 |
|
A case that brings to the fore pickle's 'Rights of a Child'
Posted on: February 1, 2024 at 16:10:55 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
70119
Member For:
20.96 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
beliefs.
This is a rather mild example of mistreatment of children that under Rothbard/pickle's preferred social paradigm would be considered to be within the parents' prerogative.
The mother was taking her son shopping in freezing temperatures dressed in only a diaper.
https://www.ksn.com/news/national-world/mississippi-mom-charged-after-son-seen-in-walmart-only-wearing-diaper-in-freezing-weather/
But under Rothbard's structure, the mother could have left the child out in her back yard to freeze to death and that too would have been her prerogative, no?
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.)
This is a rather mild example of mistreatment of children that under Rothbard/pickle's preferred social paradigm would be considered to be within the parents' prerogative.
The mother was taking her son shopping in freezing temperatures dressed in only a diaper.
https://www.ksn.com/news/national-world/mississippi-mom-charged-after-son-seen-in-walmart-only-wearing-diaper-in-freezing-weather/
But under Rothbard's structure, the mother could have left the child out in her back yard to freeze to death and that too would have been her prerogative, no?
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
A case that brings to the fore pickle's 'Rights of a Child' - JeffB MU - 2/1 16:10:55