Nick900 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I was talking to somebody about anarchism when they raised the point about how are children whose parents pass away looked after in an anarchist society? Thinking about it I can't really think of any profitable 'free market' way to handle this situation, I'm a bit of a newb at anarchism though. I was thinking that various charities / religions / willing foster parents could take them on but who would organise all of this and what would be the motive? - I don't think charities alone would cut it.
Pepin Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I was thinking that various charities / religions / willing foster parents could take them on but who would organise all of this and what would be the motive? - I don't think charities alone would cut it. think in a society which bases itself on positive early childhood experiences would have a huge motive to fund initiatives to help orphans. The idea of a child growing up without stable caretakers would probably rip most people's hearts to shreds. I think the issue of money and profit may be confusing you. What may help is to think of children in general. Having a child is the worst possible financial investment you could make, yet most people have children. People who only seem to care about money have children. Why? Well, it has a lot to do with evolution and emotion. People get an emotional satisfaction when then have a child. It is easy to think of markets in terms of profit and loss, but they are much more complex than that. There are many emotional and ideological aspects which play into market forces. Empathy is a huge market force, and can be used to great effect. People really don't like the idea of there being orphans and will pay money because of how they feel. Just think about what the average person would do if they saw a young girl on the street. Would they ignore her? Would they give her a couple of dollars? Neither. The vast majority of people would be compelled to get that child a home, even if they had to pay some money. A podcast that might interest you is Freakonomics.
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 It would seem that you and your friend are both concerned about orphans. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that you both would be willing to donate a share of your income to help orphans in need. That's 2 from 2. It is reasonable to expect that many others would also be charitable solving the problem. Unless of course, your friend is not willing to donate a share of his income to help orphans he is so concerned about. Inform him that you will donate, ask him if he will donate. If he says no, he is only feigning concern for orphans, and there is not much point discussing the matter further with him.
NotDarkYet Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 DRO/Insurance agreements are bound to have clauses indicating next-of-kin, or other guardians.
Nick900 Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 Hmm I'm not too convinced about the empathy argument, it would heavily depend on them being seen, I'm sure there are plenty of them now but I don't see them much if ever. I'm sure some people would help but the DRO "child insurance" I hadn't considered, seems like a good idea though.
Pepin Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Hmm I'm not too convinced about the empathy argument, it would heavily depend on them being seen, I'm sure there are plenty of them now but I don't see them much if ever. I'm sure some people would help but the DRO "child insurance" I hadn't considered, seems like a good idea though. I'd agree that visibility is an issue, which is why organizations have goals of raising visibility. For instance, many charities buy up large portions of ad time on TV networks and show nothing but starving children in Africa. These same groups send out mass amounts of mail to potential donors. They get stories published in newspapers and magazines to spread the word.
trout007 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Compared to what? What we have today is even worse. There is an entire industry based on NOT finding a permanent home for children. The foster care system exists only because of the state. Imagine if they actually just found homes for the kids. They would be out of a job. In the old days with private (church) run orphanages the kids cost money so they got them adopted as soon as they could.
tasmlab Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Parents who pass away should have arrangements, codified in their wills, about who god parents are. For example, we have two different families lined up to take over in case. For newly unwanted babies, there is already a lucrative adoption industry. Agency adoption fees can be in the 10's of thousands of dollars. For example, our friends recently paid an agency $45K to get their newborn (a half-black/half-hispanic whose mother had a drug history and father unknown). The balance handled with charity. And maybe, like anything, there would be a sad story now and again.
Recommended Posts