Politics
Out of context: Reply #18911
- Started
- Last post
- 33,467 Responses
- ukit20
"Libertarianism"
https://mises.org/rothbard/ethic…
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.
Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.
- TO be fair, comparing a politcal ideology to parenting is like thinking a govt should run like a businesslocustsloth
- There is libertarianism in respect to natural law, and another aspect. There libertarianism with messianic law mix...yurimon
- the messianic law aspect would say god forbids adaption. you have to raise your children.yurimon
- @locustsloth
Not a comparison, this is what they actually advocateukit2 - Murray Rothbard being the main influence on Ron Paul and most right wing libertariansukit2
- I dont believe in a right or left...its stupid way to think..yurimon