Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarianism and Children

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 3:15:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't bring up whether children should be able to do whatever they want, which I know you'll bring up some contradictory excuse for why they wouldn't.

No, I bring up the freedom of the parents in a Libertarian society, which you can't make an excuse for but rather have to defend.

Should parents really not be required to take care of their children? Should a non-present parent really not be required to pay child support?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 3:19:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:15:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't bring up whether children should be able to do whatever they want, which I know you'll bring up some contradictory excuse for why they wouldn't.

No, I bring up the freedom of the parents in a Libertarian society, which you can't make an excuse for but rather have to defend.

Should parents really not be required to take care of their children? Should a non-present parent really not be required to pay child support?

I'd be more concerned with "should both parents have a right to perminately expell their child from their home and property (i.e. cast out to the streets to fend for themselves)?" rather than just the single parent not paying child support.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 3:23:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:19:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:15:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't bring up whether children should be able to do whatever they want, which I know you'll bring up some contradictory excuse for why they wouldn't.

No, I bring up the freedom of the parents in a Libertarian society, which you can't make an excuse for but rather have to defend.

Should parents really not be required to take care of their children? Should a non-present parent really not be required to pay child support?

I'd be more concerned with "should both parents have a right to perminately expell their child from their home and property (i.e. cast out to the streets to fend for themselves)?" rather than just the single parent not paying child support.

Of course not. Society does not allow any opportunities for children to be independent. To cast out a child is like a death sentence. People take parenthood as such in such frivolity and lack of preparation, when they have children they don't know how to handle them. A parent should not have a child if he/she will not see him/her through to adulthood.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 3:26:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:23:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:19:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:15:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't bring up whether children should be able to do whatever they want, which I know you'll bring up some contradictory excuse for why they wouldn't.

No, I bring up the freedom of the parents in a Libertarian society, which you can't make an excuse for but rather have to defend.

Should parents really not be required to take care of their children? Should a non-present parent really not be required to pay child support?

I'd be more concerned with "should both parents have a right to perminately expell their child from their home and property (i.e. cast out to the streets to fend for themselves)?" rather than just the single parent not paying child support.

Of course not. Society does not allow any opportunities for children to be independent. To cast out a child is like a death sentence. People take parenthood as such in such frivolity and lack of preparation, when they have children they don't know how to handle them. A parent should not have a child if he/she will not see him/her through to adulthood.

That's the difference between our society and a libertarian society.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 3:30:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:26:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:23:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:19:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:15:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't bring up whether children should be able to do whatever they want, which I know you'll bring up some contradictory excuse for why they wouldn't.

No, I bring up the freedom of the parents in a Libertarian society, which you can't make an excuse for but rather have to defend.

Should parents really not be required to take care of their children? Should a non-present parent really not be required to pay child support?

I'd be more concerned with "should both parents have a right to perminately expell their child from their home and property (i.e. cast out to the streets to fend for themselves)?" rather than just the single parent not paying child support.

Of course not. Society does not allow any opportunities for children to be independent. To cast out a child is like a death sentence. People take parenthood as such in such frivolity and lack of preparation, when they have children they don't know how to handle them. A parent should not have a child if he/she will not see him/her through to adulthood.

That's the difference between our society and a libertarian society.

Bing-bing.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 3:33:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:26:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

That's the difference between our society and a libertarian society.

What do you mean? Our society should broaden the emancipation abilities of teenagers? or that 10 year olds should be allowed to work in factories and earn money if they want?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 3:55:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:33:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:26:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

That's the difference between our society and a libertarian society.

What do you mean? Our society should broaden the emancipation abilities of teenagers? or that 10 year olds should be allowed to work in factories and earn money if they want?

According to libertarian ideals of personship and individual rights, yes. If a 10 year old wants to work, he should have every right to trade his labor for money. Parent's who own their property have the right to expell anyone they want from that property, including their children.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 4:08:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:55:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:33:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:26:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

That's the difference between our society and a libertarian society.

What do you mean? Our society should broaden the emancipation abilities of teenagers? or that 10 year olds should be allowed to work in factories and earn money if they want?

According to libertarian ideals of personship and individual rights, yes. If a 10 year old wants to work, he should have every right to trade his labor for money. Parent's who own their property have the right to expell anyone they want from that property, including their children.

Why does this make sense to people? Everything has its boundaries, even freedom. A child is not developed enough to make sensible decisions in life or survive in an environment outside the nurturing of home and school. Give man total freedom, and you give him the tool to destroy himself. There is a tendency in human nature to control others, because that is the only way man can perpetuate his existence.

Furthermore, freedom is an ideological quality inherent to the anarchistic wild. When man forms society, and generations thrive on the work that previous generations have set forth, from where does one draw back this total freedom? Only one who left society, and cut the tree and found the iron and molded the nails, and sawed the logs, and wrote the schematics to build his own house can truly romanticize freedom. Man, I hate libertarianism. Sorry for the tangent rant.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 5:23:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've always recognized children as something of an exception to most libertarian principles due to their inability to give informed consent and avoid exploitation, as well as their lack of skills and other issues. I believe parents do have a responsibility to care for their children.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 7:09:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:15:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't bring up whether children should be able to do whatever they want, which I know you'll bring up some contradictory excuse for why they wouldn't.

No, I bring up the freedom of the parents in a Libertarian society, which you can't make an excuse for but rather have to defend.

Should parents really not be required to take care of their children? Should a non-present parent really not be required to pay child support?

You misunderstand Libertarianism

Libertarians believe in Minarchy

Minarchism also known as limited-government is a libertarian political philosophy which maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, fire departments, prisons, courts, executive, and legislatures.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 7:14:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 7:09:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:15:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't bring up whether children should be able to do whatever they want, which I know you'll bring up some contradictory excuse for why they wouldn't.

No, I bring up the freedom of the parents in a Libertarian society, which you can't make an excuse for but rather have to defend.

Should parents really not be required to take care of their children? Should a non-present parent really not be required to pay child support?

You misunderstand Libertarianism

Libertarians believe in Minarchy

Minarchism also known as limited-government is a libertarian political philosophy which maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, fire departments, prisons, courts, executive, and legislatures.

Here is the Libertarian Platform on Children and Families.

"Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government, unless they are abusing the children. We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger.

Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship. Accordingly, we oppose all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services. In particular, we call for the repeal of all laws restricting transracial adoption. "

http://www.dehnbase.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 8:16:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 5:23:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always recognized children as something of an exception to most libertarian principles due to their inability to give informed consent and avoid exploitation, as well as their lack of skills and other issues. I believe parents do have a responsibility to care for their children.

What's the age where a person becomes "rational" enough though. For example, even though you are technically underage, you are probably more "rational" then most adults.

Parents don't have an inherent right to take care of their children, even in a statist society. Hence, this is why adoption centers exists and social services.

I think that human capital contracts could solve some of the problem. Basically, a child can form a contract with an adult, in which the adult agrees to "take care of him or her" in exchange if the adult gets a portion of the income once the child grows up. This will actually create a positive incentive for good parenting, since the contractor has a special interest in the child's life. Both prosper from the contract.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 8:31:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 8:16:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/6/2011 5:23:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always recognized children as something of an exception to most libertarian principles due to their inability to give informed consent and avoid exploitation, as well as their lack of skills and other issues. I believe parents do have a responsibility to care for their children.

What's the age where a person becomes "rational" enough though. For example, even though you are technically underage, you are probably more "rational" then most adults.

Sadly, that is and probably will always be a difficult question to answer; I don't see any simple solutions. I guess the community would have to decide a legal age of consent.

Parents don't have an inherent right to take care of their children, even in a statist society. Hence, this is why adoption centers exists and social services.

No, but they do have an obligation to make sure that the needs of their children are met, be it by their own money or by adoption services.

I think that human capital contracts could solve some of the problem. Basically, a child can form a contract with an adult, in which the adult agrees to "take care of him or her" in exchange if the adult gets a portion of the income once the child grows up. This will actually create a positive incentive for good parenting, since the contractor has a special interest in the child's life. Both prosper from the contract.

Children aren't old enough to understand contracts. How would you like it if you learned your parents decided to claim 50% of everything you owned in the future, and you agreed to this when you were two? I wouldn't. A child is more likely to help their parent in the future if they are raised well; that should provide incentive, although ideally, we shouldn't even need economic incentives to raise our own children.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 9:14:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:33:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:26:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

That's the difference between our society and a libertarian society.

What do you mean? Our society should broaden the emancipation abilities of teenagers? or that 10 year olds should be allowed to work in factories and earn money if they want?

Why shouldn't they?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 9:39:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 8:31:32 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/6/2011 8:16:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/6/2011 5:23:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always recognized children as something of an exception to most libertarian principles due to their inability to give informed consent and avoid exploitation, as well as their lack of skills and other issues. I believe parents do have a responsibility to care for their children.

What's the age where a person becomes "rational" enough though. For example, even though you are technically underage, you are probably more "rational" then most adults.

Sadly, that is and probably will always be a difficult question to answer; I don't see any simple solutions. I guess the community would have to decide a legal age of consent.

If the problem is that children are not rational, then its also a problem with libertarianism that adults aren't rational either. Our evolutionary system design are not rational and can easily be exploited. Really there's nothing magic that happens once you become an adult and you become super rational.

Parents don't have an inherent right to take care of their children, even in a statist society. Hence, this is why adoption centers exists and social services.

No, but they do have an obligation to make sure that the needs of their children are met, be it by their own money or by adoption services.

I agree.

I think that human capital contracts could solve some of the problem. Basically, a child can form a contract with an adult, in which the adult agrees to "take care of him or her" in exchange if the adult gets a portion of the income once the child grows up. This will actually create a positive incentive for good parenting, since the contractor has a special interest in the child's life. Both prosper from the contract.

Children aren't old enough to understand contracts.

And adults are? tell me, do you read the contracts of everything you agree to once you download a program or sign up for an account?

How would you like it if you learned your parents decided to claim 50% of everything you owned in the future, and you agreed to this when you were two?

Well ideally in a free market people would compete, so the amount that the person has to pay for the human-capital contract is dependent on supply and demand. 50% would likely not be the amount the parent claim.

However, I don't see how the system is necessarily wrong. Both parties benefit from the transaction. The guardian paid quite a bit for you in the past,so why not pay it back. It is much preferable to current systems that we have such as social services and our medicare and social security programs.
This system can replace such programs such as social security, in which your monetary earnings are going to pay for retirees, and you will never see the money again.

I wouldn't. A child is more likely to help their parent in the future if they are raised well;

A parent that relies on their child for retirement is a fool. The children have less of an incentive to help their parents then vise-versa. Moreso, relying on others to pay us back, when the person has lost his or her utility, without any legal obligation is an unlikely occurrence.

that should provide incentive, although ideally, we shouldn't even need economic incentives to raise our own children.

Yes, but you need economic incentives to raise children that are not of your own blood. That's where human capital contracts come in.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:07:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think parents should have any legal duties/responsibilities to their children. If children are expelled from their house, then someone more loving will take them in. Forcing a bad parent to keep parenting seems problematic to me.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:14:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:15:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't bring up whether children should be able to do whatever they want, which I know you'll bring up some contradictory excuse for why they wouldn't.
Wat?

At least insofar as adults should be able to do whatever they want, children should (i.e. no trespassing, shooting innocents, etc.).

Should parents really not be required to take care of their children? Should a non-present parent really not be required to pay child support?
No requirement.

I'd be more concerned with "should both parents have a right to perminately expell their child from their home and property
Yes.

Society does not allow any opportunities for children to be independent.
Correction, labor laws don't allow it. ^_^

Why does this make sense to people? Everything has its boundaries, even freedom.
Boundaries such as other people's noses for your fists, not such as age.

I've always recognized children as something of an exception to most libertarian principles
Then you've always been an ageist statist.

Here is the Libertarian Platform on Children and Families.
That may be the platform of the "Libertarian Party" but there is nothing libertarian about it.

Children aren't old enough to understand contracts.
If they aren't old enough to have rationality, they aren't old enough to have any rights. Either they are rational beings or they are hairless monkeys/rocks/wtfeverIdontcare.

(Note that adults are rational. They may not be "Perfectly rational" but that is a different issue. Most children I know of are rational too.).

Why is Lasagna more libertarian on this issue than Mongoose?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:15:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
er, Mongeese
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:29:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 11:21:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Lasagna is left-libertarian. Mongeese is right-libertarian.

Since when is Mr. Welfare and Medicare and Campaign Finance restrictions some sort of goddamn libertarian?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:32:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 9:39:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/6/2011 8:31:32 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/6/2011 8:16:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/6/2011 5:23:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always recognized children as something of an exception to most libertarian principles due to their inability to give informed consent and avoid exploitation, as well as their lack of skills and other issues. I believe parents do have a responsibility to care for their children.

What's the age where a person becomes "rational" enough though. For example, even though you are technically underage, you are probably more "rational" then most adults.

Sadly, that is and probably will always be a difficult question to answer; I don't see any simple solutions. I guess the community would have to decide a legal age of consent.

If the problem is that children are not rational, then its also a problem with libertarianism that adults aren't rational either. Our evolutionary system design are not rational and can easily be exploited. Really there's nothing magic that happens once you become an adult and you become super rational.

However, it's a proven fact that people become more rational with age. If you aren't rational as an adult, you'll probably never be rational, but it's not fair to let kids be exploited because of their irrationality if they're going to develop more rationality later to make better decisions.

Parents don't have an inherent right to take care of their children, even in a statist society. Hence, this is why adoption centers exists and social services.

No, but they do have an obligation to make sure that the needs of their children are met, be it by their own money or by adoption services.

I agree.

Good.

I think that human capital contracts could solve some of the problem. Basically, a child can form a contract with an adult, in which the adult agrees to "take care of him or her" in exchange if the adult gets a portion of the income once the child grows up. This will actually create a positive incentive for good parenting, since the contractor has a special interest in the child's life. Both prosper from the contract.

Children aren't old enough to understand contracts.

And adults are? tell me, do you read the contracts of everything you agree to once you download a program or sign up for an account?

Nope, but they understand them better. I rarely read internet contracts because I already understand the basics of them, and if any company ever abused them in some way to take advantage of apathy, they'd be blasted by the press.

How would you like it if you learned your parents decided to claim 50% of everything you owned in the future, and you agreed to this when you were two?

Well ideally in a free market people would compete, so the amount that the person has to pay for the human-capital contract is dependent on supply and demand. 50% would likely not be the amount the parent claim.

But how would supply and demand work when you only have one buyer and one seller? Is a child allowed to switch parents at a whim? Is a parent allowed to switch children? The market doesn't work in this situation.

However, I don't see how the system is necessarily wrong. Both parties benefit from the transaction. The guardian paid quite a bit for you in the past,so why not pay it back.

If the parents took good enough care of the children, I'd think the children would take care of the parents in their old age, which wold make up for the costs of raising them.

It is much preferable to current systems that we have such as social services and our medicare and social security programs.

But to require this by contract? Children should take care of their elderly parents by morality, not legal obligation.

This system can replace such programs such as social security, in which your monetary earnings are going to pay for retirees, and you will never see the money again.

And if a couple's children tragically die in a car accident, they'll think, "There goes our nest egg!"?

I wouldn't. A child is more likely to help their parent in the future if they are raised well;

A parent that relies on their child for retirement is a fool.

A parent who contractually requires their child to pay them in the future is a tyrant.

The children have less of an incentive to help their parents then vise-versa. Moreso, relying on others to pay us back, when the person has lost his or her utility, without any legal obligation is an unlikely occurrence.

Does the relationship between parent and child mean nothing?

that should provide incentive, although ideally, we shouldn't even need economic incentives to raise our own children.

Yes, but you need economic incentives to raise children that are not of your own blood. That's where human capital contracts come in.

If you were an orphan waiting to be adopted, would you want to be adopted by a couple that was only convinced to raise you when they were told that they'd get a cut of all of your future paychecks? I thought not.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:34:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 11:29:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/6/2011 11:21:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Lasagna is left-libertarian. Mongeese is right-libertarian.

Since when is Mr. Welfare and Medicare and Campaign Finance restrictions some sort of goddamn libertarian?

We're getting into semantics. Lasgna's ideology is based on social liberty but no economic liberty. Mongeese is based on economic and social liberty.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:37:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Irrationality doesn't play into it Mongeese. There's nonrational and then there are rational people with rights. Rights are binary, you have them or you don't. "Fair?" Whatever you signed up for, it's fair that you get the results.

There is no other "fair" way to do it either. Your options are: One. This person does not have rights. Two. This person's decisions shall rule their life. Three. If you assume that letting children sign contracts oppresses them-- letting parents make decisions for them, or the state, or wtfever, does so no less.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:38:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 11:34:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/6/2011 11:29:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/6/2011 11:21:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Lasagna is left-libertarian. Mongeese is right-libertarian.

Since when is Mr. Welfare and Medicare and Campaign Finance restrictions some sort of goddamn libertarian?

We're getting into semantics. Lasgna's ideology is based on social liberty but no economic liberty.
In other words, not libertarian. Just any other sort of modern lib'rul.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:01:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 11:32:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/6/2011 9:39:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/6/2011 8:31:32 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/6/2011 8:16:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/6/2011 5:23:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always recognized children as something of an exception to most libertarian principles due to their inability to give informed consent and avoid exploitation, as well as their lack of skills and other issues. I believe parents do have a responsibility to care for their children.

What's the age where a person becomes "rational" enough though. For example, even though you are technically underage, you are probably more "rational" then most adults.

Sadly, that is and probably will always be a difficult question to answer; I don't see any simple solutions. I guess the community would have to decide a legal age of consent.

If the problem is that children are not rational, then its also a problem with libertarianism that adults aren't rational either. Our evolutionary system design are not rational and can easily be exploited. Really there's nothing magic that happens once you become an adult and you become super rational.

However, it's a proven fact that people become more rational with age. If you aren't rational as an adult, you'll probably never be rational, but it's not fair to let kids be exploited because of their irrationality if they're going to develop more rationality later to make better decisions.

How do you even prove that? Deciding whether a decision is rational is difficult due to subjective value. For example, does a smoker really understand the risks associated with his or her action, or does he/she figured out that he/she gs more value from smoking then any health damages?

Children aren't old enough to understand contracts.

And adults are? tell me, do you read the contracts of everything you agree to once you download a program or sign up for an account?

Nope, but they understand them better. I rarely read internet contracts because I already understand the basics of them, and if any company ever abused them in some way to take advantage of apathy, they'd be blasted by the press.

So basically you state that the free market can solve the problem of asymmetric information when it comes to other aspects of contracts, but for some reason there would be too much asymmetric information in human capital contracts?

Like you don't think that a company with a good reputation can exist that has been proven to not screw over his or her customer.

Well ideally in a free market people would compete, so the amount that the person has to pay for the human-capital contract is dependent on supply and demand. 50% would likely not be the amount the parent claim.

But how would supply and demand work when you only have one buyer and one seller? Is a child allowed to switch parents at a whim? Is a parent allowed to switch children? The market doesn't work in this situation.

Well there are multiple sellers. The child cannot back at the deal at whim since the child needs to pay back the investor. The child can't just take all the money and screw the person over. However, the deal is based on what the contract states. For example, if the contract says the child can change guardians, the child can change guardians.

If the parents took good enough care of the children, I'd think the children would take care of the parents in their old age, which wold make up for the costs of raising them.

You'd think that. It doesn't make up the costs. The son or daughter has no obligations either.

But to require this by contract? Children should take care of their elderly parents by morality, not legal obligation.

And maybe we can all take care of each other by morality and we can each produce to each according to his/her ability to each or her to need :p. Come on, you should know that people are motivated by incentives, not morality.

And if a couple's children tragically die in a car accident, they'll think, "There goes our nest egg!"?

Well If you invest in the stockmarket, you don't exactly buy the same company do you? Know you diversify. Same with human capital owners. There can be multiple owners for any one individual, and one individual can own multiple people.

A parent who contractually requires their child to pay them in the future is a tyrant.

Come on, are you a capitalist or not? :). Why is this person a tyrant? Both parties benefit from the transaction.

Does the relationship between parent and child mean nothing?

Appeal to emotion. It depends on the individual. I would say that a parent is more gentically prone to help the child since its evolutionary beneficial for the parent to pass his or her genes. The child gains nothing from helping the parent, unless there is inheritance involved, once the parent has lost his or her utility. Actually studies confirm that siblings are more likely to visit their parents when inheritance is involved, rather than an only child, since the siblings have to compete for the money.

If you were an orphan waiting to be adopted, would you want to be adopted by a couple that was only convinced to raise you when they were told that they'd get a cut of all of your future paychecks? I thought not.

Reasoning is unimportant. Only results matter. A therapist only listens to your problems because he/she gets paid. Nonetheless, we still think therapist provide a valuable service. I think most people would understand the valuable service they benefit from the transaction.

Come on mongeese, your rant was quite the un-capitalistic :).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:09:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 11:37:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Irrationality doesn't play into it Mongeese. There's nonrational and then there are rational people with rights. Rights are binary, you have them or you don't. "Fair?" Whatever you signed up for, it's fair that you get the results.

There is no other "fair" way to do it either. Your options are: One. This person does not have rights. Two. This person's decisions shall rule their life. Three. If you assume that letting children sign contracts oppresses them-- letting parents make decisions for them, or the state, or wtfever, does so no less.

This. Actually, If you come to think about it, parents are quite self-interested in shaping you even if it does not coincide with your desires. Parents can use manipulation and punishment to try to get you to perform the desired actions or stop you from performing actions. This occurs all the time, yet somehow this is not seen as morally wrong.

It just amazes me how one can be capitalist in one sense, and then completely attack capitalism for free markets to solve the guardianship problem.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:09:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 11:29:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/6/2011 11:21:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Lasagna is left-libertarian. Mongeese is right-libertarian.

Since when is Mr. Welfare and Medicare and Campaign Finance restrictions some sort of goddamn libertarian?

Lasagna doesn't support any form of rights. By complete pure and true definition, it does not get more Libertarian than that.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:11:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 5:23:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
I've always recognized children as something of an exception to most libertarian principles due to their inability to give informed consent and avoid exploitation, as well as their lack of skills and other issues. I believe parents do have a responsibility to care for their children.

Once there is one exception for Libertarianism, there is many more.

No pure theory can be correct, in my opinion. It will always end up contradicting itself. Just like morality, just like physics, just like everything, politics is relative.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 12:15:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is one issue I take a surprisingly statist stance on.

I don't think parents, in their current form, is even a necessary or desirable thing for society. There should, instead, be community homes everyone is raised in. If not that, people should at least need licenses to have children. We need licenses for driving a car, yet not for something over which we will be excercising MUCH more responsibility and have MUCH further reaching ramifications.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord