EXACTLY. Two people were at fault here, and they were the parents. Only they should suffer the consequences and not the child they produced. By giving her up for adoption, Nutmeg did the best she could under the circumstances to make sure her girl did not suffer. She did the right thing.
Some of you may say, “She should have thought of that before she had sex!” Like it or not, we do not all have 20/20 foresight. Few fifteen-year-olds, boys or girls, have this ability. We do our best to teach them foresight, but since none of us is perfect, mistakes WILL be made.
I’d like to know what inertia would prefer to adoption.
I’m glad you decided to join us, Nutmeg. That was a wonderful story of courage and facing up to your responsibilities. Again, you did the right thing. Don’t let anyone tell you you didn’t.
I assume you mean Don Imus. I was not quoting him, since I’ve barely heard of the man or what he’s ever said. If he’s ever said anything like that, I didn’t hear it. (It’s possible I’m quoting him unconsciously, but I doubt it.)
And just to clarify everything to everyone:
I am a fallible, mortal human being. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a mortal, fallible human being. He died about 1,970 years ago and he is not coming back, ever. One day, I, too, will die and I won’t be coming back after that, either.
If the one law of Libertania (that hypothetical land to which pure Libertarianism is limited, because it would never in a million years work in the real world) is the Noncorecion Principle, on what grounds does the government coerce a woman into taking care of a baby she doesn’t want? Because she has “implicitly” signed up to do so by getting pregnant? Aside from all the ways a woman might unintentionally or involuntarily get pregnant, how can Libertarianism ratify an “implicit” contract? If THAT’S allowed, why can’t we agree that you have implicitly contracted to pay taxes and support the existing system by continuing to live here.
It seems obvious that the answer to the problem under the strictest interpretation of Libertarianism is for the baby to crawl out of the dumpster and take care of his or her own peaceful, honest self. The reality, of course, is that he or she can’t. So even Lib has to bend his precious Libertarian “principles” to the breaking point to avoid an outrageous result. The question therefore becomes, why is he willing to do so in this case, but in no other?
Imus wrote a book entitled “God’s Other Son.” It actually wasn’t about him, it was about Billy Sol Hargus, but your statement just triggered an immediate reaction. Sorry.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
The question, as I see it, is why you don’t understand that breach is a coercion, and breach against children is a heinous coercion.
I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but get someone you know and trust to explain to you that ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE CHILD. He was made a party to the contract without benefit of his consent, which is ethically okay, since he is not capable of giving meaningful consent. But once a parent has contracted with a child to raise it into adulthood, that parent is responsible for that child.
That you think this requires an exception to the Noncoercion Principle simply means that you don’t understand our simple ethic. Considering your intelligence, the problem is your will. You simply hate us. And like any bigot, you make no effort whatsoever to understand anything about us.
I think you sort of answered my question–that you feel the father (and mother), by having sex, entered into an implicit agreement (that you are considering a contract) to care for any resulting children. Since the child has no say in the matter, any breach of responsibility by either party forces the child to live without the benefit of a full family.
This seems generally reasonable to me. Then the question becomes, how do you enforce this policy fairly? If people let their child be raised by the nanny, are they neglecting the child by not giving them a real father and mother?
Lord, no. I have a new job and don’t really have time to respond much any more. I had intended to stop posting altogether, but Jodi stirred me with her ignorant comments.
The only way to enforce any policy fairly is to enforce it consistently, in accordance with good principle, and in the proper frame of reference (or context). Libertarianly, those attributes manifest as enforcement only upon the order of arbitration, the Noncoercion Principle, and the child’s perspective respectively.
Parents may fulfill their contract with their child in any manner they please, so long as they conduct their affairs peacefully and honestly. Their only restriction with respect to the child is the same as their restriction with respect to everyone else: they may not coerce the child. They may use defensive force to protect the child, and retaliatory force to punish the child, but they may never initiate force against the child.
They may also transfer their contract with their child to any other willing party who is also peaceful and honest, i.e., they may put their child up for adoption. They may also subcontract any or all of their duties to their child, i.e., they may hire a nanny. If their contract is transferred in full, then the resonsibility transfers with it. But if they subcontract their duties then the responsiblity still lies with them. They risk exposure when they hire others for any task, and raising their children is no different. If the child is under the care of a nanny and initiates force against another citizen, then it is the parents whom the government holds to account because they are the contact’s parties. The parents may bring charges against the nanny, but that is a separate matter and would likely require some sort of fraud on the part of the nanny (like lying about the circumstances, saying he or she was attentive when he or she was not, etc.)
As a matter of interest, you might wonder why I always (and to the chagrin of so many) qualify the people in my scenarios as peaceful and honest. It is because that qualification is necessary, Ockhamly speaking, since people who coerce or defraud have abrogated their rights. For example, if above I had said that parents may transfer their contract to anyone else, you could conclude that they may “sell” their children as sex slaves to scoundrels who prey on humans who cannot give meaningful consent.
Rights are not for everyone; they are only for people who are peaceful and honest — in other words, people who initiate no force.
I hope that answers your questions. I really won’t have much time to post much for the forseeable future. My new job looks like it might take off quite nicely.
Lib, although I could continue with further questions, I’ll relent and let you go in peace. (Incidently this has probably been too civil a conversation to have taken place in the Pit.)
Good luck on your new endeavors; may God go with you as well.
Unlike you, I fail at being perfect. And if you were the Christ, I would surely be in Hell. By the way, while you’re at my feet, kindly give those toes a good rub.
And unlike you, I don’t claim to have all the answers, or to know the Lord’s political philosophy.
And one hardly needs to be perfect (which I’ve never claimed to be) to be a bit underwhelmed by your returning to the board simply to call somebody an ignorant, moronic bigot.
Does my quoting you offend you? That’s your problem, I’m afraid.
LIB says, with his usual patience with those who call him on the fundamental inconsistencies of his so-called philosophy:
You wouldn’t, perhaps, like to explain why it’s moronic? That is assuming you even have the ability to recognize that name-calling advances your position not one iota.
The problem, as I see it, is that you throw around legal terms without any idea of what they mean. A contract is an agreement between two individuals whereby goods and services are provided in exchange for lawful consideration. If you fail to hold up your end of the contract, you have breached it. If I agree to sell you 10 widgets for 10 dollars and you do not pay me, you have breached the contract. You have not, however, coerced me – coercion being “compulsion or constraint; compelling by force or arms or threat.” You can say a breach of contract always equals a coercion only by defining “coercion” in a manner other than the way it is customarily defined – which, of course, you are free to do. But your saying it is so doesn’t make it so, anymore than I would have to agree that red is actually blue simply because you so choose to define it.
Actually, I get this. What I don’t get is how the best interests of the child are compatible with the Libertarian principle of non-coercion.
Explain to me, please, how a parent can “contract” with a child without either the consent of the parent or the child. I would remind you, also, that a child by definition does not legally have the power to enter into a contract in the first place, precisely because of his or her lack of capacity to consent. You can place the moral obligation to raise the child upon the parent (and reasonably so), but you can’t do so through a theory of contract – unless you define contract to mean something other than what it means to the rest of us,
which, knowing you, you probably do.
Then explain it to me. I will ask you a simple and direct question, though I have not have much luck in getting straight answers from you (and Lord knows I’m not the only one): How can you bind a parent and/or a child through an IMPLIED contract, which neither has explicitly consented to, and which at least one would disavow ever having intended to enter into, without breaking your Noncoercion Principle? You are obviously coercing both the parent and the child to be bound by a contract neither anticipated or agreed to. Obviously, the only way you can get around this sticking point is by theorizing an IMPLICIT contract – an idea that is itself antithetical to Libertarian priciples. But if you will allow an implicit contract under these circumstances, why then will you not allow that YOU have entered into an implicit contract with THIS society by continuing to live within it?
Actually, the problem is that I think you are a single-minded zealot who continually (and annoyingly) interjects his personal crusade into every subject posted on this board. Worse, you lack the ability (or the desire) to defend it when challenged to, which leads one to wonder why you continue to bring it up.
Frankly, I don’t care enough about you or your beliefs to hate you. You want to consider me an anti-Libertarian “bigot,” fine with me; I really don’t care what you think of me. I find your statement that I refuse to make any effort to “understand” you ironic, however, given your documented and repeated refusal to deal with the difficult questions regarding the system you purport to defend. If you want me to “understand” Libertarianism, reconcile for me the idea of an implicit contract, entered into without volition or consent, and the Noncoercion Principle. Ideally, you will be able to do so without redefining “coersion,” “contract,” or “consent,” but frankly I’m not holding my breath.
any bigot, you make no effort whatsoever to
That you think this requires an exception to the Noncoercion Principle simply means that you don’t understand our simple ethic. Considering your intelligence, the problem is your will. You simply hate us. And like understand anything about us.