How about forcing parents to take care of their kids?

[Rael]

To my way of thinking, anyone who makes the decision to have a child has an implicit contract with that child, which the person created, to provide for them until they have reached the stage where they can provide for themselves. If we accept this, how about laws forcing parents to provide for their children?

Providing would include food, shelter, education. The parent is required by law to pay for all of these. The parent may home school or educate the child in a manner they see fit, but must personally pay for any educational services.

If the person refuses or is unable to take care of the child, and it is necessary for the state to do so, the cost of taking care of the child will be billed to the parent, and wages garnished if need be. Taxpayers will not be responsible for your children, YOU WILL, one way or the other.

Some people are going to gasp at this, particularly if they don't agree that a parent has an implicit contract with the child. I see having laws such as this as merely contractual enforcement, and not unlibertarian in nature.

[pcosmar]

How about just eliminating welfare and Government schools.
Better yet Outlaw Income Tax.

There, Now you don't pay for it.

[heavenlyboy34]

To my way of thinking, anyone who makes the decision to have a child has an implicit contract with that child, which the person created, to provide for them until they have reached the stage where they can provide for themselves. If we accept this, how about laws forcing parents to provide for their children?

Providing would include food, shelter, education. The parent is required by law to pay for all of these. The parent may home school or educate the child in a manner they see fit, but must personally pay for any educational services.

If the person refuses or is unable to take care of the child, and it is necessary for the state to do so, the cost of taking care of the child will be billed to the parent, and wages garnished if need be. Taxpayers will not be responsible for your children, YOU WILL, one way or the other.

Some people are going to gasp at this, particularly if they don't agree that a parent has an implicit contract with the child. I see having laws such as this as merely contractual enforcement, and not unlibertarian in nature.

No offense, but this is one of the worst ideas ever cooked up by statists/nanny statists. :p Get rid of the state and let caring individuals/private organizations deal with it. What you talking about is entirely unlibertarian. It reminds me a bit of the "thought" behind public schooling. :rolleyes:

I rather like Arizona's way of dealing with this-if you have a child you don't want, you can leave it at a church, fire station, or some similar place, and it will be taken in by an adoption agency. (I forget the name of this law-perhaps Nick Coons remembers)

[heavenlyboy34]

How about just eliminating welfare and Government schools.
Better yet Outlaw Income Tax.

There, Now you don't pay for it.

These are good ideas too! ;)

[Xenophage]

Not all pregnancies are expected. If you're going to claim that having a child is always a choice, then you're going to have to mean: If you don't want the child, you can abort the pregnancy.

Sidestepping the question of the morality/legality of abortion, in modern society this choice does exist whereas it did not in generations past.

I also agree with the free market, voluntaryist position above... let non-profits and caring individuals take care of things like this.

Regardless, I agree with your basic position. It is abusive and immoral to bring a dependent human life into the world that you are incapable of caring for (or unwilling). Furthermore, its criminal to force other people to take care of it for you.

[Rael]

Get rid of the state and let caring individuals/private organizations deal with it. What you talking about is entirely unlibertarian. It reminds me a bit of the "thought" behind public schooling. :rolleyes:

I rather like Arizona's way of dealing with this-if you have a child you don't want, you can leave it at a church, fire station, or some similar place, and it will be taken in by an adoption agency. (I forget the name of this law-perhaps Nick Coons remembers)

I think the private organizations should be the first option, but if that does not happen I have no issues with the state providing for the child, however the parent should be billed.

I like Arizona's law too, but unless and until someone takes responsibility for the child, any costs the state incurs should be charged to the parent.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not all pregnancies are expected. If you're going to claim that having a child is always a choice, then you're going to have to mean: If you don't want the child, you can abort the pregnancy.

Sidestepping the question of the morality/legality of abortion, in modern society this choice does exist whereas it did not in generations past.

Regardless, I agree with your basic position. It is abusive and immoral to bring a dependent human life into the world that you are incapable of caring for (or unwilling). Furthermore, its criminal to force other people to take care of it for you.

pro-lifers would argue that an unwanted child should be adopted out rather than aborted. What thinks you?:confused:

[Roxi]

the problem: who gets to decide what "taking care" of your children is? who has control, whos paying for control, and enforcement.

if you are talking about just providing food, shelter, and education.... that already is a law

[Rael]

I also agree with the free market, voluntaryist position above... let non-profits and caring individuals take care of things like this.

.

I agree it should be the first option, but if that fails, the state should enforce the contract.

[Xenophage]

pro-lifers would argue that an unwanted child should be adopted out rather than aborted. What thinks you?:confused:

Saving roll: Xenophage rolls a ten and narrowly escapes answering your difficult questions.

[Rael]

the problem: who gets to decide what "taking care" of your children is? who has control, whos paying for control, and enforcement.

if you are talking about just providing food, shelter, and education.... that already is a law

You are correct, this is a problem. Who determines what is adequate in terms of food shelter, and education? I admit I don't have a good answer for that at this time.

[phill4paul]

To my way of thinking, anyone who makes the decision to have a child has an implicit contract with that child, which the person created, to provide for them until they have reached the stage where they can provide for themselves. If we accept this, how about laws forcing parents to provide for their children?

Providing would include food, shelter, education. The parent is required by law to pay for all of these. The parent may home school or educate the child in a manner they see fit, but must personally pay for any educational services.

If the person refuses or is unable to take care of the child, and it is necessary for the state to do so, the cost of taking care of the child will be billed to the parent, and wages garnished if need be. Taxpayers will not be responsible for your children, YOU WILL, one way or the other.

Some people are going to gasp at this, particularly if they don't agree that a parent has an implicit contract with the child. I see having laws such as this as merely contractual enforcement, and not unlibertarian in nature.

100% agree with indentured servitude to pay back the debt.

[Sandra]

No offense, but this is one of the worst ideas ever cooked up by statists/nanny statists. :p Get rid of the state and let caring individuals/private organizations deal with it. What you talking about is entirely unlibertarian. It reminds me a bit of the "thought" behind public schooling. :rolleyes:

I rather like Arizona's way of dealing with this-if you have a child you don't want, you can leave it at a church, fire station, or some similar place, and it will be taken in by an adoption agency. (I forget the name of this law-perhaps Nick Coons remembers)

Where in hell did you get the idea that an adoption agency was involved? It's the STATE that handles it. So personal responsibility does not apply in Libertarianism?
You've definitely heard wrong. Maybe you've confused us with "liberal".

[ChaosControl]

End the welfare state.
Let charities take care of. Of course the scumbags who irresponsibly have a child and dump it on a church should be rejected by society.

Having a child is a choice, the only exception is when someone is raped. Why is it always a choice outside of rape? Because you choose to engage in the activity that results in it. Parents should be responsible for their children.

[Rael]

Saving roll: Xenophage rolls a ten and narrowly escapes answering your difficult questions.

lmao.

On the abortion/adoption question, I think that if a woman has carried a child to the point of viability outside the womb, she can no longer morally abort the child and to do so would be an act of violence (unless failure to abort the child would cause the death of the mother...in this case it would be a defensive act of violence) I think at this stage the contract is entered into.

As far as adoption, fine but I would say it is the parents responsibility to find someone willing to accept transfer of the contract, and until that is done, the parent should assume full financial responsibility

[Xenophage]

pro-lifers would argue that an unwanted child should be adopted out rather than aborted. What thinks you?:confused:

Actually I'll answer. I'm not necessarily FOR abortion, but I'm not AGAINST it either. I think it should exist as a choice. I don't believe embryos and zygotes have rights... but I have a hard time figuring out when a child GETS its rights.

My own theory of human rights is based on a few things that are completely inapplicable and irrelevant to a baby: I believe in rights as derived from our capacity to engage in moral choice, and as social contracts to enable maximum freedom of choice. I don't believe they are granted by God.

This particular topic is one that I'm still grappling with intellectually.

[Xenophage]

lmao.

On the abortion/adoption question, I think that if a woman has carried a child to the point of viability outside the womb, she can no longer morally abort the child and to do so would be an act of violence (unless failure to abort the child would cause the death of the mother...in this case it would be a defensive act of violence) I think at this stage the contract is entered into.

As far as adoption, fine but I would say it is the parents responsibility to find someone willing to accept transfer of the contract, and until that is done, the parent should assume full financial responsibility

I agree with both of your points here.

[Sandra]

I think what a lot of you that have issues of child responsibility are thinking of your PERSONAL FREEDOM not RESPONSIBILITY. Libertarianism isn't all about you.

[heavenlyboy34]

Where in hell did you get the idea that an adoption agency was involved? It's the STATE that handles it. So personal responsibility does not apply in Libertarianism?
You've definitely heard wrong. Maybe you've confused us with "liberal".

It's how it's handled in all the states I've lived in. Where is this accusation coming from that I don't believe in personal responsibility in this issue? :rolleyes: I prefer private organizations and individuals handling this BECAUSE I'm libertarian. Perhaps YOU have libertarianism confused with "conservatism". :p

[heavenlyboy34]

I think what a lot of you that have issues of child responsibility are thinking of your PERSONAL FREEDOM not RESPONSIBILITY. Libertarianism isn't all about you.

+1 Thanks for adding to my point! ~hug~ :D

[Rael]

What got me thinking about this was this article
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D969LSL80&show_article=1

its about the women who got fertility drugs and has 14 kids and how the taxpayers should pickup the tab.

This stupid fool has a moral responsibility to take care of all 14 of those kids. If she can't/won't and private charities don't step up to the plate, the state should not let the children starve or go without shelter and education, but goddammit we should bill this woman for every cent and garnish her wages and hound her to death for the money.

[Xenophage]

To follow up, child abuse is and ought to be illegal. Abuse can include starving your children or putting them out in a dog house because you're too f*ing lazy to get a job.

BUT, I still believe in the private sector's ability to handle this. Private orphanages have been around a long time, y'know.

[Xenophage]

What got me thinking about this was this article
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D969LSL80&show_article=1

its about the women who got fertility drugs and has 14 kids and how the taxpayers should pickup the tab.

This stupid fool has a moral responsibility to take care of all 14 of those kids. If she can't/won't and private charities don't step up to the plate, the state should not let the children starve or go without shelter and education, but goddammit we should bill this woman for every cent and garnish her wages and hound her to death for the money.

Yeah, she disgusts me.

[Rael]

To follow up, child abuse is and ought to be illegal. Abuse can include starving your children or putting them out in a dog house because you're too f*ing lazy to get a job.

BUT, I still believe in the private sector's ability to handle this. Private orphanages have been around a long time, y'know.

I think under this system the private sector would still thrive and handle most of it. Many people will adopt, and private orphanages will still get funding because people know that a private orphanage will do a better cheaper job than the state. But I do think the state should have a function as a backup in case this does not happen, and billing the parent is basically the same as forcing someone to make restitution.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually I'll answer. I'm not necessarily FOR abortion, but I'm not AGAINST it either. I think it should exist as a choice. I don't believe embryos and zygotes have rights... but I have a hard time figuring out when a child GETS its rights.

My own theory of human rights is based on a few things that are completely inapplicable and irrelevant to a baby: I believe in rights as derived from our capacity to engage in moral choice, and as social contracts to enable maximum freedom of choice. I don't believe they are granted by God.

This particular topic is one that I'm still grappling with intellectually.

Have you extended your thought on this issue to minor children-who are also >legally< not liable for what they do? (I think you wrote about this during the "child pornography" chat, but I don't recall.) :confused:

[Rael]

Have you extended your thought on this issue to minor children-who are also >legally< not liable for what they do? (I think you wrote about this during the "child pornography" chat, but I don't recall.) :confused:

Are you talking about whether a minor who gets pregnant can be held responsible, since minors cannot enter into contracts? In this case the minor, along with the minors parent, have the option to end the pregnancy before viability. How about this, the parent and the minor can seek to have the minor emancipated, which will cause the entire responsibility of the child to fall on the minor, or, failing to do this, the parent and the minor will be jointly responsible for the child until the minor becomes a major (ha ha) at which point they assume full responsibility.

[pcosmar]

What got me thinking about this was this article
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D969LSL80&show_article=1

.

I had guessed that.
That story is wrong on so many levels.
Disability payments to someone that is quite obviously NOT disabled.
Infertility treatments for a single person that is not infertile, just single.

The state subsidies for the children she had,

Who said "subsidize something and you'll get more of it" ??

END welfare and we can get rid of a lot of this.

[heavenlyboy34]

Are you talking about whether a minor who gets pregnant can be held responsible, since minors cannot enter into contracts? In this case the minor, along with the minors parent, have the option to end the pregnancy before viability. How about this, the parent and the minor can seek to have the minor emancipated, which will cause the entire responsibility of the child to fall on the minor, or, failing to do this, the parent and the minor will be jointly responsible for the child until the minor becomes a major (ha ha) at which point they assume full responsibility.

See how over-complicated things get when the state is involved? ;):p

[asimplegirl]

What got me thinking about this was this article
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D969LSL80&show_article=1

its about the women who got fertility drugs and has 14 kids and how the taxpayers should pickup the tab.

This stupid fool has a moral responsibility to take care of all 14 of those kids. If she can't/won't and private charities don't step up to the plate, the state should not let the children starve or go without shelter and education, but goddammit we should bill this woman for every cent and garnish her wages and hound her to death for the money.

She has no wages to garnish. She received a settlement for disability claiming back problems from a state hospital before giving birth to the other six. Then, she and her three oldest receive SSI. She receives food stamps and medicaid on all the children. Her parents bought he house and now have to live with her as they have filed bankruptcy from paying her way, while she goes to school on grants. The birth of her children and care of them until they were released from the hospital is over 2 million dollars according to the state of California.

Pictures have been released of the inside of her three bedroom house, and though it is not overrun with "stuff", it IS filthy.

Somehow, though she can afford to drive a new vehicle, hire a PR firm to ask for donations (http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/), and have her nails done, and wear nice clothes.

[Rael]

She has no wages to garnish. She received a settlement for disability claiming back problems from a state hospital before giving birth to the other six. Then, she and her three oldest receive SSI. She receives food stamps and medicaid on all the children. Her parents bought he house and now have to live with her as they have filed bankruptcy from paying her way, while she goes to school on grants. The birth of her children and care of them until they were released from the hospital is over 2 million dollars according to the state of California.

Pictures have been released of the inside of her three bedroom house, and though it is not overrun with "stuff", it IS filthy.

Somehow, though she can afford to drive a new vehicle, hire a PR firm to ask for donations (http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/), and have her nails done, and wear nice clothes.

She will have wages to garnish when the aid is cut off and she is forced to pay for the children herself!

[pcosmar]

She will have wages to garnish when the aid is cut off and she is forced to pay for the children herself!

Not likely,
She will likely go live in that hospital she used to work in, and her children will be raised by the state.

[phill4paul]

She will have wages to garnish when the aid is cut off and she is forced to pay for the children herself!

Agreed. 100% indentured servitude for indigent parents until your debt is payed off.

Of course they'll have to hire more bureaucrats to monitor if that person is making an income. Then more bureaucrats to handle the monetary transactions. All this expense of course added to the original fee. Then add in the costs of the bureaucrats that will have to take the original care cost from me and the bureaucrats that have to monitor if I'm making an income and of course bureaucrats to handle my monetary transactions. Also, don't forget the costs of the judicial systems to determine just claims and court controlled enforcement agency. Prison systems to incarcerate those that won't comply and the bureaucrats that run them.........

I'd rather start a 5 mile rule. If anyone that lives within 5 miles of you is f*cking up, fathering, or mothering, more children than they can support it is your prerogative to meet them in private. Have a pleasant talk about the need for responsibility. Then beat the living shit out of them. :eek: Oh no I Di'nt!