Child Support: Should it exist? (1 Viewer)

[KFunk]

Good question. Welfare is preferable because it distributes the burden equally (I know, not something I would usually say).

I don't agree with singling out the biological parent to pay, because I believe their responsibility for the child is an arbitrary construct. I see nothing wrong with abortion, and given that, I believe having a child is 100% a lifestyle choice. If one parent wants to have a child and the other doesn't, the parent that wants the child should have absolutely no right to make the other parent pay for it.

I agree . I too think that we place to much emphasis on biology (of course, choice on the part of the parent may still enter as an issue - for example, suppose a woman agrees to carry the child because a man is willing to raise on support the child, only for the man to later decide that he does not want to... However, intent is a pretty sketchy thing to determine in the court of law so perhaps we need a flat assumption in favour of distributed welfare).

Not really? World peace, or an end to hunger may be unattainable, but we don't stop striving for it.

In the meantime it is important to set realistic goals like cutting taxes and legalizing marijuana, but ultimately I'm not going to change my view of what is right just because others don't agree.

I also think the watered down version of libertarianism is less convincing to people anyway. It's more powerful to just come right out and say that you want to get rid of the whole damned government. In fact, the reason I became AC was because I was initially shocked and disgusted by the idea, which provoked me to research it further.

In part this depends on what one holds the goals of political philosophy to be. If it simply acts as an ideal - a guiding light perhaps - then it doesn't matter so much whether we ever get there. However, what I was noticing was a potential statement of impossibility given that you endorse the peaceful transition to AC society (which I thoroughly endorse if it is ever to be tried) whilst acknowledging that extreme anarchocapitalism or libertarianism will never be popular (apologies if I read too much into this statement) which would thereby prevent a peaceful, popular transition to AC living.

Certainly this doesn't prevent you from holding high the AC ideal, in particular if you use it as a rhetorical device as you have pointed out. However, I do think that 'impossibility' (in the interest of being truthful I would prefer 'strong improbability' myself) weakens any argument you might make which posits the dynamics of AC society as a solution to a current issue - be it violence, taxation, welfare, education, healthcare, etc. Once we start talking about solutions it is important that we keep one foot in the practical sphere of the possible/probable, even if we retain our guiding light at the same time. In this sense I think a watered down form of libertarianism becomes important if you want to make realistic policy recommendations - such as you made for child support (shifting the burden from the individual to society).

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I agree . I too think that we place to much emphasis on biology (of course, choice on the part of the parent may still enter as an issue - for example, suppose a woman agrees to carry the child because a man is willing to raise on support the child, only for the man to later decide that he does not want to... However, intent is a pretty sketchy thing to determine in the court of law so perhaps we need a flat assumption in favour of distributed welfare).

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is easily dealt with; the parents just agree to a contract for providing for the child on terms that they (rather than a court) think is fair.

In part this depends on what one holds the goals of political philosophy to be. If it simply acts as an ideal - a guiding light perhaps - then it doesn't matter so much whether we ever get there. However, what I was noticing was a potential statement of impossibility given that you endorse the peaceful transition to AC society (which I thoroughly endorse if it is ever to be tried) whilst acknowledging that extreme anarchocapitalism or libertarianism will never be popular (apologies if I read too much into this statement) which would thereby prevent a peaceful, popular transition to AC living.

I wouldn't agree that AC will never be popular. I'm sure the same thing was said of democracy, or allowing equal rights to women and blacks not that long ago. However, I don't like the odds of it happening within the next few decades.

Certainly this doesn't prevent you from holding high the AC ideal, in particular if you use it as a rhetorical device as you have pointed out. However, I do think that 'impossibility' (in the interest of being truthful I would prefer 'strong improbability' myself) weakens any argument you might make which posits the dynamics of AC society as a solution to a current issue - be it violence, taxation, welfare, education, healthcare, etc. Once we start talking about solutions it is important that we keep one foot in the practical sphere of the possible/probable, even if we retain our guiding light at the same time. In this sense I think a watered down form of libertarianism becomes important if you want to make realistic policy recommendations - such as you made for child support (shifting the burden from the individual to society).

Sure, I agree. That's why I often incorporate practical assumptions into my posts, e.g. in the welfare thread I took the assumption that there will be state provided welfare as a given. In fact I did the same thing in the thread, favoring social security over child support.

 

[KFunk]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is easily dealt with; the parents just agree to a contract for providing for the child on terms that they (rather than a court) think is fair.

While this makes sense it is probably more useful to the cynics than the hopeless romantics.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

While this makes sense it is probably more useful to the cynics than the hopeless romantics.

Maybe people would not be so hopelessly romantic (i.e. short sighted and foolish) if there was no paternalistic safety net waiting to catch them.

 

[KFunk]

Maybe people would not be so hopelessly romantic (i.e. short sighted and foolish) if there was no paternalistic safety net waiting to catch them.

Call me cynical, but I suspect that even then romantic short-sightedness will remain.

 

[vikraman]

Romantic short-sightedness is biological. Completely hormonal lol. Unless you think eliminating the social safety net will make humans evolve away "love" in a few years... This is the baddie : oxytocin

 

[chelsea girl]

One thing a lot of your AC ideas seems to forget about is human psychology. It's highly unlikely that people are going to start writing and signing contracts every time they sleep with someone in case it results in a baby. Lust is very strong and overrides sensible thinking a lot of the time.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

One thing a lot of your AC ideas seems to forget about is human psychology. It's highly unlikely that people are going to start writing and signing contracts every time they sleep with someone in case it results in a baby. Lust is very strong and overrides sensible thinking a lot of the time.

Actually Zoe, they've been doing it for centuries. Marriage is just a dressed up contract.

I don't mean every time you sleep with someone, I mean during the window of time between finding out about the pregnancy and being able to terminate it, the parents can decide who actually wants to take care of the child and to what extent.

Going to a lawyers office and drawing up a a contract is not particularly difficult or time consuming. I'm sure people could get used to it, its a lot like witting a will, its just a sensible thing to do. Also, contracts don't have to be written to be binding, so if you had evidence of a verbal contract to take care of the child that could be enforced too.

If you choose to trust someone without creating evidence of the agreement you do so at your own peril, just as you would with any other agreement.

 

[loquasagacious]

Worth noting that many many people do not have wills..

 

[loquasagacious]

I think that at heart the issue is a contract issue. Albeit a verbal or implicit contract.

When a married woman is deciding to keep a baby think it is fair to assume (unless she has been specifically advised otherwise) that she is making that decision based on the expectation that the father will provide emotional, physical and monetary support for the next 18 years. The contract is implicit in their relationship. It is fair that this contract be enforced.

However a woman who falls pregnant to a man with which she is not in a serious relationship can not be subject to those same assumptions. When she is deciding to keep a baby she can not be basing the decision on an expectation of ongoing support and therefore there is no implied contract to enforce.

In short child support is relevant for couples but not relevant for 'that guy you met in a pub and got pounded by in an alley'.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I think that at heart the issue is a contract issue. Albeit a verbal or implicit contract.

When a married woman is deciding to keep a baby think it is fair to assume (unless she has been specifically advised otherwise) that she is making that decision based on the expectation that the father will provide emotional, physical and monetary support for the next 18 years. The contract is implicit in their relationship. It is fair that this contract be enforced.

However a woman who falls pregnant to a man with which she is not in a serious relationship can not be subject to those same assumptions. When she is deciding to keep a baby she can not be basing the decision on an expectation of ongoing support and therefore there is no implied contract to enforce.

In short child support is relevant for couples but not relevant for 'that guy you met in a pub and got pounded by in an alley'.

Sort of agree. I don't think a relationship is enough to establish an agreement to take care of a child. If people are just dating, often one or both of them have no intention of having and supporting a child.

But certainly the courts can review the circumstances and see if some sort of implicit contract exists, which would be preferable to a blanket assumption that it does exist because they had sex.

 

[loquasagacious]

I'm inclined to take the default position that in a relationship the contract exists - unless specifically advised otherwise which is where a kind of formal 'opting-out' notice would need to be completed provided to the woman at least a month before the abortion cut-off.

 

[justinw]

i think 50% custody should equil no child support, but anyway you have a child its your kid and your responsability, but women falling preggers to live off it is disgusting.