I’m sorry, but is this supposed to be a pro-libertarian argument?
Because, from my vantage point, the market doesn’t handle very large or small people well at all.
I’m getting the sense that anarchism is not getting a fair shake here. But I don’t know, which is why I asked.
How about protection of minors? Any limitations on whom an individual could sell currently illicit substances to? Any role for child abuse laws or do they fall within the private domain?
Child abuse would easily fall under the initiation of force and coercion, so would be totally outlawed. And your other question is probably ill-phrased if you meant drugs; there wouldn’t be illegal drugs per se. Though it would be an interesting discussion about whether Libertaria should prevent the sale of items in general to minors. When would advertising be a form of coercion to very young children?
erl, I mean currently illegal drugs of abuse, alcohol, tobacco, and other substances that are currently illegal to children or to all. The question ties into two other threads …
Are kids considered, by definition, unable to give “consent”? Phrased one way would they be protected, phrased another would they be considered as a group as incapable of making informed decisions?
Although I’m pretty sure that Libertaria would not have a predefined “age of majority”, I’m also sure that children are considered incapable of making informed decisions. I believe the question of majority would generally be left up to parents. So, theoretically, a 12 year old child could be given adult rights of decision making by her parents, and as long as nothing bad happened, no oversight would be offered by the government. IOW, there would be no prohibitive legislation regarding the question of majority, but action would be required to protect the major/minor in the event of coercion, which would have to be determined after the fact.
Also, in Libertaria, it’s unlikely that children would become “wards of the state”, although I’m a bit shaky on what exactly would happen to the abandoned or abused. Lib? water? Anyone?
I’m honestly not sure that kids would be considered anything. Like xenophon said, the decision would be more or less up to the parents.
The issue of abandonment is an interesting one, xen, depending on how Libertaria views children. If they are unable to give informed consent, then their life outside of their parents is one long coercive action agaisnt them; thus, the government has a duty to protect them and, in some way, care for them (or find someone to care for them). If the assumption is that children can generally make informed choices then they will just be another homeless person, not a minor per se.
I think you’re correct about governmental responsibility to protect abandoned children in Libertaria, erl. I can see the gov’t of Libertaria contracting with care providers, but I’m not sure I can see that same gov’t assuming parental responsibility, so that would (I think) also be contracted to the care providers.
Also, I’m not sure how a determination of “abandonment by emancipation” (for lack of a better phrase) could be made. -IOW, what happens on behalf of children emancipated too early? Can the government ever petition “on behalf” of an emancipated child? Can a non-governmental interested party do so?
Their parents, unless dead, would stand in breach of contract (a unary contract to which the children were incapable of giving meaningful consent). The children would then be cared for by child care charities, monitored by private agencies, an aggressive free press, and of course, you and me.
Yes. Government is charged with enforcement of contracts.
Yes. So can the child. There might be times when parents refuse to “let go”. Children can appeal to government to determine whether they are capable of giving meaningful consent, a routine act of government when people apply to be governed.
Well, I’m glad the government of Libertaria coerces all those entities to do so.
Since absent such coercion, there may be a probability that this could happen, but there could be no guarantees.
So if you say it’s so, the government must require it.
And of course, there are numerous other problems. Suppose the parents decide to contract with themselves to provide governmental services, and kick the children off their property. Will an adjoining local government go to war to enforce the ‘contract’ which the parents’ government (themselves) refuses to recognize?
Or suppose the parents abandon the children while traveling in a libertarian destination some distance off? The lack of a unified government of Libertaria is a problem, unless the ‘context’ within which the peaceful honest people contract with their assorted government service providers (GSPs) possesses enforcement powers.
Suppose? 
Well, since we’re just supposing, let’s suppose that ordinary people care just as much about children as do bureaucrats in Florida. Hard to believe, I know.
Well, yes Lib. It just strikes me as similar to the assumption of good will and of positive human nature that communism was based on (each according to his needs) and that anarchism presumes.
Can we presume and trust to the kindness of strangers?
The history of child rights before governments made it their business to protect them is abysmal. Including in America in times not so very distant. It still aint great in the States. Hell, the situation is still abysmal in much of the world. Which ties into erl’s first point regarding handicapped accessibility. The incentive for individuals and for entities is to not provide unless there is a clear social contract or legal obligation that mandates such provision.
While DSeid has already responded here, let me just suggest a quick re-read of Dickens. And the suggestion that while his individual characters may have been fictional, the reality that they inhabited was in fact real.
Good thing no uncaring bureaucrats ever got in the way of private charity in 19th century England.
Charles Dickens would have a lot of material to work with in Libertaria.
While DSeid has already responded here, let me just suggest a quick re-read of Dickens. And the suggestion that while his individual characters may have been fictional, the reality that they inhabited was in fact real.
Good thing no uncaring bureaucrats ever got in the way of private charity in 19th century England. (btw, I don’t grok the Florida reference. Cite?)
You do it every day, unless you happen to know a lot of bureaucrats.
From WTLV in Florida:
“DCF cannot account for 1,000 of children under state care (Fort Lauderdale-AP) – The state child welfare agency still can NOT account for 1,000 of the children under state care. DCF released a new tally of missing children yesterday. About 2 percent of all those in state care had not received a visit from their caseworker.”
As I said (why must this be repeated?), in Libertaria, failure of parents to provide for the welfare of their children is breach.
Lib said:
“(remember the one about the man who owned all the water on earth?)”
which is an excellent example of why you can’t get a straight answer out of libertarians, and especially Libertarian.
No, Lib, I don’t remember that one. I remember a perfectly reasonable question about how Libertaria would prevent the cornering of essential resources by one of the “entrepreneurs” that Lib is so proud of, and whether the control of that resource would lead to unjustified control over everything else. (In the particular case Lib is talking about, it was water in an isolated desert community.)
As usual, Lib didn’t try to answer the question; he just reduced it to a ridiculous strawman and, also as usual, has been sneering ever since at the stupidity of anyone who would suggest such a strawman.
So a question like “What happens if an entrepreneur wants property that I don’t want to sell, (so that he can profit by building a shopping mall or whatever), buys the property surrounding my property, and refuses me access until I agree to sell?” becomes “Consider the case of the man who buys all the land surrounding you because it is his inexplicable and manifest desire to cut off your material existence. You do not fail to mention how he is arbitrarily evil and conniving beyond the pale, but you do fail to mention that all his neighbors are clueless halfwits who, though never forced against their will, nevertheless sell all that they own to him because they want to see his Machiavellian dream succeed.”
Of course, I did fail to mention that the entrepreneur is evil etc.; I just said that he wanted to make a profit, and that his rights and mine are in conflict. And I didn’t mention that the neighbors are clueless halfwits because they aren’t; they’ve been offered a reasonable price for their property (the access to mine) because that way the entrepreneur gets my property for free, and it is to their advantage to accept the deal.
Or consider: “Does society have an interest in preventing parents (who believe in Biblical standards of discipline) from sending their children to school covered with welts and bruises?” (“Stripes”, I believe, is the Biblical term) becomes “Will {poster M} succeed in beating his baby to death before Libertarian can rescue it?”
And so on.
More later.
You have stressed in earlier threads that Libertaria is a “context” in which people are free to contract with the GSPs of their choice. Some of these GSPs might consider it breach, some might not. Some that do might require that the parents provide up to the age of 21; others, 12. Some might consider certain types of corporal punishment to be child abuse; others might consider the same punishment to be perfectly reasonable means of discipline. Do persons contracting with one GSP have the right to force their standards on another that they don’t think protects children sufficiently? Or does the “context” have enforcement powers of its own? And if so, can one secede from the authority of this “context”?
And of course, if parents aren’t able to provide because they’re poor, they can be sued for breach of contract, but suing people who have nothing wins nothing.
And ah yes, Florida. So the awful bureaucrats harmed these children how? It let them down by doing nothing. It left those 2% of their charges at the mercy of family, friends, and the kindness of strangers. So I’m trying to figure out your point here. It sounds like what you describe as a satisfactory outcome in Libertaria, ceases to be acceptable once bureaucrats are involved.
The reason people out here in the real world are upset by this failure of the bureaucracy, is that that outcome is understood to leave those children unacceptably at risk.
I wonder what the social workers’ caseloads looked like. I wonder how many times their budget has been cut due to the typical anti-government panderings. And if the answers are what they are in most states these days, then you sure can’t lay failures like this off on pro-government do-gooders.
Now you might be able to blame the failure on democracy. But it’s a failure in meeting a standard that Libertaria would not and could not require to begin with.