[| I, CWAS |]

Not the party line. What are your individual views on the government mandated compulsory child support? Of course, a man--in a rare case woman--is morally obligated to assist in care for the child. However, a child--under 18-- is not guaranteed certain rights. Now it can be construed that when a mother chooses to open her legs, she knows that pregnancy can result--and sex is not a contract to fulfill parental obligations. Since a child--under 18-- is not recognized as a full citizen with rights, it is more along the lines of a pet or property, since a parent has to sign permission/consent for most activities and has control over the child. Now a sperm donor, to a sperm bank, is only in extremely rare cases obligated to pay child support (less than 1%) So in a libertarian view is it right to consider a man a sperm donor. It can be complicated even more, by the fact, that the man could have taken precautionary measures, to insure pregnancy would not ensue, yet the female is the one who has to get pregnant. So let us say something happened, and she did get pregnant, the male partner did not willfully consent to having a baby, thereby it is an accident. Now in no state can an adult male, legally force an adult female to have an abortion. Therefore, if he--in the libertarian world-- cannot abort the fetus, does it show that he really is not responsible for it. Because in order to force him to pay child support, it has to be established that he bears responsibility for it, yet he cannot have it aborted. So does this government interference extend to spending time with the child? Since that is just as important as emolument. There are many other ways this premise can be constructed but I want to see you initial Individual replies, since I do not know which brand--or school-- of libertarianism you adhere to.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

My individual view is that no person should be compelled to pay child support. Any man who abandons a child is a cretin, but forcing him to pay a fixed sum is, quite literally, slavery. I've seen many men wrecked by forced child support, including, quite nearly, my own father. This is something I feel strongly about, and the criminalization of fathers makes me viscerally angry.

[Aethris]

Out of simple curiousity, would you support a requirement to pay a percentage of earnings?

[Garibaldi]

Dao, I agree with you that in many cases Child Support is an unnecessary burden; however, I think that a father who acepted the risk of impregnating a women is just as responsible for that child as the women, and vice versa. If a father doesn't have partial custody but the mother never asserted full custody, then the father hsould pay child support.

[| I, CWAS |]

I think that a father who acepted the risk of impregnating a women is just as responsible for that child as the women, and vice versa

What about in the case where the father wants the child aborted but the mother doesn't? If the father is so responsible in the eyes of the law, he would have rights over the embryo. The mother has to be more aware of her responsibility, due to the fact she is the carrier, I wonder where the precedent that the father has no rights except post accouchment.

[Todd D.]

What about in the case where the father wants the child aborted but the mother doesn't? If the father is so responsible in the eyes of the law, he would have rights over the embryo. The mother has to be more aware of her responsibility, due to the fact she is the carrier, I wonder where the precedent that the father has no rights except post accouchment.

This is precisely the reason that I feel the laws surrounding abortion are flawed. A man is forced to share responsibility for the child that he helped produce, and rightly so, since it was his decision to have sex (please, spare me the rare exceptions), but has no say over whether or not that child is carried to term. That's wrong. Either you say that the man has a say in the abortion decision, or logic dictates that you must say that he has no responsibility over the child once it is born.

[Garibaldi]

I can understand your sentiment Todd, but because abortions kill human beings they should only exist in the case of threatening the mothers life(by necessity, she's the only on they can). The mother and father should be held responsible for a child, since they both consiously choose to produce it. I think a more important question should be custody and payments in the instances of rape.

[Muffin]

Well Garibaldi, lets not turn this into a discussion on abortion. I'm sure there are some topics around here for that.

As far as child support is concerned, I think it is a legitimate point to say that the father doesn't have a say in whether the baby is born or not. It would be difficult to argue that he should too, because there are only two people involved in the dissission, and the mother is really the one with the biggest burden, so even if she has 60% control to his 40%, she might as well have all of it.

That said, I don't think a father should have to pay child support in the case of him not being in favor of the child being born at all. It is different if he marries the woman or begins raising the child, but if the mother knows from the get-go that he isn't gonna be around, she should make her decision based on that; to have the baby, get an abortion, or give it up for adoption. That is her choice, and she should be held responsible for it.

Some people would say "Well he took the risk by having sex." What would you propose? No man should have sex because he might inpregnate somebody and thus be forced into paying child support? That is obsurd. Things happen, and I think the mother needs to take some more responsibility for her decision.

[Garibaldi]

Some people would say "Well he took the risk by having sex." What would you propose? No man should have sex because he might inpregnate somebody and thus be forced into paying child support? That is obsurd. Things happen, and I think the mother needs to take some more responsibility for her decision.

I propose that he does what he wants, but accepts responsibility. He new the risk of creating a child, and is 50% responsible for it. I'm generally not in favor of child support replacing custody, though. He should still have his rights as a parent. He can sell his duties & rights as the childs parent, either to the mother or to a third party.

[lucid]

I have throughly addressed child support from a libertarian perspective on my blog.

To summarize some of the postion:

- If custody was a net-burden then the parents would not have chosen to have kids. Clearly the choice to have kids reveals that they value the opportunity to raise a child more than the cost to raise a child. (Austrian Economics 101)

Now that my assumptions are on the table, lets begin my analogy. A man and wife decide they want to build a dream house together. To reach their goal the man and wife take on a 18 year new-construction loan. The woman has a better sense of style and cares for the home on a day to day basis, while the man has a better sense of engineering and an ability to earn the income necessary to cover the loan. Together they both contribute to providing an structurally sound, stylish, well-kept home that they can both enjoy.

Then, 5 years into this agreement, the man and wife decide to divorce. They go before a judge and ask for a division of assets and liabilities. The judge looks at the situation and orders as follows:

The woman gets to live in the house.
The man and woman ‘split‘ the mortgage bill proportional to their income.
The man and woman ‘split‘ the home owners insurance proportional to their income.
If the man’s income goes up the woman is entitled to take on a home equity loan and they will split payments proportional to their income.
The woman has sole discretion on how the home equity loan is used.
The man is allowed to visit the home every other weekend and vacation there a couple of weeks per year.

The justification for this decision would be as follows:

It is in the best interest of the home’s value, because a woman keeps it cleaner.
Both parties have a moral obligation to pay the mortgage.
The house is the property of the State and failure to maintain it at pre-divorce levels would negatively affect property values and tax revenues.
It would be a burden on society to provide housing for a woman who could not afford it on her own.

In reality what a judge would probably do in this situation would be to make the party who gets to keep the house liable for the loan and make them pay 50% of any equity in the home to the person who lost the house.

If this were a child support case, this would mean the custodial parent would end up paying the non-custodial parent because we have already established that custody is of greater value than the ‘burden’ or liability of raising a child.


I go on to address 'best interest of the child' and more detail about how the support and custody should be determined.

[Eran]

The principled libertarian view is that parents have no legally-enforceable obligation to support their children, absent an explicit prior commitment. Note that nothing in this view contradicts the strong moral obligation that parents indeed have to support their children (in both economic and non-economic ways).

Such commitment may well be standard in marriage contracts (if and when such contracts replace government-recognition).

[lucky]

The principled libertarian view is that parents have no legally-enforceable obligation to support their children, absent an explicit prior commitment.

Then this "principled libertarian view" is factually false.

You're committing the is-ought fallacy. And also the No True Scotsman fallacy about what libertarians must think.

[Eran]

Oops.

Obviously, what I meant was that "The principled libertarian view is that parents ought to have no legally-enforceable obligation...". I realize that in today's legal system, parents do, under most circumstances, have such obligation.

I don't see how I am otherwise committing a fallacy, although I do see how some people might disagree with me. I take it you do?

[Nunt]

If in rare cases parents are unwilling to provide for their children, there are many other people who are willing to do it. If a parent doesnt take care of his children he should use guardian rights.

[lucky]

The principled libertarian view is that parents ought to have no legally-enforceable obligation [...]

I don't see how I am otherwise committing a fallacy

The claim is basically that if one doesn't agree with your opinion (in this case on child support), one can't be a "principled libertarian". That's the classic "No true Scotsman" fallacy. The term "libertarian", even "principled libertarian", includes those small-government supporters who don't prefer reversing child support laws.

About Scotsmen:

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

[Eran]

What I meant to say was something along the lines of "A legal system consistent with libertarian principles (as I understand them) wouldn't force parents to pay child support".

Thus I expressed an opinion about libertarian principles, rather than about libertarians as individuals.

[Soixante-Retard]

The principled libertarian view is that parents [ought to] have no legally-enforceable obligation to support their children, absent an explicit prior commitment.

I actually disagree with this.

I think parents ought to have a legally-enforceable obligation to support their children because the parents chose to have children and they ought to be made responsible for their actions (act of reproduction), and thus responsible for their children. What is meant by "support", however, is something to be decided on.

For instance, I would disagree that a egg or sperm donor has obligation to their biological children (something I know is being floated around as a serious suggestion).

[Eran]

Even if the parents chose to have the children (which certainly isn't universally true), that choice (1) doesn't necessarily imply an obligation to support the children, and (2) would be revocable.

Unless you believe in voluntary slavery, people in a free society are allowed to change their minds. A contract may explicitly spell out what property one forfeits conditional on one's action.

But it is a great stretch to claim that an irresponsible sexual act implies a contract (with whom? in exchange for what?) to support a child to maturity.

Even an implied contract requires (1) a meeting of minds, with all reasonable people agreeing on the terms of the implied contract, and (2) an exchange of something of value from both sides.

[Soixante-Retard]

Choices acted upon necessarily imply consequences, to which people must be made responsible for their actions (brought about by volition). People may indeed change their mind and should be allowed to provided they find someone to delegate the consequences of their actions to. The recipient, of course, voluntarily agreeing to take on this responsibility.

Having a child is not inconsequential.

I don't agree with robbing Peter to pay for the support of Paul's children (which I think this thread is focused on).

[Eran]

The statement that "people should be responsible for their actions" is too broad.

The only enforceable responsibilities people have in a libertarian society are their contractual obligations, together with the background requirement not to initiate force against other people or their property.

Bringing a child into the world cannot be reasonably viewed as initiating force against any person (or their property). Nor can it be viewed as undertaking a contractual obligation.

I don't agree with robbing Peter to pay for the support of Paul's children (which I think this thread is focused on).

Of course not. Children ought to be supported by their parents. If the parents are unwilling or unable to support them, the children will be supported voluntarily by other members of society. Parents who are able but unwilling to support their children are likely to lose their guardianship rights to others who are willing to accept those responsibilities.

That's all.