I have recently read Walter Block's book "Defending the Undefendable". It is a book that presents an argument to vindicate the supposedly criminal, immoral, and exploitative members of society. If we accept that in a free society it is not a legitimate function of government to legislate morality, what would be the postiion of a libertarian /minarchist /anarchist on the ethics of allowing someone to view child pornography? Many of us can agree that Child Pornography is an immoral act. It is clear that the individual who manipulates a minor into engaging in such acts is commiting an act of aggression and coercion. Can this also be said for the individual who purchases such materials? This is the question that I ask. Can we in a free society allow consumers the freedom to purchase child pornography even though the product purchased was produced in what many would feel is an illegal, immoral, coercive, and exploitative way? Is the consumer to be restricted in purchasing this material because it was fraudulently produced?
parents should legally own their kids until the kids reach the age of consent, whatever it may be.
How is this to be stopped?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
But if the parents own their children are they allowed to film them in a pornographic act. Does this also give the parents the right to beat, murder, rape their children just because they own their children. Should the child be subjected to coercion and violence by their parents until they reach the age of consent which is arbitrarily decided upon by some form of government? Is your postion that children are the Property of their parents and therefore the parents have the right to abuse or neglect them in whatever manner they choose? Or should the children's natural rights of life, liberty, and property to be protected even against their parenst?
nazgulnarsil:parents should legally own their kids until the kids reach the age of consent, whatever it may be.
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."
so the defense contractor in your community will come and take my kids away if I take away their Ipod for smoking?
the kid has a right to smoke right? he's a human being with the full faculties to make decisions affecting his future.
nazgulnarsil: so the defense contractor in your community will come and take my kids away if I take away their Ipod for smoking?
Who will pay for this?
so I can dictate what my kids do until people are outraged enough to pay the defense contractor to come take them away. that sounds a lot better than any natural rights sillyness.
Stranger:Who will pay for this?
natural rights as absolutes are silly. IRL everything is a compromise between desire and cost.
Lets stay on topic for a change shall we. Is it wrong to view a crime. Should a person be punished for viewing somehing illegal. I would have to say no. Although I find the thought of child pornography dispicable and the idea of someone profiting from it even more deplorable i don't think the government has the right to legislate morality.
I think the answer could still be "no" in a libertarian society. Because a child cannot legally consent (what the age of consent should be is a different topic) to having his/her photograph taken, the pictures were obtained unlawfully. The original photographer did not obtain lawful title to the pictures. Since the original photograph is not a legitimate owner, i.e., does not have lawful title, then he/she cannot legitimately transfer title to any other person whether by gift or sale. So, a viewer could not lawfully view child pornography. This probably has several flaws. But, from the other responses, it seems we are searching for a way to say viewing child pronography even in a libertarian society is still unlawful. This is my attempt to support that idea.
"legally consent ... to having his/her photograph taken, the pictures were obtained unlawfully. The original photographer did not obtain lawful title to the pictures. Since the original photograph is not a legitimate owner, i.e., does not have lawful title, then he/she cannot legitimately transfer title to any other person whether by gift or sale. "
I don't think I agree with this. If I sneak up to you while on a private street, take a photograph of you and run away, I dont need to have your consent. No crime has been committed. I do not see why any 'lawful title' is needed to take a photograph of someone.
Perhaps if you believe in intellectual 'property', you might have a different view, but good luck enforcing those in a liberatian society.
I agree with the first sentence - even in a libertarian society, by definition, child porn would be banned. I am not sure how, logically, child porn would liberate a child (who probably does not understand things like economics, law or sex) - the facts are clear: children who are molested either commit suicide, go into a long-term depression or molest children when they told older. Such purely horrible outcomes do not advance the needs of the child nor the cause of liberty.
sicsempertyrannis you are comparing apples and oranges. If I own the private street and you do not have permission to be there, then you are a trespassing. That I could enforce. If I do not have permission to be on the private street, then I am trespassing and you could use the photographs as evidence. But, we are not talking about this situation. We are discussing taking pornographic pictures of a child who cannot legal consent to such photographs being taken. Even if you were on a private street and took pornographic pictures of a child, then you still have violated the law. If you murder someone on private property, i.e., have no justification for killing that person, then you still have broken the law, correct?
If I voluntarily go out to a public place, I consent to being viewed by others and to have my picture taken. A picture is simply an extension of being viewed in public. I doubt seriously that pedophiles photograph pornographic pictures of childen in public setting. I also doubt that the child would be voluntarily in a public setting to be so photographed.
Lyle D. Riggs: I think the answer could still be "no" in a libertarian society. Because a child cannot legally consent (what the age of consent should be is a different topic) to having his/her photograph taken, the pictures were obtained unlawfully. The original photographer did not obtain lawful title to the pictures. Since the original photograph is not a legitimate owner, i.e., does not have lawful title, then he/she cannot legitimately transfer title to any other person whether by gift or sale. So, a viewer could not lawfully view child pornography. This probably has several flaws. But, from the other responses, it seems we are searching for a way to say viewing child pronography even in a libertarian society is still unlawful. This is my attempt to support that idea.
If you agree with Kinsella's idea that copyrights can't be enforced upon 3rd parties, then child pornography can be watched by 3rd parties. Example: someone takes photos and starts distributing them. He surely is guilty of breaking child pornography rules, but you can't say the same about 3rd parties that view or redistribute them.
You'll say that this isn't a contract or EULA. True, but breaching of the minimal ethical conduct in this free society is done only by the guy who actually takes those photos.
The role of such laws is to protect, not preserve some sort of morality, at least in a free society.
It won't be banned. Parents concerned by it will just have to monitor their kids.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: It won't be banned. Parents concerned by it will just have to monitor their kids.
Still, I believe the problem of children isn't quite cut and dried in anarcho-capitalist theory. What if the parents are abusive themselves, e.g. they take pornographic pictures of their own children?
As Rothbard puts it, a market for children is going to reduce abuses. But my guess is we should allow children more liberty. For those abuses that children are aware of, they can choose to flee their current parents and choose more appropriate caretakers. As for abuses they aren't, I'm not sure.
Also, a market for children may not imply a transfer of property, but transfer of "possesion", in the sense that the child can choose to walk away. For babies, this isn't a problem, although for older ones it might be.
as far as offline child pornography rings, the market will need to be creative. Combating online pornography is simple, similar to large ISP who track viruses and hackers
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
nazgulnarsil: parents should legally own their kids until the kids reach the age of consent, whatever it may be.
Absolute nonsense. If this were the case than parents could beat, rape, and sell their children with no legal repercussions.
nazgulnarsil: so the defense contractor in your community will come and take my kids away if I take away their Ipod for smoking? the kid has a right to smoke right? he's a human being with the full faculties to make decisions affecting his future.
It depends. Did you buy the ipod, or did the child? If the child, then no, that would be stealing. You do, however, have every right to kick them off your property as punishment for breaking your "rules"(as is the case with every guest on your property).
As for the original question, no, I don't think watching child porn would be "illegal"(remember, this is a free society, so nothing is "illegal"). The person who films/engages in child porn would of course be aggressing, and would therefore be prosecuted for it, but we're getting into the realm of thought crimes if you can be prosecuted for simply viewing something. The viewing of child porn is a victimless "crime," no one is hurt by it. Of course, there would be various ramifications if people found out you were watching child porn, namely social ostracism, although I could definitely see the situation escalating if parents felt their children were being threatened by you. And besides, as the drug war illustrates, making something "illegal" does nothing to stop people from partaking in it anyways.
If it is not being produced by the parents, then I would certainly believe that the health insurance company of the child's parents (since, I think the kid would be insured by the parents until they are capable of insuring themselves) would step in and act. Health insurance companies worry not only about physical but also about mental health, as mental health problems can lead to physical problems including (but not limited to) physical self damaging - cutting, attempted suicides, drug addiction, et cetera. I am sure that health insurance companies would develop and enact some form of system which searches for images of their clients and flags images which may be considered indescent. The health insurance company then contacts the parents of the child(ren) and the parents then have the option of seeking restraining orders from the private judiciary, or seeking more extreme measures to be taken through either their private defense or security contractors depending on how harmed the parents feel that their child is. Optionally, upon notification from the health insurance company the parent - and IMO the parent should do this - has the option of going there and beating the living daylights out of the molester.
If it is the parent that is doing the molesting (which I pray would be extremely rare), then:1) If the child has health insurance through the parents, then the health insurance company certainly has stake in the child's safety and well-being. If the parents are moleting the child that is insured by the company, I would think (I could be wrong) that doing so would constitute a de facto theft from the company. Therefore, the company would be justified in acting through private courts or private security contractors and taking the child into protective custody in the interest of protecting their assets.2) If the child is uninsured, then it is the responsibility of members of the community to act in the child's defense, instead of running to the State every time things aren't turning out the way they want them to (as seems to be the case today).
Assuming this young person is consenting, the first important consideration is one of definition. Specifically how do you define child? There was a period in history when the average age for a girl (yes, girl) giving birth for the first time was under 18. Marriage usually occurred at what we would call a very young age. By what standard should we condemn very young people from engaging in sexual behavior? By what standard can you say they are not old enough to engage in a basic biological function? Evolution (or God if you prefer) has given these people the physical ability to engage in sexual activity and even produce offspring. Is there some reason an otherwise responsible teenager should be barred from producing porn but an irresponsible adult should not? What is your standard?
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
nibbler491:Absolute nonsense. If this were the case than parents could beat, rape, and sell their children with no legal repercussions.
No, it is not "nonsense". For example, who are you to say that beating a child to teach them obedience is wrong?
Parents should definitely be able to sell their children. They are their children.
As to child sex, I would be interested to see what would happen in a stateless society, whether it would be legal or illegal.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:No, it is not "nonsense". For example, who are you to say that beating a child to teach them obedience is wrong.
ryanpatgray:Assault is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Even if you happen to be related to the person you are assaulting.
Oh boy, here we go again with rights.
So, can one assault an animal? I mean, it is a violation of some "non-aggression" principle, right?
Spideynw: So, can one assault an animal? I mean, it is a violation of some "non-aggression" principle, right?
Mary Ruwart: Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.
"Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as any rape victim," Dr. Ruwart said in response to a question on child pornography during the afternoon session. "We can, and should, prosecute their oppressors." "But bans on child pornography are like bans on drugs and prostitution. They don't work. They only make a bad situation worse. We've driven the child pornography market underground, where profits soar and criminals abound. That's why thousands of children are kidnapped each year and forced into sexual slavery. "In states where prostitution has been banned, prostitutes have no recourse if they are exploited or abused. In Nevada, where prostitution is legal, exploitation and abuse are limited. "We can limit abuse of children in the child pornography trade by ending its prohibition. We can't end child pornography any more than we can end prostitution, gambling, or drug use. Utopia is not an option, but liberty does make a bad situation a bit better."
Mary Ruwart said it very well.
Juan,
"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally."
A question I must ask is WHEN should the child be allowed to make decisions like that for themselves. If we accept that a child has the right to make decisions, even poor ones such as to participate in child pornography do we claim that a child of 3 years has the same mental capacity and free will as a child of 17 years. A very young child's thoughts and decisions can be heavily influenced by an adult. Should an outside group such as government or some private child rights group have the right then to step in and pass judgement to stop the child in engaging in such acts? If a child makes the choice at 3 yrs of age to participate in child pornography do we allow them resource to sue or imprison the person who took the photos if say 10 years later the child changes their mind and realizes that they were being exploited?
If children are free to make their own decisions then a child engaging in a pornographic act would not have any legal recourse like that of a rape victim because it has been agreed that the child is capable of making their own decisions. When someone poses for pictures or videos voluntarily they are not being aggressed against like that of a rape victim. If we accept that a child of any age has the right to make their own decisions then it follows that making child pornography would not be a crime let lone simply being a 3rd party who views it.
Spideynw:Oh boy, here we go again with rights.
I hate to have to be the one to point it out, but you'll likely find that a very large contingent of the liberty movement has this concept of rights and think it is deserving of quite a deal of respect. For example, almost every major Austro-libertarian political philosopher.
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyone.asp
Rothbard:But the fundamental flaw in the theory of animal rights is more basic and far-reaching.1 For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we “feel” that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man’s capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.
Morty:I hate to have to be the one to point it out, but you'll likely find that a very large contingent of the liberty movement has this concept of rights and think it is deserving of quite a deal of respect. For example, almost every major Austro-libertarian political philosopher.
You are pointing it out to the wrong person. I already know property rights stem from man's ability to reason. I also know that children do not have rights until they have enough mental capacity to be able to reason.
You should be directing your comments to ryanpatgrey.
Spideynw:You are pointing it out to the wrong person. I already know property rights stem from man's ability to reason. I also know that children do not have rights until they have enough mental capacity to be able to reason. You should be directing your comments to ryanpatgrey.
Joe Garceau: "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally." A question I must ask is WHEN should the child be allowed to make decisions like that for themselves.
If children are free to make their own decisions then a child engaging in a pornographic act would not have any legal recourse like that of a rape victim because it has been agreed that the child is capable of making their own decisions.
If we accept that a child of any age has the right to make their own decisions then it follows that making child pornography would not be a crime let lone simply being a 3rd party who views it.
I agree with you that rational decision making ability varies with different individuals and at different ages. It seems that there would have to be some form of government to protect the exploitation of those who lack the ability to reason due to being very young in age or lack of mental capacity. Some form of collective group must decide at what point a being becomes capable of reasoning and making their own decisions. This would imply some form of government body and that this body has the authority to intervene to stop child pornography if they deem the child is incapable of rational decision making.
This issue is difficult because the parent could deem that their child is capable of rational decision making and that they were not exploiting them. It would then be left to an outside group to determine whether they should overturn the decision of the parent and force them to stop. Should the viewer of child pornography be punished because they make a faulty judgement of whether the child being viewed was doing it voluntarily and had the capacity to reason when in fact they did not?
It is a fact that children can make decisions. What I am wondering is specifically what decisions should they be allowed to make? I can accept that a child can make their own decisions as to what toy to play with or what cereal they prefer. However, should we accept that a child has the rights to smoke, drink, or enter into contract in child pornography? Children of differing ages mentally develop at varying ages. Who should be the authority that determines whether the child has the capacity to reason and make those kinds of decisions? Should it be the parents, the child, or a government? If we accept that not all children have the ability to make their own rational decisions then it implies that there must be an outside agency to judge whether or not the child can make their own decisions. If there is an outside agency that has authority to determine the childs level of mental ability then could there also be a government that determines what the punishment should be for those who film a child who cannot reason or even view a child without the ability to reason?
The ideas of Maria Montessori are similar in most aspects to the ideas of libertarians and anarchists with respect to raising children. I suggest looking at her works to get a different opinion of how to raise a child that may answer some of the questions you have.
Joe Garceau:Should the viewer of child pornography be punished because they make a faulty judgement of whether the child being viewed was doing it voluntarily and had the capacity to reason when in fact they did not?
If we accept that not all children have the ability to make their own rational decisions then it implies that there must be an outside agency to judge whether or not the child can make their own decisions.
I agree that the viewer of child pornography is not guilty of any crime. What I am really wondering is do we NEED some form of government to collectively decide which children are capable of making their own decisions. If it is determined that the child did not have the ability to reason for him/herself does the government have the right to punish the person who exploits the child initially by filming them? I have read arguments for individualist anarchism and anarcho capitalism and the like. I am trying to figure out if there would in fact be market forces that could protect children who are victims of child pornography. Do we not need some form of government to pass laws against parents selling their children into child pornography. Even though the child may agree to it and the parent may agree to it voluntarily, should the government have the authority to deem this voluntary act as immoral? Should the government be able to decide if the child can in fact think and reason? If government can outlaw this form of immorality what is the logical stopping point of government's intrusiveness? Could a case also be made then for criminalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, smoking, drinking?