/liberty/ - Liberty

The best you can do for the kids is open a charity. If it's not effective, then on the bright side, all the kids will soon be dead and you wont have to worry about them any more.

>>85569

It's one thing when people are adults, but I think you underestimate the charity of strangers towards children. It's the reason for half the damn laws on the books.

>>85569

> children abused or abandoned by their parents are stuck relying on the kindness of strangers.

They aren't now? The Government is not "strangers"? And are they even kind when it's institutionalized and subsidized with extorted money?

>>85570

As "immoral" as it sounds, we're forced to argue on the basis that every single child ever born has a right to everyone's labor and property. If we approve of that, why stop at children? By all means, let's prove Malthus right.

>>85570

This. Private charities are much more effective than government welfare at the very least.

>>85573

Also this. Considering there was a private charity so rich and powerful that it could provide for all the kids in your city and many more, then what will stop people abandoning their children on purpose? I trust parents more than I trust the government, but even they can be such fucking inhuman assholes that I wouldn't be surprised if most of them said "why must I pay for and look after my kid when there's that organization over there that could do it for me?", I think this is a more important question.

>>85582

>I wouldn't be surprised if most of them said "why must I pay for and look after my kid when there's that organization over there that could do it for me?"

Okay, but if this is the caliber of people we're dealing with, do we really want kids to be stuck with them? In other words, if the only thing stopping a mother from abandoning her child is a convenient enough place to abandon them, should that mother even have custody of that kid?

>>85569

FORCE EVERYONE TO USE GOVERNMENT SERVICES

>>85586

>if the only thing stopping a mother from abandoning her child is a convenient enough place to abandon them, should that mother even have custody of that kid?

Probably not, but just look at the laws we currently have in place, when you incentivize women to divorce their husbands by paying them welfare (marrying them to the state), a lot of them actually do it. Can you really say that they're good mothers if they forcefully separate their children from their fathers for their own selfish reasons? Mothers aren't saints, they're bastards just like everyone else, we need to look at how to bring the kids back to traditional mother+father families, I'm sure the charities themselves will also try to look for solutions because they have their own costs to think about, probably by encouraging adoptions or something (which imo is the ideal way of dealing with orphaned kids).

>>85587

immoral

Molyneux had a nice take on this (child abuse), namely that at some point on the protection/provision-abuse continuum children are more rightly considered "hostages" than rightful wards of their patents, and moral actors (which could include individual or charities) have the moral authority to effectively intervene on their behalf, as they would with other groups of hostages.

If you are asking from an an-cap standpoint, I think we can safely guess that any society effectively built on the concept of individual rights would be very intent on protecting the individual rights of kids, even with the complex debate of how much rights children intrinsically have pre- full brain development.

Also, comparing apples to apples, it's not like the government is doing a great job protecting abused children as-is today, so theres that as well.

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_GaDjonC5M