 |
|
You paint with a broad brush/are prejudiced, pickle.
Posted on: February 1, 2024 at 15:59:58 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
70119
Member For:
20.96 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
In logic, that would be called a category error.
What demographic are you in pickle? Gen X? Millennial? I wouldn't attribute your errors to those of your generation, nor quirks one might attribute to them to you.
Your errors are your own. Such as you falling for Rothbard's "Rights of the Child".
https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)
What demographic are you in pickle? Gen X? Millennial? I wouldn't attribute your errors to those of your generation, nor quirks one might attribute to them to you.
Your errors are your own. Such as you falling for Rothbard's "Rights of the Child".
https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
You paint with a broad brush/are prejudiced, pickle. - JeffB MU - 2/1 15:59:58