"Anarcho"-Capitalist Ethics And Their Logical Conclusions In Regards To The Rights Of Infants.

Famous "Anarcho"-Capitalist Murray Rothbard made certain argumentations towards the rights of parents in regards to their children as well as private property. The logical conclusion of Rothbard's argumentation is quite horrific, that parents should have the right to kill their children.

In Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty" he argues:

"First, we may say that the parents-or rather the mother, who is the only certain and visible parent-as the creators of the baby become its owners. A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party or parties may be the babies owner,"1

"The mother, then, is the natural and rightful owner of the baby, and any attempt to seize the baby by force is an invasion of her property right."1

Rothbard makes the argument that the child is the private property of the mother due to its inability to exercise self-ownership, and anyone attempting to seize the private property of the mother (the child) from her would violate the non-aggression principle and the liberty of the mother.

Rothbard argued that the parent had the right not to feed their child and let it die, he argued that this would not violate Libertarian ethics necessarily:

"But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such ‘neglect’ down to a minimum.)” 1

If one follows Libertarian ethics, they may see nothing wrong with this argumentation. They may say that since the parent did not use force or agression against the child, and simply did NOT feed it, it would not necessarily be unethical, however let us take the Rothbardian code of ethics and natural rights to its natural conclusion.

Anyone with a basic understanding of Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy will understand that Rothbard upheld the right to dispose of your private property in any way the user whom had acquired it (according to the right wing Libertarian standards of legitimacy) without the use of force sees fit.

We have established that Rothbard believed the following:

1) Babies are incapable of exercising self-ownership, and thus were under the jurisdiction of their parents.

2) The baby is the private property of the mother.

3) One can dispose of their private property in any way they see fit.

Since the child cannot exercise self-ownership, and since it is the private property of the mother, its consent is not required in any interaction, and can be used by the mother in way she sees fit regardless of the purpose. One could sell their child into slavery, prostitution or simply dispose of them with a butcher knife without violating Rothbard's conception of the non-aggression principle.

A Libertarian confronted with this problem may simply say that Rothbard was wrong on this specific point, and that the child can exercise self-ownership, the logical flaw in this is obvious. Rothbard was correct when he said that an infant does not have the mental capacity necessary to do so.  Or perhaps he could argue that the neighbors could prevent the mother from treating her children unethically, however we once again run into a problem. An infant cannot consent to the unethical actions of their mother in disposing of them, NOR can they consent to the neighbor removing them from the custody of their mother. Also, what institution would define unethical treatment of a child, certainly not a state, certainly not a collectivist Democracy, nor subjective ethical evaluations of the mother or the neighbor. The "Libertarian" Non-Agression principle itself runs into problems in the general aspect of person hood. If we define person hood (the right to self-ownership) If one defines a human being as the obvious homo-sapiens, and therefor the consent of all human beings is necessary, and force cannot be initiated against anyone, consider a  person whom has been a victim of a horrible accident and is now incapable of signing any documents or saying anything giving consent to doctors "pulling the plug", do we simply doom these people to a life of incredible pain due to their inability to give consent? If we define human being by rational and self aware (and therefor can exercise self ownership we run into the same problem as Rothbard, babies would not be protected against violence and would become the property of their parents.


Not only is Rothbardian ethics flawed, but would lead to a society that allows the most heinous of atrocities to be committed against the most vulnerable people.


1) Rothbard, M. N. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York, N.Y. and London.