Honest Libertarian
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
https://mises.org/mises-daily/children-and-rights
> 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.
> Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own.
> Now if a parent may own his child, 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.
Then you’re not one. Hooray! Libertarians believe race is a matter of economic viability. You don’t.
I generally like that idea, but of course I draw the line somewhere as almost all libertarians do.
I don't see why a libertarian can't be racist. Freedom means you can think whatever you want about another person, or group of people. You can also defend yourself (or your race) when attacked. And we are *certainly* being attacked.
To take your angle, if jews were just existing somewhere and not harming anyone, yes I would want to leave them alone. But of course they're doing the opposite of that.
Libertarianism says we agree on a few set ground rules so the system works(definition of property, definition of harm, definition of adult, definition of consent) and then use that to determine issue.
What you're quoting is a pedophile libertine
>Everyone can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe someone else's rights.
So, if someone has the right to travel, I can't build a house because they might want to walk through that space? Conversely, if they have the right to personal property, they can build toll booths on all the popular paths and I can't knock them down.
The very basis is nonsensical.
Not to a libertarian! All rights are exactly identical in every way, except where economic policy comes into play, in which case whichever right is willing to be worth more on the Free Market™ takes precedence.
https://jls.mises.org/
I'll appeal to their authority