RUNAWAY CHILDREN AND STARVATION

In this paper, we argue that Rothbard's version of the non-aggression principle, in conjunction with his account of self-ownership, is flawed. He interprets several acts that should be considered legal as criminal. First, he allows a three-year child to run away from his non-abusive parents and criminalizes the latter if they forcibly prevent this. Second, this author prohibits parents from forcing their two-year-old child to eat and drink, or have his diaper changed, when the baby refuses. We do not at all oppose the non-aggression principle. On the contrary, we reject Rothbard's interpretation of it when he applies it to children. Our main criticism is that this author is contradictory with regards to the legal status of the relationship children/parents. First, he argues that parents, despite several limitations, own their children. Second, he states that children are self-owners. If this is the case, every aggression against them should be considered a criminal act. However, since parents stand in a special legal relationship with their children, certain forms of aggression committed by them are legally permissible and, in certain cases, compulsory.