This is a question for libertarians on the board. I debated putting it in GQ, but imagined a debate coming from it. So here goes.
It has been stated, primarily by Libertarian, that government must be consentual. You should enter iinto a contract blah blah blah. My question is about the children. Are you expecting children to sign contracts? Probably not. At what age would people be able to decide what government, or if they wanted a government. What if the parents got divorced and one agreed to be under one form of government and the other wanted no government. Who would get the kids, who would decide, how would they decide?
Child labor? At what point could kids work?
Here is a hypothetical I was thinking of.
A form of libertarian government, that decideds that it’s ok for children as young as 4 to work, and that fathers have all rights over children. The mother never agrees to the government, and wants the child back. The 7 year old child is put to work at a factory working 16 hour days. As the father (who has rights over the child acording to his concentual agreement) finds no problem in this, is it acceptable from a libertarian stand point. I assume not, and I’m guessing you have some argument to counter this. but, I am quite interested in hearing it.
I’m not 100% certain but I’ve a feeling that in a libertarian society:
you cannot opt out of the government of the land or it’s laws.
making children work 16hours a day at the age of 7 is coersion and would not be permited.
children would be protected from various contractual agreements with adults for the same reason they are protected under a democtratic society. They are not old enough or mature enough (in most cases) to understand fully the implications.
First thing is, one must recall how taxation works in a Libertarian entity. In Lib’s version, it doesn’t even exist: landowners would band together voluntarily to share in the burden of providing services such as military, police, and courts for each other, or jointly contract for those services. Lib’s version of Libertaria doesn’t exactly have nations as we know them; those landowners who joined together to contract for said services would constitute a libertarian entity. (Do I read you right, Lib?)
In less radical versions of libertarianism, nations as we know them would exist, and taxation would exist for only the absolute basics: military defense, police, and courts.
Either way, it would seem to leave no source of revenue for the nation or entity to aid orphans, or the children of parents that abandoned their responsibilities. Either charity would provide, or they would have to support themselves. Or maybe, unable to enter into contracts with the libertarian entity, the indigent children would be shown to the border, where hopefully some more ‘tyrannical’ state (i.e. one with taxes for such things) would provide for the children.
Wow, I’m impressed, I must say! Good attempts, Quick and RT!
In my version of Libertaria (thanks, RT!), children are incapable of giving meaningful consent. The ethical and judicial obligation the parents have is to bring their children peacefully and honestly into adulthood. That is, they must teach their children how to give meaningful consent unless it is impossible due to physical infirmity or deformity, in which case the parents bear a lifetime obligation to the child. Parenting in Libertaria is a very very sober and deliberate responsibility. People who wish to have children realize that they are taking on the most serious obligation of their lives, and they know they must make meticulous preparations for their role.
The definition of an adult in Libertaria is a person who is capable of giving meaningful consent. Naturally, the parents are in the best position to determine when their children have achieved this status. If they are dilatory in this regard the child may petition for arbitration, in which case the government of Libertaria will determine, as in every case when it examines contractability, whether the petitioner is an adult.
Parents may not initiate force against their children, but may use only defensive and retaliatory force to protect and correct them. Parents with children who divorce are not allowed to breach their obligation to their children. Children who are orphans are cared for by family or private charity until they are adopted. As you might surmise, there are few orphans in Libertaria. There are few cases where a parent can produce an orphan and remain free from prison.
IMHO if there are no charitys for the children then no one cares about children right? Therefore logically if people care about the children then they will be provided for. However if no one cares about the children then they wont(though I assume that the goverment is a represenative of the people and that since the goverment takes care of them that means the people care about them)
Main Entry: 1or·phan
Pronunciation: 'or-f&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin orphanus, from
Greek orphanos; akin to Old High German erbi inheritance, Latin orbus orphaned
Date: 15th century
1 : a child deprived by death of one or usually both parents
2 : a young animal that has lost its mother
3 : one deprived of some protection or advantage <orphans of the storm>
(the last is metaphorical and not customarily used for abandoned babies, I believe)
I guess, then, a 17-year-old who gives birth and realizes she cannot support and care for the child is thrown in jail? If you do not have a way for people who have just given birth to put their child up for adoption without fear of jail, I’m afraid there might be a lot of babies simply tossed in dumpsters. I think the burden of caring for an abandoned baby is less than the burden of a needlessly dead child.
Very good everyone. Nice answer libertarian, I’m off to school, but I’ll be back tomorrow with more objections/questions regarding the status of children.
The libertarian philosophy initially appealed to me, so I tried to read all I could about it. There’s a lot, and it’s often contradictory.
Anyway, my final analysis is that libertarianism couldn’t possibly work. Mostly because most people simply aren’t all that nice. We’d wind up with about three properety owners owning everything and promising not to beat each other up any more.
Our society needs to be compelled to provide for those (for whatever reason) do not provide for themselves.
