[AFAIK]

When/ how does a child become emancipated from his or her parents?
Would communities set arbitrary age limits on certain voluntary interactions to protect vulnerable children? Such as “statutory” rape for example? Does this violate NAP?

If my adult sibling engages in destructive behavior would it be socially acceptable for me to use force in certain circumstances? Could I kidnap my alcoholic brother and lock him in rehab? Can I confiscate my sister’s money to prevent her gambling? [i]

Can Bush pre-emptively invade Iraq? Japan, Pearl Harbor?

Can/ should I intervene in a suicide attempt, self-immolation (as a form of protest), self-harm.

What level of responsibility do parents have to their children?
Is euthanasia acceptable, if so in what circumstances? Is removing life support worse than actively euthanizing someone?

When is an abortion violating NAP? A medical procedure until the point the fetus develops _____ ?

EDIT- What about circumcision? The bible says uncircumcised males cannot enter heaven (Jews only?). There is debate over health benefits..... I read (in Freakonomics) that circumcised males taking part in a study had 50% the HIV infection rate of those with a foreskin. But some circumcised boys grow up wishing that they had a foreskin. Some undergo surgery to attain an approximation of a foreskin. Some claim that circumcision reduces sensitivity to sexual pleasure.

Lets leave female circumcision for later.

I think these are difficult questions. Who will answer them? -EDIT

*I'm holding back here. I may post some more controversial questions later.*

[Eran]

When/ how does a child become emancipated from his or her parents?

Essentially, as soon as they decide they want to, and take responsibility for their own lives (alone, or with the assistance of others).

Would communities set arbitrary age limits on certain voluntary interactions to protect vulnerable children? Such as “statutory” rape for example? Does this violate NAP?

Land owners may put whatever rules they want for people wishing to use their property. Thus, for example, a neighbourhood association may decide to prohibit under-age sex (or drugs, gambling, red-heads, yellow shirts, whatever).

Schools, for example, to attract parents are highly likely to institute and strictly enforce a policy prohibiting sexual relations between students and teachers.

However, violation of that rule can only carry proportionate response. A teacher may be fired, a resident may be asked to leave the neighbourhood. It is hard to see how a consensual sexual relation with a sexually-mature under-age person could carry the kinds of penalties we see today.

If my adult sibling engages in destructive behavior would it be socially acceptable for me to use force in certain circumstances? Could I kidnap my alcoholic brother and lock him in rehab? Can I confiscate my sister’s money to prevent her gambling?

Not unless they are clearly incapable of making rational (not to be confused with [i]good) choices.

If your brother wants to drink himself to death, and your sister wants to gamble her entire fortune away, that's their business, not yours. Only if they are clearly not in control of their faculties (or present physical risk to others) can their self-ownership be overridden.

Can Bush pre-emptively invade Iraq? Japan, Pearl Harbor?

No.

The most Bush can pre-emptively do is assassinate foreign leaders who have engaged in criminal activities (virtually all of them, including Bush himself...)

That doesn't mean such assassinations are likely to be a good idea - merely a permissible one.

Can/ should I intervene in a suicide attempt, self-immolation (as a form of protest), self-harm.

That really depends on circumstances. It is permission, even advisable to intervene in situations where the decision is not well considered, and the person in question may be persuaded to change their minds.

If a person is determined to end their own lives, it is their right to do so.

What level of responsibility do parents have to their children?

Morally, they have exactly the responsibility you'd expect them to - to support, education, help, care for, etc.

Legally, parental responsibility is akin to trusteeship. The child is a self-owner, but cannot act as an owner, hence the need for trusteeship. As such, it is the duty of the parents to make decisions on behalf of the child that are in the child's best interest, the decisions the child itself would likely have made had he had the mental capacity, maturity, knowledge and experience to make them.

Parents may relinquish those responsibilities if another person (or organisation) is willing to take over them. They may require and receive compensation for that.

Is euthanasia acceptable, if so in what circumstances? Is removing life support worse than actively euthanizing someone?

Euthanasia is always acceptable if it is done in conformity with the wishes if the patient. Never otherwise. I have covered above the procedures to follow if the patient's wishes are unknown.

When is an abortion violating NAP? A medical procedure until the point the fetus develops _____ ?

Opinions vary. In my opinion (based on Walter Block's analysis), the mother must make a reasonable effort at delivering the fetus live, if it is viable. Otherwise, she may "evict" the fetus at her discretion, subject to any agreements (e.g. marriage agreement) she might have signed.

What about circumcision?

The standard, again, is the decision the child would have likely made, had they had the capacity to make such decisions. Within Jewish communities, for example, there is no doubt that the child would choose to be circumcised. Not sure where you have the idea about bible and heaven. Heaven isn't part of the Jewish Bible.

[AFAIK]

Thus, for example, a neighbourhood association may decide to prohibit under-age sex (or drugs, gambling, red-heads, yellow shirts, whatever).

An 18 yo and 14 yo live in a community that has set 15 years as the age of maturity. If they have sex outside the community can they, or just the 18 yo, be excluded?
How do you feel about states that punish citizens for crimes that occurred abroad?

Euthanasia is always acceptable if it is done in conformity with the wishes if the patient. Never otherwise. I have covered above the procedures to follow if the patient's wishes are unknown.

What if advances in medical technology occur between the time I formally state my position and I become incapacitated?

Opinions vary. In my opinion (based on Walter Block's analysis), the mother must make a reasonable effort at delivering the fetus live, if it is viable. Otherwise, she may "evict" the fetus at her discretion, subject to any agreements (e.g. marriage agreement) she might have signed.

What responsibilities does the mother-to-be have to the father-to-be and vice versa? What responsibility do sexually active men have to the children that follow.

Not sure where you have the idea about bible and heaven. Heaven isn't part of the Jewish Bible.

I not sure of the correct term. I'm under the impression that male Jews cannot access parts of the after life if they are not circumcised.

[SueDeNîmes]

When/ how does a child become emancipated from his or her parents?

Essentially, as soon as they decide they want to, and take responsibility for their own lives (alone, or with the assistance of others).

And of course they can always file a lawsuit against the paedophile who promised to take them to Disney Land.

Honestly, ffs.

[Eran]

An 18 yo and 14 yo live in a community that has set 15 years as the age of maturity. If they have sex outside the community can they, or just the 18 yo, be excluded?
How do you feel about states that punish citizens for crimes that occurred abroad?

It is up to the community, and wouldn't count as "punishment".

The community owns the land over which it is based. Consequently, it can set whatever conditions it wishes on anybody wanting to use that land. A violation of these conditions would be grounds for eviction, and such eviction wouldn't constitute "punishment", but rather enforcement of pre-agreed contract terms.

What if advances in medical technology occur between the time I formally state my position and I become incapacitated?

That really depends, doesn't it? If those advances are such that a reasonable person would view your prior position is inapplicable, it might be ignored, and your next-of-kin would make a fresh determination. Such legal issues aren't peculiar to libertarianism - they can (and regularly do) arise under current law.

What responsibilities does the mother-to-be have to the father-to-be and vice versa? What responsibility do sexually active men have to the children that follow.

The mother-to-be may have responsibilities towards the father-to-be, and vice-versa, depending on the contractual arrangements between them. Courts may "discover" legal rules that apply by "default", in the absence of a written contract. Such rule may, for example, stipulate that having sexual intercourse commits the father-to-be to support the mother-to-be and their child-to-be financially. Or there may be no such commitment - it really depends on the practices of the community.

I would be shocked if the default marriage contract doesn't include such financial support terms.

[AFAIK]

What responsibilities do parents have to their infants?
Are they required to provide sustenance and shelter?
Would these be considered to be positive rights?

I am aware that libertarians are divided on the issue of abortion.
Are there fractures regarding infants?

[Eran]

The most important distinction we have to make is between moral and enforceable (legal) responsibilities and obligations.

On the moral question, libertarians do not differ from the mainstream. We all recognise that parents have heavy moral obligation to the well-being of their children. The parents acts as a trustee for the self-owning child who is temporarily unable to make decisions in his own interest.

Legally, parents are obligated to act in good faith for the benefit of the child, but only as long as they choose to remain the child's guardians. Guardianship is a bundle of rights and obligations. The guardian has decision-making rights because they are deemed to act on behalf of the child. Those rights are bundled with responsibilities to care for the child.

Parents may discharge of both their guardianship rights and obligations by passing this "bundle" to a willing party. At the very least, they are required to make a good-faith effort to do the same.

Thus leaving your child to starve in a back room isn't allowed. Leaving the child on the steps of an orphanage, while not recommended, isn't prosecutable.

Note, btw, that the libertarian view (at least my view) is that the bundle of rights and responsibilities entailed in guardianship is transferable. In other words, parents can sell their guardianship position, provided that the buyer undertakes the same responsibilities as the previous parent.

Are there fractures regarding infants?

Of course. I am voicing the Rothbardian doctrine which, as usual, is fairly radical. Many moderate libertarians believe the parents have enforceable obligations towards their children that cannot be discharged at will.

[SueDeNîmes]

What responsibilities do parents have to their infants?
Are they required to provide sustenance and shelter?
Would these be considered to be positive rights?

"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. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."

- Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, 1982

[Nunt]

Thus leaving your child to starve in a back room isn't allowed. Leaving the child on the steps of an orphanage, while not recommended, isn't prosecutable.

This doesn't seem so different from current laws. It usually allowed to give your child up for adoption.

[Eran]

The father is required by law to pay for the care of the child, a duty that cannot be "given up".

In this sense, libertarian law would be different.

The father's duties may, of course, arise contractually from the terms of the marriage agreement.

[Joe Liberty]

"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. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."

You do realize the vast, overwhelming majority of parents provide all of those things because they want to, not because it's against the law? And the fact that it's currently a legal obligation doesn't stop a tiny minority from neglecting them anyway.

So it's not the reason why most parents care for their children, and it doesn't provide much of a deterrent to those who are inclined to neglect.

[Happyhippo]

You do realize the vast, overwhelming majority of parents provide all of those things because they want to, not because it's against the law? And the fact that it's currently a legal obligation doesn't stop a tiny minority from neglecting them anyway.

So it's not the reason why most parents care for their children, and it doesn't provide much of a deterrent to those who are inclined to neglect.

I agree that most parents do it because they want to. However, making a child has to be done by force, so there is nothing contradictory about forcing parents to take care of the child.

I highly suspect there are sexist reasons why american and british libertarians want to get rid of such laws, due to the relationship between conservatism and libertarianism in both areas.

[Eran]

However, making a child has to be done by force, so there is nothing contradictory about forcing parents to take care of the child.

What on earth do you mean by that?

Against whom is force applied when making a child? Certainly not against that child, or against any other person, right?

Who, and by what right, can legitimately use force against the parents?

I highly suspect there are sexist reasons why american and british libertarians want to get rid of such laws, due to the relationship between conservatism and libertarianism in both areas.

You are clearly wrong. Radical libertarian thinkers (like Murray Rothbard or Walter Block) have very little allegiance to conservative values. The libertarian position is perfectly consistent with the categorical rejection of "positive rights", including the right of a child against his parents.

[KPres]

What on earth do you mean by that?

Probably this:

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
~ Catherine MacKinnon

[Eran]

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."

Does anybody seriously believe this stuff? I always thought it was a straw-man erected by people trying to make feminism look ridiculous.

Taking it on face value, what conceivable definition of "violence" makes the statement true?

[AFAIK]

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
~ Catherine MacKinnon

Even if the woman is on top?

[SueDeNîmes]

"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. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."

You do realize the vast, overwhelming majority of parents provide all of those things because they want to, not because it's against the law? And the fact that it's currently a legal obligation doesn't stop a tiny minority from neglecting them anyway.

You do realise that the vast, overwhelming majority of people don't murder and rape because they aren't so inclined, not because it's against the law? And the fact that it's against the law doesn't stop a minority from murdering and raping anyway.

So it's not the reason why most parents care for their children, and it doesn't provide much of a deterrent to those who are inclined to neglect.

So it's not the reason most people don't murder and rape and doesn't provide much of a deterrent to those who are so inclined.

1) We cannot, by definition, see who or how many are deterred from any crime. Ask a social worker how common the kind of parent who might otherwise let an inconvenient child starve in the back bedroom is. That kind of parent probably has a far better idea than you what kind of treatment they'd get in prison.

2) The idea that we should therefore not oblige parents to ensure that infants are fed is the same patent idiocy as the idea that we should not therefore outlaw murder and rape.

[Eran]

Ok, let's compare the options and likely choices of a "bad" parent, one not really interested in the welfare of his child.

In today's society, the parent is deterred from starving the child to death, or even being overly-abusive (physically). However, the child is "stuck" with that parent for the duration of his childhood, suffering just-legal abuse and neglect.

In Murray Rothbard's society, the parent isn't obliged to feed the child (though it is, as Walter Block subsequently clarified, obliged to give others an opportunity to care for the child). However, that parent is motivated to sell his guardianship rights over the child. In other words, to get paid in exchange for giving up the child for adoption.

Surely you see that a child is better off with (adoptive) parents who love him enough to have paid to have him, rather than being stuck with a biological parent who is only prevented by fear of punishment from starving him to death?

[SueDeNîmes]

Ok, let's compare the options and likely choices of a "bad" parent, one not really interested in the welfare of his child.

In today's society, the parent is deterred from starving the child to death, or even being overly-abusive (physically). However, the child is "stuck" with that parent for the duration of his childhood, suffering just-legal abuse and neglect.

No, they are monitored and become wards of the state / foster parents in that case.

In Murray Rothbard's society, the parent isn't obliged to feed the child (though it is, as Walter Block subsequently clarified, obliged to give others an opportunity to care for the child). However, that parent is motivated to sell his guardianship rights over the child. In other words, to get paid in exchange for giving up the child for adoption.

Surely you see that a child is better off with (adoptive) parents who love him enough to have paid to have him, rather than being stuck with a biological parent who is only prevented by fear of punishment from starving him to death?

Oh, FFS! Willingness to stump up money is no more a guarantee of child welfare than a paedophile's willingness to stump up an airfare to Thailand.

[AFAIK]

Orphanages are very profitable business ventures. In Cambodia over 50% of the children living in orphanages have 1 or more living parent. It costs 10 times as much to care for a child in an orphanage than at home.

If people are genuinely concerned about the welfare of children they will donate their time and money to those who provide genuine help and assistance to children. They have little choice over the use of taxes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganhartl ... e-tourism/
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peo ... 38171.html