"Many people, when confronted with the libertarian legal system, are concerned with this problem: would somebody be allowed to “take the law into his own hands”? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal? The answer is, of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim’s right of self-defense."

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp

OH WHAT A CRIMINAL LAW SCHOLAR.

He also thinks parents should be allowed to bring children into the world and let them starve:

" 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.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] "

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

OH WHAT AN ADVOCATE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2483687&forum_id=2#24939475)

"No man can therefore have a 'right' to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a “right” to a “living wage,” for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s right."

I think people have a moral responsibility for the problems they create, and I think that children don't get a say in whether they are created. Therefore, if you create a child, you know that that child's going to require food (because, in case you didn't know, children are helpless when they are born and need to be fed) and thus you are morally responsible to feed it. I think it's fine to attach a legal burden to this, since it's a responsibility one can avoid by not doing the act that creates the child, which makes it completely different from the living wage example; we're not talking about people being forced to alter the terms of freely entered into employment agreements by the state. We're talking about people fucking, having kids, and then abandoning them to starvation. Rothbard's invocation of the living wage is basically a non-sequitur.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2483687&forum_id=2#24939825)