Political Theory

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Sukrit — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:31:57 GMT

The arguments for and against child pornography/prostitution are similar to the arguments for and against child labor (prositution is subset of labor). Many respectable economists have argued in favor of legalizing child labor.

On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that children 16 years and under are not strong-minded enough to resist subtle coercion and manipulation. Heck, even 18 years old aren't. That's why the army likes to recruit the young - they are gullible and easily moulded.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Bryan Christopher Sawyer — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:16:22 GMT

A free society would make it's own standards about viewing child pornography. Most societies look down upon it, including ours.

I hold this truth to be self evident: Children are not capable of making rational decisions in their own self interest often enough to be given monopoly over their behavior. Exploitation of anyone who fits that description is wrong, as it coercion by force.

Our society, in America would not approve of it. If a society did approve of exploiting children (which some do now) I would do what some have done, which is to raise money through charitable donations to purchase and exploited person, bring them to our society and set them free, giving care to those who needed it. Just like we do now with Chinese adoptions, like some investigative news crews have done by purchasing teenage girls sold into white slaver in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and like many American abolitiionists did in this nation during slavery.

Free society is not a utopia. It is a light of reason. It's the friend standing by their self-destructing neighbor saying "I'm right here. There is a better way. I can't force you but I will try to be an example, and when you are ready please join me."

A free society would handle the issue just as we have, I believe. We used to be a free society. Close to it at least.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

MacFall — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:33:41 GMT

Who said anything about letting the state do anything? I'm an anarchist, buddy. The only thing I want the state to do is dry up and blow away. But there would still be courts in a free society, and they would still have an interest in protecting people who need protection, and it could be proven in the courts that a relative of a child is incapable of taking care of the child, or has a history of abuse, etc. In that case said relative should not have custody, blood ties notwithstanding. Whether or not they would is another matter, but they shouldn't.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Clayton — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:10:42 GMT

A child is more likely by far to be abused by a close relative than by anyone else.

Yes and you are most likely to be involved in a fatal car accident within 25 miles of where you live, so I guess you should never drive within 25 miles of where you live.

The question is not whether those close to children are more likely to abuse them than those who are not close to children. It's obvious that those who abuse children will be those who are close to them since those who are not close to them simply do not have the opportunity. The real question is: of those children who are abused, what percentage were abused by close relatives versus distant relatives or genetic non-relatives? I don't know where to find this kind of statistic but I'm willing to bet money that - of children who are abused - the percentage of them who were abused goes down as genetic relatedness to their abuser increases. In other words, of those children who are abused, more are abused by non-relatives than distant relatives, and more are abused by distant relatives than by close relatives, and so on. It makes no sense to cite statistics without controlling for known variables (access to the child).

Parents have custodial rights to their children only because they, in fact, "create" those children.

No, they have custodial rights because human family evolved prior to human law. Law is generally comprised of solutions to common disputes that arise as a result of human nature and circumstance. Human nature is logically and historically antecedent to law.

Since the human family already emerged prior to laws that enable the settlement of disputes between family members, it makes sense to try to understand the particulars of human family in order to criticize family law. It makes no sense to criticize the law if you have no better reasons why it should be this way than that. That the two people most closely genetically related to children should emerge as the primary caretakers (provision and protection) is no accident. A child carries 50% of each of its parents' DNA. Those humans who neglected or abused their children in the distant past were less likely to pass on their neglectful and abusive genes. The myth of widespread neglect and abuse among parents is a modern, statist myth. I think the Nazis were the earliest adopters of this disgusting myth.

Such rights cannot be automatically held by anyone else; others must prove capable of properly caring for the children before such rights may be transfered - because the rights in question are not the rights of the parents, but the rights of the children.

Another statist myth, that the only rights of concern are the rights of the children. This is a disingenuous legal tactic deployed in dirty divorces and other family law disputes... "I'm arguing for the interests of the children, the interests of the parents are not the issue here." But they often are the issue. Since young children generally cannot speak for themselves in any meaningful way, it is not possible to simply ask children what they want or expect them to stick up for themselves. Young children need advocates. In the natural order, I would expect those advocates - in the case of parental abuse - to be the child's extended family since those extended family who did not stick up for their grandchildren, nieces, nephews and so on in the distant past were less likely to pass on their lackadaisical genes. Therefore, the dispute - even in a case of parents abusing their children - is not between the children and the parents but between the parents and the children's advocate(s). Since the advocate is not the child himself or herself, when the advocate speaks of the "child's rights", he is really speaking of his own rights. In other words, if Grandma comes and says, "John and Julie abuse their child by spanking him and I'm just concerned about the child's rights, not John's and Julie's rights" she is really arguing for her own rights, that is, her right to oust the parents from guardianship and take over guardianship. It's a testament to the sham that is our modern legal system that such arguments actually fly.

The biggest mistake we can make for the welfare of our children is to enable the criminal State to act as a child advocate.

Clayton -

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Merlin — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:59:59 GMT

Yes.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Spideynw — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:21:03 GMT

And what's bad about saying that there would be organizations that deals with zoophilia (I mean here those people, who rape animals etc)?

I don't know what you mean by "bad". All I am saying is that there will be no monopoly on force. As such, it will be up to individuals to resolve disputes. If you don't like your neighbor doing whatever it is he is doing to his animals, then it will be up to you to figure out how to stop him. You might even kill him and take your chances with market justice. The point is, it will be up to you to figure it out.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

MacFall — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:11:46 GMT

I utterly disagree. A fundamental human right is the right for parents to exclude others from "caring" for their offspring. This right should be scaled by degree of relatedness, so that parents may exclude anyone, grandparents may exclude uncles or aunts, with genetic strangers occupying the lowest priority of all.

Parents have rights to custodial care by default. I never disputed that. But there is no clear principle by which you can say that blood relation ought to determine the passing on of those rights. The parents can will those rights to others, but beyond that it is a matter of who can best care for the child, and that can only be fairly determined by an uninterested third party (i.e., a dispute resolution agency). And though the will of the parents by and large should be accepted, if the parents were abusive to the child, then their will in the passing on of custodial rights ought to be regarded as suspect.

The reason for this is that parents have the greatest (genetic) incentive to actually act in the real interests of their children, grandparents have the next greatest incentive, and so on, with strangers having the least incentive to act in the interests of the children. Parents who act against their childrens' real interests will tend to be less successful at propagating their neglectful genes.

A child is more likely by far to be abused by a close relative than by anyone else. Parents have custodial rights to their children only because they, in fact, "create" those children. Such rights cannot be automatically held by anyone else; others must prove capable of properly caring for the children before such rights may be transfered - because the rights in question are not the rights of the parents, but the rights of the children.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:51:45 GMT

If the kids feel so oppressed they can put rat poison in the coffee.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Clayton — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:48:21 GMT

@MacFall: I utterly disagree. A fundamental human right is the right for parents to exclude others from "caring" for their offspring. This right should be scaled by degree of relatedness, so that parents may exclude anyone, grandparents may exclude uncles or aunts, with genetic strangers occupying the lowest priority of all. The reason for this is that parents have the greatest (genetic) incentive to actually act in the real interests of their children, grandparents have the next greatest incentive, and so on, with strangers having the least incentive to act in the interests of the children. Parents who act against their childrens' real interests will tend to be less successful at propagating their neglectful genes. In other words, we are the descendants of those who cared for their offspring enough to at least keep them alive to the age where they could reproduce.

Clayton -

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

MacFall — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:29:21 GMT

You're neglecting extended family in this analysis. The primary advocates of the welfare of a child over against abuse or neglect by its parents are not "the courts" or "society" but extended family.

I'm not neglecting them; I'm ignoring them, because they would have no more to do with the matter in a free society than would any other concerned neigbhor, friend, relative, child welfare advocate, or professional busybody, except in the purely incidental case where their familial relationships lead them to notice problems before others do. Anyone can and should advocate for the rights of another person, child or otherwise, against an abusive relationship. I would like to think that a free society would do away with the notion that sharing a blood relation with somebody creates any form of obligation or authority that would not exist between anybody else.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

MaikU — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:15:11 GMT

Spideynw:

So child pornography, at this level, is not an issue to me. There would be private organizations that deal with.

That's like saying there will be organizations to punish people for so called animal abuse or for selling their bodies for sex.

No, that's like saying, that if society demands something, there will be organizations, that would deal with it. (e.x. : If people need food, there would be people who sell it) It doesn't have to be even profitable (in material sense). There can be a voluntary activists etc. Same is with other crimes. That's what I meant.

Animal abuse is tougher issue, because at least some anarchists reject, that animals can have "rights" or that it is ok to torture animals etc. Yeah sure, I don't have all answers for all questions. I don't even need to. I am just one brain in world with6 billions of brains :)

And what's bad about saying that there would be organizations that deals with zoophilia (I mean here those people, who rape animals etc)? If you have enough number of people who doesn't support some abuse of animals, they surely will act and persuade abusers.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Clayton — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:09:35 GMT

Making available an evaluation of a young person's ability to exercise his or her rights and determining thereby how much control should be permitted over them - which a private court system could easily do - would make the parent-child relationship far more consensual than it currently is. And it would make things like nonconsensual sex between children and adults (which I believe most such relationships are, by far) much more difficult for predatory adults to achieve, and harder yet to maintain.

You're neglecting extended family in this analysis. The primary advocates of the welfare of a child over against abuse or neglect by its parents are not "the courts" or "society" but extended family.

Clayton -

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

MacFall — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:58:26 GMT

MacFall, I think children have evolutionary adaptations towards listening to people who are older than them. It would take a very conceited effort to short-circuit that element.

I think you're right, and I think that children qua children (i.e., people who have not yet grown into their rational capacity) need adults around as guardians and mentors. No issue there at all. But the belief that children should not be permitted to exercise those rights which they are capable of exercising, and especially that they must remain children until some arbitrary age of majority, are entirely inventions of the state. Making available an evaluation of a young person's ability to exercise his or her rights and determining thereby how much control should be permitted over them - which a private court system could easily do - would make the parent-child relationship far more consensual than it currently is. And it would make things like nonconsensual sex between children and adults (which I believe most such relationships are, by far) much more difficult for predatory adults to achieve, and harder yet to maintain.

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Clayton — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:53:20 GMT

MacFall, I think children have evolutionary adaptations towards listening to people who are older than them. It would take a very conceited effort to short-circuit that element.

This is the problem with rationalist legal theory, IMO. You can't derive legal rules for human behavior while ignoring the peculiarities of human nature. You can't start with one or two axioms and logically deduce a sensible account of human rights, you have to look at our biology, our evolutionary history, our social and cultural contexts, and so on.

Clayton -

Re: Should a free society allow for the viewing of child pornography?

Clayton — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:48:53 GMT

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.

Well, let's say there is an organization who tracks down and executes people for watching child pornography. In essence, a vigilante organization that issues a death sentence for viewing child pornography. I can imagine people actually contributing money to such an organization, or something close to it (naturally, humans feel very protective of their own children, so much so that they tend to project this protective instinct to the abstraction of "children, generally".)

The question, then, is whether such an organization is committing murder or whether it is using justifiable force. I think the answer is pretty clear that it would be using unjustifiable force*, which suggests that you are right that, in a natural order society, viewing child porn would not in itself constitute a tort.

This vigilante organization targeting distributors and resellers, on the other hand, might be tolerated. If so, then distribution and resale of child pornography just might be treated as a tort.

In other words, I agree with you, but I don't think your conclusion is self-evident.

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.

And the consideration that really matters is that of families. In a natural order legal system, the appropriate age for sexual activity would emerge as a combination of society-wide precedents (legal conflicts between children and their parents would result in the emergence of criteria which determine whether the parent has coercive decision-making power over the child or not) and family judgment (some kids develop faster or slower than others).

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.

I tend to agree.

Clayton -

*Meaning that no voluntary arbitrator could get the families of people killed by this organization to agree to settle the issue without damages and punitive awards against the organization, even when it is exposed that the person who was killed was consuming child pornography.