[lucky]

I see we are discussing the future Eran-dream-world under the banner of "libertarianism" again.

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.

No. The most Bush can pre-emptively do is assassinate foreign leaders

Legally, parental responsibility is akin to trusteeship.

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

The standard, again, is the decision the child would have likely made

A violation of these conditions would be grounds for eviction, and such eviction wouldn't constitute "punishment"

Let's call these Eran's Rules for The Federation of Anarchist Communities. Is there an enforcement mechanism on these global regulations of local laws? After all, Eran also says:

Land owners may put whatever rules they want for people wishing to use their property.

What enforcement mechanism will Eran's office use against communities that choose to use rules different from what Eran wants them to use?

[SueDeNîmes]

Orphanages are very profitable business ventures.

which they shouldn't be and aren't in a welfare state.

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

People (me, for example) are genuinely concerned, hence voluntarily contribute via taxation and any privatisation would have to be enforced against my will.

[AFAIK]

Can you sue the state for fraud if it uses your taxes in a manner you don't support?
Can you withdraw your tax contributions if the state is using them to fund wars of aggression you don't approve of?
What would you do if the state had outlawed sedition and libel making it illegal for you to comment on corrupt prectices?

[SueDeNîmes]

Can you sue the state for fraud if it uses your taxes in a manner you don't support?

It'd depend whether the state had undertaken to use taxes in a manner you do support. Obviously.

Can you withdraw your tax contributions if the state is using them to fund wars of aggression you don't approve of?

Yes, by emigrating.

What would you do if the state had outlawed sedition and libel making it illegal for you to comment on corrupt prectices?

Vote for the opposition, failing that emigrate, failing that fight the state.

..obviously. But I would remind you that the issue - raised by you - is child welfare.

[AFAIK]

Actually I asked about emancipation. At what point does someone become emancipated from the state?

[Rich]

What enforcement mechanism will Eran's office use against communities that choose to use rules different from what Eran wants them to use?

Here we see the joke of Libertarianism. On the one hand we are told that individual rights will be paramount under Libertarianism, on the other we are told that communities can do what ever they collectively feel like. I remember one time Eran tried to quote from an article about 19th century homesteaders. One of the things they enforced was Sunday observance. We can be sure that many of these local communities will be far more authoritarian than the worst of Obama and the like.

But don't be fooled. The Libertarians are no where near as stupid as they pretend to be. What they really want is corporate governments. Corporations would buy up whole communities for the middle class to live in. It would be like gated communities on steroids. The poor would be ruled by Mafia gangs. Anyone entering a shopping Mall would sign away all rights to the shopping mall. Most people would accept this because they would trust that the owning corporation would only use its unrestrained power on social undesirables, the poor, missifts Blacks etc.

They'll be no respect for individual rights in a Libertarian society. If you live in a Conservative area, and don't fit with the local bigots, you'll be forced out and to hell with your property rights or the NAP. We know what these small government Conservative types are like. They have no problem with torture, Guantanamo bay, drone attacks. they couldn't a give a fuck about due process property rights, or fair trials when you're a member of an out-group.

[lucky]

Here we see the joke of Libertarianism. On the one hand we are told that individual rights will be paramount under Libertarianism, on the other we are told that communities can do what ever they collectively feel like.

Please don't be confused by Eran's appropriation of words for his quest. Libertarianism and Eran's fantasy-land are two very different things. Libertarianism is a real current political movement that pushes for reforms today and sometimes achieves them, not some different revolutionary world from another planet.

I am a libertarian myself. I have political ideas. They have nothing to do with Eran's world of "communities". I also don't state my political preferences in the form "all communities shall do as I say (of their own will)".

[AFAIK]

I think Rich has mistaken neo-cons for libertarians. Everyone in a libertarian society will have full legal rights without having to beg the state to acknowledge those rights by passing the relevant legislation beforehand.

People will be able to exclude anyone and everyone from their private property. They won't be able to imprison those people anywhere though.

Torture, detention/ imprisonment (Gitmo) and extra-judicial killings with drones are all violations of peoples negative rights and would be recognised as illegitimate, illegal acts by legitimate libertarians.

[SolarCross]

I see we are discussing the future Eran-dream-world under the banner of "libertarianism" again.

Anarchist libertarians are 100% libertarian, minarchist libertarians are only 50% libertarian.

Actually I asked about emancipation. At what point does someone become emancipated from the state?

It seems to me that the state over people unlike parents over children does not ever want to give up wardship over its "dependants". Parents (usually) love their children and have some economic incentive for their children to grow up and take care of themselves, so even the most controlling of parents is willing to reliquish their dominance at some point.
It is very different with the state, the state does not love its "children" citizens and has a perpetual economic benefit in being in control because while the parent subsidises the child it is the citizen that is forced to subsidise the state.
Really the relationship between citizen and state is more akin to the relationship between farmer and livestock. What farmer is willing to allow his livestock their autonomy? What would be the benefit for him?
When we understand this we realise that emancipation from the state can only come by buying them off in some way, like how slaves in ancient times could buy their freedom, or through asserting one's emancipation forcefully. They will never allow it if you just ask nicely.

[AFAIK]

Good explanation taxizen, although that was intended to be a rhetorical question as it is clear that the state is very reluctant to release its tentacles from any of its citizens.

-------------------------------------

Does a libertarian legal system differentiate between offenders of different ages or awareness? Is an infant held to the same standard of accountability as a lucid adult?

[Eran]

There are two separate distinctions to make.

First, the libertarian (Rothbardian, to be precise) distinction between minors and adults isn't so much a function of chronological age, but rather of demonstrated independence. When a person leaves her parent's home and becomes self-supporting, they are treated as legally adult, even if they are still a teenager.

Second, I like to make the distinction between the restitution (primary) aspect of the criminal-justice system, and the secondary consequences.

Restitution is payable regardless of age. The logic is simple. If an 11 year-old caused damage to an innocent adult, the 11 year-old may not be fully-mature, but, by definition, is certainly more responsible for the damage than the innocent adult. There is no justification for expecting the adult to bear the cost of the damage, nor for (unwilling) members of the public.

Ideally, children's parents would carry insurance that would cover accidental damage caused by their children.

The secondary consequences of criminal or negligent action is the cost of obtaining criminal insurance or the potential exclusion from certain private property areas. While restitution payment determination is fairly objective, willingness to insure (or accept on your property) is entirely subjective, and is highly likely to take age and other circumstances into account.

[AFAIK]

So what if a 10yo orphan causes harm to another person? Is s/he expected to take full (financial) responsibility for his or her actions? If the child has parents or a guardian is it assumed that they will take responsibility?

What about someone who is mentally disabled and incapable of paying restitution or understanding the harm they caused?

[Eran]

A 10yo child or a mentally-disabled person are unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions. That is why they cannot act as self-owners, and require guardians. They become the wards of and the responsibility of those guardians. In turn, the guardians assume responsibility for their behaviour.

Just as, as a dog-owner, I am responsible for the damage caused by my dog, so as a parent (or non-biological guardian) I am responsible for the damage caused by my children.

[AFAIK]

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.

Parents can sell custody of their children? In what context is this acceptable? If the person who acquires the child is a child abuser are the parents considered to be culpable (aiding and abbeting) from a legal perspective?

Is there anything that isn't for sale in your world view?

Have libertarians written about dowries? In S Asia the bride's family is expected to pay a dowry in order to compensate the man who takes on the burden of keeping their daughter alive. In SE Asia the groom's family pays 'milk money' in an expression of gratitude to those who nurtured and cared for the bride. Are libertarians aware of how this influences attitudes to child labour and prostitution?

Are there fractures [of opinion] 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.

Is there any concept of 'birth rights' in libertarian ideology?

---------------------------------------------------------

What if polygamists form a community and expel 90% of their male offspring in order to allow the remaining 10% to have 10 wives each? Can the exiles seek legal redress? Do they have any right to visit their siblings? Can anyone intervene?