Children are a problem

Nothing has been more life changing than the study of Austrian economics and natural rights philosophy.  Some would put marriage or children at the top of the life changing experiences list, but to me those seem gradual in comparison.  In "The Matrix", Neo wakes from his bullet wounds and sees the world for what it is and agent Smith for what he is; he has decrypted the matrix.  There is order to the chaos, to the world that he couldn't quite understand before this revelation.  What a perfect analogy for the man who opens "For a New Liberty" -- Rothbard is my Morpheus.  This doesn't stop Smith (the state) from coming after Neo.  After all, Neo is threatening the crops of humans Smith feeds from... the analogy is almost literal.  But Smith can no more put bullets in Neo's head than the state can put collectivist propaganda in mine.  It probably sounds conceited to claim such enlightenment, and no doubt I come off as sounding like a know-it-all.  In this post I'm trying my best to open myself up to doubts and expose the questions I have.  Unfortunately, I don't think I can just take the blue pill.

There is a small handful of cases where objective moral reality has left me scratching my head.  It hasn't deserted me, but in these cases it becomes more of a guide post than the goal.  Non-homesteading adults and children is where the libertarian has to stand-up from his armchair and look at a reality beyond non-aggression.  Unprovoked violence is never okay, but since unconsented physical force must be used for the survival of babies and often children, non-aggression looks very different.  Walter Block uses a theory of homesteading whereby the parent earns homesteading right by feeding, clothing, sheltering, and I assume not abusing children.  They can at any point give up these homesteading rights and allow another individual to homestead the child.  Block takes a similar approach to abortion where the mother can choose to stop homesteading the fetus and let someone else care for it; viability of the fetus is beside the point.  And here we quickly see the dilemma of libertarians.  According to this approach we can be justified in the death of a child if we simply stop feeding him and do not exhaustively search for another willing human to take up homesteading rights.  This would be the extreme "armchair libertarian" approach.

On the other hand, I do not believe the state can intervene.  I cringe at the idea of the state owning or homesteading children.  It conjures images of Sparta (which is synonymous with the movie "300" in my poorly educated mind) and modern day African child soldiers.  But pondering for another second what state ownership of children looks like I realize it looks a lot like our current education and military system in the United States.  Children stand up and recite a pledge of allegiance to a state, they sing songs about the state, they learn how their state protects them and has protected them throughout history, these lessons are taught by agents of the state in a forced monopoly of education, then army recruiters come on school campuses and snatch up the poor souls who have been told for 13-15 years how honorable it is to serve and die for the state.  If the state is in dire straights it will look to its draft list that it has coerced every 18 year old male to sign and then kidnap them, give them guns, and send them to die for the state.

The armchair libertarian slightly wins out in these two desolate scenarios.  But there is a huge gray area in which we can think of individuals acting in a way to improve the lives of children who may be marginalized or abused.

I'm leaving the answer to the homesteading of children open and switching to what our societal norms contribute.  A brilliant commentary on this subject is the "Whale and Dolphin" episode of South Park. (http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e11-whale-whores).  You'll have to watch it to get it, but I love how it asks (1) why do the Japanese not hate the U.S. for killing 200,000 citizens, and (2) where does the U.S. get off telling the Japanese how to be civilized.  Underlying these points is the question about how history and our personal experience skew what is normal.  And this is where I get back to the problem of children.

There are many-a-activist working to end female circumcision.  Societies that participate in the practice are supposedly barbaric, religious nuts, and hate women.  Female circumcision condemns them to a life absent of sexual pleasure.  What patriarchal backwards people they must be.  Yet, look at the practice of circumcision of males in this country.  This practice also reduces sexual pleasure and it is totally unnecessary, but it is extremely common even among my libertarian friends.  It seems to exist only because it has always existed.  If the practice of cutting off a baby's finger or performing an appendectomy at birth was introduced would we be so quick to accept it as a reasonable post-birth procedure?  So what does this mean?  Do I detest the actions of my friends who circumcise their children (I certainly don't) or do I say, "they homesteaded the child therefore they can mutilate his genitals?"  To tell you the truth, I have no clue.  If you do, please share.