The following was the description of
my now-defunct Facebook page “Baby Starving Rothbardians”.
Baby Starving Rothbardians (B.S.R.) believe
that the N.A.P. (the Non-Aggression Principle, or Non-Aggression Axiom /
N.A.A.) should be construed to prohibit aggression against individuals who
negligently fail to care for people of whom they never consented or committed
to take care.
We, the Baby Starving Rothbardians, call this
view of the N.A.P., the “Baby Starving Principle (B.S.P.)”, or “Baby Starving
Axiom (B.S.A.)”. This applies to all people, regardless of their age, heritage,
culture, or their status as the child of the person expected to feed them.
Baby Starving Rothbardians believe that to
prohibit aggression against people who neglect those of whom they never
promised to take care, means that there should be no laws passed against any
arguably immoral or amoral behavior, for three reasons. The first is
deontological, the second is utilitarian, and the third is consequentialist.
The first, and deontological, argument
against punishing such neglect, is the opposition to the Alienation of the
Will, and the opposition to the Prior Restraint of Action. As a bit of
background information, the Alienation of the Will (at least, the alienation of
the will from reason) was discussed
favorably by Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche; and Prior Restraint
of Action has been discussed critically by Ron Paul, and by others favoring a
consistent “natural rights” defense of liberty.
The argument against punishing neglect (when
care was never promised) which relies on the opposition to the Alienation of
the Will, is based on the idea that the Alienation of the Will, and the Prior
Restraint of Action, both hinder, as well as alter the moral character of,
behavior and action.
This is to say that the inability to choose
to commit an immoral or amoral act, robs people of moral agency in the
“decision” not to commit the act. By this, I mean that the existence of laws
against the act or behavior – as well as the existence of police forces
(sometimes armed with military-grade equipment) positioned ubiquitously, and
ready to prevent and punish the behavior – creates a “chilling effect” upon the
freedom of action.
The robbery of moral agency deprives a person
of any and all responsibility involved in refraining from committing an
arguably immoral or amoral act. This robbery thereby negates the right of a
person to take credit for any benefit that comes from “their own”
action (or, more appropriately, inaction).
It also absolves a person of any
right to take personal responsibility, and obligation
to accept any punishment, for any harm that comes from those actions.
The second argument against punishing neglect
(when no care was promised) is a utilitarian one: the need to commit some
arguably immoral or amoral act(s) in order to effect some greater good for a
greater number.
The third argument against punishing similar
neglect is a consequentialist one: the corruptibility of laws, and enforcers of
laws, against such behaviors, as well as the disproportionate force and harsh
punishment, which arrest, and enforcement of such laws, often entails.
Baby Starving Rothbardians do not
discriminate between the libertarian left and libertarian right; nor between 1960s
counter-culturalist left-Rothbardians and late-stage 1980s-90s
right-Rothbardians; nor between deontological, utilitarian, and
consequentialist libertarians.
We welcome all people who accept the
Non-Aggression Principle, and understand the concept of the Alienation of the
Will. We welcome adherents to any and all libertarian, decentralist, anarchist,
and voluntaryist politicoeconomic philosophies.
Post-Script (Written and Added on January 24th through 25th, 2016):
I would like to note that I do not personally support the second argument (the utilitarian argument) which I have presented against punishing neglect. Nor do I support the consequentialist ethics in general which give rise to the third argument.
I have presented the second and third arguments against the punishment of neglect, solely for their own sake; that is, because it is useful, and consequential (in regards to supporting my desired ends), to mention them.
Now I’m thinking like a Machiavellian!
Second Post-Script (Written and Added on October 6th, 2021):
The case could be made for a deontological line of reasoning as to why neglect shouldn't be punished. One reason is to prevent further harm from occurring.
While it could be argued that parents who neglect their children should have their children taken away from them, it could also be wrong to take a child away from a parent who has learned their lesson not to neglect their child anymore.
Sometimes simply suspecting a parent of abuse, or charging a parent with abuse (but then not following through with the charges), is enough to teach the parent to stop neglecting their child.
Not all negligent parents have to be threatened with jail time or fines to stop neglecting their children. Some parents just need correction by other parents.
The case could be made for a deontological line of reasoning as to why neglect shouldn't be punished. One reason is to prevent further harm from occurring.
While it could be argued that parents who neglect their children should have their children taken away from them, it could also be wrong to take a child away from a parent who has learned their lesson not to neglect their child anymore.
Sometimes simply suspecting a parent of abuse, or charging a parent with abuse (but then not following through with the charges), is enough to teach the parent to stop neglecting their child.
Not all negligent parents have to be threatened with jail time or fines to stop neglecting their children. Some parents just need correction by other parents.
Based on the description of a Facebook group
called "Baby Starving Rothbardians),
originally written in late September and October 2014
called "Baby Starving Rothbardians),
originally written in late September and October 2014
Edited on November 8th, 2015,
and on January 9th, 24th, and 25th, 2016
and on January 9th, 24th, and 25th, 2016
First Post-Script Written on January 24th through 25th, 2016
Second Post-Script Written and Added on October 6th, 2021
Second Post-Script Written and Added on October 6th, 2021
