Haha anarchists can't even apply their principles in a basic way

It's not illegal to raise someone else's children

So funny that while some people are ending abuse in the real world, the best reddit anarchists can do is chest pound about how consistent they are when applying their "principles" to fictional children in need

I love that you all waste time doing this while serious anarchists can outperform you and get true, real, tangible credit for it when the future becomes more sane.

https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/sh-2020-0012

A Rational Theory of the Rights of Children by Ian Hersum is an interesting entry.

In my mind, there should be a distinction of concepts:

The Child as a Latent Self-Owner:

• They are a Self-Owner as a Human Being (HPC), and have the inherent potential to become a Legal and Moral Agent.
• Their ownership is Latent, because their capacity for decision making is still in development, and is demonstrably insufficient for Self-Guardianship.
• Guardianship, the positive of maintaining the rights of another Human that is incapable of doing so themselves.

With these givens, this follows:

• Children are not owned, they cannot be "bought and sold" without aggression.

• Children have Guardians, the position of a Guardian is distinct

• Guardianship itself can be traded or established via homesteading.

• Natural Parents are the default Guardians, but must gradually give up the extent of their control until the Child becomes an adult.

• Guardianship should be considered similar to maintaining a Trust in a voluntary fashion. Any type of abuse of this trust can be evaluated similarly to any other form of aggressive violence.

• Child abusers can be contested directly, or via arbitration if available, similarly to how anyone witnessing a crime can choose to step in and offer help to the victim.

Examples:

• Parents may decide to abandon a Child with someone capable of keeping them alive and protecting their rights. This is normally called an Orphanage and Adoption.
• A person that finds an abandoned Child can work to provide and raise that child, this effort in itself providing them the justification to being considered the Guardian.
• The more civilized and formal the location, the more notification is required for any Guardianship status changes, to avoid forestalling.
• You can step in to stop aggression, and your actions can be evaluated for legality by observers and participants. The base assumption when rescuing a temporarily incapacitated individual is that they would want to be saved and taken care of until the time where their ability to make decisions is restored.

Reference: HPC - Homeostatic Property Cluster https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpecHomePropClusKind Simple example: "Something that looks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, and has the DNA of a duck, is most likely a Duck - even if it's missing a wing." When defining Humans in this manner, the temporary inability to make decisions does not deprive anyone of their inherent right as a latent self-owner or their potential for Legal and Moral Agency.

let's see if this community fares any better

at best, the community there is almost entirely libertarian, the entire thread is filled with moral high ground nonsense about things being "not allowed" as if there is some kind of formal enforcement in ancapville

My claim: obviously children are not autonomous, caring for children is a topic that the NAP simply cannot cover

From that perspective, you can't regulate the sale of children, which is the same as adoption for cash, without diving deep into someone else's personal business. I don't understand why anyone would want to.

If you want some entertainment, check out the thread and laugh at the "buyers/adoptive parents need background checks" insanity. Obviously a caring parent giving a child for adoption would do that. Obviously a drugged out parent selling kids for a fix wouldn't.

What is wrong with cash adoptions so long as it is overseen by a neutral third party; i.e., a judge and is deemed in the best interest of the child?