Uma discussão interessante nos comentários a este post de Roderick T. Long. Sobretudo, gostaria de saber o que o Carlos Novais acha desta análise de Charles "Rad Geek" Johnson às posições de Murray Rothbard sobre o assunto.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"most political theorists don’t spend much time discussing the status of children. Not because it’s unimportant to them (patriarchal authority is very important to lots of theories) but rather because they have reasons for wanting certain bedrock commitments to be left unspoken so that they cannot be identified, and without any explicit defense so that they cannot be challenged."
Isto pode equiparar-se às feministas igualitaristas que quase não falam da discriminação que sofrem os homens quando acontece um divórcio e se decide com quem ficam os filhos. Não será por concordarem com essa discriminação mas sim por a acharem menos prioritária na sua agenda.
Acho que ficou bem expresso aqui:
"Here is Hoppe’s actual view on children’s rights:
“It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor- producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. Hence, not only can a child expect not to be physically aggressed against but as the owner of his body a child has the right, in particular, to abandon his parents once he is physically able to run away from them and say ‘no’ to their possible attempts to recapture him. Parents only have special rights regarding their child—stemming from their unique status as the child’s producers—insofar as they (and no one else) can rightfully claim to be the child’s trustee as long as the child is physically unable to run away and say ‘no.’” (”A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism”, ch. 2, fn. 9)"
Post a Comment