Len: What makes it non-circular is that nobody is defining "children" by an age range. The definition of "children" for the purposes of ethical discussion is, "humans that aren't rational actors."
Juan is arguing that by that definition, two-year-olds aren't "children"
Implicit in Juan's argument is the assumption that the ability to articulate consent suffices to make one a rational actor.
That's easily enough disproven: parrots can be taught to articulate consent,
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."
MacFall: Children are not rational actors because those persons who we DO consider to be rational actors do not act like children.
Len: What makes it non-circular is that nobody is defining "children" by an age range. The definition of "children" for the purposes of ethical discussion is, "humans that aren't rational actors." The circularity of the definition has nothing to with number of years. Definition : Chidren are humans who are not fully rational
You're confused: as a definition, that can't be circular. What makes it seem circular is that you also apply the common definition of "children," which means "young people." The above definition neither assumes that young people are less than fully rational, nor assumes that only young people can be irrational. By the definition, a six-year-old might turn out not to be a "child" at all, and an 80-year-old man might in fact be a "child."
So, why is that they are not fully rational?
Who's "they"? The definition means that, if you find an irrational human, you call him a "child." And if you call someone a "child," you're saying he's irrational. It might in fact be the case that no human fits that definition, in which case we conclude that there's no such thing as a "child" in the sense of this definition.
If you reread carefully, you'll notice that I included an existence proof. Namely, newborns aren't fully rational, therefore newborns are children. That wouldn't have needed pointing out, unless I recognized the possiblity that there's no such thing as a child in the sense of this definition. I recognized it, and proved that there is such a thing.
If you reread even more carefully, you'll notice that I specifically said a two-year-old might not be a child in this sense, which is precisely your claim.
Because they've not fully developed yet.
Nope, you lose. An 80-year-old with dementia is also a "child." As is a retarded 40-year-old, a brain-damaged 20-year-old, a mentally ill 35-year-old, and anyone else who isn't fully rational. "Not fully developed yet" is one possible reason for being a child, but it's hardly synonymous.
Implicit in Juan's argument is the assumption that the ability to articulate consent suffices to make one a rational actor. And that's too far fetched ? That's easily enough disproven: parrots can be taught to articulate consent, You seriously think that comparing children to parrots makes any sense ? Are you alright ?
It suffices to prove that uttering the words, "I consent to a night of passion with Juan" doesn't suffice to prove consent. The words can come out of a tape recorder, a parrot, a child in fear for his life, a child who has been coached, a drunken retarded insane person, etc. The ability to utter the words doesn't suffice to prove consent. If you stop and actually consider the argument, you'll admit it's airtight. Something more is required.
--Len.
I think this is an excellent discussion. Except the part where one writer attributed motive to another, implying that he may be a rapist. I don't like that. It's cheating in a public debate to use histrionics.
This is one area that has concerned me about libertarianism. And I think that there is so much time spent thinking about all sorts of things, but practical social concerns (no, not privatization of services) seems to get overlooked.
If I was someone against left-wing perceived "cold independence and selfishness" of capitalism/libertarianism, this child sex argument would be the first one I would use to undermine a libertarian approach.
Hopefully we can stay on track and gain some real insight into scenarios like this.
Juan, you seem to think the definition is arbitrary and does not reflect a real category difference between 'child' and 'adult', namely the asymmetry of rationality between one and the other. This is not a mere "formalism". If you can present a pre-teen similarly capable of rational reflection as an adult human, then it follows they will have full exercise of their rights. But what is being discussed are children, who lack this very crucial ability. Do you believe retarded individuals are able of fully understanding the consequences of their actions in the sense that an unimpaired individual is? As for Mises' concept of rationality, it is deliberately deflated and minimal so as to avoid the pitfalls of a homo oeconomicus type approach to economics, were agents are excessively idealized in their rationality, thus giving universal validity to the proclamations of praxeology.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon: Juan, you seem to think the definition is arbitrary and does not reflect a real category difference between 'child' and 'adult', namely the asymmetry of rationality between one and the other.
Did you actually read Geoffrey's prior posts which state that it has little to nothing to do with exercising one's rationality intelligently?
Did you answer my question ? Do you think that people who act in absurd ways are rational people ? Ah, but they are not acting rationally just now ? Can't you see that's simply playing upon words ?
Why don't you first answer my question regarding mentally debilitated individuals, then, who are in no wise irrational in the sense that a person who suffers from poor judgement is.
Are retarded individuals as rational as 'normal' individuals ? No, they are not. They are retarded. Is a = a ? Yes it is. Is your question tautological ? Yes it is.
Is your answer pure evasion? Yes, it is. Now, given that you do not see retarded individuals in the same category as non-retarded individuals, on what grounds do you dismiss the entirely similar distinction between children, who have a very limited rational capacity, from adults, who have a developed one?
Now, please answer mine. What do you think about people who jump into a plane and burn down a whole city, children included ? Is the fire-bombing of civilians a rational activity ? Are the people who do these things 'rational' ?
No, as it harms the rights of others. What does this have to do with their capacity for rationality though, which is fully developed? They can choose either to exercise it or not. For children, there is no such choice at all.
edit: I have been convinced otherwise
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
Len I don't feel like playing the definition game with you. I also am not very sympathetic to mathematicians and their empty formalisms.
It's called logic, and logic is your friend. It would keep you from making incorrect statements like:
So let me remark that you already conceded my point (and I thank you for doing so).
While it's true that I can't come up with a purely voluntarist justification of every aspect of child-rearing, that's irrelevant to the question whether a small child can form consent to a relationship with a pedophile. You haven't even attempted to prove they can, though you're scathing in your denunciation of those who suggest otherwise--specifically including actual parents.
Meanwhile, it's healthy to reiterate that with or without a philosophical justifcation, I will defend myself, my wife and my child, including the use of lethal force if necessary. So I hope that conversely no "libertarian" would attempt to molest a child, regardless of his philosophical vaporings.
Is your answer pure evasion?
Len: Meanwhile, it's healthy to reiterate that with or without a philosophical justifcation, I will defend myself, my wife and my child, including the use of lethal force if necessary.
Juan:Did you answer my question ? Do you think that people who act in absurd ways are rational people ? Ah, but they are not acting rationally just now ? Can't you see that's simply playing upon words ?
That's why the bedrock of liberty is a practical principle, rather than a philosophical one: my view of my fellow man is rather dim, and I'm more than willing to regard a person as stupid or irrational. But he's free to be as irrational as he pleases, so long as he keeps his mitts to himself. If he places me in fear of great bodily harm to myself or others, I will act defensively with lethal force. If his actions were "rational," then we could call that the fair consequences of his crime. If his actions were utterly without rational basis, then we can't call it "just desserts," but we can call it evolution at work. But whatever you call it, I will defend myself and mine against all threats.
The self-defense principle underlies the non-aggression principle. No amount of hair-splitting will convince me to renounce the nonaggression principle, which is meaningless without the corresponding principle of self-defense. I'm willing to convince an aggressor to stop aggressing if I can. We all benefit in that case, because the market gains another productive participant. But if nothing will convince him, I will still forcibly repel any aggression. There's no need whatsoever to justify my actions to the aggressor. I don't even care if he comprehends. I'll just as readily kill an attacking bear, and it doesn't matter that he'll never understand my actions.
As applied to children, they too are subject to the nonaggression principle. So are retarded, insane or even comatose humans. Nobody has a right to rape, assault or murder a child. The one born from my loins will be protected from those things by me first and foremost, and I don't care if his molester can't understand what I'm doing or thinks it unjustified.
The only dodgy area is if my child insists on sticking his arm under a running lawn-mower, or drinking lye, or leaping off a tall building, I will restrain him despite the coerciveness of the act. When he's in no way dependent on me, he can kill himself all he wants. (Though genetic programming is powerful. I might try to stop him then too, even though it would be assault.)
I don't think so. What do you mean by a retarded individual ? Somebody who has lost half brain and must be spoon fed ? or what ?A child is not the same as a retarded individual, let alone that 'retarded individual' is not well defined either.
E.g. a persons with Downs syndrome.
By chance, do you know that in many places women used(and probably still are) to be considered retarded and so had/have the same legal status as children ?
And this has precisely what bearing on anything?
Juan: Len: Meanwhile, it's healthy to reiterate that with or without a philosophical justifcation, I will defend myself, my wife and my child, including the use of lethal force if necessary. I think your cowboy-like bragging is out of place. But it is perhaps useful because it shows you have no rational arguments left...
I made arguments you can't refute, although you haven't even tried.
But there's nothing "cowboy" about reiterating that non-aggression isn't just a lofty ideal to which we pay lip service. It is enforced by each and every free man when he exercises the right of self-defense. There's nothing theoretical about liberty; it's something we live. I'm happy to have theoretical discussions about it, but this isn't coffee-shop BS-ing. Every act of aggression is a crime, even if the aggressor is too powerful to be brought to account. Every act of self-defense is moral, even if a powerful aggressor punishes him for it.
Assuming you don't live in the US, it's probably illegal for you to carry arms, or even defend yourself. That's a crime of aggression against you. Not only should you be allowed arms, but you should possess and train with them. Do we actually desire liberty in the real world? Or are we merely slaves singing happy songs about freedom over the rainbow?
In other words, how can it be bragging to mention that I'm armed, when I fully expect you to be armed as well? If anyone on this forum isn't armed, I hope he has a good reason, like living in some statist hellhole where it's severely punished. And I hope he has a good reason for not defecting from that statist hellhole.
By chance, do you know that in many places women used(and probably still are) to be considered retarded and so had/have the same legal status as children ? And this has precisely what bearing on anything?
Let's see : do you believe that an eight-years-old is as "retarded" as somebody who has Downs syndrome ?
I am not making a priori presumptions as to whether an 8 year old is or is not in possession of a rational capacity (it might be, or in all likelihood, it might not be.) What I asked was, whether you'd consider a person who has this mental defect as capable of giving consent to any activities it might engage in? If not, then why not extend this reasoning to children, who likewise lack this capacity at their current stage of development?
Just another example of arbitrary legislation. Lost on you it seems.
Juan:Let's see : do you believe that an eight-years-old is as "retarded" as somebody who has Downs syndrome?
Poisoning the well. "Unable to form consent" is "unable to form consent." There can be lots of reason one can't consent. One might be a parrot. Or brain-dead. Or comatose. Or asleep. Or insane. Or developmentally unable. Or carved from marble. Everything in the universe that can't form consent is equivalent to anything else in the universe that can't form consent in one respect: they can't form consent. In that respect, and that respect only, a child is a retard is a vegetable is a parrot is a rock.
This isn't really that difficult to understand.
--Len
Len: In other words, how can it be bragging to mention that I'm armed, when I fully expect you to be armed as well? If anyone on this forum isn't armed, I hope he has a good reason, like living in some statist hellhole where it's severely punished. And I hope he has a good reason for not defecting from that statist hellhole.
Your bragging really bothers me because I know full well why you think you're armed. Americans are armed to defend themselves from the aggresions of government. But, so far, armed Americans have not lifted a finger against their government...
Do you feel that you're under a moral obligation to commit suicide? You seem to think I am. But that subject is OT for this thread. I have lots of reasons for having firearms, including hunting and defense of self or others. That latter is the bit that's relevant to this thread.
So far, you've no provided a coherent explanation why the rights of children should be violated.
You haven't provided one example of a child clamoring for his right to make out with you. I asked you to provide one example. Until then, I'll remind you that this isn't a "right" any kid wants; the kids want to be defended from sexual predators.
Do you feel that you're under a moral obligation to commit suicide? You seem to think I am. But that subject is OT for this thread.
Len Budney: You haven't provided one example of a child clamoring for his right to make out with you. I asked you to provide one example. Until then, I'll remind you that this isn't a "right" any kid wants; the kids want to be defended from predators like you. --Len.
You haven't provided one example of a child clamoring for his right to make out with you. I asked you to provide one example. Until then, I'll remind you that this isn't a "right" any kid wants; the kids want to be defended from predators like you.
Maybe you should leave the Ad Hominem to Niccolo. He's better at it.
Len: You haven't provided one example of a child clamoring for his right to make out with you. I asked you to provide one example.
Juan: Len: You haven't provided one example of a child clamoring for his right to make out with you. I asked you to provide one example. Not considering the irrelevant personal remark, I'll repeat what I said a couple of pages ago...
Don't. Just come up with ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY EXAMPLE OF ANY DOCUMENTED CASE ANYWHERE, ANY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. In which a child sought sexual intercourse with an adult without ever having first been taught about sexual intercourse by an adult (including young adults, teenagers, TV or magazines).
As for my personal remark, I partially apologize. Frankly, I find it hard to believe you'd have come this far without ever clarifying your stance on pedophilia, so I sincerely suspect that your views on pedophilia would not be well received. That's a long step from actually committing indecent acts, but to me it's scary as hell.
Everything in the universe that can't form consent is equivalent to anything else in the universe that can't form consent in one respect: they can't form consent. In that respect, and that respect only, a child is a retard is a vegetable is a parrot is a rock.
I've been following this thread with some amusement. It seems the trolls are out in force. I'll try to bring things back around to something useful...
It seems like the only thing we need to agree on is a method to judge what can form consent. I believe that Juan is saying that you cannot simply state that "children" cannot form consent. I think all of you would agree that putting arbitrary age limits on this is a bad idea.
So how do we judge when something is capable of giving consent? As it was said before, it cannot simply be the ability to utter verbal communication. So what real-world, logical test can we use to determine this?
Using the earlier example, how do I determine if that drunk wants to kill himself or not? How do I determine if that 10 year old really wants to have sex with that 30 year old man? This is the root of the problem, and we will go around and around in circles until we can answer it.
I've been following this thread with some amusement. It seems the trolls are out in force...
Always a great way to start a conversation. "I'm WAAAAAY smarter than you guys, and now that I've done laughing at your inferiority, I'll set y'all straight..." Also useful at cocktail parties and when lunching with your boss and his boss.
Those aren't all the same question. Whether or not I really want to hit my toe with a hammer, it's none of your business if I do. You don't need to figure out what I really want. Likewise the suicidal drunken man or the slutty drunken sorority girl.
In the case of the child, it's also less clearcut than that: if my seven-year-old actually did "really want" to join NAMBLA and find a trucker boyfriend, I still wouldn't let him. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, you do raise a fair question.
The answer is that it's impossible to tell. Even for the child himself. The child's psyche is sufficiently plastic that you can not only get him to pass whatever test you might devise to determine what he "really wants"; you can also convince the child himself that he "really wants" whatever you want him to want. Parents use this Jedi mind trick all the time to make kids play with the available toy, or eat the available food, or go where you're taking him, when he'd really prefer something else and probably throw a tantrum about the available choices.
The consequences of being born aren't just geographic. They include (initially) total helplessness, which makes the child pretty fricking suggestible to the people he regards as his sole hope for survival.
Len,
Re: Your email, I am quite sure I have not made your acquantaince before.
Always a great way to start a conversation.
Whoa, easy there. I'm refering to people who aren't contributing anything to the debate.
No, that's the whole point. You need to explain why a suicidal drunk isn't the same as a rock or parrot. The whole "give consent" thing. If, as you are saying, a "child" cannot give consent then why can a drunk? Just because of the age?
In the case of the child, it's also less clearcut than that: if my seven-year-old actually did "really want" to join NAMBLA and find a trucker boyfriend, I still wouldn't let him.
You wouldn't let him, so either you are preventing the abuse of a being that cannot understand what it is getting into (giving consent) or are acting against the NAP towards your child. Which is it?
Please note that I am in your camp on this...that there are certain humans who do not have the ability to understand the decisions they are making. Humans with severely diminished brain capacity fall into this group. As do young humans.
The problem is how to determine what humans are in this group by using a consistent set of rules and procedures.
Len: Don't. Just come up with ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY EXAMPLE OF ANY DOCUMENTED CASE ANYWHERE, ANY TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. In which a child sought sexual intercourse with an adult without ever having first been taught about sexual intercourse by an adult (including young adults, teenagers, TV or magazines).
Frankly, I find it hard to believe you'd have come this far without ever clarifying your stance on pedophilia, so I sincerely suspect that your views on pedophilia would not be well received.
If you're going to restrict the rights of some individual It falls to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the restrictions of their actions is just, or that their actions violate your rights. It falls upon the parent, then, to prove their child is incapable of rational thought. You would have to prove that your two year old isn't capable of independantly formulating or enacting volition in attempt of meeting ends.
I use the two year old analogy because such measures should be the case reguardless of age. If the two year old can refute my claim that it is incapable of acting voluntarily to attain it's greatest preferences in any way, there is reason to suspect any claim that someone can make in claiming control over its actions. This is the only evidence emancipation should require in a libertarian society.
Hi Austrian folks,
Just like "liberty student", I've been following this thread, without being able to arrive to a 100% valid "logical" conclusion.
I'm a father of three - one 14-year old boy and a couple of 6-1/2 year old twins, and I sincerely wouldn't be very pleased to meet personally some of the contributors to this thread... It kind of scares me to think that some would-be libertarian would try to have "consented sex" with my kids, in the name of personal freedom.
Even though my ideas evolved quite a bit in the field of economics and towards embracing the libertarian thinking, after almost 4 years visiting the Mises website and reading enlightening texts from Mises, Hayek, Rothbard & others, I still feel that the non-aggression axiom (and its logical derivations, as much as possible), are simply not enough to build a whole new philosophical structure for human organization, which answers each and every possible question, be it economical, legal or whatever else.
The present discussion reminds me -- to a certain extent -- about the surrealistic debate on the Clinton-Monica affair, with lawyers deeply debating (sorry, no pun intended) whether oral sex is or not a sexual relationship.
Just to keep on-topic, I'd like to recall the fact -- any psychologist or related specialist here?, please help me in this matter -- that children below a certain age (between 6 and 8, most scientists accept) are still in a so-called "pre-logical" stage of mind development, where they are not fully capable to derive the possible consequences of their actions -- for instance: "wow, if I play with this match, I may cause a fire which will destroy my house and kill my whole family" or similar. Or, in some case, they may even be able to foresee the consequences but they do not evaluate their degree of criticality.
That said, it's logic to understand that before the referred evolution of their logical capabilities, kids are NOT expected to "consent" on having sex with an adult or with other children of whichever age, while fully understanding the consequences thereof.
Even though it's a fact that children do have interest in sex, they do not actively pursue sexual activity like an adult, as they have lots of interesting things to play with and learn and live happily their childhood undisturbed by adult-age concerns. They will have the rest of their lives to think about sex, how to get it, etc. etc. and everything we all adults learned and -- if measured by the number of answers in this thread -- surely is one of the highest priorities in adult life...
My personal opinion: supplementary sources of knowledge and inspiration such as religion, the study of ethics and philosophy etc, may be a valuable aid in finding the (personal) answers to questions discussed here, such as the "suitable" age to initiate sexual life.
I'm aware that there are religions that view as "normal" an old man marrying a 10-year old girl and others that don't approve of such procedures, as well as religions that view as an immoral act to eat a beef made of cow meat etc., but that's another subject...
Best regards from Rio,
R. Halevy.
It falls upon the parent, then, to prove their child is incapable of rational thought.
I guess a series of psychological and physiological tests could be created to act as an unbiased and consistent means to test this. There are plenty of examples we can draw on from existing law.
So we assume that all human beings, regardless of age, are capable of rational thought until someone proves otherwise? Interesting.
I wonder if we could flip it around. Perhaps we could say that all human beings, regardless of age, are incapable of consent unless they prove otherwise. I could see something like a "test of manhood"...at any time a human can choose to prove they are capable of consent and it is accepted that they have all their rights.
This sort of plays on the "when they move out, they are an adult" idea from the first few pages.
Halevy: I'm a father of three - one 14-year old boy and a couple of 6-1/2 year old twins, and I sincerely wouldn't be very pleased to meet personally some of the contributors to this thread... It kind of scares me to think that some would-be libertarian would try to have "consented sex" with my kids, in the name of personal freedom.
I have not read one person here say they would have sex with someone's kids.
Even though it's a fact that children do have interest in sex, they do not actively pursue sexual activity like an adult...
That simply isn't true. You haven't been active around a lot of today's youth if you hold that position.