mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (04/22/85)
Lines marked '>' are those of Michael M. Sykora; lines marked '>>]' are from an earlier entry of mine. >>] Reproduction -- a person creates another person, and thereby >>] creates obligations to that person. > >Would you mind elaborating on what precisely these obligations are, and >why they are in fact obligations? What is the purpose of the word 'precisely'? Is the imprecise incorrect? I can't say what they are precisely; I've thought about it for years, and I expect that I will continue to think about it for years. GENERALLY, though, these obligations are those of promoting the development of the off-spring into an intellectually and physically viable adult. (With such exceptions as rape and botched sterilizations) A person who engages in a reproductive act does so voluntarily. Any subsequent off- spring are unconsenting agents of the reproducer. Altho the reproducer may not have WANTED his CHOICE to result in off-spring, nonetheless THEY ARE THERE BY CHOICE OF THE REPRODUCERS. I've collected a fair deal of literature from Libertarian opponents of parental obligation, and all that I have uses one or both of two arguments. 1) One cannot cannot control the Will (that is: One cannot establish rules effectively restricting thoughts and desires), therefore one cannot alienate the Will, therefore one cannot enter into long-term obligations. The initial premise (One cannot control the Will) is debatable, but in any event the conclusion is a non-sequitur. A long-term obligation need not involve the right to force thoughts and desires upon one, it can simply involve the right to force other actions upon one. 2) The offspring is a tresspasser. But a trespasser is one using the property of another WITHOUT the free choice of that other. Back later, DKMcK
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/23/85)
The other argument that I have heard from liobertarians is that raising a kid is like having a job. You must be free to quit your job. The people who become parents do not know what a hassle becoming a parents is, and so they have acted agaisnt their own self interest and should be allowed to rectify matters. I have no problem with allowing people to give their unwanted children away to people who want them - but what do you do with unwanted kids which nobody else wants either? It is a rahter tough question. Should the kids be forced to live where they are considered a tresspasser? Shold they be turned over to private charities? [no public orphanages, this is Libertaria, okay] You cannot force their parents to love them -- should you force them to pay for their upkeep even if they do not live at home? There are other problems. Some teenagers turn out very badly, despite the best efforts of their parents. If your 15 year old son is an armed robber, you may not want him at home for reasons other than merely regretting that you got into the parent business in the first place. Can you ban him from your house? His room? Personally, I don't think that anybody should be forced to live with anybody they don't want to -- but parents are financially responsible for their children until their children either start earning enough money to support themselves or reach an certain age. But what do you do with people who are never going to be able to earn a living due to menatl or physical disabilities... I suspect that most parents will continue paying for such children but they too are worthy objects of charity. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/25/85)
>/* mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) / 3:58 pm Apr 22, 1985 */ >What is the purpose of the word 'precisely'? Is the imprecise incorrect? What I meant by that is - obligations to do what, provide what - and why. > I can't say what they are precisely; I've thought about it for years, >and I expect that I will continue to think about it for years. > GENERALLY, though, these obligations are those of promoting the >development of the off-spring into an intellectually and physically viable >adult. This leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Could you be more specific? Michael Sykora