So are we all in agreement now that selling your child to someone and children working in carpet factories are completely separate issues?

This argument is silly. Of course letting a 4 year old eat poison is morally bankrupt to the vast, vast majority of people. Rothbard almost certainly wouldn't let his own 4 year old eat poison. But that argument is simple. Saying "eating poison is bad for kids" isn't really groundbreaking.

It gets more interesting if you think of it like this. What if, out of 1000 families, 3 would actually allow their 4 year old to eat poison, but 400 would benefit in some way from a "flourishing market in children." Then which one is "worse," the status quo that would end up depriving 400 of benefits for the sake of maybe 3, or a market where 3 are allowed to eat poison but 400 others benefit?

Again, no one in their right mind is arguing that markets are the end all, be all of society's problems. No one thinks any type of market can completely eliminate murder (at least in the short term). But just because some will choose to use the market and their freedom in a way that you find morally bankrupt, doesn't mean others should suffer as a result.

Sometimes I wonder if statists have to eat daily crazy supplements to stay crazy.

It's like they actually think that in Libertopia you could abuse or murder children or hobos or whatever because there is no man in a funny costume to prevent it, or that there is some esoteric point of libertarian theory that could possibly make child abuse or murder "ok" somehow, even though they violate the fundamental tenet of libertarianism (the non-aggression principle). There are innumerable volumes of libertarian theory justifying the defense of children and others under multiple theoretical frameworks, any one of which would be sufficient to coincide with social norms against child abuse, murder, rape, etc.

In Libertopia, any intervention by any individual or organization would ultimately have to pass the test of court sanction, which would reflect social norms. If someone is abusing a child and you intervene, their insurance agency probably wouldn't do anything about it, since no agency that insured people against committing child abuse (or rape, or murder, or theft) would exist. And no court that wanted to stay in business would find in favor of child abuse. There would be charitable organizations (or hell, perhaps for profit organizations, now that I think about it) that would exist to intervene in child abuse cases. Insurance companies would require that their customers refrain from vigilantism (and the liability that entails) and report suspected cases to such organizations.

These objections are just patently ridiculous. They're all just "I can't think of how the market could address child abuse (hobo killing, roads, X), therefore I think we need a gigantic violent monopoly to make everything better."

But my contention is that it's absurd to assume that children and adults are morally identical. Their differences are the grounds for holding that we ought to feed them, can use limited coercion for the purposes of teaching them, etc. I'm not expecting that the market can solve all moral problems. But if utopia is a moral place, and there are, as I'm suggesting, moral differences in children and adults (because children lack faculties, training, knowledge, etc.), what sense can it make to go to the supposed utopia if it treats things as morally identical that are, in fact, quite different?

Spend some time with young children if you don't believe me. Stand by as the four year old eats the poison even after you've warned him or her repeatedly about the dangers and tell me that you feel you've done a morally greater act than intervening. All it would require is for you to reach out your hand and take the poison away. No philosophy that holds that children and adults are so indistinguishable morally that my hand must be stayed here will earn my respect. Rothbard may have had some powerful ideas about voluntarism and non-aggression for rational, capable adults. Assuming they apply uberhaupt, and refusing to see difference where difference is manifest and obvious is Rothbard's blindness. That does not mean his writing is a total failure, or that there are not deep insights into the power and nature of markets within it. It does mean that revision is in order in this particular sector if we are to keep what is worthwhile from his ideas.

I think it's very safe to assume the parents of a 4 year old about to eat poison won't be "standing by" but probably would have lost interest in the 4 year old years before it came to that. You are free to teach your children not to eat poison, which is pretty easy since they have Mr Yuck stickers and such. And if all this is occurring in your house, you are free to reach out and grab the poison as long as it's yours.

Actually I find it strange that the supermarket doesn't charge me $500/pound for chicken. After all we need food to eat and without them it would be pretty hard to get pounds of chicken since I'm at work all day.

lol

People are just dumb or brainwashed into thinking we "need a government." Someone yesterday also told me "look how hard it is now to get money from insurance companies, how could we trust them to defend us or pay out on an accident if there were no laws?"

Sweet. Since we see that under our current state, the vast majority of parents do not abuse their kids, but there's still a small minority who do, using this issue to attack AC is pretty dumb.

This is gold.

Definition of insanity: when everyone else appears insane.

I thought it was trying the same thing over and over hoping for different results?

yeah but mines funnier

Depends on your perspective.

Why doesn't everyone run red lights and stop signs? After all you will get there faster if you go through a red light if no one is at the intersection or if you deem it safe enough to go. If your argument is "well it's against the law" then why do so many people smoke marijuana? A more plausible argument is that it's in people's best interest NOT to run red lights, for safety reasons mainly. Just like it's in parents' best interest to take care of their children, for several reasons. Of course some people run red lights, but it's not like the state stops all crime.

The likelihood of getting caught smoking weed in your own home <<<<<<<<< the likelihood of getting caught running a red light.

That sounds like a problem with the state's enforcement and detection methods. The state can't "stop" you from murdering someone or smoking weed, they can only make it costly enough so that most people will surmise that whatever benefits they reap from murder or smoking are less than the costs. This leads me to take it a step further and ask if we really need a state to make murder costly or weed "cheap" in terms of cost/benefits. And the answer is of course no. People don't think murder is wrong because the government says so, it's considered wrong because it's an act of violence against someone else and people value their own lives, and don't want to put them in danger by just allowing murder to run wild.

My point is that most people will act rationally and take into consideration the costs and benefits of each action, and it doesn't really matter if it's running a red light, buying a new TV, or selling your children. Of course there will be outliers who pay way too much for a new plasma, or sell crack or something, but maybe they just were poor at assessing the risks and costs involved weighed against the benefits.

so having a pedophile babysit your kid is analogous to selling a gun to someone ? seriously?
i mean yea maybe today the pedophile is tired and might not molest the child

Who is doing the molesting in your example, the parents or the pedophile?

What if your neighbor is babysitting your kid and gets drunk and decides to molest your kid, or someone breaks in and molests your kid? Who is at fault then?

someone owns a carpet weaving business
they have bought 50 kids, all 50 weave carpets for them
they want to buy your kid and say they will use him for weaving carpets
you dont think the parent is at all responsible if his kid ends up weaving carpets?

It takes a village to properly raise a child.

But what if the village is full of village idiots?

so now giving a known pedophile your child to watch is the same as someone trespassing on your property and violating your child as far as youre concerned?
You think that the person who hands their child over to a known pedophile has the same exact responsibility (according to you-zero) as a parent whose house is broken into after taking precautions to ensure their child's safety?

That is truly disgusting, sickening and revolting and almost nothing offends me.

and to answer your questions the pedophile is doing the molesting

if a neighbor who i had every logical reason to trust someone (for starters they arent a ****ing pedophile) and their neighbor molested them it is the neighbors fault. If the parent even for 2 seconds considered ever sending the child back to this person after they found out what happened they should be tortured for as long as possible before they die.

No, it's the same as if I sell you some crack and you OD. How is that the drug dealer's fault? What if you were actually buying the crack to sell to someone else? The carpet weaving owner could say "hey let me buy your kid to use for weaving carpets" but then it causes the price of the kid to go up or down, then he could use them for something else.

Following your logic, every crime you commit is actually your parents' fault, since they "enabled you" to commit the crime.

Also following your logic, what if the carpet weaving business owner bought the kids and said he was going to take good care of them, and basically hid the fact that he employed child labor. Then whose fault is it when the kids end up weaving carpets? Are the parents free from fault in this situation, or could they have maybe looked a bit deeper to find out what's going on with this guy and his business? After all, you taught me to take whatever "carpet weaving owner" says at his word, since if he says he will employ child labor, he 100% will.

how about a less disguting example
do you think the hiring managers of 2 different companies have the same responsibilty for hiring what turns out to be 2 worthless employees when the employees are
1)someone who is a crackhead and has been in jail numerous times for theft, and every single employer who has hired him has said he is an awful emplyee
2)someone who has been a model employee everywhere he has worked for 20 years

You disgusting conclusions about children arent even remotely based on anything logical

Why are you blaming the parents then? Because they should have "known better?" What if there are no signs the guy is a pedophile?

I think people should be able to hire whoever they want. Your example doesn't even make sense. How can someone who is a "model employee for 20 years" turn out to be worthless?

Again, to be very clear, selling a gun to a known murderer is NOT the same as pulling the trigger and shooting someone in the head. Why is this so hard to understand?