, MisterSwig. I do, to an extent, use the term "contract" for lack of a better word. I have not yet decided whether the contract would be between the child and parents or the parents and the state.

By current law, children CAN enter into legally binding contracts... but the children aren't bound by them. It's the adults who are! Maybe that would solve the problems you illustrate?

[kuuipo]

Oakes: That makes sense, but my question was specifically about orphans. If a child's parents die in an accident, for example, why would it be the responsibility of the government to step in and find a new caregiver for the child?

I would have to say yes. Every human has the right to life, liberty..... and it is the government's purpose to protect those rights. I believe this question falls under the right to life.

[Inspector]

What about an orphan gives him the right to a life supported by others, as opposed to a cripple or a bum?

[mweiss]

I suppose you mean in the absence of a tax-sustained government agency. I've thought about this too, but I came up with this conclusion.

If you let the market provide for things like homes for orphaned children and such, I think the outcome will be ultimately better. The homes would be funded by investors who have an interest in these children.

Let me ask a 'devil's advocate' question, because this is similar to an argument I'm having over private education:

What mechanism would prevent these 'orphanages' run by private enterprise from providing poor quality service for the sake of maximizing profits and minimizing operating expenses? If the operator is unscrupulous and doesn't clean the bathrooms, feeds the kids 10-cent pack of Ramen noodles instead of a well-balanced meal, and otherwise neglects the children, how, in a free society would we deal with such a situation?

[gags]

First, let me say that this is a great thread. Cheers to all who have offered their rational opinions.

Let me ask a 'devil's advocate' question, because this is similar to an argument I'm having over private education:

What mechanism would prevent these 'orphanages' run by private enterprise from providing poor quality service for the sake of maximizing profits and minimizing operating expenses? If the operator is unscrupulous and doesn't clean the bathrooms, feeds the kids 10-cent pack of Ramen noodles instead of a well-balanced meal, and otherwise neglects the children, how, in a free society would we deal with such a situation?

If the orphanages were supported by charitable donations from individuals and/or organizations, I'd assume that the donors would care enough about where their money is going, and how it is being used, to check on the conditions in these homes. Running an unsafe or unclean facility would not be a way to attract future donations.

If the orphanages were run for profit, then the owners would have the same incentive that a rancher has to care for his cattle or sheep. Not to compare orphans with cattle or sheep, but the principle is similar. If the intent of the orphanage is to eventually be paid a fee by parents willing to adopt the child in question, it wouldn't be good for business to allow the child to become sick or malnourished.

Also, isn't the operator of the orphanage the temporary guardian of the children? That being the case, the operator would be initiating force against the child by not providing proper care. In that case, the state should step in and stop the abuse from occuring.

Just as an aside, I have had a considerable amount of contact with the government foster care system that deals with orphaned, abandoned and abused children in Michigan. It is poorly run and often functions against the best interests of the children who are placed in its care. I could relate a few rather disturbing stories, but this doesn't seem like the time nor the place. It is also often the case that older children who are abused and/or abandoned have a difficult time being adopted. People want to adopt babies, they don't want to adopt 10 year old boys who have been sexually molested by their parents. It's very sad.

[curious_student]

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

Yes. This is taking Objectivism a little too far. YES, a child does. I'm probably not as well read in my Objectivism literature as you, but this is just ethics...starting to rethink my ideas about the Objectivist principles if you can carry them so far as an orphaned child.

Blech. This thread horrifies and disgusts me. It's a CHILD, for god's sake.

[JMeganSnow]

I would have to say yes. Every human has the right to life, liberty..... and it is the government's purpose to protect those rights. I believe this question falls under the right to life.

The right to life is the right to engage in actions necessary for the support, enhancement, and enjoyment of your life. It is NOT the right to have the support of your life provided for you by anyone else.

[iouswuoibev]

Blech. This thread horrifies and disgusts me. It's a CHILD, for god's sake.

You are implying that life has a higher value at a younger age. Why?

[JMeganSnow]

I have said elsewhere that children have a "right" to support; this statement is somewhat erroneous so I should like to restate. Children do not have a "right" to support. I like Mister Swig's statement that assuming responsibility for a child is like making a contract with the government; if the caregiver forfeits on that contract the government assumes the right to transfer guardianship to someone that WILL. His statement is accurate. If NO ONE is willing to care for the child the government cannot force the child on anyone.

The government also cannot undertake to support these children itself. This would be a.) a blank check permitting people to have children without having to assume responsibility for them, and b.) because no government could possibly provide support for an unlimited number of children it would require that some children be given preference above others, which is also not something a government can do.

(I discovered my error when considering the idea that people have a "right" to have others uphold their contractual obligations; I realized that this situation would require the initiation of force against individuals engaging in contracts and is thus insupportable. I also did some more reading on what, precisely, a "right" entails.)

Yes. This is taking Objectivism a little too far. YES, a child does. I'm probably not as well read in my Objectivism literature as you, but this is just ethics...starting to rethink my ideas about the Objectivist principles if you can carry them so far as an orphaned child.

Curious_student, by this statement you are declaring that adult humans are slaves to children, by virtue of the fact that children need them. Principles MUST be carried to their furthest and most absolute extreme; you cannot compromise on a principle. You cannot hold a principle that only applies SOME of the time. Either men are to be slaves, or they are to be free. It does not matter who is to be the recipient of that slavery, whether slave-masters or children living now or children yet to be born or a mythical god in heaven. Slavery is slavery. Freedom is a requirement for man's survival qua man. So, if you choose slavery know that you have thereby condemned men to misery, suffering, and destruction on principle, which means you have condemned ALL men in this fashion. That is the issue at stake here, and the only thing that makes Objectivists able to face the potential starvation of a child with any degree of equanimity. We are not suggesting that the starvation of children is desirable. We are saying that it is unavoidable if there is no adult willing to take care of them.

Living in a large, wealthy society does not change the fact that man must create the means of his support by his own effort and it does not change the fact that children must be supported by someone willing to support them.

Now, this theoretical trade-off is not necessarily going to occur in fact, in reality. It is only in cases where men are relegated to slavery that they are unable to produce an abundance required to provide for even their own children, much less a few extras that got lost in the cracks. In a free society there will not be children starving in the streets; humans in a free society represent too much of a value to one another to permit this to happen.

[JMeganSnow]

What mechanism would prevent these 'orphanages' run by private enterprise from providing poor quality service for the sake of maximizing profits and minimizing operating expenses? If the operator is unscrupulous and doesn't clean the bathrooms, feeds the kids 10-cent pack of Ramen noodles instead of a well-balanced meal, and otherwise neglects the children, how, in a free society would we deal with such a situation?

What mechanism prevents parents from minimizing their household operating expenses? My mother fed me ten cent Ramen because that's what she could afford; she left me in day care because she had to work many many hours to be able to afford even THAT. She quite often fed me better than she fed herself. I survived to become a full-grown adult.

As long as the children have enough to make it to adulthood and become self-supporting, there are really no grounds to complain. No "mechanism" is required.

However, you are ignoring one important fact about private institutions; they must compete for reputation. Orphanages are not likely to be self-supporting; they must request donations. Orphanages that provide poor living standards will not recieve donations and persons put in charge of placing children in orphanages will seek to place them elsewhere. The penny-pinchers will soon find that they cannot afford to pay their operating costs and must close their doors.

[Inspector]

Blech. This thread horrifies and disgusts me. It's a CHILD, for god's sake.

I'd just like to note that I am personally offended by emotionalist arguments of this kind. You, sir, make ME sick.

Emotions are not primaries; if you have something to reason, reason it. There is no guarantee that anyone will share whatever basic logical premises cause you to have the emotion that apparantly lets someone say the word "child" and causes you to utterly abandon reason, give up arguing, and concede anything. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN. THE CHILDREN.

Blech.

[Red Goblin]

I'd just like to note that I am personally offended by emotionalist arguments of this kind. You, sir, make ME sick.

Emotions are not primaries; if you have something to reason, reason it. There is no guarantee that anyone will share whatever basic logical premises cause you to have the emotion that apparantly lets someone say the word "child" and causes you to utterly abandon reason, give up arguing, and concede anything. IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN. THE CHILDREN.

Blech. 

It is the duty of us all to ensure that children, who unlike adults are unable to defend themselves, are protected from abusers and brought up in a way that enables them to have the opportunity of achieving a reasonable standard of health and development.

[DavidOdden]

It is the duty of us all to ensure that children, who unlike adults are unable to defend themselves, are protected from abusers and brought up in a way that enables them to have the opportunity of achieving a reasonable standard of health and development.

Where in the world did you get that idea? What other un-asked for duties do we have? Does that obligation trump other duties that we have actually taken on voluntarily?