Libertario o Nazi?

Del blog de Lord Keynes, saco esta citado Murray Rothbard, el padre espiritual de tantos memos libertarios españoles (Rallo, sin ir más lejos):

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.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such ‘neglect’ down to a minimum.)” (Rothbard 1998: 99–101).

En cristiano antiguo: los padres tienen el derecho a no alimentar a su hijo si éste es deforme o discapacitado, o simplemente, no les gusta. Si no es nazismo, está para que le encierren.

Aquí! Más delirios de este HP llamado Murray (q.e.p.d.) que decía cosas como:

Rothbard bases his defense of abortion on the grounds that no one is entitled to the use of another person’s body without their consent. Just as a starving man has no right whatsoever to take a can of peas from the kitchen of a billionaires’ third home which he only visits for one weekend a year, a fetus, even if, as a potential person, it has most of the rights of a full person, has no right to use a woman’s body. The fact that denying a potential self-owner this right means its death is of no consequence for Rothbard, since he maintains there is nothing unjust about people starving to death while others burn food that is their property in front of the faces of the starved. Thus Rothbard argues that libertarian principles provide for a robust defense of abortion rights.