You don't have to believe everything Rothbard said and can still be a libertarian.

>>4019 with jews you lose simple as

>>4019 Easy. Most libertarians are aware that Rothbard made a serious mistake with this one. https://cdn.mises.org/18_3_5.pdf

>>4030 yeah but why would he even think this way in the first place? Of course children are not property of their parents, they're humans with rights. The parents gave birth to them and should be liable if anything happens to them in their early years. The child did NOT consent to being born. The child should be allowed to sue or something if something bad happens. This shit damaged the reputation of ancaps more than anything.

>>4032 >yeah but why would he even think this way in the first place? Of course children are not property of their parents, they're humans with rights. No idea. I assume he just hated kids. I really don't know how someone so methodical on every other subject screwed the proverbial pooch so badly here. >The parents gave birth to them and should be liable if anything happens to them in their early years. The child did NOT consent to being born. The child should be allowed to sue or something if something bad happens. Well, yeah, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees with that. >This shit damaged the reputation of ancaps more than anything. Well, that and the similar "WHAT IF THE CHILD CONSENTS?!?!" meme. It's unfortunate, but all we can do is direct normalfags to alternatives like Feser and company when it comes to that front. Ancap's benefits easily outweigh the serious, glaring idiocy that is Chapter 14 of "The Ethics of Liberty".

>>4032 >>4034 Rothbard is not a God. He made a lot of ridiculous calls, just like every one of us. >Well, that and the similar "WHAT IF THE CHILD CONSENTS?!?!" meme. For real though, OP this one is a joke compared to that meme. That's the one that destroyed ancaps overnight.

>>4019 There are a lot of points Rothbard made that are left out on this meme and I don't think it's a fair representation of his position. I don't think that he viewed children as absolute property. https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights For this meme in particular, we should point out that there is already a (regulated) "market in children"; it's called adoption. Secondly, we have to remember that we are choosing among alternatives. The kind of parent that would sell their child, in all likelihood, was probably not going to be a very good parent, and the statist solution--that is, for the state to march in and take custody of the child--has its own share of problems. When considering the available alternatives, there simply isn't a clean solution to abusive parenting. Lastly, I think Rothbard provided an example of a case somewhere where it isn't morally clear that it a parent should be legally obligated to provide things for their children--say, for example, that the child is terminally ill and requires a medicine that the parent could not afford, and the only way the parent would be able to afford this medicine would be by selling himself/herself into indentured servitude: should we compel the parent into servitude?

>>4036 >should we compel the parent into servitude? Yes because it was their choice to have the child. But really no because I don't think indentured servitude would exist in a stateless society. It shouldn't anyway.

>>4036 This. The implication that this is somehow about pedophilia or whatever is pure histrionics, it's obviously talking about adoption. I will say that the idea the parents shouldn't have to "feed the child" was perhaps an unnecessary addition though

>>4019 I consider myself to be an ancap and I agree that parents should not have to feed their children.

>>4074 prepare to have your NAP violated faggot

>>4074 >place a massive burden on someone by giving them life >thinking you can just let them starve You're violating their NAP and other people can sue you for them

>>4019 You can't. It's the problem with all ideologues, liberal, fascist or communist, monarchist, or any other. See Mr. Cynical. That faggot unironically believes friends and family are a form of collectivism, and collectivism is bad (because muh individual), therefore friends and family are bad. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pragmatism None of your principles would exist if we burned all the books, puny ideologue. :^) >Ideologue Status: Not BTFO'd [X] BTFO'd [✓]

>>4036 So fundamentally, the current state of foster children is that they're welfare by another name for the parents, well-intentioned or not, and the only way to resolve the problem is to decrease state intervention?

Obviously some libertarian believes that, but I would hope that most libertarians who are obsessed with contract theory should get the idea of an implied contract. By creating a person who agreed to an implied contract with them to support them to an age of independent decision making. Though in theory the youngest age for independent decision making is less than the US's view of 18 being that age. And obviously before that age some degree of autonomy exists as an agent, but they still have access to that contract because they are not an age where they can be relied on to make all independent decisions in a way that they could be expected to survive. So they have independence and are not treated as a non-agent like in our modern society, but they still have a right to support.

children should not be considered legally human until they reach sexual maturity, until they are capavle of playing a direct role in creating biological children that are genetically their own, they should be looked at as nothing more than humanlike pieces of property. i also beleive that personhood should expire when sexual potency/fertility (reproductive viability) is lost, and that females should never ve persons, only property.

>>4019 Maybe don't allow your viewpoint to be conformed to something as embarrassing as fucking that.

>>5554 what i find is fhat people are embarassed or ashamed or guilty when they cannot articulate why they feel this way. it is not because these things are inherently a source of such feelings, because on a lot of these matters it is known that they once evinced no such feelings or in fact inspired the exact opposite reaction: - hell yes we wiped them out! we are a great and strong or clever people! - hell yes we had over ten thousand slaves! how wealthy and powerful we must be! - hell yes i married her when she was four and impregnated her for the first time when she was eight, i'm such a great guy to be able to get myself such a young wife, and she will give me many children! - hell yes i married my sister, i am of such divine lineage and hold so much wealth that we prioritize keeping the wealth and power within our bloodline rather than having to marry outward! - hell yes i have many wives, i must be the greatest man in town to acquire so many brides for myself. - hell yes we eat human flesh, we have consumed our enenies as we eat all.that we kill, food, especially meat, is a scarce and valuable resource. and so on... There are arguments for and against all these practices: For example pedophilia in the context within which it had most commonly occurred, between a man and a girl, can produce the strongest and longest lasting pair bond and the greatest amount of children. The wife is loyal and subservient to her husband, who has access to her entire window of fertility, its a conservative's dream family! Incest produces increased chance of birth defects, but this also means that incestuous practices where the couples produce many offspring each can promote the most genetically healthy bloodline as all inbreeding does is make the genes for defective traits more likely to express themselves. So when the defectives die off childless and they leave behind equally inbred siblings who did not inherit the defective traits, when they have offspring they will have purged the defective genes from their bloodlines. The solution to the problem of inbreeding is to do a lot more of it, to keep the hits, and not care to preserve the misses. Similar arguments for all the things. When the anti-work representitive said "laziness is a virtue" I gave it aome thought; "How many inventions that we use today exist because of laziness? How many times did some clever chap tire of hard work and choose to apply his mind to finding out a faster and easier way?". People rarely question the obvious and the repulsive, but both should be looked into, if I were a powerful tyrant who wanted to keep something away from the people so they could not challenge me with it, I'd get my team of psychologists to condition the masses to have a visceral moral revulsion associated with it, or a knee-jerk reaction of mockery and disdain. Most of our emotional impulses are culturally conditioned, not natural. Few things are truly instinctive.

>>5555 >Most of our emotional impulses are culturally conditioned, not natural. That's a bullshit ideal when you see the same general set of "rules" established across every society regardless of geography and time period, epsecially so when many of these cultures were disconnected for thousands of years. There are innumeralbe universal "truths" that do exist in the world that defy "culture" as being the reason for why they exist. That being said, you then encounter morons who only operate in the extremes and completely dilute this argument to the point where it doesn't matter. Where the one end is that "everything is subjective", meaning that all rules that exist are bullshit because we do not exist in an objective world. Then the other end is that all the rules show that we are "all the same" and came from the "same people/religion/origin", meaning the rules are STILL bullshit because they're not operating according to our "true nature".