Opinion of This Murray Rothbard Quote

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Again no poll option is sufficient:

"Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge."

Yes I know he's referring to adoption but look at that... just look at it. Who thinks like that?

Oh, and it's totally real btw.

[H. Ross Peron]

Part of the reason why I detest anarcho-capitalism and Rothbard was in his thinking nuttier than even Ayn Rand.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What, you're surprised he said something like this?  Rothbard never intended to design an economic system that would actually work in the real world, let alone one that is consistent with mere human decency.  But the next time I meet a so-called "an-cap" who tries to tell me that their philosophy isn't built purely on social Darwinism, I'll pull this up.  Thanks for posting it.

[TNF]

Capitalism taken to it's logical extreme.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What, you're surprised he said something like this?  Rothbard never intended to design an economic system that would actually work in the real world, let alone one that is consistent with mere human decency.  But the next time I meet a so-called "an-cap" who tries to tell me that their philosophy isn't built purely on social Darwinism, I'll pull this up.  Thanks for posting it.

Awful quote, but what does it have to do with Social Darwinism?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obviously horrible and it does a lot to discredit the idea that Rothbard's ideas were ever supposed to be reasonable or anything more practically applicable than thankfully unattainable hypothetical benchmarks and thought experiments for people without much of a sense of shame, but I wouldn't go as far as Mung Beans, especially since Rothbard did mount criticisms of Rand and they were for the most part trenchant in the way that one would hope they would be.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What, you're surprised he said something like this?  Rothbard never intended to design an economic system that would actually work in the real world, let alone one that is consistent with mere human decency.  But the next time I meet a so-called "an-cap" who tries to tell me that their philosophy isn't built purely on social Darwinism, I'll pull this up.  Thanks for posting it.

Awful quote, but what does it have to do with Social Darwinism?

I think the way Rothbard incorporates a "survival of the fittest" philosophy into his work is pretty clear.  I realize he believes there is already a "market for children" (which sounds absurd, really... whose definition of "market" are we going by here?), but I don't know what else you'd call a system that places monetary value on human beings.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This confirms my suspicion that Austrian school economists are autistic and/or have a elementary understanding of markets. There's also the glaring fact that they look to market signals for ethical precepts, which is dangerously misguided at best and sociopathic at worst.

The scariest pestilence afflicting humanity is the influence of the Austrian school.

[Zioneer]

This confirms my suspicion that Austrian school economists are autistic and/or have a elementary understanding of markets. There's also the glaring fact that they look to market signals for ethical precepts, which is dangerously misguided at best and sociopathic at worst.

The scariest pestilence afflicting humanity is the influence of the Austrian school.

I have functioning autism and am a social democrat (of the Scandinavian persuasion), but yeah, I kind of agree. There's a very specific kind of "my way no matter what why should there be a government to hinder MY WAY?" autistic person who sociopaths like Rothbard appeal to. I know a couple of them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I hold a soft spot for Rothbard, though reading his philosophy raised a number of questions for me that ultimately led me to the conclusion that anarcho-capitalism is altogether unworkable. That sort of quote is a prime example of what I mean.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Anarcho-Capitalism, like all capitalism, is awful. That being said, I think Rothbard, like Rand, liked to over think things in a purely philosophical context.

[Gustaf]

Economics jargon can be pretty amusing.

The underlying point shouldn't simply be dismissed just for emotional reasons though. I've actually debated and won this issue once.

What he is saying is that a) some people want more kids than they can make themselves and b) some people don't want the kids they have.

The latter can be due to poverty, unsuitability, etc. Most left-wingers have no problem with concepts like adoption or foster parents. In fact, I suspect many would find it distasteful and reactionary to claim that biological parents are inherently superior, that a family of adopted children is not 'real' and so on.

What he is pointing out is that if this is regulated even to the point of not allowing any business in it, you will have undersupply.

I remember that when I debated this, one point we made was that while one may find it unsavoury that someone would sell their kid, it may be a better outcome than such a person raising the kid.

[ElectionsGuy]

What a horrible quote.

[courts]

This confirms my suspicion that Austrian school economists are autistic and/or have a elementary understanding of markets. There's also the glaring fact that they look to market signals for ethical precepts, which is dangerously misguided at best and sociopathic at worst.

The scariest pestilence afflicting humanity is the influence of the Austrian school.

[RI]

Most of the quote isn't factually inaccurate, though its normative conclusions are troubling.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Economics jargon can be pretty amusing.

The underlying point shouldn't simply be dismissed just for emotional reasons though. I've actually debated and won this issue once.

What he is saying is that a) some people want more kids than they can make themselves and b) some people don't want the kids they have.

The latter can be due to poverty, unsuitability, etc. Most left-wingers have no problem with concepts like adoption or foster parents. In fact, I suspect many would find it distasteful and reactionary to claim that biological parents are inherently superior, that a family of adopted children is not 'real' and so on.

What he is pointing out is that if this is regulated even to the point of not allowing any business in it, you will have undersupply.

I remember that when I debated this, one point we made was that while one may find it unsavoury that someone would sell their kid, it may be a better outcome than such a person raising the kid.

This whole model assumes that the only reason a child market would exist is for adoptions. This is, when looked at it from historical perspective, clearly false.

[Gustaf]

Economics jargon can be pretty amusing.

The underlying point shouldn't simply be dismissed just for emotional reasons though. I've actually debated and won this issue once.

What he is saying is that a) some people want more kids than they can make themselves and b) some people don't want the kids they have.

The latter can be due to poverty, unsuitability, etc. Most left-wingers have no problem with concepts like adoption or foster parents. In fact, I suspect many would find it distasteful and reactionary to claim that biological parents are inherently superior, that a family of adopted children is not 'real' and so on.

What he is pointing out is that if this is regulated even to the point of not allowing any business in it, you will have undersupply.

I remember that when I debated this, one point we made was that while one may find it unsavoury that someone would sell their kid, it may be a better outcome than such a person raising the kid.

This whole model assumes that the only reason a child market would exist is for adoptions. This is, when looked at it from historical perspective, clearly false.

Oh, right. Well, assuming that we can outlaw regular slavery I guess we should be able to also keep child slavery illegal.

Then again, if you want to say that Rothbard might be fine with it, that may be true. I'm not too familiar with him (nor am I in this to defend the Austrians - they are generally in poor standing in economics).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Economics jargon can be pretty amusing.

The underlying point shouldn't simply be dismissed just for emotional reasons though. I've actually debated and won this issue once.

What he is saying is that a) some people want more kids than they can make themselves and b) some people don't want the kids they have.

The latter can be due to poverty, unsuitability, etc. Most left-wingers have no problem with concepts like adoption or foster parents. In fact, I suspect many would find it distasteful and reactionary to claim that biological parents are inherently superior, that a family of adopted children is not 'real' and so on.

What he is pointing out is that if this is regulated even to the point of not allowing any business in it, you will have undersupply.

I remember that when I debated this, one point we made was that while one may find it unsavoury that someone would sell their kid, it may be a better outcome than such a person raising the kid.

This whole model assumes that the only reason a child market would exist is for adoptions. This is, when looked at it from historical perspective, clearly false.

Oh, right. Well, assuming that we can outlaw regular slavery I guess we should be able to also keep child slavery illegal.

Then again, if you want to say that Rothbard might be fine with it, that may be true. I'm not too familiar with him (nor am I in this to defend the Austrians - they are generally in poor standing in economics).

While slavery is one factor there are other, borderline, issues with selling children (into paid work for example) and how do we define 'children' here? What about 12 year olds? And what if the foster parents tire of one child - because, for example, (s)he has developmental difficulties - and decide to sell him/her on to someone else? The reductio ad absurdam here would be that most difficult children end being sold for the lowest price as there is less demand for them (as opposed to attractive, energetic, intelligent children) and so are those 'bought' by the relatively poor, those who can least afford to raise them.

Seriously defending this is trolling.

[courts]

Economics jargon can be pretty amusing.

The underlying point shouldn't simply be dismissed just for emotional reasons though. I've actually debated and won this issue once.

What he is saying is that a) some people want more kids than they can make themselves and b) some people don't want the kids they have.

The latter can be due to poverty, unsuitability, etc. Most left-wingers have no problem with concepts like adoption or foster parents. In fact, I suspect many would find it distasteful and reactionary to claim that biological parents are inherently superior, that a family of adopted children is not 'real' and so on.

What he is pointing out is that if this is regulated even to the point of not allowing any business in it, you will have undersupply.

I remember that when I debated this, one point we made was that while one may find it unsavoury that someone would sell their kid, it may be a better outcome than such a person raising the kid.

This whole model assumes that the only reason a child market would exist is for adoptions. This is, when looked at it from historical perspective, clearly false.

Oh, right. Well, assuming that we can outlaw regular slavery I guess we should be able to also keep child slavery illegal.

Then again, if you want to say that Rothbard might be fine with it, that may be true. I'm not too familiar with him (nor am I in this to defend the Austrians - they are generally in poor standing in economics).

While slavery is one factor there are other, borderline, issues with selling children (into paid work for example) and how do we define 'children' here? What about 12 year olds? And what if the foster parents tire of one child - because, for example, (s)he has developmental difficulties - and decide to sell him/her on to someone else? The reductio ad absurdam here would be that most difficult children end being sold for the lowest price as there is less demand for them (as opposed to attractive, energetic, intelligent children) and so are those 'bought' by the relatively poor, those who can least afford to raise them.

Seriously defending this is trolling.

anarcho capitalism is basically nothing but elaborate trolling, right down to the oxymoronic name.it's just slightly less ridiculous than something like say, "national bolshevism."

[Peeperkorn]

[Gustaf]

Economics jargon can be pretty amusing.

The underlying point shouldn't simply be dismissed just for emotional reasons though. I've actually debated and won this issue once.

What he is saying is that a) some people want more kids than they can make themselves and b) some people don't want the kids they have.

The latter can be due to poverty, unsuitability, etc. Most left-wingers have no problem with concepts like adoption or foster parents. In fact, I suspect many would find it distasteful and reactionary to claim that biological parents are inherently superior, that a family of adopted children is not 'real' and so on.

What he is pointing out is that if this is regulated even to the point of not allowing any business in it, you will have undersupply.

I remember that when I debated this, one point we made was that while one may find it unsavoury that someone would sell their kid, it may be a better outcome than such a person raising the kid.

This whole model assumes that the only reason a child market would exist is for adoptions. This is, when looked at it from historical perspective, clearly false.

Oh, right. Well, assuming that we can outlaw regular slavery I guess we should be able to also keep child slavery illegal.

Then again, if you want to say that Rothbard might be fine with it, that may be true. I'm not too familiar with him (nor am I in this to defend the Austrians - they are generally in poor standing in economics).

While slavery is one factor there are other, borderline, issues with selling children (into paid work for example) and how do we define 'children' here? What about 12 year olds? And what if the foster parents tire of one child - because, for example, (s)he has developmental difficulties - and decide to sell him/her on to someone else? The reductio ad absurdam here would be that most difficult children end being sold for the lowest price as there is less demand for them (as opposed to attractive, energetic, intelligent children) and so are those 'bought' by the relatively poor, those who can least afford to raise them.

Seriously defending this is trolling.

While those are issues, they seem to me to already be in place? For example, we generally see much less adoption of older kids (and I think it is often not allowed) and those who end up with foster parents quite often get sent on to new foster homes when things don't work out.

I'd guess anyone who can afford to buy a child would be better equipped in dealing with it than the person selling it (at least on average).

I think this is one of those ideas that is a bit challenging and interesting to consider, even if it is of course a bit out of wack.

[Indy Texas]

I'd imagine this would go totally over some pro-life Tea Partier's head and lead to an Akin-style candidate suggesting that banning all abortions will help poor women because they can generate a good income having babies and selling them.