Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[SevenSpirits]

Gavagai, the main problem I have with libertarianism is the fact that we keep getting new people.

Children are born with nothing except their future earning potential, and to not enforce transfer of some existing wealth to them is to accept slavery.

And once you accept this premise, it's about a matter of degree. On the one hand we could give every infant a big wad of cash with their birth certificate. At the other end of the spectrum we could decide exactly what they should be given at each moment in their lives (education, health insurance, housing, food, etc.).

I think that this is the question we (as a society) are fundamentally trying to answer, once you get past all the partisan posturing and disingenuous bullshit arguments.

The other viable position I can think of is that you can't have children unless you, personally, commit the agreed-upon resources to a trust for them prior to their birth. I don't see how that's any freer or less coercive though, and I haven't heard anyone make that argument.

[Gavagai]

Gavagai, the main problem I have with libertarianism is the fact that we keep getting new people.

Children are born with nothing except their future earning potential, and to not enforce transfer of some existing wealth to them is to accept slavery.

Well, there are two possible answers to this.
First, children are typically born to some parents who in most situations would be willing to transfer some wealth to them voluntarily. One can even construct an argument, within a libertarian framework, that parents have a quasi-delictual obligation towards their children to provide for their survival and flourishing. I'm not sure that I will buy this argument but it deserves consideration.
Second answer is that future earning potential is also an asset and under sufficiently flexible legal system and assuming low enough long-term interest rates it can be monetized.

[Bacchus]

The other viable position I can think of is that you can't have children unless you, personally, commit the agreed-upon resources to a trust for them prior to their birth. I don't see how that's any freer or less coercive though, and I haven't heard anyone make that argument.

Surely that's just one of the most basic and traditional arguments that having children is a responsibility, and that parents have a duty of care? You phrase it in a somewhat strange way, but I find it hard to believe that you've never encountered the concept.

[Gavagai]

@ Seven. On deeper level, I don't think I understand why exactly you think that status newly born children would be akin to status of slaves. Can you elaborate?

[SevenSpirits]

I thought I covered both of those responses, if not in depth then at least pointing out their flaws.

Forcing parents to care for their children to some minimum standard is both coercive and not universally effective, I.e. you will still need state to judge and enforce parenting, and on top of that some children will be screwed.

And forcing children to sell their future earnings just to get a reasonable start to life is literally slavery.

[SevenSpirits]

The other viable position I can think of is that you can't have children unless you, personally, commit the agreed-upon resources to a trust for them prior to their birth. I don't see how that's any freer or less coercive though, and I haven't heard anyone make that argument.

Surely that's just one of the most basic and traditional arguments that having children is a responsibility, and that parents have a duty of care? You phrase it in a somewhat strange way, but I find it hard to believe that you've never encountered the concept.

Non-libertarians typically favor state-enforced parenting standards plus state-provided support for children whose parents aren't doing their duty for whatever reason.

Both if these are incompatible with libertarian principles.

[SevenSpirits]

@ Seven. On deeper level, I don't think I understand why exactly you think that status newly born children would be akin to status of slaves. Can you elaborate?

Two possibilities:

1) State will enforce contracts made between child and other party where child commits future work to the other party in a way that cannot practically be discharged. Even if you assume children are wise, competent negotiators, this is slavery.

2) State will not enforce this sort of thing e.g. by having strong bankruptcy rights. Then children will nothave enough bargaining ability to survive, get an education, etc.

[SevenSpirits]

To be clear, I don't think all children would be slaves - probably most parents are highly motivated to avoid that for their children. But not all children will be so lucky, plus potential exists for the creation of a perpetual underclass, so I think if you are building a philosophy of government from principle of non-agression, it's important to understand that in principle your system fails at producing reasonable outcomes for people who join your society later and as helpless infants.

[Gavagai]

I thought I covered both of those responses, if not in depth then at least pointing out their flaws.

Forcing parents to care for their children to some minimum standard is both coercive and not universally effective, I.e. you will still need state to judge and enforce parenting, and on top of that some children will be screwed.

And forcing children to sell their future earnings just to get a reasonable start to life is literally slavery.

1) As I said, one can argue that it isn't coercive within libertarian framework. Parents can be viewed as commiting a "delict" against a child by forcing him into life and are responsible to "compensate" for this. I don't have a firm opinion about this argument, however, and won't defend it here.

2) If you think that making a profit from someones vital needs is slavery, then you don't need to invoke children. Workers who need to work on a factory to survive are slaves in the same sense, this is an old argument. Libertarians typically diffirentiate between circumstances which are forced on people by someone's ill will and circumstances which are the result of natural events. The latter are outside of the scope of justice. If you don't believe in this distinction, we can agree to disagree here. I don't think that pursuing the matter further will be productive in forum format.

[Gavagai]

To be clear, I don't think all children would be slaves - probably most parents are highly motivated to avoid that for their children. But not all children will be so lucky, plus potential exists for the creation of a perpetual underclass, so I think if you are building a philosophy of government from principle of non-agression, it's important to understand that in principle your system fails at producing reasonable outcomes for people who join your society later and as helpless infants.

I think that a hypothetical libertarian society would be affluent enough to provide for all children - through charities at the very least. I admit, however, that there may be no legal mechanism which "guarantees" it but I don't think that it is a problem. After all, it isn't guaranteed that someone would want to open a grocery near my home, yet I always somehow have a place to do shopping close enough.