Political Theory

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

acft — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:40:15 GMT

Lady Saiga said:

Am I wrong about any of this?

I agree with most of what you said. I had linked here in an earlier post, I am curious about what you think about the articles. You can respond here or with a pm if its about anything other than the child sex section.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Phi est aureum — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:32:22 GMT

When a being is capable of acting (purposeful behavior), then controlling him without his will is slavery. There's no justifying human action one way or the other, but attempting to justify slavery in attempt to uphold morality is severely intellectually bankrupt.

Hashem also in the meantime accidentally debunks minarchy in 2 sentences.

QFT.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Clayton — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:54:17 GMT

@Hunter: Well, I wouldn't go that far with the sympathy - after all, it is widely condemned within the culture and they knew the risks they were taking. And there are much, much worse abuses by the State occurring every day. But I think there is definitely room for cultural criticism on this issue - who inscribed the number 18 (or 16 or 14 or 12 depending on where you live) into a tablet of stone and said "thou shalt not"? It seems obvious to me that emotional/psychological/physiological tests are a better legal basis for determining whether a young person can consent to sex than trying to pick the magic, one-size-fits-all number out of a hat.

Clayton -

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Wheylous — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:52:45 GMT

When a being is capable of acting (purposeful behavior), then controlling him without his will is slavery. There's no justifying human action one way or the other, but attempting to justify slavery in attempt to uphold morality is severely intellectually bankrupt.

Hashem also in the meantime accidentally debunks minarchy in 2 sentences.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Hunter — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:37:40 GMT

Watching the one man cry saying that he doesn't want to go to jail, made me almost want to cry for him. I felt like throwing up watching this, 2 consentual human beings, both competent enough to make decisions for themselves, and one of the them in the end has to go to prison with murderers and rapists. It is even more disgusting knowing that the government used entrapment against these men and ruined the rest of their lives. I now have to go to sleep tonight knowing this is a reality and knowing that these men have literally lost everything for doing a completely consentual act, violence-free. Just terrible.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Lady Saiga — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:00:57 GMT

Okay, I'm fairly new to my researches on libertarian thought, so bear with me and point out anything I get totally wrong...

As far as I can make out, no law ever stopped a person from committing a crime they were physically able to get away with. All sorts of emotional, personal, or moral considerations might stop that person, in other words their free choice-but if they choose NOT to commit the rape of a child, for instance, they aren't doing it because it's illegal. They're doing it because the COST to themselves is greater than the BENEFIT, in their personal opinion.

Cost is measured in many ways, and concerns about possible legal action are by no means the only, or probably not even always the major, considerations. What makes anybody think that having a state-run legal system changes any statistics regarding how many people choose to commit crime?

The original question is about how to prevent crime, which is almost a meaningless concept. Ways to investigate and punish aggression, though, are pretty well developed in the literature.

As far as who has "ownership" of a child, it seems to me that any child old enough to insist upon advocating for themselves must necessarily be allowed to do so. Anything else is aggression. So if the guardian is doing a crummy job of parenting, the child will have to grow up more quickly and seek just action against that person at that time. Running away would be a perfect example of a demonstration that a child is ready to think for themselves. At that point, the parent would have no right to insist that the child return-but the child would of course still have the ability to do so, or to choose a new protector (just like any adult would) and make an arrangement with THEM. Obviously even without a state, there will always be volunteer and privately funded programs that kids can make use of for helping them do this.

This is basically just the way childcare naturally works out, except that in our current system the parents have legal support for violating their childrens' ability to make decisions until a state-specified age, subject to certain exclusions. They can go force their kid to come home, for example. But if the family dynamic is functional, the child and parent work out basically what amounts to a contract that works to keep peace between them; and if the family dynamic is not functional, unless the law gets involved exactly what I described is what happens. The kid selects someone new to be their guardian, or just leaves home and fends for themselves.

Am I wrong about any of this? I mean, the whole point of liberty-based thinking is that it is founded in the way humans really do things, and does not recognize the need to impose artificial systems. It just gives us a language to define exactly when aggression occurs, so decisions can be made.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

gotlucky — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:31:38 GMT

Ancap66:

This is the exact opposite of how we treat kids. We mollycoddle them for years, until one day we kick them out to get a job.

QFT. See my tag.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Ancap66 — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:29:03 GMT

@acft

I agree with your point that people only really care about their family and friends. I found out the hard way that that is how the world works. No matter how bad your problems are, they will only get worse until the day you become self-reliant.

This is the exact opposite of how we treat kids. We mollycoddle them for years, until one day we kick them out to get a job. It's like carrying around an infant everywhere, only to inevitably (and suddenly) drop them. People only pretend to be caring in the political sphere, because they're spending other people's money. All they do is perpetuate the cycle of dependency that generates false hope and real despair.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Phi est aureum — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:35:45 GMT

@acft

I agree, wholeheartedly. I did seem to overlook the OP saying "law" and thus, implying State. Also, I hadn't heard of the terms Ancapistan or Voluntaria. I confused them with libertopia. My apologies. As you said, in an Ancapistan, the community voluntarily agrees upon the desire for and right to liberty, and here is where I was meaning to say we must desire to keep liberty secure to all, and of course, here you view the community you live in to be composed of family and friends. Definitely a misunderstanding on my part, sorry about that!

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

acft — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:10:23 GMT

I'm saying that if you care for your children or friends and wish to protect them in the kind of voluntarist society that a Libertopia would be

Here is the crux of the issue. We have croseed over from 'how we live now under the state' to 'how we could live in a hypothetical stateless terratory'.

In the original example, the child sex issue was taken from the standpoint of being in a state. Then the OP asked how a libertarian system of law would handle it. Libertarian does not equal anarchist or voluntariist, indeed, many libertarians I know are minarchists.The OP also referenced law. Therefore I assumed the state was still around. Today, here and now, under these real statist conditions I don't care about child sex. I dont care about the poor kids in china, or india, or texas, or even next door. I don't know them and I probably wouldn't like them or their parents if I did and I don't think any amount of abuse they face would ever justify me being robbed and bullied by police for their benefit.

Furthermore, I have no idea how a given libertarian socity would be, but for for the sake of the example given, lets assume it is peaceful, and is against child abuse.

you must be willing to accept that other's have the right to be free to protect themselves and their children, so long as it doesn't interfere with your liberty. So while you dont have to do something physically to protect others, it is in your best interest to make sure others have the means to protect themselves and their children. I would not be opposed to, say for example, a county and all of its constituents voluntarily paying fees for some agency that they think will keep them safe as long as i am not forced to participate nor be subject to their "laws."

Remember that the OP referenced laws, and laws, as carried out by a state, are not voluntary and they do indeed interfere with my freedom. What you have described here is completely different. Yes, of coarse people can take whatever means they feel are neccesary to protect themselves and their children, and this I never indicated I did not accept. This is a far cry from enforcing arbitray laws on everyone and taxing ME to pay for it. If I have to take the risk of some kid being 'raped' or having sex, vs. me getting taxed and policed, I'd say that kid needs to get a derringer and be on his/her way.

If we switch over to ancapistan or voluntaria, my community that I referred to above would include the people living in the voluntary society, so long as their desires for freedoms were clearly laid out in a charter of sorts for reference and agreed to by every member. My community would certainly not, however, include any other enclave or group that did not explicitly agree to live under our set of 'laws'. And so, given that everyone in my community said "the age of consent is puberty" or something like that its fine. Any activity that takes place below that age would be a violation of the contract for which damages could be sought (not necc. by any central enforcement agency) not because of some abstract morality but because of a person to person written and freely agreed to contract for an acceptable mode of behavior. Furthermore, I would not care about the kids in some other enclave because they don't fall under our agreement.

If you say we are in a volunteerist, or ancap enclave or community (which I referened in a earlier response) Then yes, because it is a voluntary association of people whose ideology I am more sure of and who are not actively aggressing against me, if there were a clause in an organizing charter outlawing "child sex" however that is defined I would abide by the agreement. However, morally, and from a practical standpoint it simply isn't my problem if some people abuse their kids.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Phi est aureum — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:33:29 GMT

I don't mean to imply that the one should endorse State-sponsored enforcement of laws that "are to protect children" or that are "for the good of nation" or anything of the sort. I'm saying that if you care for your children or friends and wish to protect them in the kind of voluntarist society that a Libertopia would be, you must be willing to accept that other's have the right to be free to protect themselves and their children, so long as it doesn't interfere with your liberty. So while you dont have to do something physically to protect others, it is in your best interest to make sure others have the means to protect themselves and their children. I would not be opposed to, say for example, a county and all of its constituents voluntarily paying fees for some agency that they think will keep them safe as long as i am not forced to participate nor be subject to their "laws." Maybe we agree more than we realize.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

acft — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:58:39 GMT

When you don't care about anyone's freedom (but yours and your family's/friends') you fall into this trap.

On the contrary, sir, I would have to insist that it is ideologically charged altruism that is a trap. As long as some politician says "its for the good of the children", someone who was otherwise well meaning will endorse and perhaps engage in behavior they would otherwise refrain from.

No different than a police officer or someother bureaucrat that thinks they are on the same side as TPTB, and don't mind restricting your freedoms, only to find out in the end that TPTB don't care for them and will take their freedom too.

HAHA , I don't think I've ever been compared to a cop or beurocrat in my life. First time for everything. Anyway, I don't see how caring for myself, friends(community), and family= thinking I am on the same side as the powers that be.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

David B — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:30:34 GMT

I think that it is an unjustified assumption that child abuse is common enough to fuel such an industry. If you look at history, child abuse was handled - like other thorny family issues, such as divorce - primarily through religious institutions and this is the case in more than one culture (I don't know if it's a plurality or not, but Judaism, Islam and the various sects of Christianity all have this trait in common).

Clayton,

I always assume that something only survives or thrives in a property/liberty based socio-political ecosystem, if there is in fact a market for such services. So, while I propose it as a potential solution, I don't presume to know one way or another whether or not there is a market for it. But I hope my example demonstrates in a simplistic way that we can expect entrepreneurial behaviors to imagine and implement a wide variety of solutions, and through such experimentation we will find efficient solutions that do work effectively, but never perfectly.

Secondly, also agreeing with you, you may recall from an earlier conversation my discussion of Nassim Taleb's argument that the old stuff in our technology and in our knowledge, is more likely to survive than the new stuff, because somehow it has passed through the evolutionary pressures and proved to be sufficiently resilient to survive. Thus, I agree about the religious institution argument. There's a resilience they have, that indicates specific benefits they confer on societies that warrants a certain level of respect and analysis.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Buzz Killington — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:26:00 GMT

BA-BABA BIRD BIRD BIRD, BIRD IS THE WORD, BA-BABA BIRD BIRD BIRD, BIRD IS THE WORD I'm sorry, I just had to.

Re: Here's a tough one: probable child sex

Clayton — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:09:40 GMT

Why not have the equivalent of ambulance chasers, who would look for abused children to advocate for? Or the equivalent of rescue operations?

I think that it is an unjustified assumption that child abuse is common enough to fuel such an industry. If you look at history, child abuse was handled - like other thorny family issues, such as divorce - primarily through religious institutions and this is the case in more than one culture (I don't know if it's a plurality or not, but Judaism, Islam and the various sects of Christianity all have this trait in common).

I think the modern view that this is the result of some kind of "backwardness" on the part of our ancestors is the height of hubris and an example of the presentist fallacy. Anyone who has been put through the family law grist mill understands that the issues are simply too complex for law-as-such and really require more of a "soft touch", that is, one-on-one mediation with someone who specializes in family disputes.

Law is more oriented around crimes and torts, neither of which are applicable to most family disputes and - when they are - can be brought to law on those merits. In other words, if a husband beats his wife, that's assault and can be brought to law on that grounds as a separate matter from the divorce which can still be handled through less formal channels. Modern family law in the US rolls the whole thing into one big tarball and what ends up happening is we have created an "abuse-industrial-complex" where women can materailly profit from making false claims of abuse in the early part of a divorce proceeding in order to gain tactical advantage (under the VAWA and State-copycat rules, those false claims cannot come back to bite her later on, legally, so she has no incentive not to lie). And in the meantime, families are being shredded by the legal system. Mostly poor families, of course. But our system is far more enlightened.

Clayton -