did murray ruthbard really argument for selling children??? in anarchocapitalism or is that a manipulation by wiki
did murray ruthbard really argument for selling children??? in anarchocapitalism or is that a manipulation by wiki
Searching the web
45 results
Yes, Murray Rothbard did argue in favor of parents having the right to sell guardianship rights over their children as part of his anarcho-capitalist framework. This is outlined in Chapter 14 ("Children and Rights") of his 1982 book The Ethics of Liberty, which is freely available on the Mises Institute website.Rothbard viewed children as not yet full self-owners (they are "potential" self-owners). Parents act as trustees or guardians with ownership-like rights over them, but this is limited: parents cannot aggress against the child (e.g., no murder or mutilation), and the child has an absolute right to "run away" at any age to seek new guardians, thereby emancipating themselves.He explicitly stated: "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."Rothbard acknowledged that this idea seems "superficially monstrous" but argued it would create a better "stork market" (a play on "stock market") than the existing regulated adoption system, benefiting natural parents, children, and buyers through market incentives. He contrasted it with current laws that force parents to give children away for free to agencies, suppressing a price mechanism.This is accurately reflected in Wikipedia entries on Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism (e.g., describing "stork markets" and a market in guardianship rights to transfer children from neglectful parents). It's not a manipulation—it's a direct paraphrase of his text, cited from the book.The view is highly controversial and has been criticized even within libertarian circles (e.g., for implying no enforceable positive obligations on parents, like feeding children, and for the ethical implications of commodifying children). Some libertarians reject or modify Rothbard's position on children's rights. However, it is indeed what he argued as a logical extension of absolute property rights, self-ownership, and voluntary contracts in a stateless society.
...
My comments.
I find this view highly controversal and I am not sure I agree on this point. I believe children are best of with the biological parents, but yes on the other hand parents sometime neglect children and in that situation "MAYBE" a free market can be put in place. Its controversial and I am not sure I agree.. its really a sensitive topic to me and I guess I need years to really form my oppion on this particular point.
/Lasse
Posted using LasseCash