Dear Mr. Kinsella:
If you have the time I wanted to ask for some clarification regarding your views on positive obligations and their relationship with aggression and bringing children into the world.
In your article “How we come to own ourselves” you argue libertarianism is not inherently against positive obligations just unchosen obligations. You say one can incur positive obligations by commiting aggression. You use the analogy of pushing a person into a lake (aggressing against them) that creates a positive obligation to rescue them. You then say bringing an infant into the world with certain needs is akin to pushing a person into a lake.
My question is, does this mean bringing an infant into the world is aggression which then creates a chosen obligation to feed the infant (rescue them from the situation you’ve put them in)? Is this an accurate reading of your argument?
Kinsella:
It’s not aggression to have a child. The pushing in the lake analogy is just an analogy to show that your actions can give rise to positive obligations. if you push someone in a lake you incur an obligation to rescue because you put them in this position. It is a tort. If you have a child there is no aggression but you still put them in a position of natural dependency so you have an obligation to them to help them, care for them, etc. until they are independent. I discuss this in that article and elsewhere. See my book Legal Foundations of a Free Society, ch. 5, “How We Come to Own Ourselves” and “Objectivists on Positive Parental Obligations and Abortion,” The Libertarian Standard (Jan. 14, 2011).
