Quote:Guaranteed? No. The idea that government is the way for this happen is the antithesis of Libertarianism. Society can provide plenty of mechanisms for this kind of charity work without it being a government mandate.

 

Davy Crockett said it best: "We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."

 

We're all willing to compromise to a point, Libertarianism at it's core is a philosophy built on individuals being equally free and responsible for their own well being. A child who is neither free nor capable of being responsible for themselves certainly shouldn't be held accountable for the actions or inaction of their custodians. To damn a child to homelessness, hunger, sickness because their parents decisions to me is not only immoral but defaulting on the few legitimate roles of a government, protection of life.

 

Now we can argue how these issues should be addressed but I'm coming from the aspect that all children should be one way or another provided for until they are of age and made free and responsible for their own well being.

 

I never have and never will argue a child from birth should be left to circumstances they have no control over. The only legitimate role of government is to protect life and property, otherwise let's just embrace anarchism and let the chips fall where they may.

---