Would age of consent be primarily a function of a "My house, my rules" mentality? If a 16 year old girl took on a 40 year old lover while still living with her parents could her parents concievably sue aforementioned 40 year old man (assuming the relationship involved no coercion).
Given that there is no compulsory education system in libertopia and more wealth I can see the argument that teens will most likely gain independence before 18 years old, and once they're living alone they're free to do what they want. But while they live with their parents how is the gray area where they're not helpess toddlers anymore handled? What happens to a smoking hot female teacher who has sex with a 14 year old male student (criminally speaking, I suppose she looses her job in any case)?
Frankly I think in a free society people would be generally considered 'adults' by the age of 13 or 14. The idea of adulthood beginning in the late teens/20s is a very modern one.
I dont think theres anything(legally speaking) that could be done about a 16 year old girl having a sexual relationship wtih a 40 year old man, but the girls parents could kick her out of their house and refuse to associate with her.
If Libertopia is an ancap society, then there would not be an age of consent. I think Murray Rothbard has it right with when children become adults:
"But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age." -Children and Rights
If the parents of the 16 year old girl don't want her dating a 40 year old man (or woman!), then they could forbid her as long as the girl lives under their roof. If she were to continue dating her lover, then the parents could throw her out of their house (though this may end up causing the girl to then go live with her lover). Also, if the girl does not like the rules of her parents', she could leave home. It would then come down to what she values more - her parents or her lover.
There may end up being societal pressures against 40 year old men who take 16 year old lovers, but there would be no force against them, as they have not violated anyone's rights. Though I do suppose that people may still use force against them, and if no one chooses to protect the 40 year old man's rights, then he would be screwed. It's hard to say what exactly would happen.
The answer to your second question is similar to the first. There is no criminal act if the 14 year old boy consents to having sex with his smoking hot teacher. The school could fire the teacher, especially if the parents who pay for the children's education want teachers who have sex with their students to be fired. It's also possible that parents wouldn't care and the school would do nothing.
In case I didn't make it clear - if the acts are consensual, then no crime has taken place.
@gotlucky: Forgot to frame it as a question, but if I had you, sir, would have won this thread. Thanks, that's the answer I was looking for.
I think it would be very much the same as it is today except there would be no legal consequences for drinking under the age and having consensual sex under the age of todays limits. You might struggle to get insurance at such a young age, which might make driving under the age less common and some age limits would be retained through cultural and social norms. Sex with a minor would still be classified as rape even if they consented unless the social and cultural norms allowed for this, which would be unlikely to ever occur in the west. Private clubs and organisations would still be within their right to have age limits as they saw fit.
SirThinkALot:Frankly I think in a free society people would be generally considered 'adults' by the age of 13 or 14. The idea of adulthood beginning in the late teens/20s is a very modern one.
I disagree, I think long childhoods are the natural outgrowth of prosperity so there would be no reason for adulthood to start earlier unless out of necessity. People are living 100 years now, they've got a long time to be adults.
Jack Roberts:some age limits would be retained through cultural and social norms
^^^This can never be emphasized enough.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
I dont think so. Increasing prosperity certainly is a part of it, But a much larger part of it is child-labor laws, minimum wage(which makes it harder for teens to enter the labor market even if they want to), government mandated schooling until the age of 18, and heavily subsidized College/University.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that without these things most children will start working at a much younger age, and would be able/willing to be fully indipendent by their mid teens.
Might even add that they'd probably be more mature given the reality of the world versus the fantasy put in front of them by Statopia.