Child Support

 

banned:

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.

If you hit someone with a car by accident, and because of this, they are rendered unable to support themselves, are you not now obligated to support them? Even if you don't have a contract with them? You are the cause of their dependency, and therefore, you must provide for it. The situation is the same with children. You are obligated to care for them until they can care for themselves, because their dependency is the result of your actions.

Maxliberty:

Good, now we are asking the right questions. First, let's eliminate government from the equation. Let's use the real example of the Liberty Colony. In the Liberty Colony I believe most people will belong to one or more Private Defense Agencies. These PDA's will have these areas covered as far as what are the legal obligations of individuals engaging in sex.

Your idea of what a PDA is seems to be is very different from what everyone else's idea of a PDA constitutes.  You seem to think that a PDA is some kind of governing organization that can make rules for how people live their lives.  That is NOT what a PDA is.  A PDA -- Personal Defense Agency -- is merely there to provide protection for their customers. They are NOT there to govern their customers lives.  The PDA can make NO rules concerning how I live my life or how any of their customers live their lives.  I am not going to pay money to some company just so they can tell me how to live!  You so wrong on your perception of what a PDA's purpose is it brings everything else you say under suspicion.

Maxliberty:

So this leaves only people like Kingmonkey who believe that they are not responsible for anything they do and people who for whatever reason choose to be what I call independents that is those individuals with no PDA relationships. As a reminder I believe this group will be fairly small. 

Please show me where I stated anything like that?  But you know what, you're right.  I don't have to take responsibility for anything I do so long as what I'm doing is not violating the property of another.

Maxliberty:

     Now the PDA's are only concerned about the children with regard to child support.

WRONG!  WRONG!!  WRONG!!!  PDA's are only concerned with the wishes of their customers!  They have no business in anything the customer does not what them to be involved with.  A PDA cannot set rules for how anyone lives their life!

Maxliberty:

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.

If an independent has sex with a member of a PDA then they simply have sex with a member of a PDA.  You are trying to legislate the behaviors of willing consensual actors.  You are, therefore, attempting to establish a pseudo-State which can legislate morality.

Maxliberty:

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.

How do you suppose that?  How could I EVER come on the "rules governing the PDA client" if I did not subscribe to a PDA's services?  A PDA cannot set "rules" for their clients.  We continue to see in your comments your misguided belief that by signing up for a particular service someone offers I can give up my free will and self-determination, that I can voluntarily give up my liberty, that I can place over me some master that can set "rules" on how I can live my life.  Not only can a PDA NOT do that a PDA cannot FORCE any person to live under their rules for any reasons!

Maxliberty:

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.

For what?  If they child isn't harmed then how can I be subject to any retaliation?  Parenthood is not something that can be forced on someone.  You are either willing to care for a child or not.  There is a big difference between walking out and leaving the care of a child to one parent compared to both parents or even one of them taking a new born baby and leaving it in the trash can.  In the former I would have committed no crime since I have no violated anyones liberty.  The later could be the crime of murder if the baby should die.

Maxliberty:

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.    

How is that?  Refusing to be burdened for the rest of my life because a parasite was born that steals my liberty and my wealth doesn't mean I would go out and just murder, rape, steal or otherwise.  What proof, what EVIDENCE, do you have that shows that because someone does not what to accept the responsibility of raising a child (which is not a crime) they are more apt to go out and commit all manner of crimes as you have suggested? 

What you believe to be moral is no more correct than what I would believe to be moral.  Morality is subjective and rest entirely upon the individual moral code of the person in question.  There are some acts that transcend morality such as murder, rape and theft because you have now violated the liberty and property of another person.  You have initiated coercive violence against another which denies them their single greatest property -- their life and liberty.

I think you'd find more people that would agree with you on a Marxist message board.  I don't think you have any place here.  You believe you can rule over people, even people who voluntarily accept the DEFENSE services of a company. 

 

JCFolsom:

If you hit someone with a car by accident, and because of this, they are rendered unable to support themselves, are you not now obligated to support them?

Correct. I am only obligated to pay insurance. Driving is a risk.

Of course in a free market, road companies would probably instate driver obligations to keep their roads safe.

If I deliberately hit someone with a car, that is an act of aggression. I've denied them a right, and in turn they can do the same.

JCFolsom:

Even if you don't have a contract with them? You are the cause of their dependency, and therefore, you must provide for it.

Someone invests their life savings in my company. My company goes under despite benign intent (not fraud). I made no promise or contract to return them their money, so do I owe them their money? I may have caused them to depend on some outside entity for sustinance, but both they and I were making an investment with risks involved.  Driving on a road is quite similar. I am taking a risk, and hopefully I've insured myself to cover that risk, or I'm using a road with adequate safety regulations.

Of course, this is supposing your analogy is correct. But the fact is, it can be argued that you've done something to impare the situation of the other driver, you've aggressed upon them. This is not the case for the child. All you have done is supplement it's creation. Simliarly, a drug seller suplements his  customers addiction. They may be dependant on the drug, but they do not have a right to take that drug away from the seller. That would be theft.

A child developes itself off siphoning it's mother's nutrients. If the mother allows that to happen, so be it. The child has no right making the mother continue her practice of giving it care. Conception isn't an act of aggression so the child has not been violated into it's dependancy.

banned:

A child developes itself off siphoning it's mother's nutrients. If the mother allows that to happen, so be it. The child has no right making the mother continue her practice of giving it care. Conception isn't an act of aggression so the child has not been violated into it's dependancy.

 

It isn't? Did you ask it first, if it wanted to exist? No, you forced it to by your actions (rape is an exception to this case, but Block's evictionism should go into effect in that case). Admittedly, this is a gray area. To remove the "driving is a risk" bit, let's say you, by accident, run off the road and crash into someone's house, injuring them and causing their dependency. They did not take a risk, you did (unless you want to say that building your house anywhere near a road is also a risk that disqualifies them from compensation beyond insurance); you took an action that carried a risk, a liability to anyone who might become dependent as a result of your actions.

banned:

A child developes itself off siphoning it's mother's nutrients. If the mother allows that to happen, so be it. The child has no right making the mother continue her practice of giving it care. Conception isn't an act of aggression so the child has not been violated into it's dependancy.

This is why it is hard to get hot chicks into libertarianism.

JCFolsom:

Did you ask it first, if it wanted to exist? No, you forced it to by your actions...

Aggression implies a prior owner. For instance, if someone agresses against me by taking MY car, that implies I OWNED the car, if I don't own the car, it's not aggression against me, and if I don't exist, I can't own anything.

The baby didn't exist prior to its conception, therefore it posessed no rights (since things that don't exist obviously can't act). It would be foolhardy to say you can proform acts of aggression against things that don't exist. Existance precludes rights.

And IF conception IS aggression, how could someone who is agains't aggression uphold conception? Wouldn't, then, conception be an unlibertarian enterprise?

JCFolsom:

To remove the "driving is a risk" bit, let's say you, by accident, run off the road and crash into someone's house, injuring them and causing their dependency. They did not take a risk, you did (unless you want to say that building your house anywhere near a road is also a risk that disqualifies them from compensation beyond insurance); you took an action that carried a risk, a liability to anyone who might become dependent as a result of your actions.

The nature of this scenario is fairly ambiguous, but i'll try to respond as best I can. By driving off the road purely out of my own negligance I would have proformed aggression upon someone. Whether I intended to or not, was aware of it or not, it was aggression. I denied someone the private use of their property. However, we're supposing the home owner made no prior contract with the road owner and that the actions causing the "accident" can be relegated 100% to me and were not some flaw in the road or car.

I don't exactly see how that correlates to conceiving babies though.

Maxliberty:

Good, now we are asking the right questions. First, let's eliminate government from the equation. Let's use the real example of the Liberty Colony. In the Liberty Colony I believe most people will belong to one or more Private Defense Agencies. These PDA's will have these areas covered as far as what are the legal obligations of individuals engaging in sex. So this leaves only people like Kingmonkey who believe that they are not responsible for anything they do and people who for whatever reason choose to be what I call independents that is those individuals with no PDA relationships. As a reminder I believe this group will be fairly small.

Alright, I sign up for a private defense agency, and agree that I will fulfill any financial burden my children may cost. Fair enough.

Maxliberty:

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 an independent will be required to pay for a child even if they aren't a subscriber? Or are you saying the PDA will cover the cost of a non-member?

Maxliberty:

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.

Maxliberty:

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.

Basically, "if you don't pay for your child, I'm going to hurl bricks at you." What type of economic retaliation? Ruin the dead-beat dad's credit?

JCFolsom:

banned:

A child developes itself off siphoning it's mother's nutrients. If the mother allows that to happen, so be it. The child has no right making the mother continue her practice of giving it care. Conception isn't an act of aggression so the child has not been violated into it's dependancy.

 

It isn't? Did you ask it first, if it wanted to exist? No, you forced it to by your actions (rape is an exception to this case, but Block's evictionism should go into effect in that case). Admittedly, this is a gray area. To remove the "driving is a risk" bit, let's say you, by accident, run off the road and crash into someone's house, injuring them and causing their dependency. They did not take a risk, you did (unless you want to say that building your house anywhere near a road is also a risk that disqualifies them from compensation beyond insurance); you took an action that carried a risk, a liability to anyone who might become dependent as a result of your actions.

I fail to see how smashing a car through someones house and having a child are the same thing?  Smashing a car through a house is aggressive because I have violated the property of another.  What property am I violating by leaving a child to the care of its mother?  Certainly I'm not violating the property or the liberty of the child nor could I possibly be violating the property or liberty of the mother who has already accepted the roll of guardian over this child.  If I smash into someone and cripple them the most likely scenario is that I will compensate them monetarily for the pain, suffering, etc.  I highly doubt I would be someone placed in involuntary servitude to this person for the rest of their life nor would they want me around them all the time.  The only way I could be held responsible for the care and upbringing of a child is if I somehow violated its liberty -- if I committed some form of aggression against it.  Fathering a child who was in a state of non-existence does not constitute aggression.  Neither does leaving it to the care of another who would do a far better and loving job than I would.

You guys have a pretty weird definition of aggression. Most people do not think that you can aggress without intent. Accidents are, by definition, unintended.

As for the injured party, if you ruined their kidneys with the accident, and the only way to keep them alive (in a hypothetical world without dialysis) was to filter their blood through someone else's kidneys every other day, shouldn't that someone be you? You are the cause of their dependency. You did not intend to cause the dependency, but it is the direct result of your actions nonetheless.

JCFolsom:

You guys have a pretty weird definition of aggression. Most people do not think that you can aggress without intent.

I shot him, but I didn't intend to kill him your honor!

Aggression is the act of violating someone's free use of property (that isn't used aggressively). Intent has nothing to do with it.

 

JCFolsom:

As for the injured party, if you ruined their kidneys with the accident, and the only way to keep them alive (in a hypothetical world without dialysis) was to filter their blood through someone else's kidneys every other day, shouldn't that someone be you?

I do not think your equivalency is accurate.  You are equating the kidney injury to a pregnancy. 

 

 

Angurse:

Fine. What should be done about those fathers who don't fulfill their obligations?

Ostracism -- the failsafe "punishment" in a libertarian world. 

 

 

JCFolsom:

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.

However, you could make giving up his blood a term and condition for entrance onto your property. 

If enough people actually cared about family values, dead-beat dads would be banished. 

 

 

Maxliberty:

   So the mother and father have obligations to care for the child.

Not if both parents die. 

 

Angurse:

And what about the unmarried couple? Or the one-night stand? Or even the rape victim? How can the free market help them?

Slow down. 

First of all,  what do you mean exactly by "help" for them?  That is a completely subjective concept.  Each person would have a different opinion.  Therefore, negotiation is the only solution. 

Second, aside from the fact that it is not even an actionable agent, the "free market" really does not have an obligation to supply any help. 

[ If a meteor landed on Earth, would we expect the "free market" to be able to help?  I would not.  I see disruptions to the family unit to be of such severity as to make it equivalent to the damage produced by a meteor. Not everything can be fixed. ] 

 

 

MatthewWilliam:

Has anyone considered pre-nuptual agreements as the solution to this quagmire.

Everybody has heard of them but not many people have them.  Maybe the extra legal fees are not worth it -- who knows?  There is no way to extrapolate into an anti-state situation because the current legal structure is artifically influenced by the state.  For all we know, without the state, lawyers may make as much money as street cleaners or maybe even less! 

 

 

Angurse:

However, what if the father were to abandon the mother and child, does that make him free from his obligations?

That happens all of the time: parents die. 

 

 

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?

To be honest, without government or the state, I do not believe this was much of an issue in the least because I believe communities were smaller -- it was difficult for a man to knock up a woman and escape. 

Angurse:

And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system? Marriage Insurance?

That is an interesting possibility.  However, marriage and divorce seem like incredibly messy things no matter what the social system happens to be.  My suspicion is that without a monopolized legal system, most insurers would not be interested in having anything to do with marriage because arbitrating disputes would be incredibly arduous and risky -- it would probably just be a luxury service for movie stars and rich people.   The concept of copyright law comes to mind too. 

 

 

Charles Anthony:

JCFolsom:

As for the injured party, if you ruined their kidneys with the accident, and the only way to keep them alive (in a hypothetical world without dialysis) was to filter their blood through someone else's kidneys every other day, shouldn't that someone be you?

I do not think your equivalency is accurate.  You are equating the kidney injury to a pregnancy.

Well, it's not precise, anyway. There is nothing precisely like it. What else can we possibly compare it to? It is a unique circumstance. I come down on the side that it is comparable, and that you are always liable for the situations your choices created. You, apparently, think that only "aggression" creates this obligation, and that this "aggression" includes any act that causes injury, whether intended or not (your gunshot example was a little weak; you certainly intended to shoot, and there are few uses for shooting; driving your car is more appropriate).