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
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?
Angurse: Fine. What should be done about those fathers who don't fulfill their obligations?
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.
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.
Angurse: And what about the unmarried couple? Or the one-night stand? Or even the rape victim? How can the free market help them?
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.
Angurse: However, what if the father were to abandon the mother and child, does that make him free from his obligations?
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?
Angurse: And how could a stateless free-market society actually improve this system? Marriage Insurance?
<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
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.
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).
Charles Anthony:If enough people actually cared about family values, dead-beat dads would be banished.
Banished where?
Charles Anthony: 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.
By "help" I simply meant financial aid. I never said that the free market had an obligation to supply an help, that doesn't mean it can't.
Charles Anthony:That happens all of the time: parents die.
So if a father walks out on his family, your might as well consider him dead, minus the government assistance and the possibility of life insurance.
Charles Anthony: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.
Basically, all I can gather, is that in a stateless society people should just be more careful - which is definately good. However, there really won't be any type of safety net (private or otherwise) for the unfortunate, besides possible charities and abortion clinics.
Angurse,
When an independent has sex with a client of the PDA he becomes bound by the public policies that the PDA has regarding it's clients. So independent's would be wise to either negotiate a separate agreement with the other person regarding this or have sex only with those individuals upon which they either agree with the rules of the PDA or who are independents. This is similar to when you enter a store to buy something and they have a sign posted no shirt/no service. By entering you implicitly agree to the rules of the store and it is reasonable for them to enforce their own rules. It is important to note that in a free society you have control over who you interact with so there is no burden on you, it is your own actions and with whom that will determine what obligations you have.
Secondly, regarding contracts in a free society like the Liberty Colony. Contracts are the essential element to any society and individuals or groups of individuals can and will make contracts for virtually any activity. It is reasonable that these contracts describe the agreement, describe remedies for the violations of the agreement, and outline appropriate methods of enforcement for violations of the agreement. These types of contracts, contrary to what Kingmonkey and some others on this forum may think are not remotely close to the idea of communism. Contracts are the essential element to free societies.
Maxliberty: Angurse, When an independent has sex with a client of the PDA he becomes bound by the public policies that the PDA has regarding it's clients. So independent's would be wise to either negotiate a separate agreement with the other person regarding this or have sex only with those individuals upon which they either agree with the rules of the PDA or who are independents. This is similar to when you enter a store to buy something and they have a sign posted no shirt/no service. By entering you implicitly agree to the rules of the store and it is reasonable for them to enforce their own rules. It is important to note that in a free society you have control over who you interact with so there is no burden on you, it is your own actions and with whom that will determine what obligations you have. Secondly, regarding contracts in a free society like the Liberty Colony. Contracts are the essential element to any society and individuals or groups of individuals can and will make contracts for virtually any activity. It is reasonable that these contracts describe the agreement, describe remedies for the violations of the agreement, and outline appropriate methods of enforcement for violations of the agreement. These types of contracts, contrary to what Kingmonkey and some others on this forum may think are not remotely close to the idea of communism. Contracts are the essential element to free societies.
You keep pushing this idea that a PDA has some contractual right to deny me any of my liberty? Further, how can a PDA enforce "public policies" when they are a private entity? They can only enforce THEIR polices on those that SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR SERVICES. I cannot be held liable for any infraction of any policy a PDA might set if I am not a subscriber to their service. Screwing people who belong to a PDA does not mean the PDA can run my life neither does the PDA have the right to run the lives of any of its clients. What you are proposing is nothing more than a pseudo-state in which I sign a contract with a PDA only to sign away my life and liberty to the whims of the company CEO. And what happens if you try to enforce your polices and I cancel my services? Are you still going to pursue me?
"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.
Maxliberty:When an independent has sex with a client of the PDA he becomes bound by the public policies that the PDA has regarding it's clients.
That's illigitimate.
The US government could be like, "Oh yeah, about you anarchists saying we don't own you, well you see, you've interacted with some of our voluntary tax payers (clients) so yeah, you're under our jurisdiction now".
You cant enforce a policy on people who did not make a contract or assume control over a certain aspect of their property. That's what illigitimacy is all about.
No, All you have THE RIGHT to do in that situation is punish your own client. They're the one that agreed to your rules.
Maxliberty:This is similar to when you enter a store to buy something and they have a sign posted no shirt/no service. By entering you implicitly agree to the rules of the store and it is reasonable for them to enforce their own rules. It is important to note that in a free society you have control over who you interact with so there is no burden on you, it is your own actions and with whom that will determine what obligations you have.
No it's not.
First off, they have a right to have that policy because they OWN the store. Now in this liberty colony are the PDAs asserting OWNERSHIP over their customers? If that's true, this colony is just another scourge upon the principle of liberty.
Second, "No Shirt, No Service" MEANS "No Shirt, No Service". If I don't have a shirt, the store owners/cashiers may not service me. And if a cashier does, THEY ARE LIABLE TO THE STORE. IT IS NOT "No Shirt, We Own You".
Third, There is a sign saying this, it's an agreement. Is the PDA going to tatoo every one of it's customers saying "If you have sex with me, you're agreeing to someone elses rules"? I can't own a store and then when someone enters say "By entering this door you have agreed to give me your right arm!"
Maxliberty:When an independent has sex with a client of the PDA he becomes bound by the public policies that the PDA has regarding it's clients. So independent's would be wise to either negotiate a separate agreement with the other person regarding this or have sex only with those individuals upon which they either agree with the rules of the PDA or who are independents. This is similar to when you enter a store to buy something and they have a sign posted no shirt/no service. By entering you implicitly agree to the rules of the store and it is reasonable for them to enforce their own rules. It is important to note that in a free society you have control over who you interact with so there is no burden on you, it is your own actions and with whom that will determine what obligations you have.
So, by entering the woman's vagina, I am now under the domain of her PDA? What if I was never properly informed? Are all PDA members required to wear badges displaying their defense providers?
I could see this being applied to, oh say, a brothel. In which, by entering the property, I agree to the house rules.
I think it's pretty simple - contractual agreements. If a woman expecting child support gets into a relationship with a man who refuses to agree beforehand to support a child resulting from the marriage, it's her fault. On the other hand, a man who wants a long-term relationship should expect such an agreement to take place. Caveat emptor.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
A man does not even have a provable obligation to himself, nevermind any other party. My father left my mother homeless and pregnant, and he had every right to do so. Was it a nice thing to do? Not really. He did this a few times, with different women. Should he be punished for it? Not at all. There are no such things as positive obligations. Obviously, his reputation preceded him, did it deter several women?
Conception is not aggression and creates no responsibility for the mother, father or otherwise. The child, being unable to sign contracts, is not a customer of any PDA, and therefore cannot avail itself of any defense services. I personally would not purchase the defense package that made me liable for conceiving children. Remember there would be competition, and with that, different products.
With a free market, there wouldn't be a surplus, because all children would be potentially for sale. The market would make prices, and sellers would respond appropriately -- our very biology may find this offensive, and our cultural obsession with family may judge it unnatural, but I think it's probably going to be present in the next major step of human development.
spires:With a free market, there wouldn't be a surplus, because all children would be potentially for sale.
Children for sale? That sounds useful for organ harvesting. :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