The Grayness of Children's Rights

This article (speaking as a father of 7, grandpa of 24, great grandpa of 5) is fraught with anti-individual, anti-libertarian, anti-anarchy "theory". It's the classic example of our old friend, Thomas Pynchon, who is quoted as having said:

"If they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."

First of all, anytime a "libertarian" starts bandying about the term "rights" s/he is climbing right back up onto the governmentalist/authoritarian band wagon. By whose authority do you or I or my offspring claim "rights" anyhow? Obama's? Rothbard's?

Here's how Delmar England deals with "rights":

The reality is that any human individual can believe whatever he/she wishes and take any action within his/her capacity. “Right”? Permission? With permission comes command. With command is the external ownership premise. “Rights” are a contradiction of individual identity, hence, anti-individual and anti-freedom. This is why in practice, “rights” (a version of “God intended”) become “bestowed privilege” at the point of a gun.
The idea of self ownership is not a “bestowed right.” It is a matter of personal choice. The natural law of individual volition validates this...

England places an additional but interesting comment toward the end of this thought:

This thought of “no morality” probably scares some “anarchists” no less than the thought of non-government scares a governmentalist; and for the same reason: It is ingrained that each individual left to his/her own devices without “moral guidance” will necessarily behave in an “evil” manner. “Morality” is equating potential with actual and assuming the “worst.” Sound familiar? Isn’t this exactly the same argument that every governmentalist presents?

So the author of this feminists.com essay quotes our old friend, Murray Rothbard:

"...But this means that the child must always have, regardless of age, the absolute freedom to run away, to get out from under. It is grotesque to think that the parents can actually own the child’s body as well as physical property; it is advocating slavery and denying the fundamental right of self-ownership to permit such ownership of others, regardless of age. Therefore, the child must always be free to run away; he then becomes a self-owner whenever he chooses to exercise his right to run-away freedom.”

"Grotesque"??? Murry! Shame on you! This isn't the first time I've caught you also asking invalid questions by relying upon shaky premises.

Who do you think owns sperm? How about ovum? "Should" Mum & Da da "allow" the 2 year-old wander off the property, onto the busy street, or down along the river where the perverts and/or "convicted" sex "offenders" camp? How about the 3 year-old? 4? 8? 15? "Should" that be the purveyance of agents of the monopoly state perhaps? ('Cause those scallywags are sure to bring charges of "child endangerment" upon you if "your" child is harmed or even appears to have wandered into harm's way -- in their opinion, fer sure fer sure. Count on it.)

Whenever I hear of a "libertarian" or an "anarchist" begin to babble about libertarian or anarchist "theory" I place my hand firmly over my liberty pocket.

I'll stop here for brevity, but I could go on another page on this topic.

Sam