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."
I would have loved to have been the 8-yo boy, and was much better at not getting caught by Mom.
Danno
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
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.
Essentially, yes. Your objection is that you don't trust humans to know what is or isn't aggression. Well, if one man is retarded enough to think that you're agressing by smoking, or having a campfire, or whatever, then he will attack someone and be killed in self-defense, which will purify the gene pool.
But if, as you fear, a critical mass of people are that retarded, then you're right: anarchy can't work. But of course the state also can't work, because the same retards will simply come after you using political means--and government is a force multiplier. A single idiot with his finger on the right lever can exercise tremendous influence. And idiots are often dedicated and single-minded. One look at the world around you will show you the damage a few idiots can do.
Still, I can sympathize with you as a minarchist libertarian. I used to be one myself. The trouble is that just what I wanted was already tried. Tommy Jefferson made a bold attempt, but the rot set in before the framers even died. We tried minarchy, and it was a failure.
--Len
Let me put some values into the equation describing Len's moral system.
You haven't a clue what my moral system is, Mr. "I'm neither for nor against pedophilia." Your straw-man is unwelcome here. I've expressed myself clearly enough, and at great length; if you really believe your sick parody of my position, then you can't read.
--Len.
The term Statutory Rape tells you all you need to know. Legislation has caused a sex act that does not fit the common law defintion of rape to be treated as if it did.
Falsely classifying underage sex as rape is not required in order to "prevent" it. If a child is actually molested that fits the common law defintion of rape. Statutory Rape is only required to criminalize consensual activities. Obviously courts are able to determine, on an individual basis, what underage sex is consensual and which is not. If parents do not wish their competent children to engage in sex, they will have to use normal parental techniques and not the law.
It is good parenting, and not the law, that prevents children from being exploited. And the law can not be used by parents to control their children. There will be no fugitive slave laws whereby run-away children are returned to their parents.
Peace
Len Budney: So, if I were living in your vision of a free society, (...) Essentially, yes.
So, if I were living in your vision of a free society, (...)
Essentially, yes.
Discussion moved to a more appropriate thread, at http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/2381/31932.aspx#31932 - to avoid further disruption of this thread. Apologies for any inconvenience.
JonBostwick: The term Statutory Rape tells you all you need to know. Legislation has caused a sex act that does not fit the common law defintion of rape to be treated as if it did. Falsely classifying underage sex as rape is not required in order to "prevent" it. If a child is actually molested that fits the common law defintion of rape. Statutory Rape is only required to criminalize consensual activities.
Falsely classifying underage sex as rape is not required in order to "prevent" it. If a child is actually molested that fits the common law defintion of rape. Statutory Rape is only required to criminalize consensual activities.
Maybe I am in the right place, after all. Thanks for speakin' up.
I answer to your subject line rather than to go much into your content, as the answer is the same.
There is no right to have sex. If a human being is physicall able to have sexual intercourse, than he/she can have it, full stop.
Another question is if parents can offer their children a sensible and rational reason to not have sex before they can understand the consequences.
The question is a question that every individual has to decide on its own and not up to any "group" :-) .
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Isn't the question of whether or not a child/individual has been abused one that can only be answered by the child/individual themselves? If someone has "consensual" sex with a 18 yr old, 12 yr old, 8yr old or whatever age child, or likewise an individual impaired due to drugs, coma, etc, they are placing themselves in a position where that child/individual may later choose to seek restitution under the grounds that they were assaulted and that their consent was invalid due to their impaired state of consciousness. It is not up to any third party to make this decision but up to the child/individual themselves! A third party may try to convince the victim that they have indeed been victimized, and may also provide means to facilitate restitution to the victim, but it is up to the victim themselves to demonstrate willingness to seek restitution with a court or protection agency.
As far as a third party (non-guardian) initiating force to prevent a child/individual from having consensual sex, the same rule should apply. It is up to the child/individual to decide whether this action constituted aggression and to demonstrate willingness to seek restitution as a result. This same logic should apply to initiating force to save someone's life from eminent danger. The person initiating force must be judicious as to how their action will be interpreted by the "victim" being saved. The ungrateful victim is entirely within his/her rights to seek restitution from the person who "saved" his/her life if they were truly intending to commit suicide, have sex, or to endanger themselves in whatever way they were doing.
The parent or guardian of a child, however, has an implied contractual relationship with the child whereby the child must follow the rules of the house in exchange for the protection afforded by the parent, as in any tenant/landlord relationship. The parent or guardian most certainly may disallow the child from having sexual relations to whatever age they see fit so long as the child chooses to receive support from the parent or guardian. Again, an overly lenient or overly strict parent cannot be construed as abusing a child simply based on the moral judgments of a third party. If a parent has been neglectful or abusive, it is up to the child/victim to demonstrate their willingness to seek restitution for such neglect or abuse.
To sum up, if you choose to act upon our moral judgments on the consensual activities between other individuals, regardless of their age or state mind, you must be willing to face responsibility for your actions! We are always responsible to the victim for our actions, but it is up to the victim to hold us as such.
Isn't the question of whether or not a child/individual has been abused one that can only be answered by the child/individual themselves?
I can prove that that's not the case in general. Suppose that someone kills a child (very "humanely," let's say), and claims the child consented. Would it be impossible to prosecute the killer without an accusation from the deceased? Similarly if someone renders a child comatose, or incurably insane, claiming his actions were consensual. That suffices to prove that crimes can be prosecuted without an accusation from the victim.
In the case of child abuse, things get tricker: a child can be groomed to say almost anything, including that abuse was actually consensual. At issue is the child's ability to understand what he's supposedly "consenting" to in the first place, as well as any psychological damage done by the abuse, of which the child is most likely unaware. Psychological damage is awfully hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. When it's particularly severe, nobody would dream of denying it.
To sum up, if you choose to act upon our moral judgments on the consensual activities between other individuals, regardless of their age or state mind, you must be willing to face responsibility for your actions!
You're neglecting the fact that costs are imposed on the custodians. If someone molests my child, and I end up paying tens of thousands of dollars for psychological treatment, I most certainly will come after the perpetrator for (at least) full compensation. Applying your argument, I have no choice but to eat the costs of the abuse, or else put the child out of my house (which, incidentally, is likely to result in the molester taking him in).
If you apply your argument to the comatose or the insane, or anyone else with diminished mental capacity, you'll see why it's certainly objectionable. Can caregivers of comatose women rent them out for kinky sex? Can a brothel take in women too insane to complain about anything, and allow them to be raped and beaten?
Len,
I would concede that in the case of murder, and perhaps total and permanent incapacitation, an self-declared agent of the victim would be in a legitimate position to make claims on the behalf of the victim.
Len Budney:In the case of child abuse, things get tricker: a child can be groomed to say almost anything, including that abuse was actually consensual.
My point was that eventually a child is no longer a child and may choose even years later to seek restitution from their aggressor. Further, it is precisely this fact that a child (or mentally handicapped individual) may be heavily influenced and aided by third parties (who may even take it upon themselves to forcefully remove a child from an abusive situation) and may easily be convinced of the invalidity of the consent they originally gave that creates the risk one faces when (and is the disincentive towards) entering into "consensual" relationships with such individuals of dubious mental capacity. The very fact that "a child can be groomed to say almost anything" is strong evidence in and of itself that the child in question was not in position to give valid consent. It is still, however, up to the victim or their voluntarily contracted agent to prove to a court or protection agency that the alleged action occurred and that consent was indeed invalid due to the state of mind of the victim.
Len Budney:You're neglecting the fact that costs are imposed on the custodians. If someone molests my child, and I end up paying tens of thousands of dollars for psychological treatment, I most certainly will come after the perpetrator for (at least) full compensation. Applying your argument, I have no choice but to eat the costs of the abuse, or else put the child out of my house (which, incidentally, is likely to result in the molester taking him in).
That's not at all what I'm saying. You're perfectly entitled to go after the perpetrator, on your own behalf for the costs you've incurred and on behalf of your child, provided your child's willingness to accuse the perpetrator of aggression. If your child declares that he/she was not really molested and that they were fully consenting, only then are you not entitled to go after the perpetrator. The choice to put your child out of your house as a result of his/her action is totally your own and irrelevant to the question.
Len Budney:If you apply your argument to the comatose or the insane, or anyone else with diminished mental capacity, you'll see why it's certainly objectionable. Can caregivers of comatose women rent them out for kinky sex? Can a brothel take in women too insane to complain about anything, and allow them to be raped and beaten?
A brothel could do any of these things, but at grave risk of prosecution against them. Any of their customers could take the initiative and choose to "save" (kidnap) such a victimized woman. Provided the woman is willing to accept the assistance offered to her, the brothel owner most certainly could be held responsible. But again, anyone choosing to "save" such a woman must be willing to be held responsible for forceable abduction should the woman, despite her incapacity, still declare that she was consenting to whatever activity was committed against her.
You may be right that in the extreme case that a victim is so totally incapacitated as to not be able to express any opinion in the matter, a third party may be in a legitimate position to declare themselves as the agent of the individual. Even so, yet another party would possibly be equally in position to challenge this claim. This particular extreme case is, I think, open for further debate...
My point was that you can and should initiate force in defense of someone you think is being victimized, based on whatever criteria you should decide; however, you must be judicious and willing to face responsibility to the victim for your action. Anyone is entitled to take justice into their own hands provided they are willing to be held responsible.
You're perfectly entitled to go after the perpetrator, on your own behalf for the costs you've incurred and on behalf of your child, provided your child's willingness to accuse the perpetrator of aggression.
You're REALLY overestimating the mental capacity of a one-year-old molestation victim. A predator can, and usually does, teach his victim either (1) to beg for it, or (2) to believe it's deserved.
What's shining through your post is a sense that incapacitation is a binary quantity. An independent adult is regarded as "fully capacitated," and a newborn is "fully incapacitated," but somewhere in between you believe that a switch is thrown, and the child passes from one state to the other? That just ain't so. It sounds rather like, and is just as wildly false as, the old notion that a child is a miniature adult. There are degrees of incapacitation, and degrees of maturity. Cheese whiz, man! I hate psychobabble as much as the next guy, but while we're building a libertarian legal theory here, we shouldn't cultivate total ignorance of things like child development as if it were a virtue.
Len Budney: Isn't the question of whether or not a child/individual has been abused one that can only be answered by the child/individual themselves? I can prove that that's not the case in general. Suppose that someone kills a child (very "humanely," let's say), and claims the child consented. Would it be impossible to prosecute the killer without an accusation from the deceased? Similarly if someone renders a child comatose, or incurably insane, claiming his actions were consensual. That suffices to prove that crimes can be prosecuted without an accusation from the victim.
I would expect that anyone who rendered their partner in a consensual act incapable of giving testimony in such a fashion would have the burden of proof of that consent, and that the evident damage would be sufficient to substantiate an accusation from a third party, regardless of the ages involved.
But you're really starting to reach for the extreme situations to make your point here.
Um... my first wife damaged me, both materially and psychologically. I cannot claim that I did not consent to marry her. My mistake.
(A word that this editor apparently won't allow) occurs. Every human interaction carries risks, not all of them forseeable. It'd be lovely if that were not so, but it is so - and "I was hurt" is a feeble accusation to make in matters of the heart, unless non-consent can be shown, through fraud or coercion. If non-consent can be shown, then the age matters not - it's rape.
Yes, a child (or an adult, for that matter) can be groomed to say almost anything, given enough time for the grooming. This argument could be used to invalidate anyone's testimony. I would expect the burden of proof to rest upon the person claiming that the testimony was interfered with, just as the burden of proof in a perjury accusation rests with the accuser.
To sum up, if you choose to act upon our moral judgments on the consensual activities between other individuals, regardless of their age or state mind, you must be willing to face responsibility for your actions! You're neglecting the fact that costs are imposed on the custodians. If someone molests my child, and I end up paying tens of thousands of dollars for psychological treatment, I most certainly will come after the perpetrator for (at least) full compensation. Applying your argument, I have no choice but to eat the costs of the abuse, or else put the child out of my house (which, incidentally, is likely to result in the molester taking him in).
One wonders why you would expect an abused child to willingly seek out shelter with their abuser. In a custodial relationship, there are other factors that come into play, conflating the issues - but in a non-custodial relationship, they're remarkably minimal - so your assumption that the child would seek shelter with the 'abuser' implies that you posit the idea that the 'child' may actually be consenting - but not really, because you know what's better for them, and you know more, and your wishes for their attitudes should trump their will.
FWIW, if someone molests your child, and they're harmed to the point of needing tens of thousands of dollars in therapy, they're remarkably unlikely to claim that it was consensual.
Those who are comatose, or whose relationship with reality is obviously dysfunctional, (would that include Hillary fans?) clearly cannot consent. If your child, in the years before they're ready to move out of your house (or at any time, for that matter), fits either description, you have my sympathies (once I've been assured that you're not the cause of such a state of health).
But this thread isn't about "The right to have sex - at what state of health?". My assumption has been that the person having sex is aware of their surroundings, able to communicate reasonably clearly, and believes that they have the capacity to decide whether they want to or not, regardless of your opinion on the matter. That you keep bringing up examples that do not fit those criteria is leading me to believe that you're dodging the question because of a deeply-held emotional belief that you can't put forth rationale for.
To use one of the more extreme examples that gives people nighmares, the 6-yo girl is possibly making an unwise decision when she lets the nice stranger look inside her undies in exchange for a candy bar - but I may be making an unwise decision if I meet an attractive, 50-yo redhead at the bar tonight and go off with her for sex, too. At what point do we get to change our minds retroactively, and claim that our consent was invalid, even if we gave it freely at the time? At what point can someone else claim that we're incapable of giving or withholding consent?
Juan:No sane and healthy person takes drugs. If somebody takes drugs that's a sign of lack of mental development, or a sign of mental damage, or mental illness - wich means that drug users can't form consent. So drug 'dealers' are commiting a crime similar to rape when they sell drugs to their clients - not clients, victims actually. So, drug dealers are fair game - they can be shot in "self-defense".
I'll sit back, sip my gin and tonic, light a cigarette, and point out that your point wasn't immediately evident - I had to think about it for a minute. Maybe it's just me - it *has* been a long day. Then again, in my corner of the world, "addiction" is now officially a disease for which I cannot be held responsible (I swear, yerHonor - I'm a victim of the Tanqueray bottlers and Reynolds tobacco company!) - so your point may be lost on some.
Maybe I should bring charges up against Mary - we had an ugly breakup, and now I'm not so sure that I'd consented to the sex she inflicted on me. It'd serve her right, y'know?
Not if you read carefully what my point is. It's a rigorous proof (in the mathematical sense) that one can be convicted of a crime without an accusation from the vicitm. No more, no less.
Child psychology in general, and sexual abuse in particular, has a massive body of literature--none of which you can possibly have read, and still make that statement. Some 80% of molesters prey on children who know and trust them, and the result is often the sexualization of the child, including acting out sexually. The child internalizes and rationalizes the abuse. The precise problem IS that the child comes away with a pathological concept of sexuality, and often doesn't realize he has a problem--until many years later, when adulthood exposes his dysfunction in relationships and, in many cases, replication of the abuse he himself experienced.
In short, the effect of the abuse is to render the child mentally ill, and one of the primary symptoms is an inability to understand his abuse for what it is. This is milder than placing him in a coma, or rendering him insane enough for an institution, but the difference is in degree rather than kind. His ability to give testimony is damaged as a direct result of the aggression he experienced.
Which brings us back to the caretaker. There are traumas that can do the same thing to adults. However, an independent adult in such situations is unlikely to seek help until the consequences of her psychological damage become intolerable. That's the way the cookie crumbles, in our present society OR in a free society. If she can feed and clothe herself, and poses no danger to others, she will get no help except what she asks for, and no action will be taken against aggressors against her unless she initiates it. This is one of the more unpleasant parts of reality, which is why statists dream of a nanny government that can save such victims from themselves. It can't happen, short of divine intervention.
Children and other dependents, however, do happen to have an advocate. They are not completely free agents; if they attempted to live as free agents, they would die. And so long as they are dependent on others, their support comes with strings attached. No libertarian thinker, even the mighty Rothbard, has incorporated them cleanly into the theory of liberty, so we're in essentially uncharted waters. I've suggested analogies to contractual relationships, but that's barely scratching the surface of the topic.
One thing we can be sure of. The notion that newborns can enter into sexual relationships with NAMBLA members is idiotic beyond belief. A complete theory of liberty, if one is ever completed, will not involve such a conclusion. It will find a way to fit dependents into libertarian law in a way that respects reality. Pretending that all homo sapiens, regardless of condition or circumstance, are adult free agents, is simply ludicrous.
Len Budney: But you're really starting to reach for the extreme situations to make your point here. Not if you read carefully what my point is. It's a rigorous proof (in the mathematical sense) that one can be convicted of a crime without an accusation from the vicitm. No more, no less.
If they're incapacitated and unable to give testimony, which has nothing to do with "says they gave consent" - which is what I thought we were talkin' about here.
FWIW, if someone molests your child, and they're harmed to the point of needing tens of thousands of dollars in therapy, they're remarkably unlikely to claim that it was consensual. Child psychology in general, and sexual abuse in particular, has a massive body of literature--none of which you can possibly have read, and still make that statement. Some 80% of molesters prey on children who know and trust them, and the result is often the sexualization of the child, including acting out sexually. The child internalizes and rationalizes the abuse. The precise problem IS that the child comes away with a pathological concept of sexuality, and often doesn't realize he has a problem--until many years later, when adulthood exposes his dysfunction in relationships and, in many cases, replication of the abuse he himself experienced.
Odd - I guess I'll have to toss out the literature on my shelf - I must have merely imagined myself reading it. Come to think of it, didn't I offer a cite from one of them in this thread? I'm really not uninformed, and there really is serious research that says (as politically incorrect as it may seem) that not all sex is damaging to people who are under the current "age of consent" - or, necessarily, pre-pubescent. Not even the sex with notable differences in age. Coerced or forced sex is almost always traumatic - but only almost always, and that's not what we were talking about here.
There is, indeed, a large body of "research", feminist-PC in tone, which claims the view you mention here. Among therapists eager to cash in on the "hidden abuse" boom in therapy, and those with an anti-sex axe to grind, it's pretty popular. Very few sexologists take it very seriously.
There is even a published theory (though it claims to be fact) that states that any penetrative sex is inherently abusive - but very few take it seriously.
This does not, however, address the question - when does a person have the right to choose for themselves? Must they be self-supporting? Must they be post-pubescent? Must they have X level of verbal skill? Until you quantify this in some way, you're just duckin' the question.
Ahh - the "you may think you're having fun, but you're not having fun at all" theory of psychiatry. I hold that in the same high regard that I hold the "you may think you own that, but you're merely the steward of it, it belongs to society at large" theory of economics.
You do, uncharacteristically, seem to be able to take this rationale for the need for a nanny state quite seriously. I suppose I'll be a jerk and ask - are you familiar with the _Reality Therapy_ school - Glasser's work? Do you consider it valid, or relevant to this theory? Or were you just funnin' us about your expertise in this field?
Just in case it wasn't clear, I'm not going to mourn for the poor people whom we can't help, merely because they don't want help. I'd prefer to respect their wishes and leave them in peace, as cold and heartless as that may sound.
Not exactly uncharted territory - some parents actually allow their dependent minors as much freedom as they'd like - as long as they're willing to accept the responsibilities that go with that freedom. It's entirely likely that nobody's come up with a concise, workable plan that nobody can argue with, but it's not unexplored.
This is, however, still a side issue - you seem to be trying very hard to justify your stance on the original question, without deigning to answer that question clearly.
One thing we can be sure of. The notion that newborns can enter into sexual relationships with NAMBLA members is idiotic beyond belief.
The idea that more than a fraction of a percent of them would want to is just as idiotic - that straw man won't work. People who are erotically attracted to infants are rare - to newborns, vanishingly rare. Nor has anyone here inferred that a newborn would be aware enough of their surroundings to give consent. To equate a newborn to a 14-yo person is just as absurd, in any sense.
NAMBLA's literature (if you can find it - they're not PC) clearly addresses love between adults and self-identified homosexual, pubescent boys - nowhere near the "newborn" you use as an example. Surely you can come up with a better straw man than that.
A complete theory of liberty, if one is ever completed, will not involve such a conclusion. It will find a way to fit dependents into libertarian law in a way that respects reality. Pretending that all homo sapiens, regardless of condition or circumstance, are adult free agents, is simply ludicrous.
Okay - it's a bit sideways, but you finally infer your answer - they should not be allowed to consent to sexual activity until they're fully adults.
I can only assume that you're focusing so heavily on extreme examples (killed, traumatized into catatonia, newborn) to avoid being asked to justify such a stance - so I won't ask you to.
Is there anyone else who would care to discuss the actual issue?
Len Budney: But you're really starting to reach for the extreme situations to make your point here. Not if you read carefully what my point is. It's a rigorous proof (in the mathematical sense) that one can be convicted of a crime without an accusation from the vicitm. No more, no less. If they're incapacitated and unable to give testimony, which has nothing to do with "says they gave consent" - which is what I thought we were talkin' about here.
Again from the top: it was suggested that one can't be charged with a crime of aggression unless the victim testifies to that effect. I proved that that is not always true. Once we've established that, we can talk about when it is and when it isn't. But we've disposed once and for all of the assertion that a crime can't be charged without an accusation from the victim. Sometimes it can. This is not at all difficult to grasp.
Ahh - the "you may think you're having fun, but you're not having fun at all" theory of psychiatry.
Have you any experience whatsoever with abused children?
Or were you just funnin' us about your expertise in this field?
I did assert that you appear completely ignorant of the field, but I never claimed expertise. That would be an appeal to authority, which is invalid anyway. If I had first-hand experience of child sexual abuse, I wouldn't tell you: it's none of your business; and some on this thread would treat the information disrespectfully.
Okay - it's a bit sideways, but you finally infer your answer - they should not be allowed to consent to sexual activity until they're fully adults
You aren't reading carefully, then. I've already conceded that exceptional eight-year-olds might exist who are ready to marry and settle down. What I've been saying to you for some time now, and you seem to completely be missing, is that competence is a continuum. Between a comatose individual and an awake, aware, well-adjusted adult with a genius IQ there is a freaking continuum. Between the same well-adjusted genius adult and a hopelessly insane individual there is a freaking continuum. Between a newborn and a thirty-year-old blushing bride there is a freaking continuum.
Folks on this thread, like Juan, are doing what most libertarians do: ignoring the disabled or partially disabled completely, and assuming that all humans are either completely comatose, or completely competent free-agents. There are degrees of intelligence, sanity, maturity and competence. I've picked random points that are low on those scales, like "toddlers," or "five year olds" or even "newborns" to reinforce that point, but it's been so completely ignored so far that I'm more than a little frustrated. DO YOU GET IT?
There are also degrees of competence for adults, but any adult on its own and not dependent on anyone else is treated by convention as if he is a fully competent free agent. I support that fully, because I think it's a worse evil to empower any paternalistic agent of force. I emphatically and specifically support the rights of stupid people, whackos and nutjobs of every description, including the crazy cat lady down the street and the weirdo one town over who weighs 300 pounds and wanders around town in a clown costume all day. (I think she's on welfare, and that I don't support. But assuming she's living on inherited money or something, all is hunky dory.)
People too low on those scales to survive on their own, including dependents and wards of every description, be they mentally ill, mentally retarded, severely handicapped, children or whatever, are NOT completely free agents. No libertarian theory I'm aware of (including Rothbards) actually treats such people; they all ignore such people or, at best, pretend that they're at least capable of negotiating the terms of their dependency. THE THEORY IS INCOMPLETE.
Treating them all like completely free agents, when they're clearly not, is understandable under the circumstances, but dead wrong. Ludicously so, as anyone realizes who actually supports such wards and dependents.
That's a rather insulting dismissal, but I'm discussing precisely the issue. "Age of consent" laws are stupid attempts to address the continuum of competence and maturity by converting it into a binary state: competent; incompetent. There are thirteen-year-olds who are ready to marry out there, and there are eighteen-year-olds who are still insufficiently competent dependents. The question doesn't belong with any agent of force; it belongs with the interested parties and involves a negotiation of the child, the would-be paramour and the guardians and other interested parties. The interesting, unsolved questions of libertarian law revolve around defining the criteria by which guardians have standing, and the limits of their authority, given that the child's testimony can vary between completely unavailable (newborns, say) through wildly unreliable (one-year-olds, say) through perfectly reliable (a mature adult ready to move out on his own, well adjusted with at least average IQ, say). THERE IS A CONTINUUM.
(The display in the 'Preview' section of the reply javascript is not properly displaying nested quote boxes, and I can't find the cause - they look fine in the editor window of the 'Compose' tab. I'm hoping that this display issue is a flaw on my end, and will display correctly on Mises - if not, I apologize in advance if the following is confusing. I tried, but failed. If you see double-boxed quotes below the phrase "don sails", please read the paragraph following them as being within the outside box of the double boxes.)
One last shot, I suppose....
Len Budney: Len Budney: But you're really starting to reach for the extreme situations to make your point here. Not if you read carefully what my point is. It's a rigorous proof (in the mathematical sense) that one can be convicted of a crime without an accusation from the vicitm. No more, no less. If they're incapacitated and unable to give testimony, which has nothing to do with "says they gave consent" - which is what I thought we were talkin' about here. Again from the top: it was suggested that one can't be charged with a crime of aggression unless the victim testifies to that effect. I proved that that is not always true. Once we've established that, we can talk about when it is and when it isn't. But we've disposed once and for all of the assertion that a crime can't be charged without an accusation from the victim. Sometimes it can. This is not at all difficult to grasp.
Not only easy to grasp, but a remarkably tangential side point that nobody's disputing. What you have not demonstrated is why this is relevant to the topic under discussion, which would be situations in which someone has (and can, assumedly, testify that they have) given consent.
I don't recall anyone asking whether sexual activity with someone who could not consent should be considered aggression, or anyone contending that it should not be - you're tilting at a windmill here, and I'm getting quite bored with being invited to don sails.
Ahh - the "you may think you're having fun, but you're not having fun at all" theory of psychiatry. Have you any experience whatsoever with abused children?
If you think that's an effective or relevant answer to the point I raised (mostly in the part that you cut out), then this demonstrates the futility of my continuing this conversation with you.
Not that it's any of your business, or even particularly relevant to the question at hand, but I'll answer this side issue question, just for completeness - I'd hate to appear as if I were ignoring questions because I had no good answer. I have no clinical experience (I'm not a licensed therapist, nor qualified to be one), some tangential social experience, fairly extensive social experience with adult survivors of childhood sexual activity (consensual and otherwise), and a fairly solid (for a layman) level of study in the university-level literature, though it was tangential to my primary focus in the genre.
What has that to do with the point I was trying to make there - in the part you declined to quote or answer? You may think you're being effective in making a point when you ignore the questions, or edit quotes to obscure points being made - but it's not as effective or convincing as you seem to think it is.
Or were you just funnin' us about your expertise in this field? I did assert that you appear completely ignorant of the field, but I never claimed expertise. That would be an appeal to authority, which is invalid anyway. If I had first-hand experience of child sexual abuse, I wouldn't tell you: it's none of your business; and some on this thread would treat the information disrespectfully.
In order: yes indeed, not exactly, close to true, true but immaterial.
You have, indeed, repeatedly and insultingly claimed that I must be totally ignorant of the field, totally ignoring indications to the contrary.
By citing the " a massive body of literature--none of which you can possibly have read", you imply that you have read at least some of it - and have some familiarity with the field. I've implied the same, long ago, by citing some such works. No, neither of us has claimed expertise, and I'll have to admit to a cheap shot (in the part you deleted), where I fished for an indication of how well-read you are in the field.
That isn't exactly an appeal to authority, but it's close - but that is not always invalid. For example, if someone here says "Rothbard showed ...", it'll carry some weight - it won't necessarily be definitive, or a proof in and of itself, but it'll carry some weight - it's not totally without validity. (If it didn't carry some weight, every discussion would require that everyone ignore the work that's already been done, and re-invent the wheel for themselves - terribly inefficient.)
Your entirely correct, it'd be nobody else's business - but that's immaterial, being as nobody has asked you that question.
Okay - it's a bit sideways, but you finally infer your answer - they should not be allowed to consent to sexual activity until they're fully adults You aren't reading carefully, then. I've already conceded that exceptional eight-year-olds might exist who are ready to marry and settle down. What I've been saying to you for some time now, and you seem to completely be missing, is that competence is a continuum. Between a comatose individual and an awake, aware, well-adjusted adult with a genius IQ there is a freaking continuum. Between the same well-adjusted genius adult and a hopelessly insane individual there is a freaking continuum. Between a newborn and a thirty-year-old blushing bride there is a freaking continuum.
Okay - you imply here that exceptional 8-yos may be prepared to marry and settle down - but nobody asked about how to determine someone's ability (and thus, right) to attempt marriage, which is usually viewed as contractual. Are you equating a readiness for sexual experience with a readiness for marriage? (I'd expect that the one would be a needful prerequisite for the other, but it has not always been viewed as such). Or are you, yet again, sidestepping the question by focusing on extremes?
Yes, we get it - nobody's disputed it, and I've alluded to it myself, repeatedly. It's not the topic I've been trying to discuss, though it is relevant - it's just so obvious, one wonders why you're striving so hard to demonstrate that it gets dark at night on an overcast night if there isn't any other light source. By focusing on the extreme low end of that scale, you've (apparently successfully) derailed this conversation, well away from the original point, without ever giving a clear answer to the original question yourself.
Fine - if you don't want to answer the question, find a topic you do want to discuss. If what you want to discuss is how awful it is when sexual activity is forced upon the unwilling or those who cannot understand the consequences, be my guest - but I, at least, was trying to discuss something else.
(...)People too low on those scales to survive on their own, including dependents and wards of every description, be they mentally ill, mentally retarded, severely handicapped, children or whatever, are NOT completely free agents. No libertarian theory I'm aware of (including Rothbards) actually treats such people; they all ignore such people or, at best, pretend that they're at least capable of negotiating the terms of their dependency. THE THEORY IS INCOMPLETE.
If you can point to, or quote, where someone besides you asked "The right to have sex with mentally ill, severely handicapped children - at what age?", I'll stand corrected. Else, I'll leave you to your straw men - have a blast raising them and knocking them down.
Is there anyone else who would care to discuss the actual issue? That's a rather insulting dismissal, but I'm discussing precisely the issue.
That's a rather insulting dismissal, but I'm discussing precisely the issue.
Yes, it was - but no, you weren't.
The interesting, unsolved questions of libertarian law revolve around defining the criteria by which guardians have standing, and the limits of their authority, given that the child's testimony can vary between completely unavailable (newborns, say) through wildly unreliable (one-year-olds, say) through perfectly reliable (a mature adult ready to move out on his own, well adjusted with at least average IQ, say). THERE IS A CONTINUUM.
And, by focusing solely and repeatedly on the extreme ends of that continuum, ignoring any points or questions you had no answers for, you have effectively blocked discussion of the middle, gray areas - where I'd hoped to find an interesting discussion.
A shame, really.
(deleted--dang-ol' busted editing interface)
Ah, Gmail.
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: There's only one libertarian law, and it's non-aggression. It doesn't require any of the debate or picking and choosing that you're talking about. All it requires is that people be intelligent enough to distinguish aggression from non-aggression, and that they not be taught to confuse the two. The average three-year-old has the concept pretty straight.
That seems to somehow invalidate the position you so stubbornly (if not consistently) have argued for in this thread.?
Let's see if I have this straight. You're saying that since three-year-olds understand that it's bad to take their toys, therefore they are ready to consent to being sodomized by a twisted thirty-year-old. Hmmmm. Looks like a complete and utter non-sequitur to me. Can you fill in the logical canyon gap there?
(And why are you so persistent about defending twisted thirty-year-olds' right to sodomize three-year-olds? I'm still not getting that part.)
If I spend more effort, is this an example of my lack of understanding of sunk costs? Will I respect myself in the morning? Oh, well... another shot, I suppose.
Len Budney: Let's see if I have this straight. You're saying that since three-year-olds understand that it's bad to take their toys, therefore they are ready to consent to being sodomized by a twisted thirty-year-old. Hmmmm. Looks like a complete and utter non-sequitur to me. Can you fill in the logical canyon gap there?
Len - you're the only one talking about 3-yos being sodomized by twisted 30-yos. You are, simply, not reasoning on this topic - you're reacting emotionally and rationalizing it, which makes it remarkably difficult (yesterday, I'd have said pointless) to discuss it with you around.
The same emotion-driven reasoning you're presenting here can, and frequently has, been used in discussions of economic policy. "If the only available industry in an area is taking advantage of the workers (who sometimes know no better, because they're not sufficiently educated) and paying them too little, the industry must be regulated, because the workers can't defend themselves, so let's pass a minimum-wage law - it's only fair."
Is it possible that an industrialist could set up a "sweat shop" factory in a remote area, giving local residents the choice between severely underpaid and unreasonably dangerous work or no work at all, leading to starvation? Theoretically, it could happen. Is the urge to prevent such a situation sufficient cause to regulate whatever industry you're focused on? By your reasoning here, it would be.
"But - this is different!" Yes - it always is. Every time you claim a just departure from the ideal of self-determination, it'll be because that situation is different, somehow. That's okay - after you've made the fourth or fifth such departure, it gets much easier. After a while, you'll barely even notice.
You acknowledge elsewhere that, in other subjects, children (younger than anyone else was talking about here) readily understand the concept of property (though 3-yo kids cannot be expected to always respect others' property rights). In this topic, your basic assumption seems to be that (while there may be exceptions) children do not understand their own consent, and will be the victims of those evil industrialists er, pederasts, unless you use victimization as a basic premise (even if the children mistakenly claim that they consented) to decide what rules to enforce - in this subject, anyone younger than the age at which they're self-supporting apparently cannot be relied upon to know what they consent to or not, so they must be prevented from anything that would need their consent, to keep them safe. Just like the workers can't know what their rights are, so someone else must protect their rights, to keep them from being exploited by those evil monopolistic capitalist industrialist .bastiches.
Nobody in this thread has defended anyone's right to violate anyone's consent except you, and you're the only one seeing anyone else doing so. You would prevent that 3-yo from consenting (if they can, and wish to), to protect them. (Personally, I can't envision someone that young or small to consent to something that'd likely be quite painful - but that's the sort of example you pick, the outrageous. I *can* envision someone that young having a wonderful time with manual exploration - I've caught kids about that age doing it, and the literature you claim I cannot have read is full of such examples.)
I say that they should have the right to choose, you say that they must be prevented from that choice to protect them. According to you, my stance is the moral equivalent of saying that much-older perverts should have a right to harm small children - which is clearly an unrealistic (and remarkably insulting) characterization to everyone - except you.
If unreasoned, emotion-laden hysteria is all that's available here, I fail to see why I should spend any more time in this discussion. If, elsewhere, you present a picture of a cloverleaf as proof that there could be competition for the owner of the street that runs past the front of my house, I'm beginning to wonder if the software here has a killfile feature. I got tired of debating absurdities many years ago. With a killfile, I could at least have a discussion on this thread with the people who want to discuss it reasonably, without interruption.
I make this effort with very little expectation of success, and am a little ashamed - I'm usually better at declining to tilt at windmills.
Len - you're the only one talking about 3-yos being sodomized by twisted 30-yos. You are, simply, not reasoning on this topic
I think I'm responsible for some confusion here. The original question was, "The right to have sex--at what age?" THAT question was DOA, because NOT A SINGLE LIVING SOUL on this forum supports age-of-consent laws. They are inherently unjust, and furthermore are ineffective for the stated purpose: they fail to "protect" individuals above the age lacking the "maturity" deemed "necessary" to give consent; and they unjustly coerce individuals below the age who have the "maturity" to, for example, settle down, marry, and have sex with their spouse. No age would fulfill the stated purpose: lowering the age would increase the first type of error; raising the age would increase the second type of error.
Therefore, I blatantly ignored the implied request for a suggested age of consent, because it's a given that age-of-consent laws are out of the question. If you're really interested in "what age," you'll find it hard going here: none of us will suggest an age. If you suggest one, none of us will support it. If you suggest an age of three days, we'll still oppose it, because whatever your arguments against sex with newborns, such a law would be ludicrous for suggesting that those reasons don't apply to four-day-olds.
Age of consent laws are off they table. They were never on the table. Does that clarify why I'm not even discussing that specific question?
you're reacting emotionally and rationalizing
I don't think we've been introduced, but I'm a mathematician (by training, if not by current employment). Logical arguments are the only kind I make. If it appears otherwise, then we're having some sort of communication breakdown.
Let me explain why I keep mentioning young children. Juan has clearly and explicitly stated that any child who affirms, "I consent to this sexual relationship," is proven a voluntary participant, is not the victim of aggression, and that parents attempting to intervene ARE aggressors. It is possible for any three-year-old, and many one-year-olds, to articulate the words, "I consent." Therefore, Juan explicitly forbids parents from intervening if a one-year-old says, "I consent," to a sexual relationship with any consenting party--and since "any consenting party" clearly includes consenting 30-yearl-olds, say, Juan specifically believes that it is lawful (though perhaps "not to be recommended") for a one-year-old and a thirty-year-old to have sexual relations regardless of the parents' wishes.
Juan, I, you and everyone around here agrees that sex with a newborn is ispo facto rape. We also all agree that sex with an independent adult living on his own can have sex with whoever he chooses, whether or not it's "a good idea," and anyone interfering is guilty of aggression. We all agree that somewhere in between, the legal status of sexual relations changes from ipso-facto rape to the discretion of the parties involved alone. We ALL agree that this transition can NOT be defined by an age limit. So, to sum up: newborns, never; adults, whenever they choose; age limits, never.
Juan contends that there is a bright line of fire in the sand defining the limit: any being who says, "I consent," is deemed consenting. Including two-year-olds, or one-year-olds, or six-month-olds if they can actually articulate the statement.
I contend that there IS NO bright line in the sand. As for "limits," not only CAN'T there be an AGE limit, but there ALSO can't be a numeric IQ limit either, nor a numeric limit on some scale of "mental wellness," nor any other such law. All of them are objectionable on precisely the same grounds. But NEITHER is it sufficient to articulate the words, "I consent." I have proven this rigorously by pointing out that the words can be uttered: under duress; in one's sleep; by someone who speaks no English and reads the words phonetically from a cue card; by a hopelessly insane individual; or even by a parrot. The words "I consent" are not magical, and "consent" refers to the existence of agreement between two parties, NOT to a specific form of words.
In the case of children, I proceeded to point out that "duress" and "hopeless insanity" aren't the only ways a child can be induced to articulate "consent." Repeated mention of toddlers becomes important again in this context, because anyone who isn't an idiot understands that toddlers are malleable, and can be induced to "consent" to practically anything. In particular, they usually are induced to "consent" to their own abuse. You appeared to disregard that assertion completely, which provoked the comment that you appear ignorant of the vast literature on child psychology and abuse. This is something you should realize about children if you've read anything on the subject, OR if you're a parent, OR if you haven't completely forgotten your own childhood. There are many ways you can learn of this fact, but it's a sufficiently well-known fact that you can be taken to task for not knowing it.
(You turned this into a tangent about expertise. I'm a parent, am well read, have taken psychology courses, have a nearly eidetic recall reaching back to the age of two, and flashes from before that, and have first-hand experience with abuse, including being induced to "consent" to my own abuse. But none of that's any of your business: the above observation is too well known for you to demand credentials before accepting it as fact. Go look it up.)
The consequence of this fact is that children can be induced to "consent" to aggression, and therefore that their testimony on the subject is suspect. Extremely young children, exactly like the extremely retarded or insane, cannot testify reliably, and in particular cannot be taken at their word to be "consenting." Lack of mental capability is the controlling factor here, AND MENTAL CAPABILITY LIVES ON A CONTINUUM. For that reason, "consent" in young, retarded or insane people IS A WIDE GRAY AREA, and in general the question of consent can only be determined on a case-by-case basis in litigation. The law is crystal clear: actual consent disposes of any claim of aggression. What's extremely unclear is a question of fact: did the child in fact consent? That fact can only be determined by examining the specific child in question, and the specific circumstances under which "consent" was given.
Frankly, I don't see how you can disagree with that, if you've actually understood it. Suggesting that any child who says "I consent" should be deemed unconditionally as consenting is as ridiculous as making the same claim about an institutionalized individual who is severely retarded or insane.
Since I considered the above uncontroversial, and still can't imagine what is controversial about it, I've already proceeded to the next interesting question: what role do guardians have in overriding their mentally-deficient wards' claims to be consenting? That they have SOME role is evident, because even you wouldn't claim that a six-month-old (who can speak in full sentences) has discretion to enter into sexual relationships with adults regardless of the parents' wishes. Unfortunately, even considering the possibility causes you such an emotional reaction that you become distracted, and suppose that the emotional reaction was my goal. It wasn't. I'm pointing out that in AT LEAST ONE CASE you recognize that parents have some authority. Therefore, you've already abandoned Juan's position (which says the six-month-old can indeed enter into sexual relationships, as long as he can articulate the words).
So, having admitted that parents have some discretion, and that it's extremely great for newborns, and nonexistent when the child moves out on his own, you're finally up to speed on the only interesting question in the thread: what is the justification for parental authority, and what are its limits?
Len: And if some adult tried to tell me that my son is a free agent, and that's why he's prodding the boy's privates, I can assure you I will blow his head off
You seem to be good at doublethink. Children can grasp the basic principle of libertarianism(you say), but if they want to go against the dictates of the anti-sex-league...
Stop wasting your time, troll.
Len Budney: Len - you're the only one talking about 3-yos being sodomized by twisted 30-yos. You are, simply, not reasoning on this topic I think I'm responsible for some confusion here. The original question was, "The right to have sex--at what age?" THAT question was DOA, because NOT A SINGLE LIVING SOUL on this forum supports age-of-consent laws. They are inherently unjust, and furthermore are ineffective for the stated purpose: they fail to "protect" individuals above the age lacking the "maturity" deemed "necessary" to give consent; and they unjustly coerce individuals below the age who have the "maturity" to, for example, settle down, marry, and have sex with their spouse. No age would fulfill the stated purpose: lowering the age would increase the first type of error; raising the age would increase the second type of error. Therefore, I blatantly ignored the implied request for a suggested age of consent, because it's a given that age-of-consent laws are out of the question. If you're really interested in "what age," you'll find it hard going here: none of us will suggest an age. If you suggest one, none of us will support it. If you suggest an age of three days, we'll still oppose it, because whatever your arguments against sex with newborns, such a law would be ludicrous for suggesting that those reasons don't apply to four-day-olds. Age of consent laws are off they table. They were never on the table. Does that clarify why I'm not even discussing that specific question?
How odd - I had no idea that the subject line was "The effective parental control of their children - until what age?". Pardon my misconception. Nor had I noticed you saying "some parental guidance may be necessary to prevent 3yos from being sodomized by drooling 30yo perverts or newborns raped by NAMBLA members". While laws may be off the table (given the assumption of an anarchist milieu, which remains unconvincing), an age-relevant general assumption of a right to engage in consensual sexual activity with the willing partner of their choice is clearly implied by the question in the subject line. This is not what I've seen you talking about.
you're reacting emotionally and rationalizing I don't think we've been introduced, but I'm a mathematician (by training, if not by current employment). Logical arguments are the only kind I make. If it appears otherwise, then we're having some sort of communication breakdown.
Oh, yes - mathematicians have great renown for their political and philosophical insight. Einstein's political philosophy was sage, indeed.
To be blunt, I don't give a rip what your formal training was, or what field you work in now - and that goes for everyone else, too. What you say will be persuasive or not, regardless of claimed qualifications. I may put some weight on appeal to authority with someone whose work I'm familiar with and respect, but it's never decisive in itself, and what I know of your work here is, frankly, not impressive.
There does, indeed, seem to be a communication disconnect - but I'm fairly certain that it's not in my reading comprehension.
(You turned this into a tangent about expertise.
Not in the least - you started down that road by claiming I could not possibly have any understanding of the field (of either sexology or child psychology, or the overlap - you were never specific). I did, indeed, probe to see what level of familiarity you had, but don't necessarily agree with someone just because they have a PhD any more than I automatically discount the opinion of someone who has no degree.
You keep bringing up your own provenance, never failing to remind me that it's none of my business. I've agreed repeatedly - it is none of my business, nor do I consider it relevant. This does not prevent you from responding to my nonexistent request for that personal history, however - kind of like an algebra student trying to add a factor to one side of an equation to balance an illusion on the other side. You may never make any arguments but logical ones, but it certainly looks as if you do.
I'm a parent, am well read, have taken psychology courses, have a nearly eidetic recall reaching back to the age of two, and flashes from before that, and have first-hand experience with abuse, including being induced to "consent" to my own abuse. But none of that's any of your business: the above observation is too well known for you to demand credentials before accepting it as fact. Go look it up.)
How logical, to repeatedly offer information that I haven't asked for, while you remind me that it's none of my business. If you can quote me demanding credentials (other than asking how conversant you were in a subject you claimed I could have no knowledge of) from anyone, in any topic, you may have cause for this. Else, it's your favorite ploy - the straw man. I would really prefer to let him dance his way back to Oz.
But, since you've brought it up again, I'll respond. You have my sympathies - I hope you heal well and quickly. Unfortunately, 'therapy' in treatment for such abuse has repeatedly and clearly led to disassociations from reality - the children who, in all earnest, report events in places that do not exist, the young adults who clearly recall the 'repressed memories' of events, regardless of the witnesses who say they're mistaken - it's a remarkably touchy field, and notoriously prone to abuse by investigators and therapists. This history of yours certainly explains why you're so vehement on the topic - but it does not add any authority to your arguments. Quite the contrary.
One of my acquaintances some years ago was such a young lady. She'd been in therapy for depression, and her therapist had helped her uncover 'repressed memories' of horrific abuse in her toddler years. She, at her therapist's urging, demanded an apology from her 'abuser' - her father. Her father denied all. Her therapist recommended closure by way of the court system, and she brought charges.
It looked like an easy victory in court, until she reported how he'd brought the family dog into the abuse. On the stand, her mother claimed that the dog had been a birthday present to her - some years after the alleged abuse. The poor girl could remember that birthday, and her joy at getting that puppy - but could also remember the dog being part of her abuse, several years earlier. She recanted, but the damage was done - nobody in her birth family would forgive her for the damage she'd done, and they were shunning her. The therapist offered therapy to help her deal with the guilt, but some of us were able to convince her it was a bad idea. There was talk about a lawsuit against the therapist, but I lost contact with her before anything came of it. I do clearly recall the night we talked, well toward dawn, and her confusion - she clearly remembered two conflicting versions of reality. She knew which one had other witnesses and could be trusted, but she still remembered the abuse she knew couldn't have happened.
A few years later, another acquaintance of mine had a different problem. He'd met a fellow college student on Friday night, and the evening had ended in sex. After an affectionate (and public) breakfast on Saturday, he promised to call her later. On Sunday, she declined to take his phone call. On Monday, he was accused of date rape, and expelled from the university. In later private conversations with her, he reported that she acknowledged that she'd 'seemed' to consent on Friday night, but on Sunday afternoon, had, in discussion with her friends, realized that she'd really not consented. He not only lost that semester's tuition, but had a permanent strike against him in any academic endeavor he'd try for. And so we live in a society in which consent is revocable, after the fact. I have heard people acknowledge the injustice of this, yet claim that it's better to have a dozen innocents suffer than have one guilty parties go unpunished.
It's not exactly a sane society we live in.
Does sexual abuse happen? Incontrovertably. Should it be the basic assumption in any case of someone who is not totally self-supporting having sexual contact with another? Not so much.
These are just two of the many examples for why I am very wary of people who assume that consent is 'manufactured', unless it can be proven to be otherwise. For any who think that this is a small, rare problem, I recommend reading here: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/t/tong/2004/tong051104.htm
The consequence of this fact is that children can be induced to "consent" to aggression, and therefore that their testimony on the subject is suspect.
Anyone, at any age, given the proper conditioning, can be made to say and believe almost anything. Why not use this fact to protect innocent, helpless adult women as well as children? Sex is obviously, until proven otherwise, abuse and aggression - and, if I cared, I could come up with dozens of 'experts' with degrees who would testify to that. The universities of the USA that do not have a 'Women's Studies' program are remarkably rare. (Not all such programs are run or staffed by people who subscribe to this philosophy - but it's not rare or difficult to find them there, either.)
{shrug} Now we've both given personal stories, and you may have a slightly better understanding of why I have no wish to discuss this topic with you. Following your 'logical' arguments elsewhere, I'm not particularly expecting better from you on any topic - your definition of 'logic' does not seem to be the one I use. I hold no animus, bear no grudge - but can see no benefit to either of us in continuing this conversation.
How odd - I had no idea that the subject line was "The effective parental control of their children - until what age?". Pardon my misconception.
Now you're just being ridiculous. Age of consent laws are off the table, period. Everybody on this forum agrees on this point, and everyone on this forum already knows why. If you really want to see people proposing a specific age of consent, then you'll have to look somewhere else, because NOBODY on this forum supports such an idea. Got it?
Oh, yes - mathematicians have great renown for their political and philosophical insight.
You're confused on this point as well. I do not claim infallibility; merely that I know better than to commit basic logical errors. The errors you've alleged so far are mistakes I would not make, any more than an expert plumber would install a toilet upside down. That's my only claim, and I substantiated if fully by explaining, in exhaustive detail, the structure of my argument. Feel free to point out the childish errors in my logic, if you can find any.
Anyone, at any age, given the proper conditioning, can be made to say and believe almost anything.
You realize I've already stated, and countered, this observation of yours? I said that independent adults on their own can be manipulated psychologically in the same way as small children. And I've stated that in that case, there will be no help for them unless they seek it. Welcome to the incredible discovery that adults eff up their own lives.
Why not use this fact to protect innocent, helpless adult women...?
Because the harm from granting anyone that power exceeds the harm of giving freedom to those who use it poorly. I hope you realize that this question of yours is one of the first questions that any anarchist grapples with? So you're asking something we've already asked ourselves, and answered to our own satisfaction. You aren't exactly blind-siding me with some clever question I'd never anticipated here.
These are just two of the many examples for why I am very wary of people who assume that consent is 'manufactured'...
I didn't say it IS. I said it CAN BE, and you've just agreed with me that it CAN BE. So you agree with me. Are you "leery" of yourself now?
unless it can be proven to be otherwise.
You do appear to be denying that idiots, infants and the insane are more easily manipulated than the average human. Are you really saying that? Are you actually attempting to make a coherent argument that toddlers, if they can speak in sentences, are capable of exercising the rights and privileges of adults? Or, since you've already told us you aren't an anarchist, are you trying to "prove" that anarchy is unworkable, and hence that minarchy is the only coherent choice? Come clean and stop being coy here.
How logical, to repeatedly offer information that I haven't asked for, while you remind me that it's none of my business.
You keep asking for my credentials--or, in other words, HOW I KNOW. That's how I know. Therefore, it's precisely what you asked. Your question was stupid, because anyone with half a brain should already know that small children are highly suggestible.
...and her therapist had helped her uncover 'repressed memories' of horrific abuse in her toddler years...
Your point here is valid, and it's one I agree with--though it's not the topic of this thread. That is, ONE SHOULD NOT CONVICT A "RAPIST" ON A TODDLER'S TESTIMONY. I said that testimony isn't trustworthy, and I mean it: it's virtually useless for defense OR for prosecution. An accusation of molestation, supported by nothing more than a child's testimony, should not result in conviction except under truly extraordinary circumstances. I don't have a problem with that at all. If I suspected you, and believed my child's testimony, but couldn't prove my case, I would not accuse or shoot you: I would exercise my libertarian right not to associate with you, and would keep my kid away from you.
But by Juan's argument, I'd be committing a crime if I "kept my kid away from you." You could sue, and he could testify in court that he wants to hang around with you, after which I'm as powerless as a divorcee whose ex has visitation.
...you may have a slightly better understanding of why I have no wish to discuss this topic with you. Following your 'logical' arguments elsewhere, I'm not particularly expecting better from you on any topic...
Funny, Juan said something similar back in a discussion about 9/11 truth, before he came out on this thread as "not opposed to pedophilia, but not recommending it either." You can accuse me of being wrong, or being a jerk, of being ugly, or of being fat--but you can't accuse me of bad logic without proving it. Which you won't be able to do.
Of course it doesn't matter why you don't want to talk to me; it simply means that talking is pointless. Nothing will convince you if it comes from me. It's a shame, because I'm always ready to bow to superior logic, and relish the chance to learn something--and at the same time, I hold the ideal of liberty passionately, and am saddened when someone rejects it (or, in Juan's case, distorts it into a justification of child abuse). So I regret that I shall neither influence nor be influenced by you. I'm also mystified how a coherent discussion of the libertarian approach to child moelstation (which is one aspect of child sexuality) should so turn you away. Do you have a better approach to handling child molestation in a free society? Or alternately, would you prefer that a free society NOT "handle" child molestation at all?
Len: I do not claim infallibility; merely that I know better than to commit basic logical errors.
I said that independent adults on their own can be manipulated psychologically in the same way as small children.
You do appear to be denying that idiots, infants and the insane are more easily manipulated than the average human.
But by Juan's argument, I'd be committing a crime if I "kept my kid away from you."
Funny, Juan said something similar back in a discussion about 9/11 truth,
Juan: Len: I do not claim infallibility; merely that I know better than to commit basic logical errors. ...for instance claiming that since a parrot can repeat a couple of words, children can't form consent.
I never said that. By continuing this trolling, you're only making yourself look worse and worse. Engage the arguments themselves, avoiding all personalities, straw men and other distractions, or get off the bus.
Len Budney: Feel free to point out the childish errors in my logic, if you can find any.
Feel free to point out the childish errors in my logic, if you can find any.
(or, in Juan's case, distorts it into a justification of child abuse).
If you can quote or point to the post in which Juan justified child abuse (said it's okay to violate their consent), I'll accept that you're not using illogic to attempt to prove your points, and that you're debating this issue reasonably.
If you can't - my point is proven - you're not debating this issue with reason or logic.
Simple enough?
Danno, thinking he's about to placed in the 'troll' corner with Juan - which will have Len leaving me alone, so that's okay.
Danno: Len Budney: Feel free to point out the childish errors in my logic, if you can find any. (or, in Juan's case, distorts it into a justification of child abuse). If you can quote or point to the post in which Juan justified child abuse (said it's okay to violate their consent)
If you can quote or point to the post in which Juan justified child abuse (said it's okay to violate their consent)
He stated that any child who articulates the words "I consent" is deemed consenting. In particular, if a two-year-old says those words, he is deemed consenting. Anyone not suffering from cranio-rectal inversion understands that a two-year-old cannot consent to sex with an adult, because he is mentally equivalent to a severely retarded individual. Since Juan deems sex with said two-year-old legal, he is justifying child abuse.
I think we've gone way past the point where you'd have clearly stated your opposition to sex between adults and, say, two-year-old children. Your consistent refusal to state it indicates either: that you're not being serious in the first place; or that you, like Juan, does not oppose adult-child sex but instead believes that it can be perfectly consensual at any age (presumably, as long as the child can speak). If so, arguing about the finer points of liberty is truly pointless: child-predators and their enablers are a problem with or without a state, and in a free society they would be, at the very least, utterly shunned. Lovers of liberty should shun them now, because they do much to hurt our cause.
Len Budney: Danno: Len Budney: Feel free to point out the childish errors in my logic, if you can find any. (or, in Juan's case, distorts it into a justification of child abuse). If you can quote or point to the post in which Juan justified child abuse (said it's okay to violate their consent) He stated that any child who articulates the words "I consent" is deemed consenting.
He stated that any child who articulates the words "I consent" is deemed consenting.
And, without any evidence, supporting or to the contrary, anyone who can clearly communicate that they were doing what they wanted to be doing should be deemed to be consenting.
In particular, if a two-year-old says those words, he is deemed consenting. Anyone not suffering from cranio-rectal inversion understands that a two-year-old cannot consent to sex with an adult, because he is mentally equivalent to a severely retarded individual. Since Juan deems sex with said two-year-old legal, he is justifying child abuse.
I do not agree that a 2-yo cannot decide to give or withhold consent. I do not agree that sexual contact with a 2-yo is necessarily child abuse. (I do agree that they're not mature enough to understand or live up to the ramifications of pregnancy, but at 2, that's not much of an issue.) In fact, I find it very easy to visualize a 2-yo enjoying the heck out of someone older giving them sexual pleasure. In the literature I can not have read, that's about the age when you're going to start catching them "playing doctor". It's absolutely amazing how quickly their peers can turn into abusers if they have the privacy to attempt it.
About 100 years ago, in Victorian times, it was the de facto expectation that the nanny, if unable to distract the colicky toddler in another fashion, would soothe them orally. It didn't get talked about much, was not viewed as abusive to the child, and apparently left no lasting scars on children so treated. Now, we have better ways (Gads, they'd taste like diapers! Yuk!) - but societies were indeed structured to support such activities, and while it may have happened without being reported, there were no reports of the children so soothed objecting to it.
Am I advocating this? Certainly not - it'd raise nanny wages far too high. Do I recognize it as an unrecognized crime that should have been punished? Not at all. On some level, I envy those little tykes - all I got was a piece of rubber to suck on. Then again, I wasn't raised in Victorian times, so I probably did better without, all in all. Mostly, the 2-yo who consents is gonna consent to another munchkin, who means (and generally does) no harm. The rare adult who is intrigued by a 2-yo, if a true pedophile, is very likely to avoid harm - pedophilia is, literally "love of children". The adult that so abuses one that young is unlikely to be able to convince an unwillng child that they really wanted to consent with casual contact - it's hard enough to convince them that it's bedtime when you're the parent. In some very rare cases, an adult with frequent contact could so program the child - and if the opportunity to do so was there, it'd be prudent to investigate further. But to assume that they must have been programmed, because 2-yos have no sexual urges is simply displaying your ignorance of human sexual development.
If a 2-yo can express non-consent about eating the strained squash, they can express non-consent about anything - even bedtime when they're obviously sleepy. Do I believe that an adult who did such a thing with a child who did not express non-consent should be punished horribly? No.
It must be that awful cranial-rectal inversion. Maybe a cream would help....
Then I should go shun myself. Or you should shun me, and leave me be. Oh, and watch your kids - statistics indicate that there's a very good chance that one of them has "horribly abused" another - no harm done, and almost certainly a passing phase, nothing for a rational parent to worry about - but there's a good chance that you're gonna want to blow one's head off for abusing another. Or don't you read the literature on the subject?
Len: Juan - does not oppose adult-child sex but instead believes that it can be perfectly consensual at any age (presumably, as long as the child can speak).
...if some adult tried to tell me that my son is a free agent, and that's why he's prodding the boy's privates, I can assure you I will blow his head off
Have to tell you that this thread is taxing our spam filter!
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
I do not agree that a 2-yo cannot decide to give or withhold consent. I do not agree that sexual contact with a 2-yo is necessarily child abuse. (I do agree that they're not mature enough to understand or live up to the ramifications of pregnancy, but at 2, that's not much of an issue.) In fact, I find it very easy to visualize a 2-yo enjoying the heck out of someone older giving them sexual pleasure.
I rest my case.
People like you and Juan are probably the biggest reason most people fear anarchy: they fear that the members of a free society will be more like you than like themselves. Our biggest task in advocating anarcho-capitalism is to convince them that they're wrong--that a free society will not tolerate such scum. Infiltration of libertarian ranks by such scum is our single biggest credibility problem today. Non-aggressive purging of them, by shunning, is absolutely necessary (but not sufficient) to spreading the concept of liberty.
Meanwhile, just stay out of my neighborhood.
Len Budney:So, having admitted that parents have some discretion, and that it's extremely great for newborns, and nonexistent when the child moves out on his own, you're finally up to speed on the only interesting question in the thread: what is the justification for parental authority, and what are its limits?
Here is my attempt:
The justification for parental authority originates from the fact that the parent "made" the child. Now, I do not want to exclude adoptive parents. Therefore, the justification for parental authority arises by treating the child's body as a piece of property rightfully "owned" by the parent.
The rightful limits of the parental authority are set by negotiation between the parents and the child.