In a Libertarian system, what is the minimum "legal" age at which sex between an adult and the consenting minor is no longer statutory rape?
Who decides this age?
The parent? Then what is the age at which the parent is no longer allowed to make decisions for it's child?
And who decides that age?
When the child is ready to challenge his parents' authority over him, he is legally to be considered an adult.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Roderick Long recently made some insightful remarks on this issue:
http://www.praxeology.net/blog/2008/04/25/ruwart-on-childrens-rights/
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
I don't like the way that the original question is phrased because I disagree with the assumed premise - that there should be an official singular age of consent. I've opposed age of consent laws for a while now. My main reason for opposing it is because it is a one-size-fits-all approach to the matter that disregaurds individual variance. Not everyone matures physically and mentally at the exact same rate. Despite scientific research pointing in the direction of a general theshold, there is no single age by which an individual becomes an "adult". At best, we have an approximation.
I think that it would make sense for there to be a more objective criteria for consent itself that takes the individuals in question and the individual situation itself into account, rather than an age quota that considers people to be guilty under the law prior to any real investigation or evidence. My main concern is for those who are on the margin of the age of consent who may happen to engage in voluntary sexual relations yet are considered defacto rapists under the law, like a 15 and 17 year old with an age of consent of 16. So please do not try to imply that I'm trying to coddle actual child molesters or pedophiles, because that is not my intention. I just don't think that age itself is the proper or sole criteria.
Brainpolice: I don't like the way that the original question is phrased because I disagree with the assumed premise - that there should be an official singular age of consent. I've opposed age of consent laws for a while now. My main reason for opposing it is because it is a one-size-fits-all approach to the matter that disregaurds individual variance. Not everyone matures physically and mentally at the exact same rate. Despite scientific research pointing in the direction of a general theshold, there is no single age by which an individual becomes an "adult". At best, we have an approximation. I think that it would make sense for there to be a more objective criteria for consent itself that takes the individuals in question and the individual situation itself into account, rather than an age quota that considers people to be guilty under the law prior to any real investigation or evidence. My main concern is for those who are on the margin of the age of consent who may happen to engage in voluntary sexual relations yet are considered defacto rapists under the law, like a 15 and 17 year old with an age of consent of 16. So please do not try to imply that I'm trying to coddle actual child molesters or pedophiles, because that is not my intention. I just don't think that age itself is the proper or sole criteria.
I was going to repy - it was long winded and ultimately - not as eloquently put as this.
"Ordo est ordinem non servare."
I guess I'd wonder why we need to talk about a "right" to have sex in the first place. Generally libertarians presume a right to self determination which can only be legitimately infringed for certain kinds of reasons (e.g. harm to others). So the real question shouldn't be whether we have a right to have sex, but rather whether others would ever be justified in interfering if we chose to try to have sex.
As I discussed in this article, it's not completely unreasonable to think that we could be justified in preventing someone from doing something that they were choosing to do if we had very good reason to think that their choices would be catastrophic for them and we didn't have a reasonable chance to try to convince them without using force. For many young people, I think this is a somewhat fair description of things. I mean, paternalism is an unbecoming position between rational adults, but the word does come from the idea of treating adults like children. So if I had to use force to stop a 12 year old girl from getting into a sketchy guy's car after he seduced her with talk of how mature she is, and how he understood her so much better than her oppressive parents, I don't know that I'd think myself to be acting wrongly.
But as I also said, there comes a point where we have to let people make their own choices. If we say our piece, and someone still chooses to do something that we don't think is the right thing to do, we have to take into consideration the fact that others have the right to be free, and to make their own choices. I think it's a fine line with children, because it's hard to know whether they are actually making good choices, or are just being children. As G.A. Cohen pointed out, surely we would be hesitant to advocate freedom if we knew that it would systematically lead to people choosing things which would predictably have outcomes that would be catastrophic for them (for example, the freedom for a 5 year old to voluntarily put herself in a situation to be groped by an authority figure who she was too innocent to question). But as so many libertarians have pointed out, we would also surely be hesitant to advocate coercion if we knew that we might be hampering individuals' ability to live their lives in the way that they wanted to live them.
I guess my point is that talking about a "right to have sex" sort of misses the point. The question is whether we would ever be justified in interfering with young people's desire to have sex. And I think that while the answer is yes, we have to be careful about legitimizing unjust interfence in people's life choices.
Hopefully that helps somehow...
gplauche: Roderick Long recently made some insightful remarks on this issue:
This puts me in the unusual position of disagreeing with Dr. Long. My objection to diminished capacity arguments is that they always rely on external determination of diminished capacity - even when the person in question is screaming at the top of their lungs that they are of full capacity. I certainly don't trust psychiatry/psychology to make the determination. I'd rather have a more objective rule for this kind of thing. Here's my suggestion - children who live with their parents have diminished rights - specifically, they can't give consent for sex. For parents to give consent for them would be child abuse, so such children can't have sex. If you're old enough to move out and live on your own, you can realize the full scope of rights. Yes, there are difficulties - libertarians who live in the basement and are 45...but I'm sure they can be worked out by wording this better.
Well hold on. Saying that we might not be able to correctly identify diminished capacity in individual cases does not entail that diminished capacity could represent a morally relevant distinction which could justify otherwise impermissible actions. Think of it this way: it may be that I can't prove that you murdered someone, and would therefore be unjustified in punishing you, even though I would be justified in punishing you if you murdered someone. The fact that we can't determine whether or not something has a certain property doesn't entail that the property can't exist, or that it is not morally relevant.
JAlanKatz: This puts me in the unusual position of disagreeing with Dr. Long. My objection to diminished capacity arguments is that they always rely on external determination of diminished capacity - even when the person in question is screaming at the top of their lungs that they are of full capacity. I certainly don't trust psychiatry/psychology to make the determination. I'd rather have a more objective rule for this kind of thing.
I wonder if maybe you are confusing or conflating 'diminished capacity' with 'diminish ability' or 'low level of skill'. The former is fairly objective, tied as it is to childhood development and other obvious things like severe mental retardation, being comatose, severe brain trauma, going senile or suffering from severe Alzheimer's, etc. Roderick is not talking about simply not exercising your rational capacity well, for whatever reason.
Donny with an A:Well hold on. Saying that we might not be able to correctly identify diminished capacity in individual cases does not entail that diminished capacity could represent a morally relevant distinction which could justify otherwise impermissible actions. Think of it this way: it may be that I can't prove that you murdered someone, and would therefore be unjustified in punishing you, even though I would be justified in punishing you if you murdered someone. The fact that we can't determine whether or not something has a certain property doesn't entail that the property can't exist, or that it is not morally relevant.
I'm not sure I see that last point. If it were granted that some property could exist that no one could ever identify, it seems unreasonable for that property to be morally relevant. Certainly it seems an arbitrary and cruel morality that would be based on such unknowable facts.
A parent has a right to the custodial ownership of the protection of a child's rights. They can discipline their child and enforce the rules of their house within the range of what a reasonable adult would accept. So the question is at what time the child's rights become fully his or her own?
I believe that an agreement between the child and his or her parents would be the best way to answer that question. However, if the child believes he or she is actually an adult and the parents disagree, it would be their responsibility to prove it, basically by running away. If they are breaking their parent's rules against sex or anything else while still living as a child and reaping the benefits of childhood, then their parents would be within their rights to stop that activity and discipline the child for breaking the rule (always within reason, of course).
But if the kid leaves home; that is, refuses any further support and sustenence from their parents, he or she is effectively an adult.
I believe that cases where a child runs away from a good home would be rare, though. Most parents and children love each other, and any good parent provides a great deal of good reason for the child to remain their child.. I would say that a child tends to be ready to become an adult when their parents rules no longer have any relevance to their lives, at which time the child (most likely long into biological adulthood) would prepare to make their own way.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
gplauche: I wonder if maybe you are confusing or conflating 'diminished capacity' with 'diminish ability' or 'low level of skill'. The former is fairly objective, tied as it is to childhood development and other obvious things like severe mental retardation, being comatose, severe brain trauma, going senile or suffering from severe Alzheimer's, etc. Roderick is not talking about simply not exercising your rational capacity well, for whatever reason.
Well, I'm pretty radical on this question (Szazian.) Maybe I'll grant you comas, though. However, youth doesn't seem to work. If he wants to say that 2 year olds are diminished, and 20 year olds (normally) aren't, and there's no precise age where the change happens, then just how do we decide a particular case?
JAlanKatz: Well, I'm pretty radical on this question (Szazian.) Maybe I'll grant you comas, though. However, youth doesn't seem to work. If he wants to say that 2 year olds are diminished, and 20 year olds (normally) aren't, and there's no precise age where the change happens, then just how do we decide a particular case?
Well, I think it is largely context dependent. These things can't be determined a priori. It will depend upon cultural values, the maturity of the particular child/youth in question, who else is involved, the parents, the particular issue (e.g., sex, purchasing something, etc.), the particular situation, etc. This is something for a libertarian legal system to decide. And I do believe that children/youths can challenge their parents in court to gain independence prior to the generally accepted age, in which case they would have to provide evidence of competence.
20 years, btw, is probably far too high an age of consent. The range will probably vary from 12-18, and will probably tend more toward the middle of this range.
gplauche: Well, I think it is largely context dependent. These things can't be determined a priori. It will depend upon cultural values, the maturity of the particular child/youth in question, who else is involved, the parents, the particular issue (e.g., sex, purchasing something, etc.), the particular situation, etc. This is something for a libertarian legal system to decide. And I do believe that children/youths can challenge their parents in court to gain independence prior to the generally accepted age, in which case they would have to provide evidence of competence. 20 years, btw, is probably far too high an age of consent. The range will probably vary from 12-18, and will probably tend more toward the middle of this range.
Well, I used 20 because I figured it would be uncontroversial - i.e. no one would claim it was too low, and everyone would agree that by the time 20 was reached, the person was old enough.
On the first paragraph, that's exactly my objection. There are two problems. First, a person's rights are now being determined from the outside, on the basis of someone else's judgment of capacity. Second, it means that until the case goes to court, there's no way to know if the person is or is not entitled to do things. So the person selling the cigarettes may or may not be doing something wrong, and has no way to know other than to try it and see what the court decides. Not only does this expose him to to great risk, but even if he's not found to have done something wrong, he still is having to close his store every other day to defend a case like this, if a lot of people buy cigarettes at his store. I think everyone would prefer to know ahead of time what acts are acceptable.
JAlanKatz, I'm not sure I agree that a morality based on a difficult distinction would be arbitrary or cruel; it could just be that this sort of problem is genuinely difficult to deal with, and it's not going to be clear what's right in every situation. Given that our initial intuitions about this problem were exactly that, I find that conclusion perfectly satisfying. It's like you're skeptical of an answer which says "That problem you've been struggling with is a hard one, because it involves two conflicting values which are difficult to separate from each other," and would seemingly rather get an answer saying "Actually, that's an easy problem to deal with. If we apply this simple principle, we'll see that the answer is clearly _________." Personally, I'd be much more skeptical of the latter, and am glad I've arrived at the former!
JAlanKatz: I think everyone would prefer to know ahead of time what acts are acceptable.
Well, I'm not sure they wouldn't know ahead of time according to this scheme. General rules of thumb would likely develop. Also, I think a non-statist legal system would obviate many of the difficulties you worry about. People wouldn't have to worry about an arbitrary government cracking down on them. Lawsuits would cost money and the loser would pay, so it seems to me that people would be wary of initiating lawsuits they weren't confident they could win.
If you have a better solution that would meet the objections Roderick already offers, I'm interested in hearing it.
Donny with an A:JAlanKatz, I'm not sure I agree that a morality based on a difficult distinction would be arbitrary or cruel; it could just be that this sort of problem is genuinely difficult to deal with, and it's not going to be clear what's right in every situation. Given that our initial intuitions about this problem were exactly that, I find that conclusion perfectly satisfying. It's like you're skeptical of an answer which says "That problem you've been struggling with is a hard one, because it involves two conflicting values which are difficult to separate from each other," and would seemingly rather get an answer saying "Actually, that's an easy problem to deal with. If we apply this simple principle, we'll see that the answer is clearly _________." Personally, I'd be much more skeptical of the latter, and am glad I've arrived at the former!
Well, I can't find much to disagree with in what you're saying, but the original claim was not about a difficult distinction - it was about a distinction which was literally impossibly to make. I don't think you've explained just how that kind of distinction can be morally relevant.
On the other hand, while I can agree that there are hard questions, I don't think we get to leave it at that, especially if you intend (as I think most do) to make legal ramifications for what we're talking about.
gplauche: Well, I'm not sure they wouldn't know ahead of time according to this scheme. General rules of thumb would likely develop. Also, I think a non-statist legal system would obviate many of the difficulties you worry about. People wouldn't have to worry about an arbitrary government cracking down on them. Lawsuits would cost money and the loser would pay, so it seems to me that people would be wary of initiating lawsuits they weren't confident they could win. If you have a better solution that would meet the objections Roderick already offers, I'm interested in hearing it.
But if, as in many models I've seen, the PDA and the court are unified, the costs would be minimal to bring charges. I'm also not clear on how rules of thumb can develop if the court is being asked, in each case, to make a judgment as to the diminished capacity of the child in question.
I don't think you've explained, so far, what Dr. Long would object to my scheme based on parental rights. Namely, I hold that a child who wishes to exercise rights, and not act as if owned by their parents, needs to move out. So long as they live with their parents, the parents make all such decisions. For the parents to allow the child to have sex, though, would be child abuse.
Now, it seems a major difficulty with this is responsibility. It would seem that we also can't hold a child responsible for their misdeeds, so long as they live with their parents. I'm not sure that this is a fatal objection, though.
As I observed, many libertarians wouldn't like this, since many libertarians live in their parent's basements and are 35. However, it seems I could refine it by going from "moving out" to independent living arrangements, which would include living in a basement while paying rent and supporting oneself.
JAlanKatz: But if, as in many models I've seen, the PDA and the court are unified, the costs would be minimal to bring charges. I'm also not clear on how rules of thumb can develop if the court is being asked, in each case, to make a judgment as to the diminished capacity of the child in question.
Well, I think that having all of these services in one company not only would not be desireable on libertarian grounds but I think it would also be unlikely due to market processes. Even if they were unified though, I think the costs you are talking about aren't the same ones I was talking about, which were the costs of losing a court case (and thus having to pay the other guy's court costs, damages, etc.)
JAlanKatz:I don't think you've explained, so far, what Dr. Long would object to my scheme based on parental rights. Namely, I hold that a child who wishes to exercise rights, and not act as if owned by their parents, needs to move out. So long as they live with their parents, the parents make all such decisions. For the parents to allow the child to have sex, though, would be child abuse.
Roderick argues in that blogpost that this would be to err on the side of treating legally competent children/youths of an older age as if they were not.
I also wonder at what non-arbitrary age parents are legally obligated to let their children move out. Any age? Can a 5 year old run away and parents can't legally do anything to stop it or force him to return to their home? Also, when you say that parents allowing their children to have sex would be child abuse, what age are you thinking about? Is there no age limit so long as the child, even a 45 year old one, lives at home? Does this power of parents over their children only hold while the child is at the parent's home, in which case it is nothing more than regular property rights, or can they tell their 45 year old son who still lives at home that he can't have sex period, not even at a motel he pays for with his own money?
JAlanKatz:As I observed, many libertarians wouldn't like this, since many libertarians live in their parent's basements and are 35.
I think this is probably a great exaggeration.
gplauche:Well, I think that having all of these services in one company not only would not be desireable on libertarian grounds but I think it would also be unlikely due to market processes. Even if they were unified though, I think the costs you are talking about aren't the same ones I was talking about, which were the costs of losing a court case (and thus having to pay the other guy's court costs, damages, etc.)
Then you're right, these aren't the costs I was thinking of. Would this be the case, though, if the PDA presented what amounts to criminal charges? In other words, if the PDA brings you to court saying "he assaulted our client" or whatever, is it necessarily true that there will be an arrangement in which, if you win, the PDA pays your court fees?
gplauche: I also wonder at what non-arbitrary age parents are legally obligated to let their children move out. Any age? Can a 5 year old run away and parents can't legally do anything to stop it or force him to return to their home? Also, when you say that parents allowing their children to have sex would be child abuse, what age are you thinking about? Is there no age limit so long as the child, even a 45 year old one, lives at home? Does this power of parents over their children only hold while the child is at the parent's home, in which case it is nothing more than regular property rights, or can they tell their 45 year old son who still lives at home that he can't have sex period, not even at a motel he pays for with his own money?
I don't see why there has to be any age. If the child can move out and survive on his own, why should the parents have a right to stop him? I think, unless I misunderstood it, that this part is simply Rothbard's argument. As for the child abuse question, I meant so long as the child is not self-supporting.
On the age questions you raise, I acknowledge the difficulty. This is why I added that perhaps the "living at home" part could be rephrased as something like living at home in a parasitic manner and not being self-supporting.
People are capable of making their own decisions. The idea that someone can decide if you are smart enough to consent to sex is the the closest thing to absolute control. As long as it is consensual there is no problem. The whole idea of "statutory" rape repulses me, and how are parents abusing children if they let them have sex. Nobody "lets" people have sex, it is the individuals choice to do so.
At any age that a child can rationally decide to move out he can. The idea of kid and adult is primarily cultural. But the state infringes on peoples rights by declaring people "youths" or "adults" at certain ages. People can think for themselves. But lets face it, most parents usually kick there son or daughter out of the house by 18, or let them stay there till they can function on their own. Parental rights I view as normal but there's a fine line between care and slavery. I would go so far as to say that children are not legally bound to their parents because they did not consent to life. However I think that parents are legally bound to their children for a certain time
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:I think real libertarianism will lead to outcomes that most people would not like to face - at least not openly. Chlidern are interested in sex. And children are self-owners. See where those two premises lead.
I agree
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Juan, if that's where libertarianism led, wouldn't that demonstrate that libertarianism might be flawed?
JAlanKatz, the distinction I tried to make is based on the following classic example: Our right to self-determination almost certainly includes a presumption that if we want to kill ourselves, then that should be our prerogative. No one is justified in requiring that we continue to live if that's not what we want--at least, that's what I take most libertarians' position to be. Further, that same right to self-determination, and our right to bodily integrity, suggests that a person would not be justified in grabbing someone forcefully without permission and preventing them from going about their way.
And yet, if you saw someone walking aimlessly into an intersection as traffic was speeding by, not looking where they were going, you would certainly be justified in grabbing them and saving their life. The idea would be that even though you acknowledged their right to kill themselves if they wanted to, and their right not to be grabbed, you had reason to believe that their choice to enter the road was not based on their desire to be killed, and that you were doing them a favor by grabbing them. You would be operating under the assumption that their choice reflected inadequate knowledge of the full consequences of stepping into the street (as I said, they weren't paying attention), and that if they knew what you did, they would choose differently.
We might further imagine that upon grabbing the individual and warning them not to go out in traffic, you discovered that they were extremely drunk. In their stupor, they claim that they really do want to kill themselves, because they're really mad at the world, and that you should let them go. Now what? On one hand, you can imagine that there's a very good chance that they're just drunk and temporarily stupid; if they were thinking clearly, they wouldn't want to kill themselves, but their impaired reasoning is leading them to a different conclusion. If this were actually true, and it were a fact that the only reason that the person wanted to kill themselves was that they were drunk, would you be justified in continuing to restrain the person, even though they asked you to let them go?
If you say yes (and I do; I think it would be ridiculous to say no if we knew that they only wanted to kill themselves because they were drunk), you have to confront a worrisome possibility. Perhaps this individual really does want to kill themselves, and it isn't just the alcohol talking. If that's the case, then what you're doing seems extremely coercive and paternalistic. As libertarians, we should oppose that sort of thing. But perhaps there's no way to actually tell whether the person is simply drunk and making a stupid decision or whether they really want to kill themselves. So what do you do? To be honest, I don't know what the right answer is. I don't think it's obvious that we should be allowed to restrain the drunk indefinitely, but I also don't think it's obvious that we should be morally obligated to let them go kill themselves.
Hopefully it should be clear how this relates to children having sex. There are a lot of bad things that can come from having sex before you're mature enough to handle it, and the naivity of youth can cloud a child's judgment so that they might not be able to properly think about the choice they're making. But at the same time, if a child isn't making a stupid choice, it does seem unjustly coercive to stop them from having sex. So what do you do? To be honest, I'm not sure; I think it's a tough case. But that's not because libertarianism is incoherent or muddled; it's that there are conflicting values at play, and it's sometimes hard to know what is the right thing to do.
Donny with an A:Hopefully it should be clear how this relates to children having sex. There are a lot of bad things that can come from having sex before you're mature enough to handle it, and the naivity of youth can cloud a child's judgment so that they might not be able to properly think about the choice they're making. But at the same time, if a child isn't making a stupid choice, it does seem unjustly coercive to stop them from having sex. So what do you do? To be honest, I'm not sure; I think it's a tough case. But that's not because libertarianism is incoherent or muddled; it's that there are conflicting values at play, and it's sometimes hard to know what is the right thing to do.
Yes, and I agreed with your earlier claim that this was a difficult question, and that difficult questions exist. My point was saying that it's hard, even if true, isn't enough - we need to go further and try to answer the difficult question, not least because we need some answers to the legal questions. So I agree with the point you've made here, I just don't see what the conclusion should be.
I also made a distinction between hard questions, which can be morally relevant, and questions which are, by description, unanswerable. I still maintain that a question that is set up as being fundamentally unanswerable cannot be morally relevant, or if it is, then morality would be arbitrary and cruel. You've indicated that you might disagree with this point, but your arguments/examples have always been about hard cases, not questions stipulated to be unanswerable.
Danny: Juan, if that's where libertarianism led, wouldn't that demonstrate that libertarianism might be flawed?
I didn't say is flawed. I only meant that I don't think children make the best decisions, and it often might be morally permissible for their parents to stop them from doing as they please. I'd be uncomfortable with a philosophy which claimed that it would always be morally impermissible for parents to stop their children from having sex, no matter the circumstances, if their children wanted to.
The age of consent is when the child knowns and understands what the hell is going on. They could be 12 years old and out screwing around or they might not do anything until they are 16 years old. It doesn't really matter what age they are (and if we want to get biological I would suggest purberty as the starting point) so long as they understand what is happening and consent to it. Obviously a nine year old wouldn't fully understand what is happening but then again a 12 year old might not either. But say a 30 year old man got mixed up with a 15 year old girl. In todays world, I'm sorry to say, 15 year olds seem to know more about sex than I do (and I'm 26). The 15 year old messing about with the 30 year old obviously knew what was happening and consented to it. I personally don't see what the "legal" problem is, though I do find it disturbing morally.
Therefore I would say that puberty and an understanding of just what sex is would constitute the age of consent whatever age that might be (since some develop sooner than others).
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Donny with an A: I didn't say is flawed. I only meant that I don't think children make the best decisions, and it often might be morally permissible for their parents to stop them from doing as they please. I'd be uncomfortable with a philosophy which claimed that it would always be morally impermissible for parents to stop their children from having sex, no matter the circumstances, if their children wanted to.
Your argument logically leads to government paternalism. Parents have no right in restricting a childs use of their physicality beyond the parents denying them the use of their own property, that is, unless a contract is drawn up outlining conditions of conduct for the child and the reprecussions of failing to meet said conditions are clearly stipulated.
banned:Your argument logically leads to government paternalism. Parents have no right in restricting a childs use of their physicality beyond the parents denying them the use of their own property, that is, unless a contract is drawn up outlining conditions of conduct for the child and the reprecussions of failing to meet said conditions are clearly stipulated.
I don't see how it does so. There are a lot of libertarians, including anarcho-capitalists, who believe that parents have responsibilities over and a limited, temporary right to control their children. An explicity signed contract is not necessary. The only way I can see it logically leading to government paternalism are 1) if the state can be legitimate and 2) if the distinction between adults and children is rejected (but I see now reason why children should be treated legally as adults in libertarian theory).
Juan:Well, perhaps people that think that children are to be 'controlled' don't have a complete understanding of what libertarianism entails.
I think you're twisting my meaning there.
gplauche: I don't see how it does so.
I don't see how it does so.
"I only meant that I don't think children make the best decisions, and it often might be morally permissible for their parents to stop them from doing as they please."
Replace parents with government and children with people.
There are a lot of libertarians, including anarcho-capitalists, who believe that parents have responsibilities over and a limited, temporary right to control their children. An explicity signed contract is not necessary. The only way I can see it logically leading to government paternalism are 1) if the state can be legitimate and 2) if the distinction between adults and children is rejected (but I see now reason why children should be treated legally as adults in libertarian theory).
Government is only illigitimate because it is not voluntary. If a parent child relationship is not voluntary, yet the child is prohibited in terminating it based on some preconcieved notion of morality, that is just as illigitimate.
Once a child can challenge the authority of their parents the parent can no longer impose decisions upon the child coercively (that is, non voluntarily).
It is not within a parents right to force an exceptionally developed two year old who has the self determination to become a prostitute not to do so. However the parent does have the right to sanction the childs use of the parents property, that is the only just way of dicipline, otherwise the parent has essentially violated the non-agression principle.
gplauche: I think you're twisting my meaning there.
Banned, I think it depends what you mean by "government paternalism." If you mean that the individuals who are employed by the government have the same rights as everyone else, and that means that it's permissible to intervene to save someone from making a catastrophic mistake due to apparently faulty reasoning, then sure, I can agree to that. Of course, saying that it's okay to grab someone from in front of a passing bus would justify government paternalism in exactly the same way: government officials would be every bit as justified in doing it as you or I.
But I don't think that's what you mean by government paternalism. I think that what you, and Juan, have in mind is that if we agree that it could in principle be justifiable to intervene in certain situations, then people will inevitably intervene in the wrong situations, with the end result that the government will enact some sort of coercive blanket policy which will end up restricting many individuals' freedom in the name of protecting some people from themselves. To that suggestion, I'll only say that I have repeatedly stated that my position is not that people are necessarily justified in intervening, because I recognize the difficulty in determining whether or not intervention is justified, and given my hesitation to support government measures to solve personal problems (the state is, after all, a blunt instrument, even when intentions are perfect), I most certainly am not advocating that the state adopt any prohibitionist policies of any sort. And I assure you that I can hold that position without being inconsistent in anything that I've said previously.
All I said was that sometimes children make bad decisions and cannot be made to understand why having sex would be catastrophic for them. That doesn't mean that we can identify those instances. It only means that it happens. Hopefully that isn't disputed, because I'd be more than happy to resort to a "If you think that, then you don't have enough experience with children, because you're objectively wrong" stance. If we were to correctly identify such a situation, and we could not stop the child from making a catastrophic decision except through coercion, then I said that it's not obvious that using coercion would be impermissible. I didn't say that it would be permissible. I only said that an argument could be made to that effect, and that it wouldn't be obviously inconsistent with any libertarian view.
Juan, I'm well aware that you don't think much of my approach to libertarian philosophy, but I beseech you to stop with this "You're wrong and evil" attitude that you take towards people who don't agree with you. It's not acceptable within the realm of academic discussion or friendly interaction, and it's completely ineffective at convincing people of your views. If you open your mind up to new ideas, you might just learn something new.
Juan: A "temporary right to conrtol" sounds not that open to interpretation...
What do you think I meant by it? The right to make them do just anything the parents want? To treat them likes slaves or oppress them in a totalitarian environment? No. The purpose is to educate them to be competent adults. Parents are like custodians or trustees.
Donny with an A: Of course, saying that it's okay to grab someone from in front of a passing bus would justify government paternalism in exactly the same way: government officials would be every bit as justified in doing it as you or I.
Of course, saying that it's okay to grab someone from in front of a passing bus would justify government paternalism in exactly the same way: government officials would be every bit as justified in doing it as you or I.
No, because if someone stumbles in front of a bus that isn't a concious decision. If someone is standing in front of a bus deliberately trying to end their life, It would only be logical to move them in order to prevent damage to the bus. However if you know both parties (the bus owner and the individual standing in front of the bus) have consented to the action of the bus killing the person, you cannot legitimately stop either party, for it would require you to be the initiator of force.
gplauche: The purpose is to educate them to be competent adults. Parents are like custodians or trustees.
The purpose is to educate them to be competent adults. Parents are like custodians or trustees.
That's how the american school system justifies itself. "Dont worry, we're teaching our youth to be healthy yound individuals". Hah.