Comment: A law that ignores biological

(See in situ)


A law that ignores biological

A law that ignores biological distinctions is not law, anymore than a law that says the sky is purple is law. Its just nonsense. Common Law comes out of human interaction and experience, and is discovered from them. Equality under the law is constrained by reason and necessity, and always has been. Otherwise, you would have equality but not law.

Here is Rothbard on the Common Law: http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/liberta...

"In practice, this means taking the
largely libertarian common law, and correcting it by the use of
man’s reason, before enshrining it as a permanently fixed libertarian
code or constitution."

So basically, Rothbard wants to pick and choose rights. He chooses to remove from children the right to not be grossly neglected and the burden from parents to dutifully care for their children PER THE COMMON LAW.

You need to understand that Rothbard backwards-rationalized his view that you can starve your kids to death(why not just put them out of their misery with a bullet?) from his support for abortion. Not from rights and not from law.

Ventura 2012