If say a 5 year old child is being abused (physically and/or mentally) by his parents, the police will have to arrest the parents as they have violated the child’s right to life.
But who will take care of the child afterwards?
Similarly for orphans. If a person turns orphan at a tender age with both parents dead, then who is supposed to take care of that child.
If say a 5 year old child is being abused (physically and/or mentally) by his parents, the police will have to arrest the parents as they have violated the child’s right to life.
But who will take care of the child afterwards?
Similarly for orphans. If a person turns orphan at a tender age with both parents dead, then who is supposed to take care of that child.
If parental rights are terminated by government action or a child is orphaned, the child becomes a charge of the state and it is the government’s job to find the child a permanent home or temporary foster home. Usually, they try to find a close relative of the child willing to do the job, a volunteer adoptive or foster family, or a charity in that order.
If say a 5 year old child is being abused (physically and/or mentally) by his parents, the police will have to arrest the parents as they have violated the child’s right to life.
But who will take care of the child afterwards?
Similarly for orphans. If a person turns orphan at a tender age with both parents dead, then who is supposed to take care of that child.
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. If a child grew up in a place funded by Coca-Cola, he may decide later to take a job with Coca-Cola. And in general, a rational person has an interest in making sure youth are competent enough to be productive members of a free trading society. The more rational people to trade with, the more money to be made.
Hence the adoption agencies, orphan homes, ect. will be competeing for the funds from private investors, so they’ll make sure the kids are taken care of. They will be sure that kids find good homes, and are well provided for during their stay so when investors come to vistit, they’ll like what they see and invest in their institution as opposed to another. Problems have surfaced in the nursing home industry that could be a threat to such a system, but I think that because competiton regulates the market, ultimately the market will correct these issues.
If parental rights are terminated by government action or a child is orphaned, the child becomes a charge of the state and it is the government’s job to find the child a permanent home or temporary foster home.
How is it the proper function of government to look after orphans? Does a child have right to have a caregiver provided to them?
How is it the proper function of government to look after orphans? Does a child have right to have a caregiver provided to them?
The government certainly can’t force people to take care of someone else’s child, but if it uses force to protect a child from his current guardians, it is responsible for the child until it can find willing parents or can turn him over to a private corporation that will find them for it. It would be irresponsible for the government to take a child from an abusive household and throw him in the streets.
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’ve spent some time thinking about this, and I think the problem is that, because we normally view an accidental death (or even self-inflicted death) as not prosecutable, we hesitate to say that the government should intervene in this case. But children, due to their nature, can have force initiated against them simply through lack of action. That’s why I think the government is still responsible, whether the parents actively initiated force (through abuse) or passively initiated force (through neglect or death).
Dying accidentally is hardly an initiation of force; it’s just bad luck for the child. I don’t see how anyone except for the parents is responsible for the child, so if the parents die the child would be dependent on some kind person to step in and adopt them. It would not be anyone’s responsibility to do so, however. (By the way, even in today’s society this is a good reason for parents to arrange in advance for someone they trust to look after their kids if something happen to the parents.)
Dying accidentally is hardly an initiation of force; it’s just bad luck for the child.
An initiation of force is not to say that the initiator is to blame. If you are forced to kill someone, you’ve initiated force, but the law will not hold you accountable. In the case of a parent’s death, he/she might even die accidently and still initiate force, because mere lack of action is considered force. To prevent that force, the government must perform the action that the child was deprived of.
EDIT: This is assuming, of course, that there are no relatives or anyone else willing to care for the child.
It would not be anyone’s responsibility to do so, however.
Like I said, nobody should be forced to take care of the child, but that doesn’t mean the government can’t use non-coerced tax dollars to hire care-givers if there are no private corporations willing to do it.
Just to add my two cents… I don’t think it would be an issue in a Capitalist country because I’m sure private charities would exist to help such children, with the support of the government (which would have to recognize their custodianship of the children). We can’t stop accidents from happening, which is why we have insurance companies and in the case of children: charity. And remember, we are only dealing with the children that don’t have any eligible families (which defiantly cuts down on the numbers and increases the feasibility of private charity handling the whole thing). I personally would donate money if I had it because I’d want those children educated properly. Without considering charity however I would say that the government does have a responsibility to the children because it is a choice between them being raised on the street and probably resorting to crime or being taught proper values and becoming productive citizens: in which sense the government is doing its job of protecting its citizens.
I think it would be in the best interest of the government (however large or small it may be) to take care of orphans. These orphans if not cared for would probably become criminals, die, or at least grow up for a strong resentment for the government that did nothing for them.
Government assistance in the beginning of their life could at least make them productive members of society who wont hurt the other members of society.
Also I can’t forget that they are children, no matter how cold my heart may become. I can’t imagine my 3 year old nephew just being abandoned by everyone if he had nobody to look after him, he would undoubtedly die. It isn’t fair for the government to leave these orphans on the street so that sympathetic passersby feel terrible and feel pressured to help.
Also I can’t forget that they are children, no matter how cold my heart may become.
Don’t! To forget that they are children is to butcher context. I understand that you have an emotional sympathy for abandoned orphans, but you’re mistake was that you rationalized a reason for the government to get invovled. While I share your sentiment, giving someone something to keep them from growing angry and resorting to crime is not in itself a proper function of the government.
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.
Dying accidentally is hardly an initiation of force; it’s just bad luck for the child. I don’t see how anyone except for the parents is responsible for the child, so if the parents die the child would be dependent on some kind person to step in and adopt them. It would not be anyone’s responsibility to do so, however. (By the way, even in today’s society this is a good reason for parents to arrange in advance for someone they trust to look after their kids if something happen to the parents.)
I don’t think anyone has a responsiblity (eveb government), but its in the best interest of a person to help the child become rational. Not only will there be another unit of rational, but also that the child does not develop perversly into an Ellsworth Toohey. There are many ways to do this privately:usually a teacher, neighbor, friend will report abuse, abandonment, ect. but instead of calling an inefficient gov agency they call one of the homes I spoke of earlier. I’ll expand later, I just took some Benadryl…and…i’m…tired
How is it the proper function of government to look after orphans? Does a child have right to have a caregiver provided to them?
Being orphaned is an emergency, because it is an unexpected, serious situation and requires immediate action if the child’s life is to be saved. A civilized society recognizes the fact of emergency situations which threaten people’s lives and sets up special services to address this issue. Currently, our government is responsible for handling most emergency situations. They save us if we fall into a well or get trapped on a mountain or get bitten by a shark. And they take care of us if we are orphaned by our guardians and can’t take care of ourselves.
Nobody has a right to a caregiver or rescuer. But in a society that values life in general, emergencies are recognized and attended to, because people understand the value of saving an innocent life from a life-threatening situation.
In a free society, I believe that ‘emergency rescue’ will become a private, profitable industry. But, until that day, I think services like 911 and government orphanages should be the last things we consider getting rid of.
EDIT: I’m going to erase this post because I am still pondering this topic obsessively. I can’t seem to get any other work done while this problem remains looming in my head. 
MrSwig, my only question right now is: How do you reconcile this with Ayn Rand’s statement that the only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights?
A few people have mentioned on this thread that it would be in the self-interest of people in general to act as a guardian of an orphan as he might grow up into a criminal.
But you can apply a similar argument and say that it would be in the self-interest of people to provide really poor people the money to live as they might become criminals. We could say the same for the terrorists who become terrorists for money. The list is endless.
Also, how can life have intrinsic value? Shouldn’t we give money to everyone who is dying if we value life, then?
An initiation of force is not to say that the initiator is to blame. If you are forced to kill someone, you’ve initiated force
No, that’s not quite right. The one who forced you to kill someone is the one who initiated force. I don’t know if this changes any of your conclusions, but it’s an important fact to note.
A few people have mentioned on this thread that it would be in the self-interest of people in general to act as a guardian of an orphan as he might grow up into a criminal.
But you can apply a similar argument and say that it would be in the self-interest of people to provide really poor people the money to live as they might become criminals. We could say the same for the terrorists who become terrorists for money. The list is endless.
Excellent point! A know a conservative who uses exactly this argument to support the idea of minimal welfare, etc. He claims it is ultimately selfish, not altruistic.
My understanding is that Objectivism holds that those unable to support themselves for whatever reason must rely on voluntary private charity; I fail to see why that principle would not apply to orphans.
MrSwig, my only question right now is: How do you reconcile this with Ayn Rand’s statement that the only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights?
Orphans don’t have a right to a caregiver. So it is not a government’s proper purpose to provide them with one. However, since being orphaned is a serious emergency situation, I would rather my tax money go to funding state-operated orphanages than faith-based organizations and the public educational system.
Is that clearer?
I’ll address this in 2 parts.
Abusive parents - the child should be taken from the parents and they would have to pay child support to an uninvloved organization. Family members may not be a good idea as they will have a hard time keeping the child safe from the parents. This way the government does not have to pay to raise somones child, they just protect the childs rights.
Orphans - like someone else said most responsible people ( Capitalist Society people! ) will have insurance and or family members that can provide care for the child. In the very unlikely circumstance that neither happens there should be enough charity etc. to take care of this child. The government should not get involved in this situation other than to contact the charities and give emergency care. Maybe to avoid this there could be a law on the books that makes parents buy insurance for themselves BEFORE they have children so as not to burden society if they die before the child can take care of themselves. The policy could be cashed out when the child turns 21.