What should be done for a rights-violated child?

Questions about Objectivism
41

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.

You are neglecting the distinction I have repeatedly made. It is not the “needs” of the child per se that is the issue, but rather the child’s rights. An adult in need remains responsible for his own life, but, by definition, a child requires a guardian to protect his right to life.

42

You are neglecting the distinction I have repeatedly made. It is not the “needs” of the child per se that is the issue, but rather the child’s rights. An adult in need remains responsible for his own life, but, by definition, a child requires a guardian to protect his right to life.

Please reconcile this statement with the one that “there can be no such thing as the right to violate rights.” Since a guardian must provide material, and if he does so by the child’s RIGHT, then that means the the child has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor.

I’m obviosly missing something in your reasoning here Stephen, since I know you would not support such a position.

43

Concretize this please. What will the government do, specifically? Who will pay for it?

As I said in an earlier post, the specifics of how it is done would be a matter of law, but the principle involved is the protection of individual rights. We provide facilities to house criminals on the principle of the protection of individual rights. Likewise we should provide facilities for the insane on the same principle. And likewise we protect the right to life of a child who, by definition, requires a guardian to properly exercise this right.

(I am using “facilities” to stand for the idea. Whether the government actually provides the facilities or contracts it out is a detail for the philosophy of law. Likewise the means for protecting the child’s right to life. But note that this latter would be such a rare occurrence since private individuals and charities would undoubtedly usually resolve the issue.)

44

Please reconcile this statement with the one that “there can be no such thing as the right to violate rights.” Since a guardian must provide material, and if he does so by the child’s RIGHT, then that means the the child has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor.

Did you forget that in a proper society financial support for the government is voluntary? Besides, your reasoning makes no sense. The same bad argument could be made about criminals. “Since [incarcerating a criminal] must provide material, and if [the incarceration] does so by … RIGHT, then that means the [incarceration of a criminal] has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor.”

45

Did you forget that in a proper society financial support for the government is voluntary?

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!

“Since [incarcerating a criminal]must provide material, and if [the incarceration] does so by … RIGHT, then that means the [incarceration of a criminal] has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor.”

Where on earth did you get the idea that incarcerated criminals would not pay for themselves?!? YES that WOULD be a violation of my rights!

46

You are neglecting the distinction I have repeatedly made. It is not the “needs” of the child per se that is the issue, but rather the child’s rights. An adult in need remains responsible for his own life, but, by definition, a child requires a guardian to protect his right to life.

I don’t see where you have established that a child has a right to have his needs provided for by anyone except the parents. To concretize this, does the “right” of A. Orphan to life make it acceptable for the government to put a gun to the head of myself, G. Capitalist, and demand that I hand over some amount of money to be used to support A. Orphan’s life?

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? (Similarily with criminals etc. If not enough money was donated we might have a very poor police system and some criminals might have to be let free.)

By the way, I do agree with Betsy and Stephen that this unlikely to be a real issue in an Objectivist society. It does illuminate the wider issue of the nature of the rights of children, though. I am surprised at Stephen’s position, so I really would like to know which of us is mistaken and why.

47

Where on earth did you get the idea that incarcerated criminals would not pay for themselves?!? YES that WOULD be a violation of my rights!

Oh, I see. So if the criminals did not earn enough to keep up the whole prison system then your rights would be violated. Are your rights also violated if the police and the military do not pay for themselves?

48

Oh, I see. So if the criminals did not earn enough to keep up the whole prison system then your rights would be violated. Are your rights also violated if the police and the military do not pay for themselves?

Alright, point taken. But the criminals SHOULD properly pay for themselves… if they do not, it will be via accident rather than design, and yes, I think that would constitute the criminal violating rights, if he left the state a bill for his care (like for example if he were to hang himself).

If the criminal refused to pay then the state could simply add bills to his “account” or decrease the quality of his care.

Anyway, if you are right, then you should not need to explain this to me in terms of criminals and prisons. How does the child having a right to be cared for not violate my right to own and dispose of the products of my labor?

49

I don’t see where you have established that a child has a right to have his needs provided for by anyone except the parents.

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. Since the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, the means of protecting the individual rights of the child who has no guardian is to act as the guardian in some form, the details of which should be provided by law. Now, you may disagree with this, and you may even be right, but you have not made a rebuttal to my actual argument.

50

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. Since the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, the means of protecting the individual rights of the child who has no guardian is to act as the guardian in some form, the details of which should be provided by law. Now, you may disagree with this, and you may even be right, but you have not made a rebuttal to my actual argument.

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

51

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.

52

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.

53

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.

54

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.

55

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.

56

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.

57

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.

58

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

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

59

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.

60

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?”