Violence isn't addressed in the constitution either.

Murder is charged at the state level. ..same with rape.

Just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it's fair game to indulge in.

Do you have the freedom to abuse your children?

There are clearly boundaries to your freedom.

The freedom to make bad decisions w/o consequences. This is the chief complaint on the left that they're willing to trade for economic freedom.

Social freedoms aren't legally enforced. That'd be draconian. Despite there being no laws against being a "slut." A chief complaint from the left is "slut shaming." They're willing to prop up a welfare state that extracts taxes to support single moms, just so they can support their lifestyle. They support government subsidies for abortions and birth control, and are the majority of welfare recipients.

Asking people on an objectivist board whether they support government subsidies of any manner is obviously a stupid question, but my question pertains to how far you're willing to go to socially ostracise people who's behavior "externalizes costs."

Would you participate in socially ostracising people to functionally restrict their social "freedoms" w/o violating NAP? (I don't know if NAP is fair game on this board. Apologies if it isn't.)

If we got rid of welfare, there /will/ be women who are unable to provide for their children asking for handouts. What will you personally do when it comes to that? Will you let the children go hungry? Will you violate NAP and take the children?

I have an answer in mind for myself, but I'm curious where other people who have objectivist ethics stand on an issue that's really "the rubber meeting the road"

That should have been "guard". Damn spell check.

"Government welfare is mandatory in a world w/ complete social freedom...."

Huh?

I must not understand what "social freedom" means. Can you elaborate?

I don't mean this to sound flippant, so if it does I apologize in advance. With that said, FREEDOM IS NOT NEGOTIABLE!! I fully realize that to live in this, our world, we must choose our battles carefully. But that doesn't mean that even from within the system we shouldn't be ever vigilant to gourd our freedoms but also scheme furiously to re-inflate the freedoms that are being taken from us.

This is even a question? All freedom is ethically mandatory - that is the freedom to live and act as one sees fit as long as one does not initiate force or otherwise abrogate the same freedom of others. There are no rational trade offs here.