I'm not a fan of child support laws, and my basic beleif is that a father shouldn't have to pay for a child he doesn't want. And that I certainly shouldn't have to pay for a government to step in and force him to be a responsible adult.
However many people find this view to be too "cold," was there anything in place before the government took over and are there any facts and statisitics that show how the government getting involved is actually worse for the child? And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system? Marriage Insurance?
Thanks
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
This is quite tangled, but at a minimum both parents have obligations to their child. I fail to see how the severing of a marriage would end that. There are many complicating factors of course, such as whether impregnation was part of the father's intent etc.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Honest your honor, I just slipped and she got pregnant!
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
If we acknowledge the right of a woman to choose to not bear a child, how can we refuse the same right to a man?
If she has the option of curtailing her responsibility for childraising for the next 18+ years, he should as well. Once the responsibility has been freely accepted, I don't see any way of honorably walking away from it - but the failure of contraception does not automatically mean that one must accept the responsibility to be a parent.
In the case of dissoultion of marriage, it gets more complex. Like other things in economics, raising a child costs what it costs. However, this cost will change dramatically with social and economic status, whether the marriage is continued or not. I expect that people with more cash flow spend more money than I do, per child, in raising them. Calculating "fair" child support is likely to be contentious, and adding it to the emotional upheaval of the dissolution of a marriage just makes it more difficult to keep it at a level that will be seen as just by all involved.
One thing I think would work better than the current USAian policy would be for the parent who had more control have the additional responsibility to go with it. Joint custody matched with joint expenses would be (relatively) easy to calculate, and full custody should carry with it the full financial responsibility - if one parent may no longer even visit with their children, it's hard to justify making them pay for someone else to raise them.
Danno
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Danno: One thing I think would work better than the current USAian policy would be for the parent who had more control have the additional responsibility to go with it. Joint custody matched with joint expenses would be (relatively) easy to calculate, and full custody should carry with it the full financial responsibility - if one parent may no longer even visit with their children, it's hard to justify making them pay for someone else to raise them.
I agree that if a father was given a larger role in the child's upbringing after a seperation he would more likely voluntarily give more, studies seem to show thise as well. However, what if the father were to abandon the mother and child, does that make him free from his obligations?
One of my favourite Blairisms is the 'rights and responsibilites' jargon.
Right now a father's rights with regards to his kids are still highly unequal to mother's rights. At present, governments want fathers to shoulder the responsibilities without the corresponding rights.
Has anyone considered pre-nuptual agreements as the solution to this quagmire. For instance "in the event of abuse,dereliction, etc., the the father shall have to pay $X for damages caused...". It's a private contract between two persons, rather than a coercive payment enforced by the state. The agreement could also outline the living arrangements for the child(ren), rather than having a lengthy and costly judicial hearing.
Contractual obligations are surely superlative to a set of marriage vows. We have to start believing that pre-nups arn't just for the rich and famous.
As for young unmarried men who plant their seed in a woman and cause an unwanted pregnancy...I don't know.
Irish Liberty Forum
Angurse:and my basic beleif is that a father shouldn't have to pay for a child he doesn't want.
Ditto. This is a form of slavery.
Angurse:However many people find this view to be too "cold," was there anything in place before the government took over and are there any facts and statisitics that show how the government getting involved is actually worse for the child?
Higher rates of divorce? If a married couple are having problems and the wife can get the same income through child support payments, she will be more inclined to divorce him all other things being equal. As for it being to "cold", family is a division of labour. It used to be the case that parents would have children because they were an asset. You have extra hands to do work and someone to take care of you when you get old. Now people seem to be having children to get welfare and child support payments, which means higher levels of illigitimacy and family breakup. I don't think this is in the child's interest. It is much better when he has two parents who have every incentive to ensure that he is successful, since this is the best guarentee of being taken care of when they reach their later years.
Angurse:And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system?
By not giving incentives for family breakup.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.
-- Johnny Keynes--
And what about the unmarried couple? Or the one-night stand? Or even the rape victim? How can the free market help them?
Angurse: And what about the unmarried couple? Or the one-night stand? Or even the rape victim? How can the free market help them?
By providing abortion clinics. :P
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
Yet another demonstration of the problems with many in the freedom movement. Freedom does not mean an abdication of responsibility for one's action. When two people take the action of having sex there are possible outcomes as a result of their actions. One of the outcomes possible is creating a child. Even if one is using contraception that only reduces the likelihood of a certain outcome, it does not eliminate it. One's intention is irrelevant to taking responisbility for the result of the action. If a person did not want to have the risk of having children they could refrain from sex. When I drive my car I have no intention of causing an accident and I might take steps to reduce the likelihood but if I cause an accident I am still responsible.
So the mother and father have obligations to care for the child.
Maxliberty:Yet another demonstration of the problems with many in the freedom movement. Freedom does not mean an abdication of responsibility for one's action. When two people take the action of having sex there are possible outcomes as a result of their actions. One of the outcomes possible is creating a child. Even if one is using contraception that only reduces the likelihood of a certain outcome, it does not eliminate it. One's intention is irrelevant to taking responisbility for the result of the action. If a person did not want to have the risk of having children they could refrain from sex. When I drive my car I have no intention of causing an accident and I might take steps to reduce the likelihood but if I cause an accident I am still responsible.
Are you suggesting that the government step in and force the father to fulfill his obligations? Also, in the case of seperation, if the father has little-to-no parental duties, does he then still have to pay for the child he cannot raise (or see in many cases)?
Maxliberty:So the mother and father have obligations to care for the child.
What if the father doesn't want the child? He is then at the mercy of the woman.
Angurse: Maxliberty:Yet another demonstration of the problems with many in the freedom movement. Freedom does not mean an abdication of responsibility for one's action. When two people take the action of having sex there are possible outcomes as a result of their actions. One of the outcomes possible is creating a child. Even if one is using contraception that only reduces the likelihood of a certain outcome, it does not eliminate it. One's intention is irrelevant to taking responisbility for the result of the action. If a person did not want to have the risk of having children they could refrain from sex. When I drive my car I have no intention of causing an accident and I might take steps to reduce the likelihood but if I cause an accident I am still responsible. Are you suggesting that the government step in and force the father to fulfill his obligations? Also, in the case of seperation, if the father has little-to-no parental duties, does he then still have to pay for the child he cannot raise (or see in many cases)? Maxliberty:So the mother and father have obligations to care for the child. What if the father doesn't want the child? He is then at the mercy of the woman.
The obligation is to the child. The father's obligation does not cease regardless of the circumstance or relation with the mother. What the father wants regarding responsibility for his actions is irrelevant. Like I said, this is where many in the freedom movement fail intellectually and why many discussions about freedom ring hollow and are nothing more than a misleading intellectual exercise. First, you have to accept that people have obligations and responsibilities for their actions, then we can discuss what should be done about those who don't fulfill their obligations.
As far as the "government stepping in", I do not propose the government do anything, including breathe.
Maxliberty: The obligation is to the child. The father's obligation does not cease regardless of the circumstance or relation with the mother. What the father wants regarding responsibility for his actions is irrelevant. Like I said, this is where many in the freedom movement fail intellectually and why many discussions about freedom ring hollow and are nothing more than a misleading intellectual exercise. First, you have to accept that people have obligations and responsibilities for their actions, then we can discuss what should be done about those who don't fulfill their obligations. As far as the "government stepping in", I do not propose the government do anything, including breathe.
What obligation? No one has an obligationt to anything but themselves. If a mother has the right to abort a child because she does not want the responsibility of raising it then the father has just as much right to walk away from the child after it was born. To assume otherwise is to foist the idea of slavery on a man to the child. While he might have a moral responsibility to care for the child he certainly does not have any legal obligation nor does the child or the mother have the right to enslave the father forcing him to care for something he has no desire for. But this applies to a mother as well. A mother may give birth to a child but soon discover she does not have the funds or even the time to deal with it. She does not have the right to kill the child after birth but can either give full custody of it to the father or if the father wants nothing to do with the child she could find some other person that has the means and will to care for the child.
The fact that a child is born does not in anyway mean I am legally obligated to it. I might be morally bound but morals have no legal force. Your moral compass could be drastically different than mine. Some are morally opposed to eating meat whereas I am not (I just enjoyed a nice tasty pig). Some might feel morally obligated to care for a child even if they don't really want to but I might not. Perhaps I feel that my only job is to "spread my seed."
To force someone to care for something they do not want is tantamount to slavery. And the only way to enforce this is through the violent coercive force of the State. Forcing someone to conform to your moral code is just as immoral as abandoning a child.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Angurse:I'm not a fan of child support laws, and my basic beleif is that a father shouldn't have to pay for a child he doesn't want. And that I certainly shouldn't have to pay for a government to step in and force him to be a responsible adult. However many people find this view to be too "cold," was there anything in place before the government took over and are there any facts and statisitics that show how the government getting involved is actually worse for the child? And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system? Marriage Insurance?
Parents bear an obligation for the child their actions created, from conception until the end of their dependency. This is because they are the cause of that dependency. As with a person you hit with your car and thus disable, accidentally or not, you are obligated to tend to the dependency of another human that results from your actions.
That being said, forced child support, at least for fathers, should still not exist. This is because it is impossible to establish paternity without violating his rights. You can't force a man to give up his blood, he might not be the father. Motherhood is obvious, fatherhood can be established only by scientific testing.
Angurse: I'm not a fan of child support laws, and my basic beleif is that a father shouldn't have to pay for a child he doesn't want. And that I certainly shouldn't have to pay for a government to step in and force him to be a responsible adult. However many people find this view to be too "cold," was there anything in place before the government took over and are there any facts and statisitics that show how the government getting involved is actually worse for the child? And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system? Marriage Insurance? Thanks
If you do not want a child, you should not have one. The essence of liberty requires individuals to be responsible for their own actions. If you wish to have sex without practicing contraception or getting a vasectomy, then you are responsible for the outcome. By placing the responsibility of raising the child entirely on the mother, you are infringing on her liberty, and yourself engaging in the same type of coercion which you decry when it occurs by the state. A child cannot be simply thrown away because you do not "want it". This is also incompatible with the concept of liberty. The government should not have to force you to be a "responsible adult", if you are in fact a responsible adult, you should act like one without any state coercion. It is not simply "cold", it is childish and immature, not to mention morally bankrupt. I would, however, agree with the other poster who pointed out that by bearing a share of the financial burden, shared parenting/visitation should be a basic right, except in the case of abuse.
Fine. What should be done about those fathers who don't fulfill their obligations?
spkrman:If you do not want a child, you should not have one. The essence of liberty requires individuals to be responsible for their own actions. If you wish to have sex without practicing contraception or getting a vasectomy, then you are responsible for the outcome.
Okay, what if the father simply leaves? I don't think that every individual who practices unsafe sex takes the time to think of the consequences, nor would they necessarily accept them.
spkrman:The government should not have to force you to be a "responsible adult", if you are in fact a responsible adult, you should act like one without any state coercion.
I absolutely agree, people should be responsible, but are they?
spkrman: If you do not want a child, you should not have one. The essence of liberty requires individuals to be responsible for their own actions. If you wish to have sex without practicing contraception or getting a vasectomy, then you are responsible for the outcome. By placing the responsibility of raising the child entirely on the mother, you are infringing on her liberty, and yourself engaging in the same type of coercion which you decry when it occurs by the state. A child cannot be simply thrown away because you do not "want it". This is also incompatible with the concept of liberty.
If you do not want a child, you should not have one. The essence of liberty requires individuals to be responsible for their own actions. If you wish to have sex without practicing contraception or getting a vasectomy, then you are responsible for the outcome. By placing the responsibility of raising the child entirely on the mother, you are infringing on her liberty, and yourself engaging in the same type of coercion which you decry when it occurs by the state. A child cannot be simply thrown away because you do not "want it". This is also incompatible with the concept of liberty.
The same can be said of the mother. It is not always the father that walks out. Sometimes the mother will leave the child with the father. Should forcing him to bear the responsibility of raising the child be a just thing? What if neither of them want anything to do with the child? Are they actually obligated to raise the child? Would not forcing them to raise a child against their will be akin to enslavement? Having committed no crime I see no reason why a person would assume that either the mother, father or both be held responsible for the care of any child they might have. While walking out might be a morally bankrupt thing to do it is not a crime. No ones liberty has been infringed on. No person is born with a "right to being raised by two parents" or even by one parent. The mothers "liberty" is not being infringed on because the father has walked out any more than his "liberty" would be infringed upon if the mother left. Just what "liberty" or "rights" are we discussing here? Her "right" to have someone share half the cost? I hardly see how that could be a right. Her "right" to have someone bear half the burden? Certainly that is not a right anymore than a person having a "right" to a job. What "liberty" or "rights" is the father then violating by leaving? To force him to care for something he has no desire for is a violation of his "liberty" because he is now enslaved to this parasitic being. The mother does not have any "liberty" being denied her if she freely and of her own accord accepts the responsibility of raising the child. If she does not want that responsibility then she merely has to place the child with an adoption agency. There are a lot of people who are willing to adopt a young child because they can't have children naturally.
So how exactly then is the mothers "liberty" being violated?
spkrman:The government should not have to force you to be a "responsible adult", if you are in fact a responsible adult, you should act like one without any state coercion. It is not simply "cold", it is childish and immature, not to mention morally bankrupt. I would, however, agree with the other poster who pointed out that by bearing a share of the financial burden, shared parenting/visitation should be a basic right, except in the case of abuse.
But how are you going to "force" a father to care for something that is obviously a violation of his liberty? What you need to do is stop confusing morality with legality as they are two completely different things. Legally I can do whatever I want so long as I do not violate the property of another. And morally I can do anything I want provided I do not violate MY moral code. Your moral code might state that having sex outside of marriage is wrong whereas my moral code might be completely different. I might not believe in marriage and therefore sex with anyone I wish is just fine. My moral code is vastly different than yours but you cannot LEGALLY force me to live the way you want. By forcing me to live under your moral code you are violating my right to self-ownership and self-determination. I cannot force you to adhere to my moral code as I would be denying your right to self-ownership and self-determination.
So let's understand that what is moral and what is legal are two separate and distinct things. Legality can be enforced -- morality cannot.
Angurse: Maxliberty: The obligation is to the child. The father's obligation does not cease regardless of the circumstance or relation with the mother. What the father wants regarding responsibility for his actions is irrelevant. Like I said, this is where many in the freedom movement fail intellectually and why many discussions about freedom ring hollow and are nothing more than a misleading intellectual exercise. First, you have to accept that people have obligations and responsibilities for their actions, then we can discuss what should be done about those who don't fulfill their obligations. As far as the "government stepping in", I do not propose the government do anything, including breathe. Fine. What should be done about those fathers who don't fulfill their obligations?
Now the PDA's are only concerned about the children with regard to child support. So the PDA's will develop policies similar to the following: If an independent has sex with a member of a PDA then the rules of that PDA will be applied to the independent. If an independent has sex with another independent then the only concern becomes the child. As such PDA's like the SDK in the Liberty Colony have already adopted policies concerning the general philosophy of protecting all children from physical harm.
So when independents have sex with PDA members then the rules governing the PDA client will apply. Independents can avoid potential problems by choosing their partners with this in mind.
When independents have sex with other independents then there are no specific rules regarding the obligations of the parents other than the child can not be harmed. That is not to say that there will not be consequences because independents will be very vulnerable to physical retaliation by other independents and perhaps other forms of economic retaliation from society at large.
The final example is the Kingmonkey type who refuse to accept any responsibility for any action they take. So these types are willing to murder, rape, steal or otherwise violate people and expect no consequence for their actions. The only possible outcome in these scenarios is conflict.
There are no such things as positive obligations. People posess responsibility for themselves only. If I impregnate a woman and she gives birth, the child has no right to my property, as it is MY property, not the childs. I signed no contract with the child obligating me to care for it.
That being said, if a couple have a child, they have the right to deny it of their property (i.e. Put it out on the street).
I would say people like that are sick, immoral, and deserve God's wrath, that does not mean I can punish them for it, they haven't aggressed upon anyone.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap