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.