There’s no way even in today’s society that you could force people to buy such insurance before having kids.
This thread makes capitalism seem very cold and unforgiving (I’m a capitalist by the way). People are saying that Orphans should die in the street before the government should help them, doesn’t that sound bad to anyone else?
Would there actually be enough charities to support all the orphans and others who need help (mentally challenged people come to mind). After spending all day at work how many people would want to spend the rest of their day helping poor people?
I have also been pondering this question. To me, the question of children is one of the most difficult to reconcile with the principle of individual rights. After some deliberation, I came up with the following reasoning:
In having a child, a parent assumes responsibilty for the life of the child, which entails everything necessary to maintain the child’s life, e.g. food, clothing, shelter, basic education.
A parent who fails to fulfill any of these requirements is guilty of negligence, which amounts to an initiation of force against the child (here I agree with what was said earlier, that negligence can be considered an itiation of force due to the nature of the child as a dependent).
A child who is the victim of negligence has had his rights violated. The proper function of governemnt is to protect those rights, thus, the government is required to take some action to restore the rights of the child.
The above, to me, implies two things: first, a child has a right to be provided with basic essentials, and if so, that the government is justified in providing these essentials at least temporarily if the parents fail to do so.
But that leads to the conclusion that the government would be required to provide things like food and shelter to children, which amounts to a claim on others by the children. This violates the principle of individual rights, however.
I would agree that the free market and charity would probably act in various capactities to solve the problems of of orphans and adoption, but I don’t think that is sufficient to absolve the government of responsibility. After all, private security companies and arbitration courts could handle the jobs of the police and judiciary, but that doesn’t mean that we should hand over the enforcement of the Constitution to private companies, a la Libertarianism.
I guess the unresolved questions for me are,
- Do children actually have the right to food, shelter, basic education?
and if so,
- Is this right, which amounts to a claim on the parent, transferable to others(govt) in the event that the parent fails?
I am still open on this topic, any suggestions?
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.
Forcing someone to kill someone else is an initiation of force. Killing someone is also an initiation of force. Both people are intitiating force. Only the first, however, is legally responsible.
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.
Because orphans are children.
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.
First of all, I remain unconvinced that they don’t have a right to a caregiver. I am only convinced that people other than the parents cannot be forced to take care of the child. That says nothing about whether orphaned children should by right be given government care funded by voluntary donations.
Second of all, you seem to be saying that it is actually bad that the government is helping orphans, but can tolerate it more than the government helping faith-based organizations. Am I reading wrong?
There’s no way even in today’s society that you could force people to buy such insurance before having kids.
Isn’t this technically life insurance? I wonder if you could make the argument that this is part of the parents’ fiduciary responsibility. What do you think?
But that leads to the conclusion that the government would be required to provide things like food and shelter to children, which amounts to a claim on others by the children. This violates the principle of individual rights, however.
But the government is funded by voluntary donations, so the children don’t really have a “claim” on the taxpayers inasmuch as the taxpayers have a choice about whether or not to pay.
This thread makes capitalism seem very cold and unforgiving (I’m a capitalist by the way). People are saying that Orphans should die in the street before the government should help them, doesn’t that sound bad to anyone else?
Would there actually be enough charities to support all the orphans and others who need help (mentally challenged people come to mind). After spending all day at work how many people would want to spend the rest of their day helping poor people?
Objectivism is very clear about this: one person’s misfortune does not create an obligation for anyone else to help them. It doesn’t matter if it is a child, handicapped person, whatever, there is no responsibility of anyone to help them
Objectivism is very clear about this: one person’s misfortune does not create an obligation for anyone else to help them. It doesn’t matter if it is a child …
I have not read any of the other posts in this thread, so I do not know the full context, but I disagree with what is said here. All human beings have rights by virtue of being born, and by definition a child requires a custodian to protect and assist in exercising his rights. If the rights of that child are not being properly exercised by the custodian, the State has the obligation to intervene and protect the rights of that child. If that child has no custodian, whether through death or abandonment, likewise the State has the responsibility to protect the child’s rights. Exactly how this is done is a matter of law, but I think the responbsibility towards the child is quite clear in a civilized society.
(Note that in most cases like this the child would undoubedly be cared for by private individuals or charities, but the protection of rights is the primary reason for a government, and a child requires a custodian for the protection and exercise of his rights.)
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 neither looks after an orphan nor becomes the orphan’s caregiver. It simply ADMINISTERS the laws that protect the rights of children just as it administers other laws pertaining to the definition and protection of rights.
In this case, a government agency or court process determines who can and should be the new guardian of the child, whether it should be a temporary or permanent arrangement, etc.
A parent or guardian is a trustee for the child’s rights until the child is old enough to exercise his rights without assistance. When the parental relationship ends before the child is of legal age, there are laws that define how his rights are to be protected. In this respect, it is similar to other laws dealing with the unplanned termination of other trustee relationships. A stock brokerage firm is holding my shares of stock for me. If they go out of business, there are laws that define what is my property and what happens to it.
[Y]ou seem to be saying that it is actually bad that the government is helping orphans, but can tolerate it more than the government helping faith-based organizations. Am I reading wrong?
It is bad that the government is forcing you to finance a lot of government services. Government services should be voluntarily financed, whether they are a proper purpose of government or not.
With that said, I believe that it is good to help innocent orphans. It is good to do a lot of different things. But not everything that is good to do is a proper purpose of government.
I remain unconvinced that [orphans] don’t have a right to a caregiver.
What makes you suspect they do?
A right is not a claim on someone else’s life.
In this case, a government agency or court process determines who can and should be the new guardian of the child, whether it should be a temporary or permanent arrangement, etc.
But in this thread, we are talking about the situation where nobody is willing to take care of the child.
What makes you suspect they do?
Because of what I said before: Children, by nature, are dependent on adults to survive. Therefore, lack of care is an initiation of force. Therefore, the government must protect the rights of abused/neglected/orphaned children by providing them with care.
A right is not a claim on someone else’s life.
It wouldn’t be a claim on someone else’s life, because nobody is being forced to care for the child, nor is anyone being forced to pay for the care (because taxation is voluntary).
Forcing someone to kill someone else is an initiation of force. Killing someone is also an initiation of force. Both people are intitiating force. Only the first, however, is legally responsible.
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.
In either case, of course that person is not responsible for that action.
I have not read any of the other posts in this thread, so I do not know the full context, but I disagree with what is said here. All human beings have rights by virtue of being born, and by definition a child requires a custodian to protect and assist in exercising his rights. If the rights of that child are not being properly exercised by the custodian, the State has the obligation to intervene and protect the rights of that child. If that child has no custodian, whether through death or abandonment, likewise the State has the responsibility to protect the child’s rights. Exactly how this is done is a matter of law, but I think the responbsibility towards the child is quite clear in a civilized society.
(Note that in most cases like this the child would undoubedly be cared for by private individuals or charities, but the protection of rights is the primary reason for a government, and a child requires a custodian for the protection and exercise of his rights.)
I’m not following this. What rights do you think a child has aside from those an adult has? Certainly the parents who created the child incur an obligation to care for the child until s/he is an adult. I suppose that could be called an additional right. I do not see, however, how that obligation/right applies to anyone other than the parents. Why do you think anyone else has a responsibility toward the child?
Because of what I said before: Children, by nature, are dependent on adults to survive. Therefore, lack of care is an initiation of force. Therefore, the government must protect the rights of abused/neglected/orphaned children by providing them with care.
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.
A right is not a claim on someone else’s life.
It wouldn’t be a claim on someone else’s life, because nobody is being forced to care for the child, nor is anyone being forced to pay for the care (because taxation is voluntary).
It’s still not a proper function of government, though, regardless of how it is paid for. If you pay your taxes expecting them to be spent on national defense but instead they are spent helping orphans, you are not getting what you paid for.
Or do you propose a separate “orphan tax” specifically for that purpose? If so, there is no need for government involvement at all; just donate the money to a private charity that helps orphans.
Children, by nature, are dependent on adults to survive. Therefore, lack of care is an initiation of force. Therefore, the government must protect the rights of abused/neglected/orphaned children by providing them with care.
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?
It wouldn’t be a claim on someone else’s life, because nobody is being forced to care for the child, nor is anyone being forced to pay for the care (because taxation is voluntary).
Are you simply saying that an orphan has a right to care, if he can get it through voluntary means? Just as someone has a right to property, if he can get it through voluntary means?
If that is what you are saying, then the government is not obligated to provide a caregiver to an orphan, just as the government is not obligated to provide a home to the homeless.
It is actually the right of others to help or not help orphans. And if a group of citizens want to set up some sort of state-managed orphanage, voluntarily financed, then I think that is a decent idea (though not a proper purpose of government). I seriously doubt state orphanages would be necessary in a capitalist society, though. I’m sure private charities or businesses could do the job.
I’m not following this. What rights do you think a child has aside from those an adult has?
Since, by definition, a child cannot survive independently, he has a right to be cared for and educated by his parents or guardians so that he can assume adult responsibility for himself.
Certainly the parents who created the child incur an obligation to care for the child until s/he is an adult. I suppose that could be called an additional right. I do not see, however, how that obligation/right applies to anyone other than the parents. Why do you think anyone else has a responsibility toward the child?
I thought I explained this in the above. In short, the main purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, and if the parent or guardian who acts as the custodian of the child’s rights does not properly exercise those rights, the State should intervene to protect the child’s rights since the child cannot exercise those rights himself.
Since, by definition, a child cannot survive independently, he has a right to be cared for and educated by his parents or guardians so that he can assume adult responsibility for himself.
The key here is “by his parents or guardians.” The “parents or guardians” voluntarily agree to take responsibility to care for the child. The child has a right to expect that care, but only from those specific people, not from other individuals or the government. The child’s dependence as such does not create a general right to care, any more than a severely disabled person’s dependence creates a general right to care.
To me this is similar to my entering into a business contract. Suppose I agree to sell someone a book. They mail me a check, which I cash and spend. I head off to the post office to mail them the book, but on the way I get into a car crash. I am killed and the book is destroyed. I am not able to fulfil my obligation to the book buyer, but his only recourse is against my estate, not other individuals or the government. His right to the book he paid for is enforcable only against me, so if I cannot hold up my end of the deal there is nothing else he can do.
The key here is “by his parents or guardians.” The “parents or guardians” voluntarily agree to take responsibility to care for the child. The child has a right to expect that care, but only from those specific people, not from other individuals or the government. The child’s dependence as such does not create a general right to care, any more than a severely disabled person’s dependence creates a general right to care.
Let’s concretize this. Shots are heard and the police are called. The police discover that a man and a woman were robbed and shot dead, leaving their two month-old baby. There are no relatives, friends, neighbors, strangers, etc. who claim the baby. Does the policeman, qua agent of the government, leave the unwanted child in the crib to die, or does he protect the right to life of the child?
But in this thread, we are talking about the situation where nobody is willing to take care of the child.
That is not going to happen in a free country. Children are a great value to a great many people. (There’s even a long waiting list to adopt retarded children.)
But assuming, for argument, that nobody would be willing, then it is safe to assume that the child himself would be willing to pay for his own care. The state would find suitable guardians and pay them for child care and, when the child is grown, the grown child would reimburse the costs.
Betsy, I don’t think that would be a proper function of government. The government could not require the orphan to later reimburse the costs, since the orphan did not voluntarily enter into an agreement to do so. (It would be like my parents insisting I pay them back all the money they spent raising me. If they asked for money I would give it to them, but I could not be required to do so.) Since the government would be spending money supporting orphans with no assurance of being repaid, it would essentially running a welfare program.
Let’s concretize this. Shots are heard and the police are called. The police discover that a man and a woman were robbed and shot dead, leaving their two month-old baby. There are no relatives, friends, neighbors, strangers, etc. who claim the baby. Does the policeman, qua agent of the government, leave the unwanted child in the crib to die, or does he protect the right to life of the child?
According to my understanding of Objectivism, if nobody volunteers to care for the child it would left to die (hopefully someone would at least euthanize it so it would not suffer). The orphan’s needs do not impose an obligation on anyone else to care for it; that would be altruism.
Betsy, I don’t think that would be a proper function of government. The government could not require the orphan to later reimburse the costs, since the orphan did not voluntarily enter into an agreement to do so.
That’s right. It would be up to the orphan, but let’s keep the context.
In a free capitalist country, this would hardly ever happen. Justice leads to the rational valuing of innocent children and the desire on the part of almost everyone to see that children don’t suffer unjustly. In addition, many people value being parents. There are far more would-be parents than there are adoptable children. Even in earlier times, when we were less prosperous and healthy than we are now and there were many more orphans, charities voluntarily took up the slack.
Does the policeman, qua agent of the government, leave the unwanted child in the crib to die, or does he protect the right to life of the child?
(emphasis mine)
Concretize this please. What will the government do, specifically? Who will pay for it?