If you end up with a child you don't want, don't sweat! You can let him or her starve to death.

From the linked article:

"But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[2] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."

I know you're being facetious, but you're already not compelled to feed a child, you can just drop him/her off at a police station or hospital.

Not that I don't think that article is full of crap. If we're going to apply property-based libertarian principles to the letter, then we need to talk about the months of imprisonment in a dark and confined area that the mother imposes on the child :P

I think you must have read the quoted passage but not internalised it, because it does actually say that there should be no law against killing your kid.

No, it does not say that. It says that you should not be compelled to feed your kid. If you read the passage in context, you'll find Rothbard is explicit that you cannot kill the kid, nor stop the kid from leaving if the kid is not happy with the support you are providing.

Of course as a practical matter, if the kid is young enough, or you live sufficiently far from other people, the kid cannot exercise its right to leave, and so effectively you can kill it by not providing food.

Well, that was an interesting read. There are going to be a lot of children with attachment disorders in such libertarian countries.

Are you seriously proposing that the primary reason that people invest in their children is that it is mandated by law?

I understand how people want to give the government credit for a lot of things, but are you really going to hand them credit for your own care for your children?

(I suspect this falls under the category of "being in such a hurry to say bad things about someone you disagree with that you don't stop to think the full implications of the insult through".)

I seriously wonder what would be the reason to have a child (or to keep a pregnancy) if a person don't want one and is not going to feed/care for one.

Guess, even the weirdest pro-pregnancy activist would figure out abortion would be a much more humane way of killing than starving to death.

>There are going to be a lot of children with attachment disorders in such libertarian countries.

If the only reason you wouldn't sell children is because it's illegal, you should really never have kids.

Dragging out the most appalling random thing you can find from some loosely associated (or not) ideology is no way to have a conversation in good faith—it's a way to terminate such conversation. Hacker News is for conversation in good faith, so please don't do that.

(I'm not defending this project or its ideology, about which I know nothing. HN discourse needs to be free of bomb-throwing regardless of the target.)

Rothbard and other libertarians do not consider capitalism as a moral system, they consider it as an economic system that servers well a collective. As a result they make no attempts to justify it morally.

This country should be based on laissez-fair Capitalism, which is justified morally by Ayn Rand in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".