Response to Rozeff

I am grateful to Michael Rozeff for taking note of my comment on his article, but the point on which I criticized him is narrower than he thinks. I did not defend the view that parents should have no legal obligations to take care of their children. If they do, they have positive obligations toward their children. Can you hold that they do have positive obligations and also hold that all positive obligations to others are voluntarily undertaken? My claim was that Rozeff has not shown this. That is a very limited claim. Maybe it is mistaken to hold that all positive obligations are voluntarily undertaken. That is a question I did not discuss.

Rozeff says: “One may raise the objection: But where do these obligations come from? They come from extending the non-aggression principle to instances where a person has voluntarily taken up a position wherein he has the capacity to initiate violence against others by not doing acts that are under his purview, acts that are obligatory given the positions and roles assumed by the person.”

Certainly, if you have voluntarily taken up a position that carries with it obligations, you have those obligations. But what are the legal obligations of parents? That question isn’t answered just by saying that people have voluntarily become parents. That was my point against Rozeff and my only point.

To reiterate, I did not address in my comment the difficult issue of parental obligations. I do reject entirely any claim that parents own or homestead their children, even on a temporary basis.

Share

12:50 pm on January 15, 2019