No, just like rothbard argued that air polution was non-invasive until it was proven beyond a reasonal doubt that it could damage an affected party's health, you cannot restrict another person in the practice of their rights without first legitimizing your assertion. Otherwise you would be forced to assume no one could practice their rights until they could prove themselves a rational thinker. Such a scenario would be impractical since there would be no one who could enact judgement on whether someone could practice their rights.
This sort of plays on the "when they move out, they are an adult" idea from the first few pages.
But that's the whole context of this argument, What's being argued is that until someone meets a certain level of development or ability of thinking, they should be forcibly restricted from leaving the home.
Jason: 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
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."
banned:That simply isn't true. You haven't been active around a lot of today's youth if you hold that position.
You've tacitly changed the subject from children, particularly young children (like 12 or 10 and under), to the vague term 'youth' which I suspect you are including teenagers in (possibly even up to the late teens).
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Early in this thread I linked to a blogpost in which Roderick Long discussed age-of-consent issues in relation to child pornography, molestation, etc. He was in part commenting on the false accusations against Mary Ruwart. Well, now Mary Ruwart has answered the false accusations herself, clarifying her position on these issues. Both are recommended reading for everyone involved in this debate.
The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred.
Oh joy, let's adopt the practices of 18th century English law and assume guilt.
gplauche: You've tacitly changed the subject from children, particularly young children (like 12 or 10 and under), to the vague term 'youth' which I suspect you are including teenagers in (possibly even up to the late teens).
He mentioned his 14 year old.
When I was in 5th grade there were kids having sex with each other, granted it wasn't rampant or widespread until I started High School, but that's not of much relevance.
banned: The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred. Oh joy, let's adopt the practices of 18th century English law and assume guilt.
She's explicitly refering to pre-pubescent children there. And it's not presuming guilt. It's a presumption in favor of liberty, the rights of the pre-pubescent child. If he wants to deny he had sex with the child, then of course he would be innocent until proven guilty on this score. But the presumption that pre-pubescent children generally cannot be said to consent to sex with adults is not a presumption of guilt on the part of the adult but a presumption in favor of the child's rights, held in trusteeship by its parents, such that sex or pornography involving them counts as initiatory coercion (e.g., rape) unless it can be shown that they were exceptionally mentally mature for their age (which strikes me as exceedingly unlikely to happen).
banned: When I was in 5th grade there were kids having sex with each other, granted it wasn't rampant or widespread until I started High School, but that's not of much relevance.
I don't think that's really in dispute. So what? We live in a highly sexually charged culture. This is also involving sex between two children of roughly the same age.
If the burden of proof is required to prove one DID NOT do something, generally that means you must assume their guilt in the action. When two concenting adults have sex you dont automatically assume it's rape until each adult supplies enough information to show that they were with a consenting party.
gplauche:This is also involving sex between two children of roughly the same age.
I dont see how that matters.
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. No, that's the whole point. You need to explain why a suicidal drunk isn't the same as a rock or parrot.
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.
No, that's the whole point. You need to explain why a suicidal drunk isn't the same as a rock or parrot.
But I don't need to explain it: my obligation to leave them alone is in no way conditioned on their being "different from a rock or a parrot." The default position is that any creature with human DNA is subject to non-aggression, which means I leave it alone as long as it leaves me alone. The only interesting difference is that I can crush the rock, or eat the parrot, but I can't crush or eat the drunk. That difference springs from the purely arbitrary decision that homo sapiens come under the non-aggression axiom, but rocks and parrots don't.
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?
Where does "consent" come into it? In the case of a drunk leaping off a tall building, there is no issue of "consent." Perhaps that's caused some confusion, so we should go stick to interactions in which someone does something TO someone else. Adult-child sex, or sex with a drunken sorority girl, are apropos.
In those cases it's helpful to remember something else that hasn't been mentioned on this thread: the burden of proof. In a free society, it's legal to produce voluntary snuff films. BUT, if you kill a man on film and then market the movie, that man's heirs will accuse you of murder and attempt to execute you. To escape execution, you must prove that the man consented, at least to the satisfaction of interested parties that, if they did kill you, it would be deemed murder by your heirs, bystanders and your respective security agencies. If you can't meet that burden of proof, you'll be executed or subjected to whatever lesser punishment is agreed by the interested parties.
Adult-child sex comes under the same rubric. If you like, we could say that it's perfectly allowed--if you can meet the burden of proof in a rape case. In the case of the retarded, insane, senile, or of course young children, you'll find the case impossible to make. Once it's proven that sex occured, it becomes your burden to prove that it was consenting. Which includes not only proving that it wasn't forcible, but also proving that fraud wasn't involved. Grooming the child, failing to disclose risks, etc., are of course elements of fraud.
--Len
Juan: 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). How am I supposed to document that ? I would grant that it's not common but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of stories out there - stories wich people would never document because people do not want to go to jail.
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).
I'm ever so sorry that meeting your burden of proof is difficult, but that's just too bad. You claim that children are oppressed because they're being forcibly prevented from engaging in relationships with adults that they crave. The burden is on you to prove that they crave these relationships.
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. What do you expect me to say ? 'Pedophiles' should be hanged ? Clearly I don't think they should.
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 tepid response. It's unclear whether you actually advocate adult-child sexual relationships, or whether you're just getting a bit carried away with a theoretical point.
But the point I'm interested in making is that there's no rational basis for the way children are treated. If their choices are to be treated as carrying no value because children are mentally defective, fine. If their choices are to be respected because of this rights-thing, then I do not see why sex is so thorny a subject, or carries some special status.
You're obviously no parent, and haven't read the bit I posted about responsibility being a continuum. Picking one's own clothes is a responsibility most kids are given early. Cliff diving, alligator-wrestling and other dangerous sports--that comes later. That could only mystify you if you've never (1) had a child, or (2) been a child.
Sorry if this is personal, but, have you taught your son how to shoot ?
Of course. He was taught to shoot a .22 pistol and rifle by age six. But more to the point, he still doesn't have unsupervised access to his guns, and he doesn't carry a concealed weapon.
--Len.
Len Budney: I'm ever so sorry that meeting your burden of proof is difficult, but that's just too bad. You claim that children are oppressed because they're being forcibly prevented from engaging in relationships with adults that they crave. The burden is on you to prove that they crave these relationships.
If the anecdotal "caught 'playing doctor'" evidence is insufficient to prove that children are interested in sexual behavior, Levine's _Harmful to Minors - The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex_ (University of Minnesota press, 2002) cites several instances of adult-child sexual contact that the child consented to. While I can't put my hands on any scholarly studies, I expect that same-age sexual contact is likely to be viewed as more accessible by those children who want to explore sexuality.
As a pre-pubescent myself, I actively fantasized about sexual activity with several people, including adults. I did not pursue the activity because I knew I'd be punished for approaching anyone in that fashion.
I haven't seen anyone advocate adult-child sexual relationships, but I join with anyone who advocates the child's right to consent. They're people, not property.
But the point I'm interested in making is that there's no rational basis for the way children are treated. If their choices are to be treated as carrying no value because children are mentally defective, fine. If their choices are to be respected because of this rights-thing, then I do not see why sex is so thorny a subject, or carries some special status. You're obviously no parent, and haven't read the bit I posted about responsibility being a continuum. Picking one's own clothes is a responsibility most kids are given early. Cliff diving, alligator-wrestling and other dangerous sports--that comes later. That could only mystify you if you've never (1) had a child, or (2) been a child.
Are you implying that sexual activity is inherently dangerous? More so than, say, crossing an urban street?
Much of the controversy over this evaporates when you examine the widespread assumption that sex is Evil unless licensed by the church or state.
Danno
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
The default position is that any creature with human DNA is subject to non-aggression, which means I leave it alone as long as it leaves me alone.
Len, I'm just a bit confused regarding your position. You say that all humans, regardless of age, are subject to non-aggression. But you said before that you would prevent your 7-year-old from joining NAMBLA. How do you rationalize that?
As a father myself I have no problem embracing the view that children cannot give consent to certain things, because they cannot grasp the consequences or responsibilities associated with that consent. I do not extend the NAP to them. But I do believe that all living things have certain innate rights. This prevents me as a parent from killing my child whenever I want, but does allow me to physically prevent them from jumping off the roof with a superman cape on.
Where does "consent" come into it?
Well in every context I would define "consent" as "understanding the consequences and responsibilities of an action". A person in a drunken state may want to kill themselves because they are "not in their right mind" and therefore do not fully understand what they are doing. A woman high on X may want to let those three guys gang rape her because she is "not in her right mind" and cannot fully understand what is going to happen. Same goes for a 7-year-old at a NAMBLA meeting.
You mention the burden of proof. I would go even further and say that we must agree on what proof is acceptable. How do you prove that someone understands the consequence of their actions? As mentioned before you cannot rely on the spoken word. Signed documents? You can always make someone sign something under duress.
How do you prove to the relatives of the guy you killed in the snuff film that he really was consenting to your actions of his own free will, and in full understanding of what was going to happen?
Jonas: The default position is that any creature with human DNA is subject to non-aggression, which means I leave it alone as long as it leaves me alone. Len, I'm just a bit confused regarding your position. You say that all humans, regardless of age, are subject to non-aggression. But you said before that you would prevent your 7-year-old from joining NAMBLA. How do you rationalize that?
I think I've answered that at length, multiple times. The direct consequence of my son's homo sepiens DNA is that I can't rape him, kill him, etc. Libertarian law imposes no positive obligation on me to protect him from rape, murder, assault, etc., but I choose to protect him from those things.
To the extent I exercise discipline and oversight, I justify it as a pseudo-contractual exchange for the food, shelter and protection I provide him. It's pseudo-contractual, rather than contractual, because he didn't actually volunteer to be born in my household, and lacks the emotional or mental development that would enable him to negotiate a new caregiver for himself. He is in that sense intermediate between a comatose patient, subject to the decisions of his caregiver and a free agent responsible for himself. On the day of his birth he was 100% "comatose patient." At some future date he will be 100% "free agent."
Put differently, I have some latitude to define what is and isn't aggression against him, because he is my ward and has limited mental capacity. As a newborn, and just like a comatose patient, I had full discretion to approve painful medical treatment and deem it not assault. The limits of my discretion are somewhat bounded by the burden of proof; see below.
You mention the burden of proof. I would go even further and say that we must agree on what proof is acceptable.
I disagree, taking a stance similar to Hans Hoppe's. He argues that self-ownership is preferred because it minimizes conflict. Extending that rubric, a libertarian justice system arises from two considerations: the non-aggression principle, including the right of self-defense; and conflict minimization. The non-aggression principle states that if you aggress against me, I can resist forcibly, including deadly force. But the same principle also states that others can resist my aggression. Therefore, if you attack me and I kill you, there is some risk that bystanders will believe I initiated the aggression, and will respond with lethal force against me. Although they are morally in the wrong on this point, they are acting in a good-faith belief that they are right--and apart from divine intervention, the dispute between me and them can't necessarily be settled. This very principle has given rise, in past cultures, to blood-feuds.
To avoid blood feuds, I opt to convince bystanders that I'm acting in self-defense, so they won't deem me an aggressor and kill me. While I'm not morally bound to do so, I have no grounds for complaint if I refuse and they decide to treat me as the aggressor. Since I don't want to be killed as an aggressor, I agree to try and convince them. If I can't convince them that the accused is a murderer, I might settle for some lesser compensation that can be negotiated. From this proceeds every important feature of a legal system, without the need for any monopolist of force.
Which finally brings us to the burden of proof. The burden of proof is whatever it takes to convince the interested parties that I acted reasonably, and so not to treat me as the aggressor.
How do you prove that someone understands the consequence of their actions? As mentioned before you cannot rely on the spoken word. Signed documents? You can always make someone sign something under duress.
A "jury of one's peers" arises from the same principle: since it's inefficient to try a case "in the media," an accusation of rape or murder would not be handled by an arbitrator acting alone, but by an open process in which interested parties can speak, and an agreed-upon panel participates. If the case involves a mental deficient or a child, the defendant will have a hard time convincing the arbitrator and panel that the relationship was consensual. For example, after the child explains why he thought a relationship with the defendant would be a wonderful thing, his parents might ask him to explain all about Santa Claus. Conversely, I'd have a hard time convincing anyone that I bought my pickup truck under duress, and should be excused from paying for it.
Another thing that falls out of this model of the libertarian legal system is that even if a precocious nine-year-old were ready for marriage and a family, one wouldn't opt to marry him unless you could convince the interested parties that this was so, starting with the parents. If you think he's a thirty-year-old trapped in a nine-year-old body, but others can't be convinced of this, then you won't escape a rape conviction even if you happen to be right. Therefore, prudence dictates that you wait till he's older. If you can convince others of this, starting with the parents, then you won't be charged with anything, and may proceed.
VERY CAREFULLY.
Len: I'm ever so sorry that meeting your burden of proof is difficult, but that's just too bad.
You claim that children are oppressed because they're being forcibly prevented from engaging in relationships with adults that they crave.
It's unclear whether you actually advocate adult-child sexual relationships, or whether you're just getting a bit carried away with a theoretical point.
Sorry if this is personal, but, have you taught your son how to shoot ? Of course. He was taught to shoot a .22 pistol and rifle by age six.
It's unclear whether you actually advocate adult-child sexual relationships, or whether you're just getting a bit carried away with a theoretical point. What's the difference ?
An actual advocate of pedophilia should be shunned by all decent human beings, especially libertarians, because he poses a direct threat to our children, and an ideological threat to everything we stand for. A guy who simply got a bit carried away conversing at Starbucks one day should be treated no differently than anyone else who says something ridiculous from time to time.
Sorry if this is personal, but, have you taught your son how to shoot ? Of course. He was taught to shoot a .22 pistol and rifle by age six. So, shooting at six is not a dangerous activity ? Teaching somebody how to shoot is not a clear encouragement of violence ?
Something about that question really throws me. If you're a libertarian, you would recognize the right of self-defense, and wouldn't say something as crazy as that defensive training "encourages violence." If you're a conservative, you'd be even more accepting, because you support self-defense and the initiation of force. Which leaves two possibilities: either you're a leftist; or else you're a libertarian who is confused about the right of self-defense. Could you clarify your question by clarifying what could prompt you to ask it in the first place?
As for being a "dangerous activity," I take my son in my truck when we drive to the store. That's dangerous. I've flown with him. That's dangerous. I've taken him horseback riding. That's dangerous too. Swimming? Yup, dangerous. Life is bristling with dangers. One exercises due precaution, of course--but who shuns everything in life that might be "dangerous"? Are you afraid in the morning when you take your shower? You could hit your head and drown...
Another glaring case of non-sequitur is Your claim, Len, that since a parrot can utter a couple of words, wich don't prove the parrot is consenting (?!), then the words spoken by children are just as meaningless as those spoken by parronts.
That statement is beyond illogical. My argument proves conclusively that uttering certain words is not sufficient to prove consent. That's a far cry from saying that words are "as meaningless as talking parrots." Obviously, to understand whether consent actually exists, more context is required than the fact of having said certain words. Whether the individual was talking in his sleep, for example, or acting under duress, or mentally unable to understand what he was consenting to.
Finally, the fact that there are people who are 'retarded' and so allegedly can't form consent, does not imply that such is the case with children. It does not follow. It is a fallacy to claim it does. Specifically it's a non-sequitur.
I never made such a claim. I consistently site retardation, insanity, senility, vegetative state and immaturity as distinct cases in which it might be argued that you didn't really have your victims' consent. The case against you is easier to make if the child is four, believes in Santa Claus and has an IQ of 70. It's harder to make if the child is fourteen, has an IQ of 140, and has written well-reasoned op-eds for the New York Times in defense of his relationship with you. It's conceivable that a truly remarkable eight-year-old can convince his parents and everyone else concerned that he's old enough to marry you and settle down--but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Rape is a form of physical coercion, in wich the victim clearly is forced to do something he/she doesn't want to do.
Fraud also counts as coercion. Drugging a woman, pretending you can get her a role in a movie, or successfully masquerading as her husband, can also get you charged with rape.
Len: If you're a libertarian, you would recognize the right of self-defense, and wouldn't say something as crazy as that defensive training "encourages violence." If you're a conservative, you'd be even more accepting, because you support self-defense and the initiation of force. Which leaves two possibilities either you're a leftist; or else you're a libertarian who is confused about the right of self-defense.
Juan:I believe that the one who doesn't qualify as a libertarian here is you. I do believe in the consistent application of the NAP. Wich is something you've admit, you don't.
Yup, I'm an aggressor because I would defend my child from rape. Meanwhile, how about answering the question I asked? Are you an advocate of pedophilia, or just a netizen carried away with his own talk?
Len: That statement is beyond illogical. My argument proves conclusively that uttering certain words is not sufficient to prove consent.
Juan, your last two posts have been so silly that I don't want to discuss any further with you. My question arises from the fact that if you have any objection to pedophilia, you haven't expressed it. Dodging the question, calling me a Puritan, etc., only strengthens the impression that you don't want to speak directly to the issue. If so, that's mystifying: why would someone be reluctant to express opposition to pedophilia?
Ignoring ALL parental and other defences of children against pedophilia, I'd point out that advocates of that deviant behavior will still by shunned by decent society. So even if we agree not to curtail their "right" to proposition children, they will starve to death for lack of groceries, unless they freeze to death for lack of fuel first. The free world is much less hospitable to such offenders than statist society. Just for starters, it will be legal to operate free-market "Meghan's List" services, and parents will make full use of them to shun the people so listed. As will family-friendly businesses.
The purely voluntary, 100% non-aggressive sanctions that can be brought to bear in such cases are truly terrifying, if you stop to consider them all.
Len: Juan, your last two posts have been so silly that I don't want to discuss any further with you.
Dodging the question, calling me a Puritan, etc., only strengthens the impression that you don't want to speak directly to the issue. If so, that's mystifying why would someone be reluctant to express opposition to pedophilia?
Len Budney: (...) how about answering the question I asked? Are you an advocate of pedophilia, or just a netizen carried away with his own talk? --Len.
(...) how about answering the question I asked? Are you an advocate of pedophilia, or just a netizen carried away with his own talk?
I hate to seem like I'm ganging up on you, Len - but nobody, not even NAMBLA, can advocate pedophilia. Pedophilia is the fascination, or urge - which nobody seems to be able to choose. Frankly, nobody is likely to decide "I think I'll develop an erotic fascination for children - it seems like a great part of anyone's life". You're confusing pedophilia (the desire) with pederasty, the act. With the witchhunt mentality common today, the word pedophilia is misused greatly these days - even to mean an attraction to a physically mature person who's gonna be of legal age on their birthday tomorrow.
It's hard enough to discuss these topics rationally when we're communicating clearly - fuzzily-defined words won't help at all.
I may have missed a few comments back there a bit, but I haven't seen anyone advocating choosing a minor for sexual activity - just some advocating the right of the 'underage' person to chose for themselves.
Personally, I deplore an adult punishing a child for exploring with a peer, too - though in the USA, minors have been charged with statutory rape for sexual experimentation with another minor (less than 2 years of difference in age). A couple of decades ago, a guy got a year in jail for statutory rape - though he was married to the 'victim' when he was charged with the crime.
If you do, indeed, support the right of the Government to punish people for consensual sexual contact, I don't see how you can claim to be a libertarian.
=-=-=-
This topic seems to have drifted from the original, which interested me more - a discussion of 'Age of Consent' laws. Any chance it's going to get back to that?
He argues that self-ownership is preferred because it minimizes conflict.
That's his argument for homesteading, in part. His argument for self-ownership is different; it minimizes conflict, yes, but at the same time, in order to assert control over another, I must make direct use of my body. This has the consequence of rendering any argument for indirect control over this other person as non-universalizable, and thus contradictory, as I claim direct ownership for myself but on the basis of no rational principle whatsoever refuse to extend it to another rational agent. The other argument he sometimes uses, borrowed from Rothbard, is showing how both collective ownership and slave/master type ownership, besides being praxeologically impossible, reduce to absurdity.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:He argues that self-ownership is preferred because it minimizes conflict. That's his argument for homesteading, in part. His argument for self-ownership is different; it minimizes conflict, yes, but at the same time, in order to assert control over another, I must make direct use of my body...
That's his argument for homesteading, in part. His argument for self-ownership is different; it minimizes conflict, yes, but at the same time, in order to assert control over another, I must make direct use of my body...
You are quite right.
Any sex should be legal as long as no one was coerced.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Len Budney: Ignoring ALL parental and other defences of children against pedophilia, I'd point out that advocates of that deviant behavior will still by shunned by decent society. So even if we agree not to curtail their "right" to proposition children, they will starve to death for lack of groceries, unless they freeze to death for lack of fuel first. The free world is much less hospitable to such offenders than statist society. Just for starters, it will be legal to operate free-market "Meghan's List" services, and parents will make full use of them to shun the people so listed. As will family-friendly businesses. The purely voluntary, 100% non-aggressive sanctions that can be brought to bear in such cases are truly terrifying, if you stop to consider them all.
Finally you concede a libertarian means of preventing "pedophelia".
emdoub: This topic seems to have drifted from the original, which interested me more - a discussion of 'Age of Consent' laws. Any chance it's going to get back to that?
I don't believe there is any such thing as a general age of consent. If a person can consent, they are an adult. If they can't, they are a child. That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, as every person matures differently. Thus an "age of consent" law is a bad law, in every application.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
maxpot46: gplauche:My preference, though, is for the husband and wife to view each other as equal partners. Equal in rights, yes, but likely not equal in ability, farsightedness or wisdom. This will likely lead to eventual disagreements as to the direction of the family, at which point your "two captains" system must break down and the true leader of the family must manifest. If that's the woman, it doesn't say much about you as a man, IMO.
gplauche:My preference, though, is for the husband and wife to view each other as equal partners.
Equal in rights, yes, but likely not equal in ability, farsightedness or wisdom. This will likely lead to eventual disagreements as to the direction of the family, at which point your "two captains" system must break down and the true leader of the family must manifest. If that's the woman, it doesn't say much about you as a man, IMO.
<Sigh> Look, I know that this is a side issue - but do you seriously believe that testicles automatically make someone more suitable for leadership than someone sporting ovaries? Or that a less-than-spectacular level of leadership makes one less of a man?
I'm ... just flabbergasted. If you have a line of reasoning to support such an assertion, I'd dearly love to hear it - in another thread.
Okay - I've hunted for the originals, but they're too far back - I'll have to jump into this part in the middle - sorry 'bout that.
Len Budney:Finally, the fact that there are people who are 'retarded' and so allegedly can't form consent, does not imply that such is the case with children. It does not follow. It is a fallacy to claim it does. Specifically it's a non-sequitur. I never made such a claim. I consistently site retardation, insanity, senility, vegetative state and immaturity as distinct cases in which it might be argued that you didn't really have your victims' consent. The case against you is easier to make if the child is four, believes in Santa Claus and has an IQ of 70. It's harder to make if the child is fourteen, has an IQ of 140, and has written well-reasoned op-eds for the New York Times in defense of his relationship with you. It's conceivable that a truly remarkable eight-year-old can convince his parents and everyone else concerned that he's old enough to marry you and settle down--but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Why marriage? That's a legal contract - sexual experience isn't, and conflating the two is an error, if not downright disingenous.
The mentally retarded do, indeed, have a right to choose to have sex - it's not even forbidden by law in my (remarkably paternal) state. It makes the "normals" squeamish on a regular basis - but I can see no rational reason to refuse them that right, if they can find a willing partner.
If insanity prevents consent, I could make a fair case that Socialists can't consent. Modern psychiatry mostly doesn't use the term 'insane' any more - it's pretty much meaningless, clinically. Very few are free of any taint of neurosis, some psychotics can function in society.
If immaturity prevents consent, I'm not sure that I can give consent - and I'm past 50.
Consent isn't really that tough to understand. Ever try to get a toddler to eat strained squash that they don't want? Their lack of consent is remarkably evident. Their consent when you offer an Oreo, on the other hand, is clear.
I suspect that you're assuming that consent must be informed. I consider the withholding of relevant information to be fraudulent, but this is not universal - caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is old, time-honored advice. Do you expect to live in a society where that advice is needless, or do we live in the same world? By this rule, every person who's claimed to be unmarried when they were married, to be in love when they weren't, or to "really never did this sort of thing before" is a rapist - and that is just not so. To claim that this is rape is to depreciate actual rape - hardly a worthwhile task.
And what about a case where neither partner was aware of the relevant information? Say, Sue has genital warts, but has no symptoms, so she isn't aware of it - and Sam contracts them. Is Sue guilty of violating his consent because she didn't inform him? If someone is required to have perfect information before they can act, nobody will be allowed to act.
If you posit "maturity" as necessary for someone to give consent to sexual activity, you'll need to be able to identify and/or quantify maturity - and I've never seen that done coherently. It'd be interesting to see someone take a shot at it. Come to think of it, if being immature makes you off-limits for sexual activity, quite a few 30+ folks I know should be fitted with chastity belts, and every pre-mature person who indulges in masturbation is automatically a molester, while they're being molested - mayhaps we should make underage masturbation a felony "to protect the children".
As someone else pointed out, level of maturity is very much an individual thing - several teenagers of my acquaintence are considerably more mature than my sister, who's pushin' 60. This thread started out as an age-of-consent issue - and while it's ranged near and far, I've seen very little quantitave discussion of that in the last several pages.
So, I'll stick with my starting opinion - "they forced/coerced me" or "they tricked me" is (or should be) punishable at any age, and "yeah, I wanted to" should be allowable - at any age. If you disagree, please explain to me why someone should be prevented from engaging in a consensual activity (of any sort) with a willing partner, if it does not harm anyone who did not consent.
You have no right to forbid any activity to anyone unless you can show the harm it does to the unwilling.
banned: Len Budney:The purely voluntary, 100% non-aggressive sanctions that can be brought to bear in such cases are truly terrifying, if you stop to consider them all. Finally you concede a libertarian means of preventing "pedophelia".
Len Budney:The purely voluntary, 100% non-aggressive sanctions that can be brought to bear in such cases are truly terrifying, if you stop to consider them all.
I quibble two points in that statement. First, using force against rapists is perfectly libertarian, so nothing I've suggested so far has been "unlibertarian." Second, shunning is only useful after the pedophile is exposed, so it's not exactly "preventative." It's more in the line of non-aggressive retribution. So when a previously-closeted pedophile is caught for the first time having sex with someone's toddler, the situation calls for defensive force, not shunning.
MacFall: emdoub:This topic seems to have drifted from the original, which interested me more - a discussion of 'Age of Consent' laws. Any chance it's going to get back to that? I don't believe there is any such thing as a general age of consent. If a person can consent, they are an adult. If they can't, they are a child. That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, as every person matures differently. Thus an "age of consent" law is a bad law, in every application.
emdoub:This topic seems to have drifted from the original, which interested me more - a discussion of 'Age of Consent' laws. Any chance it's going to get back to that?
I wholeheartedly agree. But I do hasten to point out that there's nothing about this viewpoint that condones or enables pedophilia. It's an invalid argument to say, "If there's no legal 'age of consent,' then adults can have sex with toddlers!"
The mentally retarded do, indeed, have a right to choose to have sex - it's not even forbidden by law in my (remarkably paternal) state.
Sure. Because such things are contextual, and an IQ limit is no more just than an age limit. Mentally retarded people marry, for example. But someone taking advantage of a retarded person is liable to a rape charge. The case will hinge on exactly what the person's mental capacity was, what the perpetrator told him, etc. It must be decided on a case-by-case basis, like any other case of aggression (which, recall, includes fraud).
If you're not dependent on anyone else, you can do anything you want to, including grind yourself into sausage to feed your own dogs. As long as you don't aggress. Recall that I've carefully stated that the same goes for my son: immature as I might think him, if he isn't dependent on me for support, he can do what he wants. While he's dependent, there are conditions on my support. I also pointed out that that's not exactly contractual, because he didn't consent to be born.
That's pure nonsense: I can forbid smoking in my house; I can forbid my employees' ever saying "blue cheese"; I can declare my front yard a clothing-free zone; I can require anyone entering my store to dance like a chicken until it makes me laugh. It isn't perfectly clear exactly what I can and can't do with a comatose patient whose bills I'm paying, or an insane person I'm letting live in my house, or a newborn baby I'm supporting. But it's clear that as the supporter, I have some authority. At minimum, I have the authority to withhold my support if I choose.
Len Budney: MacFall:I don't believe there is any such thing as a general age of consent. If a person can consent, they are an adult. If they can't, they are a child. That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, as every person matures differently. Thus an "age of consent" law is a bad law, in every application. I wholeheartedly agree. But I do hasten to point out that there's nothing about this viewpoint that condones or enables pedophilia. It's an invalid argument to say, "If there's no legal 'age of consent,' then adults can have sex with toddlers!" --Len
MacFall:I don't believe there is any such thing as a general age of consent. If a person can consent, they are an adult. If they can't, they are a child. That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, as every person matures differently. Thus an "age of consent" law is a bad law, in every application.
Doesn't that become problematic? An 'age of consent' is, at least, quantifiable. For a 'level of maturity' rule, one must be able to measure and determine some method of determining level of maturity - a remarkably nebulous characteristic.
If there is no rule, there can be no prohibition - not in any system of law.
A plenitude of studies show that we're born sexual. Kids self-stimulate at every age. It's conceivable that a toddler could consent. Without a law prohibiting that child from consenting, one would have to say it'd be allowed.
Oh - one last time, it's pederasty that you'd prefer to not condone or enable. Pedophilia is, literally, "love of children", and remarkably widespread. Watch the women in a social setting when someone brings in an infant, and you'll see a heartwarming display of that love. Let's try to use the language properly, shall we?
emdoub: Len Budney: MacFall:I don't believe there is any such thing as a general age of consent. If a person can consent, they are an adult. If they can't, they are a child. That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, as every person matures differently. Thus an "age of consent" law is a bad law, in every application. I wholeheartedly agree. But I do hasten to point out that there's nothing about this viewpoint that condones or enables pedophilia. It's an invalid argument to say, "If there's no legal 'age of consent,' then adults can have sex with toddlers!" Doesn't that become problematic? An 'age of consent' is, at least, quantifiable. For a 'level of maturity' rule, one must be able to measure and determine some method of determining level of maturity - a remarkably nebulous characteristic.
Len Budney: MacFall:I don't believe there is any such thing as a general age of consent. If a person can consent, they are an adult. If they can't, they are a child. That can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, as every person matures differently. Thus an "age of consent" law is a bad law, in every application. I wholeheartedly agree. But I do hasten to point out that there's nothing about this viewpoint that condones or enables pedophilia. It's an invalid argument to say, "If there's no legal 'age of consent,' then adults can have sex with toddlers!"
Yes and no. States create quantifiable laws like quotas, ages, etc.--and specific sentencing guidelines--precisely because it's incapable of exercising sound judgment. Which leads to all manner of injustice, because there's no way to achieve justice without sound judgment. In a free society, "justice" isn't so much a set of rules to enforce as a body of negotiations that take place. The only "law" is non-aggression, but applying that law in any given situation may be obvious or difficult. That's not a defect in my viewpoint; that's an inherent aspect of reality.
Of course there can. The rule is, "don't aggress." All that's left is a (difficult!) question of fact: did the defendant aggress.
A plenitude of studies show that we're born sexual. Kids self-stimulate at every age.
A point I've never denied...
It's conceivable that a toddler could consent.
That's where the "retarded" analogy comes in. A toddler in general can't begin to grasp the implications of such a decision, and is virtually guaranteed psychological damage by taking on burdens for which it isn't developmentally ready. If the toddler in question is also an MD and a college professor, my general observations might not apply--but in general, they will. Which brings the caretaker into the situation.
Without a law prohibiting that child from consenting, one would have to say it'd be allowed.
A solid case can be made that an adult seeking such uninformed consent from an unready party is in fact aggressing. If the toddler lived in its own apartment, there would be nobody with standing to charge the adult, but since it lives in its parents' home, and they assume responsibility for things like medical bills, they do have standing.
Bandying a dictionary against words' common usage is mental masturbation. You could go blind.
Len Budney: The mentally retarded do, indeed, have a right to choose to have sex - it's not even forbidden by law in my (remarkably paternal) state. Sure. Because such things are contextual, and an IQ limit is no more just than an age limit. Mentally retarded people marry, for example. But someone taking advantage of a retarded person is liable to a rape charge. The case will hinge on exactly what the person's mental capacity was, what the perpetrator told him, etc. It must be decided on a case-by-case basis, like any other case of aggression (which, recall, includes fraud).
Okay - I may be out of my depth here. If every case of agression is decided on a case-by-case basis, who decides what constitutes agression? There seems to be a paradigm here that I'm not aware of - my assumption of a written code of law may be irrelevant here, if the paradigm is that everyone decides for themself, and enforces those decisions (either personally, or via paid agents). A pointer to an article I've missed, or a discussion that would make this clear, would be appreciated.
If immaturity prevents consent, I'm not sure that I can give consent - and I'm past 50. If you're not dependent on anyone else, you can do anything you want to, including grind yourself into sausage to feed your own dogs. As long as you don't aggress. Recall that I've carefully stated that the same goes for my son: immature as I might think him, if he isn't dependent on me for support, he can do what he wants. While he's dependent, there are conditions on my support. I also pointed out that that's not exactly contractual, because he didn't consent to be born.
I'll cheerfully agree that you've got authority over those you have responsibility for - I've raised too many kids to dispute that. But by this, I hear you saying that if you find out that your son has been having sex with the 19-yo neighbor, your recourse is to discipline your son - the neighbor, not having committed agression, is blameless.
You have no right to forbid any activity to anyone unless you can show the harm it does to the unwilling. That's pure nonsense: I can forbid smoking in my house; I can forbid my employees' ever saying "blue cheese"; I can declare my front yard a clothing-free zone; I can require anyone entering my store to dance like a chicken until it makes me laugh. It isn't perfectly clear exactly what I can and can't do with a comatose patient whose bills I'm paying, or an insane person I'm letting live in my house, or a newborn baby I'm supporting. But it's clear that as the supporter, I have some authority. At minimum, I have the authority to withhold my support if I choose.
As the owner/proprietor of places like your yard, your house, your store, your business - you can make whatever rules you like, I suppose. (The requirement to dance like a chicken might restrict your customer base, but it might enhance it, depending on what you're retailing.) This would seem to indicate that you've no interest in what happens outside of your domain, and that the neighbor who is trading ice cream to toddlers for sexual services outside of your property is none of your business, which seems a tad farfetched.
Again, I seem to be missing a paradigm here - I'm pretty much a new kid on this block. I've been assuming that if my neighbor is emulating Sweeny Todd or Jeffrey Dahmer, I should interfere in some way, but if they're doing a David Koresh, and not committing agression, helping to defend them from agression would be merely neighborly.
Or are you being disingenous by referring entirely to behavior on your domain?
I'm no expert, but where I'm coming from could be summed up in the doctrine of "standing": if you are a victim of the aggression, you have "standing" to prosecute; otherwise, you don't. That's also a doctrine in the present court system, and it's basically the right one. If I assault you, you have standing to charge or sue me. If it happens on Joe's property, Joe has standing as well, and can at least charge me with trespassing. If I cripple you and you lose your job, your dependents have standing to sue me. If I kill you, your heirs have standing. Third parties from Oshkosh, who read about my assault in the papers, can be outraged--but they have no standing and must stay out of it.
Standing can be delegated, by the way. Your lawyer acts as your agent, so he has standing within the limits of your contractual relationship. Your security provider probably has standing, as does your insurance company. Your heirs can inherit your standing, so if you're robbed and then die of a heart attack, your heirs can sue to recover the property which is rightfully theirs. In Iceland, it was possible to sell your standing: a wronged clan-member often sold his standing to his clan chief. In that way he was compensated for the crime to his own satisfaction, and the clan chief would both pursue justice and pocket the winnings of his suit. (I'm definitely in favor of that. That's how the "little guy" can take on "big business," for example, without needing a government to do it. Got a complaint against Walmart? Sell it to Target's legal department!)
That answers your "who decides" question in a very different way than the government approach. If you break into my home and get yourself a sandwich, but we're actually friends and you're starving, I can decide not to press charges. There IS NO state to press charges against my will, so your trespassing is justified, after the fact, by my retroactive permission. Only you have standing to press charges or not. If the home is mortgaged, and the bank has the deed, they might also have standing of course.
You mentioned witnessing a crime as a bystander. In that case you don't technically have standing: you can't sue the criminal or charge him; you're just a witness. But you can repel his attack and protect the victim anyway, because in so doing you're acting as the victim's agent. You do run the risk of discovering that the "victim" was really the aggressor, in which case the "aggressor," who is really the victim, can now charge or sue you. It's also possible that the victim is a pacifist, and will demand that you not defend him. In that case, you cease to be his agent and cannot use force against the aggressor--the victim has basically consented to be robbed and beaten, so there's no "crime" for you to stop. Defense cases can get thorny, because you're assuming the victim would want you to defend him. Depending on all the circumstances, you might find yourself losing a suit by the aggressor, but that's a risk you take.
A completely different way to come at the question is to notice that justice, in a free society, comes from the bottom up, not the top down. You're always morally entitled to defend yourself against an aggressor, and the definition of aggression is absolute: the guy who starts it is always the aggressor. There is no "who decides" about it. On an island with exactly two people, that's the end of the story. When there are more than two, the issue is that people with standing (like the aggressor's heirs) and bystanders (who mistake the aggressor for victim, and choose to act as his agents) must be convinced that you're not the aggressor, or else they'll treat you as if you were. You agree to negotiate, or hire an arbitrator, or empanel a "jury," because you want to prove that you aren't the aggressor and get those people off your back. It's not that they have a "right" to "decide." You just want to make sure they don't mistake you for a murderer, and execute you. A complete libertarian legal system evolves naturally from this.
But again, it's not about "who decides." It's about convincing the people with standing of your innocence. In the case of relations with a toddler, you'd want to be able to convince everyone that the toddler consented--which would be mighty hard. Even more immediately, you need to bear in mind that the toddler's agents (including its parents) might use defensive force to kill you. That shifts the burden of proof to them: they have to prove that you aggressed, and they acted defensively. But with the bleeding toddler for evidence, how hard will they find it to make their case? Not very. Bearing that in mind, one would exercise extreme care in how they go about propositioning toddlers.
Well said, Len.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Len Budney:{...} I do hasten to point out that there's nothing about this viewpoint that condones or enables pedophilia. It's an invalid argument to say, "If there's no legal 'age of consent,' then adults can have sex with toddlers!"
Len Budney: Doesn't that become problematic? An 'age of consent' is, at least, quantifiable. For a 'level of maturity' rule, one must be able to measure and determine some method of determining level of maturity - a remarkably nebulous characteristic. Yes and no. States create quantifiable laws like quotas, ages, etc.--and specific sentencing guidelines--precisely because it's incapable of exercising sound judgment. Which leads to all manner of injustice, because there's no way to achieve justice without sound judgment. In a free society, "justice" isn't so much a set of rules to enforce as a body of negotiations that take place. The only "law" is non-aggression, but applying that law in any given situation may be obvious or difficult. That's not a defect in my viewpoint; that's an inherent aspect of reality.
Okay - I see where we went wrong here. You're an anarcho-capitalist (or anarchist of some sort, at least), and rule of law does not apply to your point of view. I hadn't understood that. Frankly, I'm not all that comfortable counting on my neighbors to exercise sound judgement - so I'm arguing apples while you're arguing oranges. Agreement isn't going to happen here - not because of the issue at hand, but because our basic precepts don't mesh.
If there is no rule, there can be no prohibition - not in any system of law. Of course there can. The rule is, "don't aggress." All that's left is a (difficult!) question of fact: did the defendant aggress.
That would tend toward a question of opinion, rather than fact, I'm afraid. In my neighborhood, the kids are being taught that I'm agressing against them by operating a motor vehicle or smoking a cigarette.
It's conceivable that a toddler could consent. That's where the "retarded" analogy comes in. A toddler in general can't begin to grasp the implications of such a decision, and is virtually guaranteed psychological damage by taking on burdens for which it isn't developmentally ready. If the toddler in question is also an MD and a college professor, my general observations might not apply--but in general, they will. Which brings the caretaker into the situation.
I'm not entirely certain that a 22-yo college student can grasp all of the implications of such a decision, either. However, I've personally witnessed two separate situations in which toddlers did have consensual sexual contact with someone older, without any apparent harm, either short-term or long-term - it's commonly referred to as 'playing doctor'. If, for example, my 4-yo son was caught playing doctor with your happy 2-yo daughter, would I be guilty of agression - my son's behavior being my responsibility? You may, of course, choose to view the incident with tolerance - but you may not. Make the two kids 12 and 14, and things get to be even more of a question of opinion. Whose opinion rules?
This is probably the wrong thread in which to debate the virtues of anarchy versus libertarianism, so I'll change tactics and ask you - at what age do you consider your daughter's consent to be possible - in other words, where would you place the age of consent?
Personally, I consider precision in speech important in accurate communication. I dunno about blind - but I do use corrective lenses.
Danno, wondering why someone who doesn't like written law is debating age-of-consent laws...
anarchy versus libertarianism
No, it's anarchist vs minarchist libertarianism.
I'm sorry - I didn't intend such a level of topic drift. I'd be more than happy to discuss this in another thread - I fear it's not appropriate to a discussion entitled "The right to have sex - at what age?", which I would like to continue as such. We can move this to a new topic that you start and point me toward, move this to a new topic that I start and point you toward, or drop it - those three options are the order of my preference, descending. But I do have a suggestion for a starting-off point:
Len Budney: A completely different way to come at the question is to notice that justice, in a free society, comes from the bottom up, not the top down. You're always morally entitled to defend yourself against an aggressor, and the definition of aggression is absolute: the guy who starts it is always the aggressor. There is no "who decides" about it. On an island with exactly two people, that's the end of the story. When there are more than two, the issue is that people with standing (like the aggressor's heirs) and bystanders (who mistake the aggressor for victim, and choose to act as his agents) must be convinced that you're not the aggressor, or else they'll treat you as if you were. You agree to negotiate, or hire an arbitrator, or empanel a "jury," because you want to prove that you aren't the aggressor and get those people off your back. It's not that they have a "right" to "decide." You just want to make sure they don't mistake you for a murderer, and execute you. A complete libertarian legal system evolves naturally from this.
So, if I were living in your vision of a free society, and the guy walking past my house was of the opinion that I was aggressing against him by smoking a cigarette, and shot at me, and I shot back and killed him, I'd have to come to some sort of agreement with his heirs about whether or not I was justified. If they refused to find agreement and shot me, then my heirs could go after them.
Isn't this how the Hatfields and McCoys got their feud started? Someone does, indeed, have to decide - and if their decisions are not agreed with by others, conflict will ensue, with "who can marshal the most force" a likely deciding factor.
I'm pretty new here, and don't yet know if there's an elegant way to move this to a more appropriately-named thread - if you can, I'd appreciate some pointer towards it. If you'd prefer, I can figure out some effective (if inelegant) way of moving this.