Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a direct quote from Murray Rothbard. So that's one at least.
> It's a direct quote from Murray Rothbard. So that's one at least. Ugh. That sounds ugly. Which part is the quote? I assume not the "Well, I personally believe.." part but don't see any quotation marks so hard to tell.
> Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.)
It's a pretty extreme view. However, he points out that parents still have a moral obligation to feed their child, and goes on to argue that removing the legal obligation would actually make things better for children. I think his argument is that bad parents who don't want their child would be able to sell their child to a nice family, and anyone who cares so little for their child that they'd let them starve would probably rather just sell the child.
I'm not a libertarian myself, so I don't agree with this. I'm just summarizing.