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.
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)
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…
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!)
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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’m trying to make sure I understand your position, because no matter how clearly explicated you think it is, it is not clear to me. Why don’t you answer my latest questions?
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.
I’m feeling somewhat the same way, although I am convinced of my own arguments. I have expressed the core of my argument several times and not gotten a satisfactory rebuttal.
But once again the key here is that the obligation to the child was created by the parents only;
Yes, but when the parents don’t fulfill their obligation, the government must intervene and provide the care that the child was denied (otherwise there’s no point in intervening). I can understand, though, why you are having issues with this. Childhood is the only situation in which one has positive rights, and for the government to protect positive rights, it might have to engage in positive action (childcare).
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.
A positive right is not a general obligation on the populous; it is an obligation on the government. Like I said to Duncan, you have no obligation to give your money to the government in a capitalist society, therefore neither you nor anybody else is specifically obligated to care for the child.
Why don’t you answer my latest questions?
I don’t pretend to speak for stephen, but I’ve answered most of those already. I told you what would happen if there isn’t enough money donated to cover the cost of childcare (click), I’ve said on several occaisons who violated the orphans’ rights (click, click), and I’ve also explained several times (including the previous quote) why positive rights in a capitalist society do not mean you are obliged to give up your property.
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?
Actually, a child has the right to be cared for by a suitable adult who freely chooses to be its guardian. When a child is suddenly orphaned, just who that willing guardian will be must be settled legally. It is the responsibility of the state to see to it that the kid doesn’t die or come to harm until the new guardian assumes responsibility.
I don’t see any difference between the state doing that and protecting disputed property when someone dies or goes bankrupt. The state is responsible for the property until the new owner can be determined legally.
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.
Well, I don’t think it is irrelevant. Have you addressed the obvious difference that in one case the parents are criminally and morally responsible for the neglect of their own child and in the other case they are not?
Also, are you saying that the government should provide care for everyone who becomes dependent upon others through no fault of their own? What principle guides your thinking on this?
Is it the government’s purpose to provide housing and food to hurricane victims? Is it the government’s purpose to provide an income to financially dependent mothers whose working husbands die from disease?