I think this thread needs to get back on topic, or I will close it.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I don't like the question at all. What upsets me is that proposed libertarians start questions with "Should we allow...".
There is nothing a we - which is a group anyway and by definition has no rights- can allow or ban or whatever. This is pure collectivst thought.
In a libertarian society there is criminal behavior and all the other acts. Criminal behaviour is not defined by some fancy catagory like "society" but by actions of an individual. Groups don't act, though individuals might act in concert. Still that means each individual acts.
Child porn might be a crime, if, and only if property rights of the child are violated. In that case the child that is in the possesion of it's parents as long as it does not choose to leave, has a right, mind the child has a right, not society, the good men from the hill or Mickey mouse, to act in a manner that can force the aggressive actor to compansate. That's it.
The question of property of a human being is totally cut try. You can not have any property that can not be transfered to you. As every human being posses himself and can not give up this possession, no one else can have a property on another human being. Rothbard thinks in terms of a stewardship which I think is a good way.
The viewing or possessing of photos is not an action and can be no crime at all. To comit a crime the initation of an aggressive action is required. By definition a non action therefor never can be a crime. I can be morally wrong it can be cold blooded but never a crime.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
A child agrees to do what the parent says, or the parent will stop supplying the child with food and shelter. If a kid smokes, you can take away his iPod as long as he didn't pay for it or the child does not take supplies from you in exchange for doing what you say.
Short answer: Viewing child pornography is not a tort.
Slightly longer answer: Victims of recorded child abuse (child pornography) can sometimes be identified. Their extended family (assuming a parent or parents are involved or turning a blind eye) would like to know that information and would certainly be willing to sue (for retaliatory damages, including loss of custody) not only the parents but anyone associated with the whole thing, including resellers. Reselling child pornography would not likely be a profitable business. Busting people for trafficking in child porn could be profitable (and thus, produced in the free market).
In summary, demand for child pornography will not be reduced in a natural order society. Production is a function of demand so production will not decrease due to a decrease in demand. However, insomuch as we can expect protection of children's interests by extended family to be more efficient in a natural order society (due to the division of labor, private property and so on), we can expect that the costs of producing child pornography would increase and, therefore, profitability would decrease. Capital would flow out of the market and the overall market size would shrink.
Nevertheless, since the act of viewing child pornography would not itself constitute a tort, there would be only as much suppression of the consumption of child pornography as people in society are willing to band together and pay for. In other words, a fictitious Stop Child Pornography Charity might file lawsuits against child porn distributors, resellers, web servers and maybe individual consumers if it can find them but it could only do so to the extent that people willingly donate to its cause. I have no doubt people would willingly donate to such a cause. The lawsuits may or may not hold up legally but that is beside the point, the cost of defending against lawsuits would increase the costs of reselling, distributing and consuming child pornography and would, therefore, have a "chilling effect."
Clayton -
Your proposed way is a classical example for getting unintendet consequences.
If there is a thread to people, that did not commit a crime, like resellers, distributors or buyers of material, this sure would lead to a higher risk in that business, which in turn raises, not decreases, the riks of having people with, let's say, questionable business practices, join the business. Those groups are usually referred to as organized crime, Mafia, Cosa Nostra etc. .
There is no crime involved in reselling distributing and possesing anything as long as it is done in mutual consent and by proper transfer of titles.
I would rather promote some kind of watchdog approach, speaking out on moral, religious and ethical grounds against it, but never prohibit it in any way, as this is still another version of the infamous bootleger and baptist scheme, that has done a lot of harm in this country during the prohibition.
And, far from being a way to prevent childpornography from happening it allows another, sure welcomed, way for the bureaucrats to derive more wealth and power.
[deleted; didn't notice the msg I was replying to was a couple of years old]
An example, what if kids have sex between them, voluntarily, and a security camera filmed it. Who is being agressed? Where is the victim?
I don't think in a free society, that there would be any organization to stop the viewing of child pornography.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
This is a tricky issue. One of my main hurdles about becoming an-cap was how society was going to deal with the protection of children. If you think about it though, a community hiring defense agency workers to come extract kids from harmful situations is not any different than voting on child protection laws and having the state police extract a kid.
The thing about libertarian law is that basically the law will be enforced only when something becomes egregious enough to make people in a community want to pay the defense enforcement agency money to take care of a problem. I'm sure society would fund extraction of kids being used in child pornography. Viewing child porn is probably different in that legal sense.
I think exactly the opposite. And rather than acting as an "ultimate distributor" of child porn, as our Most Wonderful Police Agencies do, such an organization in a natural order would be single-mindedly dedicated to dissuading people from distributing, reselling, consuming, etc. such material.
In fact, I think this is a good object lesson in why the mainstream has so much trouble with libertarianism. We tend to be anti-establishment even on points where the establishment is right, just corrupted by the State. Of course decent people would want to find ways to dissuade people from using or distributing child pornography. In other words, "dissuading people from distributing and consuming child pornography" is a perfectly valid end, as valid as any end which you may have. To say that pursuit of one end (stopping child pornography) but not another (say, promoting libertarian ideals) constitutes "aggression" is arbitrary. And the ways in which people resolve the disputes which arise in the pursuit of their ends is what creates customary law in a natural order. While we can reasonably expect that customary law will be characterized by non-aggression, non-aggression is not the sum of customary law. Human nature is too complex for human interactions to be boiled down to a simplistic rule like the non-aggression principle.
But Clayton, while I feel that viewing child porn is worse than torrenting an mp3, it would be similar to the same thing. Any punishment dealt out would go against the distributors and creators of child porn, not the people viewing it. I'm pretty sure people who are attracted to children have psychological issues and can't change that on a dime whereas the people who peddle this stuff are trying to make money. It's not that both parties want to engage in "immoral" acts (like some people would consider drug use immoral), it is the fact that children are, reasonably considered, too young to consent to adult behavior.
It's not about private defense enforcing some type of absolute moral order, just that it would prevent exploitation of children. Even if one feels that drug use is objectively bad, they most likely will not spend money supporting drug raids because it doesn't significantly effect them. They likely won't use force to stop pot usage just like they won't pay for force to stop child porn viewing. They probably will use force to prevent creation and distribution of child porn, which is different altogether.
Eric080: But Clayton, while I feel that viewing child porn is worse than torrenting an mp3, it would be similar to the same thing.
But Clayton, while I feel that viewing child porn is worse than torrenting an mp3, it would be similar to the same thing.
What's wrong with torrenting an mp3?
I would say that downloading music without the artist's permission is rude. That's the extent of its "wrong"ness. I wouldn't call it immoral, and certainly would not call for it to be illegal.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
There's nothing wrong with it I guess, I was just using it as a comparative example. People who oppose torrenting software, music, movies, etc. say it's stealing but it's too dispersed to deal with case-by-case, so if the major studios and companies get to sue individuals it is like the people who own the Pirate Bay, etc.
My point was that if people are paying money to stop the spread of child porn, they probably won't focus on the individual viewers but instead attempt to halt the production and distribution.
I don't see how you could be so sure of that. That's like saying you would be sure society would fund the extraction of animals that are being "abused", or even killed.
It's not about private defense enforcing some type of absolute moral order, just that it would prevent exploitation of children.
And how would it do that? Because the majority would dictate it? If so, then you are not talking about a free society.
"And how would it do that? Because the majority would dictate it? If so, then you are not talking about a free society."
No social order whatsoever can exist if the majority of individuals oppose it. Like it or not what the majority wills will usually be that which is enforced.
Then, like it or not, you are not talking about a free society.
Spideynw: Then, like it or not, you are not talking about a free society. And a society that allowed children to be coerced into pornagraphy is your example of a free society? | Post Points: 20
The act itself should be illegal, not the photos.
"It won't be banned. Parents concerned by it will just have to monitor their kids."
if this is true - it would be the deal breaker that would never allow me to support an anarchist society. as much as I hate the state - this is maybe the only area I feel the state should take MORE action. there is NO excuse to knowingly allow this
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
I am sorry, but that sounds to me exactly like someone wanting to discuss calculus with me but insisting that the triviality of one and one is two does not have a place in such a complex topic like calculus.
The market supplies for all kinds of demand, majority-wise or minority-wise. In order for majority rule to obtain in market anarchy, the majority must be willing and able to forcefully supress the minority. Without a state, that ability is hard to come by, regardless of whether the will exists or not.
The question is not whether the majority will suppress the production of immoral actions such as the production of child pornography. It is rather, will there be enough people willing to fund such suppression? Probably so. But just as importantly, will nearly everyone except the producers and distributers themselves will be willing to cooperate with the efforts to suppress it? Perhaps so, perhaps not. I think that the possibility of there being enough people resistant to the will of the majority to allow the existence of a child porn industy in a free society is something that must be seriously considered.
And then we are left with the question that all of us should have asked (and answered) about a great many things before becoming market anarchists: what other means than violent suppression exist to solve this problem? The answers are as many as there are people willing to try to come up with something. We can offer incentives, we can persuade people, we can steadily apply greater measures of ostracism against those who participate in such activity.
But one important thing of which we can be reasonably certain: the solutions reached in a free society will do a far better job of protecting children than those imposed on society by a state. For proof of that, one need look no further than the fact that every activity which the state tries to suppress through the political means thrives in spite of their best efforts, child pornography included.
And a society that allowed children to be coerced into pornagraphy is your example of a free society?
A free society is one in which there is no organization with a monopoly on force. As such, it does not matter what the majority thinks. It will not matter if they think people should not drink and drive. It will not matter if they think animals should not be locked in cars. It will not matter if they think people should not be able to pay for sex. It will not matter if they think people need to be sent off to fight in another place. There will only be individuals. So if you have a problem with it, you will have to do something about it. You will have to risk your own life and that of your families if you want to take a violent action to stop something.
As if the state stops this behavior. It stops it as much as it stops consumption of certain drugs. But if you are not morally principled, there is nothing I can do about that.
The question is not to allow something, the question is "should a free society "allow" child pornography?
Now the whole question is wrong from the start. A free society is no entity that can allow or prohibit any behaviour. The society is not an entity at all. It is a category of mind,
The question therefor is, is childpronography a crime. Now, in a free society a crime is any initiation of agression against the property of another person. Even a child owns itself, i.e. has a right not to be agressed against,no? If someone forces a child to sexual acts, this person is agressing against the child. Full stop. End of story.
Now, what do you consider worse? A child being molested or a child being killed?
In the first case, property is injured. In the second case, property is destroyed.
I would say, that destroying property is worse than injuryng it. Why? Because injured property is still property and retribution to the property owner is possible. In the second case there is no way to make good on the property owner. What follows is, that killing is worse than injuring.
How monstrous than is it to fly a B52 over an area filled with human beings, children included and drop bombs on them? As long as this is justified, that is to justify the erradication of children, just because they where born at the wrong spot at the wrong time, you better not start an argument about molestation.
Yes, molestation is a crime. Yes, it is despictable and deeply unethical. But, the very people that want to prohibit molestation, wave flags and scream in blind proudness, when their "boys" bomb the hell out of foreign people.
A free society is a society where every crime is considered a crime, and only crimes are considered crimes.
"The viewing or possessing of photos is not an action "
viewing or possesing is not action??
Please explain how driving to a back alley, paying for, taking out the pictutres and looking... or simply just clicking and looking is not action??
A free society is one in which there is no organization with a monopoly on force. As such, it does not matter what the majority thinks.
And yet(Heheh, a couple years ago, but...) you said earlier that a parent is entitled to do whatever they wish with their "Child property". Does that not imply the parent has their own mini-monopoly on force of the child? If you've changed your position since then, I apologize for the accusation. Doesn't appear to be that way, but...
there is NO excuse to knowingly allow this
There is always an excuse to allow anything. No positive obligations.
Spideynw: A free society is one in which there is no organization with a monopoly on force. As such, it does not matter what the majority thinks. It will not matter if they think people should not drink and drive. It will not matter if they think animals should not be locked in cars. It will not matter if they think people should not be able to pay for sex. It will not matter if they think people need to be sent off to fight in another place. There will only be individuals. So if you have a problem with it, you will have to do something about it. You will have to risk your own life and that of your families if you want to take a violent action to stop something. You really think children are just going to voluntarily consent to sex with some creepy pedophile? There may be exceptions, but I don't see too many 5 year olds just going out looking to get laid. | Post Points: 20
I hate to be a user of the term 'self evident' here, but does not the ability to say "Yes", or "No", or any other affirmative or negatory confirmation infer that the "child" in question has the capacity for consent? It is a well kept secret among parents and those nitty gritty psychologists who study children, that kiddies do in fact masturbate and participate in sexual activity with others quite naturally. It is the ADULTS who put the moral statute against the action. All this talk of preserving innocence is NOT to protect the children, it is to protect the ADULTS from having to bear with anything that goes against their code. Rape is rape, the only question that should be asked is simply, did both parties consent. The fact that the "victim" in statutory "rape" is not even consulted just affirms that they are simply their parents' or, in this case, society's property.
EDIT:
To Capitalist Pig:
Sure, maybe it is not your concept of "getting laid", but the nerves used in sexual activity, and thus the potential for orgasm, are fully biologically developed in the womb. That's right, a fetus can and does masturbate. You were probably masturbating too, but just don't remember it. The activity usually continues until, once again, the PARENTS punish, or give threat of punishment, for the activity.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Telpeurion: Sure, maybe it is not your concept of "getting laid", but the nerves used in sexual activity, and thus the potential for orgasm, are fully biologically developed in the womb. That's right, a fetus can and does masturbate. You were probably masturbating too, but just don't remember it. The activity usually continues until, once again, the PARENTS punish, or give threat of punishment, for the activity. I don't know about you, but I don't remember masturbating when I was 5. EDIT: Even if children did masturbate at such an early age, that still doesn't mean they will be attracted to, or consent to sex with some older guy (or girl). My point is, most pedophiles have to use some type of coercion for their prey. | Post Points: 20
Spidey, any society is going to have a clash of competing wills. In a "free" society, it will not be without coercion. It will be mostly voluntary, but if you offend somebody's sensibilities to the point where their direct and immediate well-being is at stake, don't be surprised when they take retributive action against you. Market anarchists are not against coercion per se, they tend to avoid initiative force. Responding to initiative force is reasonable in most people's eyes. Deciding what actions exactly are worthy of retribution and direct force is subjective, but on whole I think most of us will make a cost/benefit analysis and decide on that. If you have two people interacting with each other, there will be rules and decisions you make that effect other human beings. It is unavoidable.
Believe it or not, people around me are at my mercy not to steal from them, lie to them, kill them, etc. Likewise, I am at their mercy. We each give each other our space, within reasonable limits. I think this is the point I'm making all along. If you have a person in a neighborhood that is kidnapping children and filming them for child pornography, I'm pretty sure a private defense agency will respect everyone's privacy while at the same time using force to protect children.
I see you also asked how I'm so sure they would protect children. I'd be willing to assume that PDA's will offer protection packages to "citizens" (or I guess in this case consumers) and express their goals of acheiving peace and order. Whichever agency is more efficient at delivering order will have most consumer support. I'd like to believe that human beings in a society will pay money for their own defense while at the same time funding the protection of children.
We have gotten in a state of mind that is so reliant on government. The reason I think you're skeptical that people would voluntarily fund defense packages that protect children is because we can't think of anything different than government to provide defense. You can see the same thing with taxation vs. charity. Social welfare programs have been implemented and the ideas of small, localized collections of private charities helping out the poor more efficiently than government could ever dream of have escaped the realm of our thought; it is so foreign to us.
MacFall: one need look no further than the fact that every activity which the state tries to suppress through the political means thrives in spite of their best efforts, child pornography included.
good point and thanks for reminding.
Capitalist Pig,
Maybe you didn't, there are plenty of people who never masturbate or participate in sexual activity in their entire lives. Either way, are you trying to infer just because you did not do something, that others should (or would) not?
Telpeurion, that may be true, that the capacity of consent is whether or not somebody is able to say yes or no. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that children have a limited capacity to consent to sexual activity. Hell, most don't even know what sex is or how to perform it. If some creepy 50 year old guy with a pencil thin mustache and extra-thick glasses tells a kid it will be fun, that kid is certainly being exploited.
I was told to watch the film Inception by people I don't even know, I was told I would derive some enjoyment from it. I had no idea what it was prior. I enjoyed it. Is that a crime? Now, if they FORCED me to watch this film against my whim, the case is entirely different.
I also think that fetal masturbation is a very CLEAR representation of purposeful behavior being exhibited by a physically limited actor. Means and ends. If that is not Human Action, I don't know what is.
Yeah, okay, if you want to get technical. But did you ever have previous experiences with movie-going? You had an idea of what you were getting into. Did you feel violated in the most personal way possible?
I don't think pointing to fetal masturbation has anything to do with knowledge of sex though. The fetus just thinks it feels good.
Telpeurion: Now, if they FORCED me to watch this film against my whim, the case is entirely different. That's the whole point! If a child legitmately consents to sex, then theres really not much you can do about it. I guess where we differ is, I don't think many children are just going to let some creepy old guy have sex with them. | Post Points: 5
Now, if they FORCED me to watch this film against my whim, the case is entirely different.
If some creepy 50 year old guy with a pencil thin mustache and extra-thick glasses tells a kid it will be fun, that kid is certainly being exploited.
All action is exploitation. Using the word like a communist, always giving negative connotations, is hardly effective here.