Comment: Sigh ...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: you don't understand. this (see in situ)

Sigh ...

Rothbard states everyone has rights which derive from self ownership which means positive obligations derive from consent.

A child does not have a right to take anything from parents.

Parents do not have a right to take anything from children.

He doesn't stop short of saying parents can kill children justly nor is that the point of his controversial assertion. You twist it into a parent not providing food to a child is somehow taking something from a child which a child never had to begin with.

Since it is impossible to prevent child abuses or anything for that matter, no one argues the impossible. What is argued is that the ~681,000 children reported as victims of maltreatment in 2012 and the nearly five children who die every day in America would be less in a free market because the economics of people is that life is more profitable than death. Life creates more happiness and satisfaction than death. You conveniently did not include in the OP the section where Rothbard argues child neglect would be minimal in a libertarian society.

Rights are based on moral assertions rooted in interests? Give me a break with that babble. In reality rights are governed by force, in nature and in political interventions of nature. I can accept rights are an abstract concept but do you accept rights have less political value when they are inconsistent?

Human beings act. Perhaps one does not own their own action(s)? Perhaps the legal principal ignorance of law is no excuse is unjust if one does not own and thereby not responsible for their own action(s). There is no rebutting one does not own their actions because there is no evidence to rebut it with. If you do not own your own action then who owns it?

Ownership implies title which implies a bundle of rights. Legally different forms of title may posses different bundles of rights. By definition courts take control of property in dispute while pending disposition and family courts are no different. The matter before a family court involving children is one of property, one of title, specifically any title and associated bundle of rights the persons before the court have to children in dispute. To say parents own children is inaccurate thinking. Parents own a title, lets call it a guradianship title and that guardianship title involves a bundle of rights which include a right to exclude other persons who have no vested interest in any guardianship title who would seek to exercise any privileges of stewardship against a parents wishes. Departments of Family services intervene on the basis the state has a vested guardianship interest in any citizen which is a superior title to that of parents in certain circumstances such as when a child is allegedly abused. Ah, what do I know ... don't listen to any explanation I offer on how courts and titles work, because its difficult for people to see beyond whatever thing is before a court. They can't taste, touch, hear, or smell a title or any bundle of rights associated with that title so it is only perceivable using reason ... which public relations, advertising, and marketing have empirically proven most people don't use anyway. So go ask some attorney for clarification ...

Since Rothbard states there is a distinction between a legal, which implies the use of force, and a moral obligation I fail to see how you can make a leap of logic he is making any moral claims when he clearly states otherwise.

Logic and emotion are not always in harmony. Do you have any logical reason children have a right to take something from a parent against a parents consent? In theory, logic and emotion is what separates legal from moral. Most people probably do not feel it is right to intentionally not feed a child but on the other hand they probably can not form a consistent logical argument as to why the child has a right to take from parents who do not consent.

In summary, I believe the concept of self ownership and owning one's action is correct, consistent, and have no problem considering the logical conclusions of self ownership even if some of them don't intuitively feel right. I also believe life is more profitable than death and while there may never be a logical solution for some moral paradoxes, child neglect or abuse would be less in a free market where one has the opportunity to profit from an unwanted child. The profit motive introduces an entirely new dimension to the child conversation with a whole new set of what if possibilities such as what if the child is sold to bad people, etc. Then it can be endlessly argued till the cows come home that in an unregulated market bad companies will go out of business, etc. At that point the conversation becomes entirely removed from the initial issue which was violence, when is it appropriate to initiate, if ever, and why? Is this not a question Rothbard endeavors to answer using reason?