And since libertarianism is based on liberty, if follows that no person can own another person, right? Does this mean parents have no right to force their children to do something they don't agree on? Does it also mean that parents have no right to stop their children if they want to move to another family?
-from the Mises forums
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPBlp1XkjG0FBd1EGGBajIhqPCeZfZ59rSPp-vDIBxXe4lLYVXhNwUx0c9xnFAF-ll5_kfRZIiO9MFCL7fmAJPdcOBjK7bK19DYDmXz6ilmaMuypG-wFRNEg8MvCbdy3DEGCnBItH49h6_/s400/bulbby.jpg)
...parents have no obligations... Can they leave them... should the state... parents have no right...
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "obligation," "can," "should," and "right"?
I do understand one meaning of "can," and by that meaning, parents certainly can abandon their children, even under the current regime, though there could be consequences. The question is: What would the consequences or other disincentives be in a free market?
ReplyDeleteI always thought of Libertarianism to be the politics of childless people.
ReplyDeleteWhat a nonsensical comment. I have three children (as if it's even slightly relevant).
ReplyDelete