Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right for a young child differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child’s conceptual faculty is not fully developed. This is why a six year old girl does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship—and an adult does.
Archive | children
Why does a child, or adult, have a right to life, and not a fetus?
A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive. A fetus’ so called right to life boils down to the “right to remain in the womb”—and such a “right” is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child’s right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged “right” that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as “trading one’s rights for the rights of others.” Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory.
Do parents own their children like they own their house?
Parents do not own their children, but are their guardians. Guardians are individuals who make decisions for the child—in the child’s best interest—until the child’s mind is developed enough so that the child can make decisions for himself. If a parent gives birth to a child—and claims to be its guardian (which is the prerogative of the parent)—then that parent is responsible for taking care of the child, unless the parent revokes guardianship, and turns the child over to someone else for adoption.
Are parents responsible for children?
A parent as a child’s guardian is responsible for the child, until they formerly revoke guardianship, and/or the child is considered an adult. A parent that gives birth to a child, claims to be its guardian, and leaves the child in a trash bin has attempted murder (and has committed murder if such a reprehensible action results in the child’s death).
Doesn’t capitalism lead to child labor in factories?
No. Capitalism did not create child labor working in fields or factories. It inherited it from the previous political systems. Observe that in communist Cuba of today 11 year old children are forcibly sent off to “summer camps” where they spend time working in fields cutting sugar cane and tobacco — this is called by leftists as “volunteerism” and “education”. Yet little mention is made of this.
What halted child labor in factories?
Throughout history the parents of most families could not produce enough to support their families without having their children work also. It was the accumulation of capital by the industrialists that increased the productivity of adults, so that children did not have to work in fields or factories. In poor non-capitalist countries they are still working in fields and factories, because the parents are not productive enough to support their children.
Historically, children working in factories (and fields) was only a transitory stage between early feudalism and capitalism. Prior to working in factories, before the Industrial Revolution, many children (and their parents) used to die and starve, as evidenced by the high infant mortality statistics before the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Observe that is was not until families left the “country” and went into the “cities” that they were able to produce enough food to eat. The clearest evidence of this is population and infant mortality statistics: population did not go up and infant mortality did not go down until the Industrial Revolution.
If life was so great before capitalism in the “country”, why was infant mortality so high and population numbers considerably lower before capitalism? Answer: because life was not so great until the Industrial Revolution made its appearance.
Will labor laws banning child labor in non-capitalist countries put an end to child poverty?
Contrary to leftist rhetoric passing child labor laws in these countries will not solve the problem, but will only lead to mass starvation — which is why the “poor” themselves resist such laws. It is primarily for the benefit of the rich, leftist “humanitarians” — that live in capitalist countries — who cry out for these laws, that these laws are implemented.
What is a proper solution to solving child-poverty in third-world countries?
The real solution is to make the parents productive enough so that they can produce enough for themselves — and for their children. What these poor people in India and the like need, are not more humanitarians like Mother Theresa, but more businessman like Bill Gates. What these countries need is not more government controls, but more freedom.
Isn’t Capitalism responsible for children working in factories?
Children working in factories was only a transitory stage between early feudalism and capitalism. Prior to working in factories, before capitalism, many of children (and their parents) used to die and starve, as evidenced by the high infant mortality statistics before capitalism. Observe that is was not until families left the “country” and went into the “cities” that they were able to produce enough food to eat. The clearest evidence of this is population and infant mortality statistics: population did not go up, and infant mortality did not go down, until the Industrial Revolution. If life was so great before capitalism in the “country”, why was infant mortality so high and population numbers considerably lower before capitalism? Answer: because life was not so great until Capitalism.
Throughout history the parents of most families could not produce enough to support their families without having their children work also (such was the case of my father in India). It was the accumulation capital by the industrialists that made the labor of parents more productive, that children had to stop working in fields or factories. In poor non-capitalist countries they are still working in fields and factories.
Contrary to leftist rhetoric passing child labor laws in these countries will not solve the problem, but will only lead to mass starvation — which is why the “poor” themselves resist such laws (it is only to the benefit of the leftist “rich” “humanitarians” who cry out for them).
1 | capitalism, children, history
Does a man have a right to give his wealth to his children?
The right to dispose of one’s income belongs to the producer, and if he wishes to give it to an heir, a charity, or to flush it down the toilet — that is the producer’s right. It is not any of your concern, and it certainly is not the concern of the government.
