Comment: I can help

(See in situ)

I can help

Not you BILL3, you're sockpuppets. But I can help anyone who is confused by this taken out of context.

This is not to say Murray isn't saying there shouldn't be a law against allowing kids to starve to death. He's certainly saying that. But this is in the context of someone who ultimately came to believe there shouldn't be any monopoly on violence whatsoever that could create, much less enforce statutory law.

But it's easier than that.

'Law', as statists like to call what is really legislation, is just what men in suits write down to tell you what to do. It has no direct relation to morality and historically is most often created to subvert morality.

So lets take this head on.

Is putting the parents in jail the moral thing to do if they refuse to provide food for their child?

I mean they can certainly enact legislation to do this, but despite BILL3's apoplectic glee at finding what he thinks is a flaw in Rothbard's analysis, I can't help but find that such a law would be and is immoral.

Caging the parents won't help the kid. Caging the parents will impose a cost on innocents. Killing the parents certainly won't help the kid and it would impose a moral and emotional cost on innocents. (I sure as hell don't want to be on that firing squad!) Also granting this power is dangerous.

It only takes considering the good thing to do in this situation, personally. After all the government has no authority not derived from you, the people.

Would you cage them at gunpoint? Would you just shoot them? Then kidnap the kid and make them a ward of the state? If not how can it be right for anyone else to do that?

Or would you feed the child, or try to find someone else to help, and resolve not to associate with those parents?

But you say "What if no one steps up?"

Certainly possible if very unlikely. There is a long history of incapable parents abandoning children at churches. People just don't walk past starving children.

But lets say you, and everyone else, do stand by and let the child starve since the parents did.

Will it make you feel better to cage the parents or shoot them? What are you doing now but taking out your angst at your own guilt on them?

But you say "Well if we have a law to cage parents, they will do the right thing from fear!"

Will they? We've seen a number of famous filicides recently. It's obvious that some of these children might be alive if their parents could have just abandoned them without repercussion.

People like the BILL3's think nothing exists that can't be made better if we just had some more laws and cops and guns. They will pass a law and think now things will be better.

This is a very adolescent understanding of the world, of history, of economics, and of ethics. Passing laws that violate natural law causes conflict. For the ignorant this is 'unintentional consequences'.

For the real bad guys, this is quite intentional.

TPTB profit from the conflict immoral laws create.

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." - Thomas Jefferson