Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
The parenthetical ending is the best bit. For anyone worried about the fact that in libertopia it's not a crime to starve your child to death, calm yourselves. You'll see there's no need to worry about that when I explain the bit about being able to sell kids to the highest bidder.
Wait, hold up. That is certainly not the best part.
The best part is that Rothbard is thinks it's entirely vexing whether parents should be allowed to starve a deformed baby to death:
Quote:
This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?
I mean you have to appreciate Rothbard here: the great libertarian thinkers and minds are entirely vexed, just entirely distressed by this question of
whether parents should have the right starve deformed babies to death.
I've long held the ACist were just missing better PR people. They should have obviously outsourced it to non-AC people. It's like letting their pride in their Confederate apologetics out in public. You don't lead with that, you bury that, it's like something you whisper in the most hushed tones and you don't talk about.
This is exactly like that. Imagine you went to a get-together of what you thought were neutrotypical normal human beings with souls and someone was like, hey, so let's talk about whether I should have the right to starve my deformed baby to death? That would not be a vexing question. The most vexing question would be like "woah what the ****, who brought this freak?!" or maybe "how do I get out of this place and never interact with this person ever again in my life?"
You are entirely correct that the second best thing is that Rothbard assumes it will probably be OK though because the free baby market will include some non-sociopathic participants who might just have a shred of the barest of human decency.
Last edited by DVaut1; 01-07-2016 at 08:41 AM.