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
kingmonkey: Maxliberty: This thread provides us a good opportunity to see where unfortunately too many in the freedom movement fall short. People are unwillingly to take their arguements to their logical conclusions because that conclusion is so horrific and lacks any basic decency that they are afraid to follow through with their arguements. Or perhaps it makes so much sense you're afraid to concede defeat. Maxliberty: People argue they have no obligation to their children but then insist there will always be a third party to take care of unwanted children. This begs the basic question of if there is no obligation to the child why do they feel it necessary to argue that there will be a third party to care for the child? People argue that not feeding and caring for babies does no harm because the child is their own individual but these same people say it is reprehensible to put the child on the street. Again, if no one has an obligation to the child why does it matter to these people if the child is put on the street? It is this element in the freedom movement which in fact produces a great deal of harm to creating and spreading freedom. These people have confused freedom with meaning that there is no accountability or responsibility for one's actions. Free societies require that people be accountable for their own actions. Unfortunately, too many in the freedom movement can not accept this basic fundamental principle and insist that they have no accountability for their actions. The singlest greatest threat to building a free society is not the masses but those within the freedom movement that seek to destroy any sense of humanity in the name of completely abdicating personal responsibility. You're so off base it isn't even funny. No one is arguing that you have no responsibility towards your child. We are arguing that it is only conditional until you see to it that the child is placed in proper hands, or at leas that's my argument. Child is born, I as father can leave because the mother has agreed to raise the child. Or, child is born, mother can leave because I as father have agreed to raise the child. Or child is born but neither the mother nor I wish to raise the child. As custodians of the child we are obligated to see to it that the child is placed in the hands of someone that will care for it such as an adoption agency or foster home or such. To throw the baby in the trash, I'm sure everyone would agree, is amount to neglect and possibly murder if the child should die. That's how I view it and I believe that's the right way to view it. There will always be someone out there who is willing to take a baby in and care for it. Prove it you say? Look around -- you can take unwanted babies to hospitals, fire departments, police stations, adoption agencies, orphanages, etc. And that would not change in a free society. And in fact there would be more and they would be more efficient in placing children with adoptive parents.
Maxliberty: This thread provides us a good opportunity to see where unfortunately too many in the freedom movement fall short. People are unwillingly to take their arguements to their logical conclusions because that conclusion is so horrific and lacks any basic decency that they are afraid to follow through with their arguements.
This thread provides us a good opportunity to see where unfortunately too many in the freedom movement fall short. People are unwillingly to take their arguements to their logical conclusions because that conclusion is so horrific and lacks any basic decency that they are afraid to follow through with their arguements.
Or perhaps it makes so much sense you're afraid to concede defeat.
Maxliberty: People argue they have no obligation to their children but then insist there will always be a third party to take care of unwanted children. This begs the basic question of if there is no obligation to the child why do they feel it necessary to argue that there will be a third party to care for the child? People argue that not feeding and caring for babies does no harm because the child is their own individual but these same people say it is reprehensible to put the child on the street. Again, if no one has an obligation to the child why does it matter to these people if the child is put on the street? It is this element in the freedom movement which in fact produces a great deal of harm to creating and spreading freedom. These people have confused freedom with meaning that there is no accountability or responsibility for one's actions. Free societies require that people be accountable for their own actions. Unfortunately, too many in the freedom movement can not accept this basic fundamental principle and insist that they have no accountability for their actions. The singlest greatest threat to building a free society is not the masses but those within the freedom movement that seek to destroy any sense of humanity in the name of completely abdicating personal responsibility.
People argue they have no obligation to their children but then insist there will always be a third party to take care of unwanted children. This begs the basic question of if there is no obligation to the child why do they feel it necessary to argue that there will be a third party to care for the child? People argue that not feeding and caring for babies does no harm because the child is their own individual but these same people say it is reprehensible to put the child on the street. Again, if no one has an obligation to the child why does it matter to these people if the child is put on the street? It is this element in the freedom movement which in fact produces a great deal of harm to creating and spreading freedom. These people have confused freedom with meaning that there is no accountability or responsibility for one's actions. Free societies require that people be accountable for their own actions. Unfortunately, too many in the freedom movement can not accept this basic fundamental principle and insist that they have no accountability for their actions.
The singlest greatest threat to building a free society is not the masses but those within the freedom movement that seek to destroy any sense of humanity in the name of completely abdicating personal responsibility.
You're so off base it isn't even funny. No one is arguing that you have no responsibility towards your child. We are arguing that it is only conditional until you see to it that the child is placed in proper hands, or at leas that's my argument. Child is born, I as father can leave because the mother has agreed to raise the child. Or, child is born, mother can leave because I as father have agreed to raise the child. Or child is born but neither the mother nor I wish to raise the child. As custodians of the child we are obligated to see to it that the child is placed in the hands of someone that will care for it such as an adoption agency or foster home or such. To throw the baby in the trash, I'm sure everyone would agree, is amount to neglect and possibly murder if the child should die. That's how I view it and I believe that's the right way to view it.
There will always be someone out there who is willing to take a baby in and care for it. Prove it you say? Look around -- you can take unwanted babies to hospitals, fire departments, police stations, adoption agencies, orphanages, etc. And that would not change in a free society. And in fact there would be more and they would be more efficient in placing children with adoptive parents.
Kingmonkey I am glad you have finally accepted the fact that you have an obligation to the child. As you stated the obligation is simple that you are responsible to make sure the child is cared for whether you as the Father do this or the Mother does this or some third party which may or may not exist does this. The point being that once children are created there are obligations by the individuals that created the child to make sure the child is cared for. The origin of the obligation begins with the mother and father and if there is a willing third party then that is acceptable but there is an obligation and that begins with the parents.
For those of you who say there is no obligation and that the baby can be put on the street, your arguement is based on the parents having no responsibility for the creation of the child. The simple undeniable fact is that the child can not exist accept for the direct actions of the people involved. People are responsible for what they create. If you refuse to accept the basic premise that people are the only source of creating other people then it is not possible to go further. People do not magically appear and in fact people are the direct result of combination of labor and effort and a literal sharing of DNA between two people.
Maxliberty:The simple undeniable fact is that the child can not exist accept for the direct actions of the people involved. People are responsible for what they create. If you refuse to accept the basic premise that people are the only source of creating other people then it is not possible to go further. People do not magically appear and in fact people are the direct result of combination of labor and effort and a literal sharing of DNA between two people.
The only person involved in DEVELOPING a baby is the baby. The parents (as I've mentioned) are only ingredients necessary for the baby to develop itself.
The exchange of DNA creates a new cell which is not either parent, but a unique child actor, it is individual uniqueness.
Mitosis happens on an individual level, not conciously or voluntary, but it is an action relegated to the individual nonetheless. Once the sperm hits the egg, a human actor is conceived. That is why the body is self owned, because the labor that goes into building it is all done by the individual using property voluntarily given to them or acquired (nutrients by the mother). Once the sperm hits the egg, the created being can be said to posess rights (Or we could say they don't posess them until they develope some level of cognition, regardless it doesn't change the argument). These rights ONLY exist when there is something that can posess them, not beforehand. The fact that their life may be considered a consequence of a prior action is not relevant, as they have no claim against "aggressive" actions until they posess rights. A claim against prior acts by a party would be ex post facto, illigitimate.
Maxliberty:People are unwillingly to take their arguements to their logical conclusions because that conclusion is so horrific and lacks any basic decency that they are afraid to follow through with their arguements.
This comes down to personal choice. I, and anyone I would associate with for that matter, would not put a baby out on the streets. If I saw one no one else was willing to take care of, I would take care of it. Given that, what right do I have to force it's parent to take care of it?
banned: Maxliberty:The simple undeniable fact is that the child can not exist accept for the direct actions of the people involved. People are responsible for what they create. If you refuse to accept the basic premise that people are the only source of creating other people then it is not possible to go further. People do not magically appear and in fact people are the direct result of combination of labor and effort and a literal sharing of DNA between two people. The only person involved in DEVELOPING a baby is the baby. The parents (as I've mentioned) are only ingredients necessary for the baby to develop itself. The exchange of DNA creates a new cell which is not either parent, but a unique child actor, it is individual uniqueness. Mitosis happens on an individual level, not conciously or voluntary, but it is an action relegated to the individual nonetheless. Once the sperm hits the egg, a human actor is conceived. That is why the body is self owned, because the labor that goes into building it is all done by the individual using property voluntarily given to them or acquired (nutrients by the mother). Once the sperm hits the egg, the created being can be said to posess rights (Or we could say they don't posess them until they develope some level of cognition, regardless it doesn't change the argument). These rights ONLY exist when there is something that can posess them, not beforehand. The fact that their life may be considered a consequence of a prior action is not relevant, as they have no claim against "aggressive" actions until they posess rights. A claim against prior acts by a party would be ex post facto, illigitimate.
Well like I said if you you do not believe that parents are involved in the creation of children then we do not agree on the underlying basic premise of how people are created. Your premise gives no rights to children and that is why you think they can be dumped in trash bins. I can see no other scientific explanation for the creation of children other than by the actions of the parents. It is not possible to create life without having parents. It is understandable you arrive at such horrific conclusions based on your completely false starting premise. You have what I call the "Flat Earth Arguement", it is factually false from the beginning so the conclusion is equally distorted.
Stolz2525: Maxliberty:People are unwillingly to take their arguements to their logical conclusions because that conclusion is so horrific and lacks any basic decency that they are afraid to follow through with their arguements. This comes down to personal choice. I, and anyone I would associate with for that matter, would not put a baby out on the streets. If I saw one no one else was willing to take care of, I would take care of it. Given that, what right do I have to force it's parent to take care of it?
If the parent was contractually obligated to care for the child would it be unreasonable to enforce the contract? It is not simply a matter of personal choice, you don't have the right to murder children by putting them in dumpsters or withholding food and water. You are responsible for your actions and that includes creating children. Don't take the cowardly personal choice nonsense way out. Murdering children is simply wrong, period.
Max,
I admire your passionate respect for the sanctity of life. However, some people in the world face starvation and they are not able to feed their kids. Are those parents murderers when their children die of starvation?
<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Charles Anthony: Max, I admire your passionate respect for the sanctity of life. However, some people in the world face starvation and they are not able to feed their kids. Are those parents murderers when their children die of starvation?
Of course not. There are always circumstances that are unfortunate such as the parents dying or being ill or otherwise being unable to care for their children. That is why charities and charitable people are important. There is big difference from simply abandoning children beacuse its inconvenient and being physically unable to care for them. The obligation still exists but we recognize they are unable to fulfill the obligation.
Maxliberty: Charles Anthony: Max, I admire your passionate respect for the sanctity of life. However, some people in the world face starvation and they are not able to feed their kids. Are those parents murderers when their children die of starvation? Of course not. There are always circumstances that are unfortunate such as the parents dying or being ill or otherwise being unable to care for their children. That is why charities and charitable people are important. There is big difference from simply abandoning children beacuse its inconvenient and being physically unable to care for them. The obligation still exists but we recognize they are unable to fulfill the obligation.
This is just ridiculous. You want to force people who are unwilling to take care of their child, possibly resulting in lifelong psychological damages? They only have an obligation to care for them until they can find someone else to care for their children.
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
Maxliberty:Well like I said if you you do not believe that parents are involved in the creation of children then we do not agree on the underlying basic premise of how people are created... It is not possible to create life without having parents...
Do you not understand "ingredients"? The parents are the supplement of child growth, but they do not make the child grow. The child grows off it's own cell division; it grows off it's own actions.
Maxliberty:Your premise gives no rights to children and that is why you think they can be dumped in trash bins.
Why do you keep bringing up this straw man?
Maxliberty: I can see no other scientific explanation for the creation of children other than by the actions of the parents.
We're not debating whether the parent's scientifically cause conception or could be said to be the cause of creation. We're debating the legal application of conception. If rights are said to come about after conception, then the parent can't be deemed an aggressive cause.
Maxliberty:It is understandable you arrive at such horrific conclusions based on your completely false starting premise. You have what I call the "Flat Earth Arguement", it is factually false from the beginning so the conclusion is equally distorted.
I suppose you'll back up your observance of my factual relevance with some factual evidence yourself?
katja328: Maxliberty: Charles Anthony: Max, I admire your passionate respect for the sanctity of life. However, some people in the world face starvation and they are not able to feed their kids. Are those parents murderers when their children die of starvation? Of course not. There are always circumstances that are unfortunate such as the parents dying or being ill or otherwise being unable to care for their children. That is why charities and charitable people are important. There is big difference from simply abandoning children beacuse its inconvenient and being physically unable to care for them. The obligation still exists but we recognize they are unable to fulfill the obligation. This is just ridiculous. You want to force people who are unwilling to take care of their child, possibly resulting in lifelong psychological damages? They only have an obligation to care for them until they can find someone else to care for their children.
You are right, they have an obligation to care for the child or to make sure the child is being adequately cared for by a responsible third party. If no third party can be found or is willing then the obligation remains with the parents. I am glad you are in agreement with me.