John James: hehe. Believe me. You'll never know. We'll both see what happens. But you'll never make a connection.
Is this going to be a lesson in why I should be an an-cap? Because if I'm not you'll kill me?
Because frankly I find that reason more motivating than Liberty Student's.
You should threaten to kill more people, I think you'll get more converts. It's easier to understand than all the moralism.
If I convert to anarcho-capitalism are you still going to kill me? Because if you are then it doesn't really matter what philosophy I choose does it?
bloomj31: John James: hehe. Believe me. You'll never know. We'll both see what happens. But you'll never make a connection. Is this going to be a lesson in why I should be an an-cap? Because if I'm not you'll kill me? Because frankly I find that reason more motivating than Liberty Student's. You should threaten to kill more people, I think you'll get more converts. It's easier to understand than all the moralism.
That's what you jump to? Murder? I mean, maybe you should be a little paranoid, but murder? It couldn't be steal your parking space, or, get you ticketed, or "sneeze on your food", or put a banana in your tailpipe...
Murder?
Maybe you should find some other philosophy if for no other reason than to chill your nerves.
Hmm seemed like you were threatening to kill me. But I also haven't slept in a day or so.
Anyways I'm going to sleep now for real this time. I'm exhausted. If John James doesn't kill me tomorrow, I'll be back to answer responses.
bloomj31: In all actuality I probably won't personally chase them. But other people will. And I will support them in that endeavor. It's inevitable that I do this because I have a tendency to show deference to authority. I don't really understand it but it happens nonetheless. That's good enough for me. It is all relative and yet some people think it's not. But that's no more their choice than it is mi choice to see things as relative. My brain hasn't been presented with enough evidence to conclude morals are objective. If it had then I would've come to a different conclusion and I'd probably profess to a belief in objective morals. And it's not that I don't have moral feelings, it's that I can't understand how they could possibly contain some sort of objective truth. Because I just don't. Can't really explain it. Just feels wrong. Not sure why. Really has nothing to do with my rational mind. But I still don't know if rape really is objectively wrong. My brain tells me what to think and do and that's what I do and think. I can't ignore my brain because I am my brain and my brain is me. It doesn't just have the right, it's literally the source of action. Without a brain man cannot act. I don't really know why their brains told them to rape but it's evident that they did. It's impossible for people to not care what their brain thinks, the thing they perceive as "them" is also a manifestation of their brain. Mind and body are not separate entities. Because that's just what happens. That's the outcome our brains choose. It doesn't require a moral justification. It's probably an evolved psychological mechanism that increased the genetic survival of the entities that held those particular genes in our ancestral environment combined with the cultural belief that rape is wrong. Why is rape always wrong? I have no idea. But I've been told my whole life that it is. So they rape, we chase them. Simple as that. No philosophy required.
In all actuality I probably won't personally chase them. But other people will. And I will support them in that endeavor. It's inevitable that I do this because I have a tendency to show deference to authority. I don't really understand it but it happens nonetheless. That's good enough for me.
It is all relative and yet some people think it's not. But that's no more their choice than it is mi choice to see things as relative. My brain hasn't been presented with enough evidence to conclude morals are objective. If it had then I would've come to a different conclusion and I'd probably profess to a belief in objective morals. And it's not that I don't have moral feelings, it's that I can't understand how they could possibly contain some sort of objective truth.
Because I just don't. Can't really explain it. Just feels wrong. Not sure why. Really has nothing to do with my rational mind. But I still don't know if rape really is objectively wrong. My brain tells me what to think and do and that's what I do and think. I can't ignore my brain because I am my brain and my brain is me.
It doesn't just have the right, it's literally the source of action. Without a brain man cannot act. I don't really know why their brains told them to rape but it's evident that they did. It's impossible for people to not care what their brain thinks, the thing they perceive as "them" is also a manifestation of their brain. Mind and body are not separate entities.
Because that's just what happens. That's the outcome our brains choose. It doesn't require a moral justification. It's probably an evolved psychological mechanism that increased the genetic survival of the entities that held those particular genes in our ancestral environment combined with the cultural belief that rape is wrong. Why is rape always wrong? I have no idea. But I've been told my whole life that it is. So they rape, we chase them. Simple as that.
No philosophy required.
What makes you think other people will chase them? What makes you feel you'll endorse them? Why won't you choose to not endorse them? Why won't you choose to endorse the rapist? Why is that good enough for you?
What makes you think your brain needs objective evidence? What makes you think your brain is capable of accepting any evidence at all? What makes you think your feelings are moral? What makes you think human behavior is objective reality? What makes you think your perception of human behavior is objective reality?
If you are your brain and your brain is you, why do you think it tells you what to do? Why can't you ignore yourself? Are you an objective reality? If you are, why can't I see you? How can I observe you? I can't observe the 'me' in the body that's next to me right now. How can I know that it acts?
Why do you think it's the source of action? Why can't you act without a brain? Why is it evident that their brain told them to rape? What is the mind? What is the body? Why aren't they separate? Can't they be separate?
Why does the brain choose? What is a moral justification? Why do you care what they told you your whole life? Why do you say you will chase them? What is philosophy?
Excel: What makes you think other people will chase them? What makes you feel you'll endorse them?
I think the science of memory and cognition which I'm still learning about, can help us to understand the answers to these sorts of questions. Many of my brain's estimates (what makes you think other people will chase them?) seem to be derived from past experience of the world as it has been in my life. Memory, to my knowledge, is not something that's not passed on genetically. I've always known the police to chase rapists therefore my brain tells me I can reasonably assume that they will continue to do so. When my brain encounters a new situation, it attempts to compare that new situation to old situations in memory to try and determine what this new situation will likely be like. We measure what we know against what we're being presented. Why (in an evolutionary sense) we have this ability and whether or not it's an evolved adaptation to the ancestral environment I don't know. Many other animals besides humans have demonstrated the ability to remember things.
My "moral compass" so to speak would seem to serve an evolutionary function. Individuals who carried the genes that would allow them to make these sorts of relations between themselves and others were more likely to reproduce than those who lacked it. In the modern world we see that most people exhibit empathy (link 2) (except for psychopaths, but that seem to be due to an abnormal brain structure)
Excel: Why won't you choose to not endorse them? Why won't you choose to endorse the rapist?
That's an interesting question. Why am I more likely to support state authority than the authority of the rapist? To be honest I don't really know the whole answer as to why we tend to grant legitimacy to one authority over another just yet. It might have something to do with how our brain links us to the potential authority. My brain doesn't know that the cops aren't biologically related to me anymore than my brain knows that fatty and sugary foods are no longer in short supply. But maybe it assumes that they might be because of their status of "protector" which would've been a strong indicator of biological similarity in the evolutionary environment. This is just a hypothesis though I'm still trying to figure this one out.
Excel: Why is that good enough for you?
Why wouldn't it be?
Excel: What makes you think your brain needs objective evidence? What makes you think your brain is capable of accepting any evidence at all?
This is a weird way to think about how the brain evaluates external and internal stimuli. Check out the links on memory and cognition.
Excel: What makes you think your feelings are moral?
Because I experience them as moral feelings. Are you asking me how can I be sure that these sentiments are being generated by the part of brain designed to enable empathy?
Excel: What makes you think human behavior is objective reality? What makes you think your perception of human behavior is objective reality?
Another interesting question. The best answer I can give is because that's the information my brain has been given and because that's what my brain has evolved to be able to do: take external information and provide quick evaluations of it. I perceive the physical world as reality because of a complex feedback loop in the brain. My perception of human behavior and reality and further deconstruction of it is a universal human trait.
Excel: If you are your brain and your brain is you, why do you think it tells you what to do?
What else would be telling me what to do? Do you think decisions are being made outside the body?
Excel: Why can't you ignore yourself?
Why can't you tell your stomach to stop digesting food? Why can't you consciously will your eyes to stop creating images in the brain?
Many of our brain's functions aren't under our conscious control. Most humans are capable of reasoning and introspection but those seem to be functions of the frontal lobe in the brain. Here's an interesting study I found on how deductive and probabilistic reasoning might work in the brain.
Excel: Are you an objective reality? If you are, why can't I see you? How can I observe you?
I have a physical property yes. You can't see my body because your sense of sight was never developed to be able to perceive things at such distances. You cannot observe me, you can observe the language I use on a forum.
Excel: I can't observe the 'me' in the body that's next to me right now. How can I know that it acts?
You can't know for certain. But your brain deals well in probabilistic scenarios. The thing sitting next to you shares the characteristics of other things that have been observed to act in the past. Your empathetic powers tell you that if this thing is similar to you it therefore must have motives just as you do. But then it could be a lifelike replica of a man and your brain could be fooled.
Excel: Why do you think it's the source of action? Why can't you act without a brain?
Because there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is. Has a man with no brain ever been observed to act?
Excel: Why is it evident that their brain told them to rape? What is the mind? What is the body? Why aren't they separate? Can't they be separate?
What else could've told them to rape? The "mind" is a complex neurological framework that is generated by several parts of the brain working together. There is no real meaningful biological distinction between "body" and "mind." The brain is an organ just like every other organ in the body. How could they be separate?
Excel: Why does the brain choose?
Because that is its evolved function in animals. I would recommend Chapter 4: The Gene Machine in the Selfish Gene to understand why brains exist and why they were evolved to make quick choices.
Excel: What is a moral justification?
A moral justification involves a complex set of ideas. A moral relates to the principle of right and wrong in human behavior. A justification is a reason, fact or explanation that defends an action or behavior.
Excel: Why do you care what they told you your whole life?
Because that input is all my brain has to go on. I cannot work with information I do not yet have.
Excel: Why do you say you will chase them?
Because I think, given what I know, that that is the most likely outcome.
Excel: What is philosophy?
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, it usually uses reasoning and rational argument as its methodology for the analyzation of said problems.
Wow!! I just wrote out a really long response with extensive citations and everything and I think the forum ate it.
That's ridiculous what is going on with this forum??
That shit took me like an hour to compose. Unreal.
I'm sorry Excel I will try again later when I'm less frustrated.
bloomj31: Wow!! I just wrote out a really long response with extensive citations and everything and I think the forum ate it. That's ridiculous what is going on with this forum?? That shit took me like an hour to compose. Unreal. I'm sorry Excel I will try again later when I'm less frustrated. Don't worry, it came out fine. | Post Points: 5
All these concepts sound kinda like the popular conception of buddhism, as I understand it. (Which is mostly from speeches on buddhism and hinduism by Alan Watts.)
Legal pedophilia is a logical consequence of the non-aggression principle. The more you argue otherwise, the more you contradict yourself. Adios!
mustang19:Legal pedophilia is a logical consequence of the non-aggression principle. The more you argue otherwise, the more you contradict yourself. Adios!
Not true in the slightest. A minor cannot consent for themselves, and thus one could not ethically engage in sex with a minor even in an NAP-based society. Libertarians do not suggest that children have capacity to consent no matter what, that would be silly.
Almost as silly as a troll thinking nonsense like that in this forum is going to envoke the outrage he would prefer to see.
Not true in the slightest. A minor cannot consent for themselves, and thus one could not ethically engage in sex with a minor even in an NAP-based society.
Who determines who can and can't consent? Whatever way you cut it, it's paternalism.
I love how libertarians support that when it comes to concrete, everyday things like age of consent or private nuclear weapon ownership but shut down when it comes to financial/environmental regulation stuff they don't understand.
Anenome: Not true in the slightest. A minor cannot consent for themselves, and thus one could not ethically engage in sex with a minor even in an NAP-based society. Libertarians do not suggest that children have capacity to consent no matter what, that would be silly.
The age of consent is not derived from the NAP. Historically, the age of consent in common law and customary law societies has actually been quite low, around 12 years old. Only within the last 150 years has it risen to the various ages we have today, typically between 16 and 18 years of age. The age of consent has risen directly with the rise of statutory law as the dominant form of law (in fact it is has risen because of specific statutory laws).
Also, Rothbard considered children adults once they demonstrated that they were adults. His example was when a child runs away from home. So, I cannot say whether or not I agree with what you said as I do not know what you consider to be a minor, and it is possible that everything I wrote completely lines up with what you said.
One last thing, troll19's remark about pedophilia misses a very important point: children who are prepubescent do not have interests in sexual relationships. A five year old is not going to consent to a sexual relationship with anyone, because a five year old child does not have any interest in a sexual relationship.
A five year old is not going to consent to a sexual relationship with anyone, because a five year old child does not have any interest in a sexual relationship.
I hope not.
mustang19:Who determines who can and can't consent? Whatever way you cut it, it's paternalism.
Not necessarily; there may be objective measures of ability to consent that we can appeal to, without relying on whim or a rule like a strict age limit. Let's take Gotlucky's post as a jumping off point:
gotlucky:The age of consent is not derived from the NAP.
True enough.
mustang19:Rothbard considered children adults once they demonstrated that they were adults. His example was when a child runs away from home. So, I cannot say whether or not I agree with what you said as I do not know what you consider to be a minor, and it is possible that everything I wrote completely lines up with what you said.
We do in fact agree. I used the term 'minor' without qualifying that I consider the application of that term would be decided in a different manner in an autarchic republic than what most states do these days.
In another thread, I've suggested three potential rubrics for determining whether someone should be considered an adult with full power over themselves or not:
First is passage into puberty, second is demonstration that one can care for themselves by complete financial self-support, third is sufficient maturity to have the ability to understand the consequences of consent. Any one of these alone or in combination could be sufficient. I think there could be some kind of family ritual in a sense, where the parent gives a child complete control over their life--you are now an adult, type of thing. And also the idea that a kid could sue to remove his parents' right to make decisions for them should they feel themselves mismanaged.
I think we've tended to use the 'age 18' rubric because it applies quite broadly. Some kids may be able to take care of themselves by 13, some much later.
Rather than say any of those is definitive, I would leave it up to individual jurisdictions to decide what rubric they want to use and let the competition of ideas bear fruit. In a voluntaryist society, that sort of flexibility is primary. The whole point is not to force another's way of life on other people.
Gotlucky: Historically, the age of consent in common law and customary law societies has actually been quite low, around 12 years old. Only within the last 150 years has it risen to the various ages we have today, typically between 16 and 18 years of age.
Out of curiosity, what source are you using (I'm not saying I disagree, just wondering)? I've been reading this. Apparently the legal age of consent dropped to as low as 10 in 13th century England and Colonial America.
Also, have you found evidence that these laws ever simultaneously proscribed marriage at any age and/or ever proscribed sex between a married couple even if the woman was very young? I haven't yet.
Anenome: The whole point is not to force another's way of life on other people.
You don't think there will ever be a market for services like bringing back runaway children? Do you think parents might have a biological reason for wanting to control their children, particularly their reproductive capacity?
I don't remember where I first read about the age of consent used to be lower. Jews considered 13 to be the age of majority. I remember hearing that one of Mohammed's wives was 9 years old (or some age close). And then Romeo and Juliet were supposed to be quite young too. Wikipedia's article on it is pretty good, and it has links to all sorts of other pertinent information.
Not necessarily; there may be objective measures of ability to consent that we can appeal to, without relying on whim or a rule like a strict age limit.
Outlawing a consensual interaction between two people because some moral authority doesn't consider one party's consent to "count" is, by most definitions, paternalism.
But I'm glad you guys don't actually follow the NAP.
What, everyone has to be an anarchist now or else they're dumbasses?
troll19: Outlawing a consensual interaction between two people because some moral authority doesn't consider one party's consent to "count" is, by most definitions, paternalism.
No. If a man rape's a woman at knifepoint, and says that he'll kill her if she doesn't "consent", I would think most (reasonable) people would say that the woman's "consent" doesn't count. Or if someone is wasted or high and they "consent" to some contract, I would imagine most people would say the "consent" doesn't count.
Or take a 5 year old prepubescent child that has no interest in sexual relationships (that's kind of the nature of being prepubescent). 5 year olds do not consent to sex. Why? Because they do not have interest in sex. For a five year old to be engaging in sex with an adult, that adult would have had to have coerced the child into having sex.
Furthermore, you do not seem to understand the libertarian viewpoint of the nature of the child/parent relationship. The parent is a guardian of the child. Until the child demonstrates that he is an adult, the parent fulfills the role of protecting the child's rights.
troll19: But I'm glad you guys don't actually follow the NAP.
Who here is arguing that we shouldn't follow the NAP other than you?
What causes someone to have an interest in sex? Is it a rational choice or the product of the interplay between the environment and biological programming?
Gotlucky: Or if someone is wasted or high and they "consent" to some contract, I would imagine most people would say the "consent" doesn't count.
Why wouldn't it count? Are we assuming impaired function of the brain? If so, what types of brain function were being impaired at the time?
No. If a man rape's a woman at knifepoint, and says that he'll kill her if she doesn't "consent", I would think most (reasonable) people would say that the woman's "consent" doesn't count.
Maybe, but the threat is a crime.
Or if someone is wasted or high and they "consent" to some contract, I would imagine most people would say the "consent" doesn't count.
Again, paternalism!
Why? Because they do not have interest in sex.
People have sex for all kinds of reasons besides interest. Pedo prostitution?
Furthermore, you do not seem to understand the libertarian viewpoint of the nature of the child/parent relationship. Who here is arguing that we shouldn't follow the NAP other than you?
You, although you're denying it.
bloomj31: What causes someone to have an interest in sex? Is it a rational choice or the product of the interplay between the environment and biological programming?
Do you know what puberty or sexual maturity are?
bloomj31: Why wouldn't it count? Are we assuming impaired function of the brain? If so, what types of brain function were being impaired at the time?
To answer this, I would have to go into the nature of law, norms, and disputes. Things that you repeatedly don't wish to discuss with me.
He was asking you a question, smartypants.
troll19: Maybe, but the threat is a crime.
So what? The point is that we don't consider the "consent" to count.
troll19: Again, paternalism!
Not really. It has to do with the nature of law, norms, and disputes.
troll19: People have sex for all kinds of reasons besides interest. Pedo prostitution?
Five year olds prostitute themselves? The youngest I've ever heard of is 8 year olds in Southeast Asia. Guess what? Puberty has hit people as low as 8.
troll19: You, although you're denying it.
Provide an example of where I have said we shouldn't follow the NAP. The only person here that I have noticed who finds fault with the NAP but who is still anti-state is Clayton.
...
Whatever, pretend like "Aggression is inherently illegitimate" means "Aggression is inherently illegitimate except when we're arresting people I don't like."
troll19: He was asking you a question, smartypants.
Go away, troll.
troll19: Whatever, pretend like "Aggression is inherently illegitimate" means "Aggression is inherently illegitimate except when we're arresting people I don't like."
That's not an example of something I've said. I'm reporting you for intentional trolling. Again.
You didn't say you think pedos should be arrested? Because I'm pretty sure that was your point.
"Aggression is inherently illegit" does not mean "Aggression is inherently illegit except when it involves arresting people who make contracts with other people who I don't think can consent to these contracts."
I'm saying I don't see how 5 year olds are going to consent to sex with adults. I'm saying that when a 30 year old man is having sex with a 5 year old, that he has aggressed against the 5 year old.
Now, maybe the case could be made that in the case of pedo prostitution, that the 5 year old consented. But I would like you to provide some evidence that this is something that happens. As far as I am aware, child prostitues are typically around 10-12. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
Gotlucky: Do you know what puberty or sexual maturity are?
Yes. Do you?
I know you're not arguing for any particular age for consent, I'm just wondering why an interest in sex would be a relevant criteria for determing the age of consent when an interest in sex could happen as early as nine of ten years old (but usually around 12-13) and doesn't seem to have any necessary link to overall brain development.
EDIT: This isn't even mentioning how different our world is from the world in which we evolved. Our stone age brains are being asked to analyze consequences that we can't really comprehend without some kind of external input and at the age of 10 our brains aren't even done developing, particularly in the areas responsible for decision making and rationality.
Gotlucky: To answer this, I would have to go into the nature of law, norms, and disputes. Things that you repeatedly don't wish to discuss with me.
This is a scientific question. What effects does alcohol use, for instance, have on the brain of the user? What sort of brain and body functions does alcohol use impair?
Why might we think that those effects could cause someone to do something or say something or agree to something they might not ordinarly do, say or agree to?
Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
Does the answer matter? I'm not an expert on pedos.
Anyway, if you're immune to facts and logic I can't help you. Just be nice to Bloom.
bloomj31: Yes. Do you? I know you're not arguing for any particular age, I'm just wondering why an interest in sex would be a relevant criteria for determing the age of consent when an interest in sex could happen as early as nine of ten years old and doesn't seem to have any necessary link to overall brain development or the ability of someone to analyze a decision rationally?
I know you're not arguing for any particular age, I'm just wondering why an interest in sex would be a relevant criteria for determing the age of consent when an interest in sex could happen as early as nine of ten years old and doesn't seem to have any necessary link to overall brain development or the ability of someone to analyze a decision rationally?
Puberty is biological. There is a reason I asked if you knew what sexual maturity is. Sexual maturity is often linked with adulthood in animals except for humans. Why do some people make extra distinctions regarding people? Because some people start talking about morality. But guess what? For most of human history, if you were sexually mature, you were an adult. So, an interest in sex is a very relevant criterion regarding sexual consent.
bloomj31: This is a scientific question. What effects does alcohol use, for instance, have on the brain of the user? What sort of brain and body functions does alcohol use impair? Why might we think that those effects could cause someone to do something or say something or agree to something they might not ordinarly do, say or agree to?
No. Whether or not a person's consent is considered lawful is in the realm of law, norms, and disputes. If it is a norm that someone who is drunk cannot legally consent to the sale of their house, then if said person contests the legality of the contract regarding the sale of his house, he would have norms and law on his side. If it is a norm that someone who is drunk can consent to have sexual relations with someone else, then if said person tries to argue that he/she was raped because he/she was drunk, the norm/law would not be on his/her side.
Sure, it can seem like it's a double standard regarding the same actions. But like I said, it is a question of law, norms, and disputes. Science is irrelevant to the question.
EDIT: I should say that biology is irrelevant to the question. One could talk about the science of law.
troll19: Does the answer matter? I'm not an expert on pedos. Anyway, if you're immune to facts and logic I can't help you. Just be nice to Bloom.
Well, I've already said that there might be a logical case, but I'm waiting for you to provide the facts regarding your case. Since you don't seem to be interested, it is you who is immune to facts and logic. Reported again.
What are you even asking me to prove? That there aren't any child prostitutes below X age?
Gotlucky: Because some people start talking about morality.
I'm not just talking about morality. I'm talking about using the science of the brain to understand why sexual maturity is no standard for consent in the modern world. It may have made sense in 1250 England or whatever to place the age of consent at sexual maturity but they had nowhere near the information we have now about how the brain works. Hell they probably didn't even think the brain had anything to do with human action.
Gotlucky: But guess what? For most of human history, if you were sexually mature, you were an adult. So, an interest in sex is a very relevant criterion regarding sexual consent.
Not anymore it's not. We're living in a time where these sorts of problems can be examined from a scientific point of view not just a philosophical one. It makes absolutely no sense to assume that just because someone can reproduce that they would understand the potential risks involved in sexual activity. People are pre-programmed to enjoy sex and to be able to reproduce, we're not pre-programmed to understand the socioeconomic complications of childrearing in the 21st century, to understand how contraception works, to understand the multitude of diseases that can be contracted from unprotected sex, to understand the potential social implications of being sexual at an early age etc.
Gotlucky: Sure, it can seem like it's a double standard regarding the same actions. But like I said, it is a question of law, norms, and disputes. Science is irrelevant to the question.
I guess in theory you're right. We don't necessarily have to have some common standard for consensual acts. It could vary from area to area. But if we are going to try to find some common standard for the ability to consent, I think we should look at the organ that actually does the consenting and how it responds to various stimuli including drugs and stress and how underdeveloped brains work differently from fully developed brains.
EDIT: In a way this highlights the reason for my discomfort with leaving these sorts of problems to a market process. God only knows what the market would decide.
bloomj31: I'm not just talking about morality. I'm talking about using the science of the brain to understand why sexual maturity is no standard for consent in the modern world. It may have made sense in 1250 England or whatever to place the age of consent at sexual maturity but they had nowhere near the information we have now about how the brain works. Hell they probably didn't even think the brain had anything to do with human action.
Firstly, the age of consent was low even in America, not just 1250 England. From wikipedia on age of consent:
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10–12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895.[6] Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raised the age of consent to 16–18 by 1920.
So let's be perfectly clear that I am not asking for us to return to the middle ages.
Secondly, any standard you (or anyone) comes up with is arbitrary. Any biological standard is arbitrary. Any moral standard is arbitrary. So you cannot appeal to biology in order to inform us when someone is an adult. I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but did you know that the human brain does not fully mature until about age 25? So, why don't we just use that as the standard for adulthood? Why don't we just say that when your brain is fully matured, that is when you are considered an adult?
Look, the standard for all animals to be considered an adult was sexual maturity. For most of human history it has been that way. Rothbard proposed a different standard. His standard was when a child asserts that he is an adult, he is an adult. One example he provided was when a child runs away from home. Maybe there are problems with his standard, and maybe it's a perfect standard. But biology is not able to make a standard. It is out of the realm of biology.
bloomj31: Not anymore it's not. We're living in a time where these sorts of problems can be examined from a scientific point of view not just a philosophical one. It makes absolutely no sense to assume that just because someone can reproduce that they would understand the potential risks involved in sexual activity. People are pre-programmed to enjoy sex and to be able to reproduce, we're not pre-programmed to understand the socioeconomic complications of childrearing in the 21st century, to understand how contraception works, to understand the multitude of diseases that can be contracted from unprotected sex, to understand the potential social implications of being sexual at an early age etc.
No. What you are saying makes no sense. Just because someone cannot understand the possible consequences is no reason to assert that that person cannot engage in a certain activity. No person can ever know all the possible consequences of any given action. It looks like you are not even talking about pedophilia anymore, and that you are just talking about age of consent in general. So, let's say we make it illegal for 12 year olds to have sex with each other (okay, it's illegal already, but I'm talking about for the sake of argument). Okay, so now it's illegal. But what is the logical conclusion of making something illegal? Death. If somebody breaks the law and refuses to submit to the state, the punishment is death by cop. So, are you really going to say that 12 year olds should not have sex with each other on pain of death? For their own good? Because they aren't aware of the possible consequences, of which death is one? I mean, really? How fucked up is that?
bloomj31: I guess in theory you're right. We don't necessarily have to have some common standard for consensual acts. It could vary from area to area. But if we are going to try to find some common standard for the ability to consent, I think we should look at the organ that actually does the consenting and how it responds to various stimuli including drugs and stress and how underdeveloped brains work differently from fully developed brains.
Well, like I said, legal consent is in the realm of law, norms, and disputes. Someone might use biology in order to make a case that they were not able to give consent, but in the end, legal consent has to do with law and norms, and there may be some double standards as a result, but people would still know the framework under which they are working.
bloomj31: EDIT: In a way this highlights the reason for my discomfort with leaving these sorts of problems to a market process. God only knows what the market would decide.
Well this is kind of a pointless statement, as I can say the same about statutory law. People could be put to death as a result of consensual sex in a statutory system. It happens in some Middle Eastern countries already, but theoretically it could happen in America too. The government could just pass a statute saying that 12 year olds cannot have sex with each other on pain of death, or it could just pass a law saying that 12 year olds cannot have sex with each other, and then there is the logical consequence of death if any of the 12 year olds resist arrest. Wonderful. What a pointless statement for you to have made.
Gotlucky: Secondly, any standard you (or anyone) comes up with is arbitrary. Any biological standard is arbitrary. Any moral standard is arbitrary.
I have no problem with an arbitrary standard as long as it convinces the majority and basically serves the ends which I want it to serve which is, among other things, to deter people of a certain age from having sex with other people before they reach a certain age. Whichever argument proves to be the most compelling to people will be the one I will use. If it's a moral argument, I'll phrase it as a moral argument, if it's a biological argument I'll phrase it as a biological argument. As long as a majority of the populace is willing to accept it, and a majority of the representatives of a state are willing to vote for it, it can be made law and that's what I care about.
Perhaps phrasing it as a biological argument will not prove convincing to people but I actually find it to be the most compelling because it's based in fact and then combined with moral judgment rather than just moral judgment.
Gotlucky: I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but did you know that the human brain does not fully mature until about age 25? So, why don't we just use that as the standard for adulthood? Why don't we just say that when your brain is fully matured, that is when you are considered an adult?
Yes I did know that. To me that is a good standard for adulthood but it obviously poses practical problems and would probably be seen as many people as being too extreme. It would never be broadly accepted so there's no use advocating it. I can accept a softened version.
In reality most statutory rape laws don't just have consent ages, they also have age variance considerations. So the minimum age of consent could be 12 with a maximum variance of 3. Meaning a 15 year old could have sex with a 12 year old, but a 20 year old couldn't. It's arbitrary but it's closer to my ideal than just setting it at 12 with no maximum age variance.
Gotlucky: Look, the standard for all animals to be considered an adult was sexual maturity. For most of human history it has been that way. Rothbard proposed a different standard. His standard was when a child asserts that he is an adult, he is an adult. One example he provided was when a child runs away from home.
I don't really care what the standard has been throughout human history, it makes no sense now.
I can't imagine parents being ok with letting their kids go just because they've run away either. I know I sure as hell wouldn't.
Gotlucky: Just because someone cannot understand the possible consequences is no reason to assert that that person cannot engage in a certain activity. No person can ever know all the possible consequences of any given action.
Sure it is. Especially if it's widely understood that they have no idea what they're doing. Even more so when there's a welfare state that promises to fund poor mothers and things like this. Their bad decisions can become a liability to me. That means I have an interest in regulating their behavior. Things might work differently in a free society but I don't live in a free society.
Gotlucky: But what is the logical conclusion of making something illegal? Death. If somebody breaks the law and refuses to submit to the state, the punishment is death by cop.
The statutory punishment doesn't have to be death. It could be any number of punishments. Death by cop is a possibility during any arrest.
Gotlucky: So, are you really going to say that 12 year olds should not have sex with each other on pain of death? For their own good? Because they aren't aware of the possible consequences, of which death is one? I mean, really? How fucked up is that?
I wouldn't want the variance to be 0. I'd want it to be no more than 4 though. I see that as being no more fucked up than letting a 20 year old man fuck a 12 year old girl.
Gotlucky: Someone might use biology in order to make a case that they were not able to give consent, but in the end, legal consent has to do with law and norms, and there may be some double standards as a result, but people would still know the framework under which they are working.
Well in my society there's a political element to this as well. Legal consent is a matter of law but law is not just a matter of what two people agree to in my society.
Gotlucky: Well this is kind of a pointless statement, as I can say the same about statutory law. People could be put to death as a result of consensual sex in a statutory system.
It's possible but it seems unlikely given what I know about the political values in this country. I have literally no way of knowing what a market process would generate.
bloomj31: I have no problem with an arbitrary standard as long as it convinces the majority and basically serves the ends which I want it to serve which is, among other things, to deter people of a certain age from having sex with other people before they reach a certain age. Whichever argument proves to be the most compelling to people will be the one I will use. If it's a moral argument, I'll phrase it as a moral argument, if it's a biological argument I'll phrase it as a biological argument. As long as a majority of the populace is willing to accept it, and a majority of the representatives of a state are willing to vote for it, it can be made law and that's what I care about. Perhaps phrasing it as a biological argument will not prove convincing to people but I actually find it to be the most compelling because it's based in fact and then combined with moral judgment rather than just moral judgment.
Oh God, not this bullshit again. Customary law is the only form of law that reflects the will of the majority all the time. By definition. Statutory law at best is superflous or it does not reflect the will of the majority. Please do not continue with this bullshit that you want the will of the majority to become law.
bloomj31: Yes I did know that. To me that is a good standard for adulthood but it obviously poses practical problems and would probably be seen as many people as being too extreme. It would never be broadly accepted so there's no use advocating it. I can accept a softened version.
I just want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that people can not consent to sex until age 25 in your opinion?
bloomj31: In reality most statutory rape laws don't just have consent ages, they also have age variance considerations. So the minimum age of consent could be 12 with a maximum variance of 3. Meaning a 15 year old could have sex with a 12 year old, but a 20 year old couldn't. It's arbitrary but it's closer to my ideal than just setting it at 12 with no maximum age variance.
I am aware of age variances, but I have never heard of the variance that wide regarding 12 year olds. I have seen articles or heard on the radio of kids who are within 1 year apart getting screwed by the state.
bloomj31: I don't really care what the standard has been throughout human history, it makes no sense now. I can't imagine parents being ok with letting their kids go just because they've run away either. I know I sure as hell wouldn't.
Well the point of running away is that the kid doesn't want to be with the parents. It's not really about the parents.
bloomj31: Sure it is. Especially if it's widely understood that they have no idea what they're doing. Even more so when there's a welfare state that promises to fund poor mothers and things like this. Their bad decisions can become a liability to me. That means I have an interest in regulating their behavior. Things might work differently in a free society but I don't live in a free society.
No. It is not a consistent reason. No one can percieve all possible consequences of any action, sex or whatever.
bloomj31: The statutory punishment doesn't have to be death. It could be any number of punishments. Death by cop is a possibility during any arrest.
I know the statutory punishment doesn't have to be death. That was not my point. My point was the logical punishment for not obeying a statute is death, unless you are willing to accept the punishment.
bloomj31: I wouldn't want the variance to be 0. I'd want it to be no more than 4 though. I see that as being no more fucked up than letting a 20 year old man fuck a 12 year old girl.
Okay. Obviously moral standards have changed throughout the centuries. But I thought you stayed away from morals. Unless it has to do with God. Who you have no idea what he thinks. Confusing.
bloomj31: Well in my society there's a political element to this as well. Legal consent is a matter of law but law is not just a matter of what two people agree to in my society.
Okay. Two people agreeing is not law in any society except for the 2 person society. What's your point?
bloomj31: It's possible but it seems unlikely given what I know about the political values in this country. I have literally no way of knowing what a market process would generate.
What's unlikely? That two 12 year olds who have had consensual sex might resist arrest and get murdered by the police? Maybe. Not that many 12 year olds have sex relative to the population anyway.