On a recent podcast, Tom Woods challenged his audience to put our position on the rights of animals and children into words. I phrase it that way because almost every libertarian/anarchist I have met instinctually knows that respecting children and animals IS part of who we are, but finds it difficult to work their rights within the framework of the NAP.
The argument is essentially that parents and let owners are under no obligation under the NAP to provide for their dependents. I know of two ways in which we can overcome this hurdle. The first revolves around social contract whereas the second drives at the very heart of libertarian values. Naturally, I will start with the former.
Social Contract theory of child rearing and pet owning:
If you're new to libertarianism, chances are you are not a fan of the theory of social contracts. I get it; you think if you concede that social contracts exist then all hope is lost and you will be obligated to accept the state. This is wrong of course. The most basic of all social contracts basically states "you don't hurt me, i won't hurt you." Even statists would agree to this one, it's so simple. As it applies to children and animals... Well, if you as an adult choose to bear children, the social contract is: i chose to have a child. I know children cannot provide for themselves, therefore, i am agreeing to provide for this child. This would make any negligence in parental duties a coercive act against a child, as you are not holding up to your end of the contract. (I say "your end" but since the child in question either doesn't exist or is a bit young for contracts, there is only one end so far). The same can be said for owning a pet. By freely choosing to have an animal in your home, you are agreeing to fulfill the pet's needs.
Now to the main argument. I'm gonna say something here that I have yet to hear another libertarian say. Unless i saw or read this argument somewhere and forgot, I do believe I have worked this out through my own process.
Libertarianism revolves everything around property rights... But what we need to recognize is that using property rights as the basis for our arguments is merely a tool for communicating a much larger idea. The heart of Libertarianism is not property rights; the heart is a LOVE for LIFE.
We want our rights over the things we own and we argue that we own our bodies so that we can LIVE! Everything you have ever owned, you customized to fit your needs; to live your life as you see fit. Your car has your radio stations programmed, your seat is where you like it, your mirrors are setup for you to see... The fans in your home are where you want them... And when people take your things or come tell you the new standard for your property, what they are doing is erasing that part of your personality... They are interfering with your right to live your life as you wish. How does this apply to children and animals? Come on... The heart of what we believe in is a love of LIFE. Children are brand new to life; it is 100% impossible to love life and allow a child to starve for no apparent reason. In a libertarian society, if you had children and mistreated them and didn't feed them, maybe someone or some group would come remove that child from your custody. The purpose of property is life, that is why we cherish it so much. Any person capable of starving a child has no love for life.
The same can be said for animals. We care about them and don't want to harm them unless we have to because they are living beings...
