Age of Consent, Libertarians, and RP Forums - some clarification please

[hankrichter12]

OK, maybe I'm over reacting here but I got into a discussion with some Free Staters on this board regarding some incidents centered around pedophilia. Links are below if you want to see the stories and follow my conversation with them, but my question is this: reading what they are saying - is that the general feel on these boards? Is this part of "liberty", lowering ages of consent to as of yet unspecified levels?

I'm not one of these people trying to make some "threat" that I'm going to leave, trust me, I know there wouldn't be many tears shed if I take a hike, but I will say if this is the direction libertarians are going down you can count me out. Disagreeing on immigration, or tax policies, or foreign policy is one thing, but when it comes to boinking kids the answer better be an immediate "Hell No!" Yet, the answer I was given went: We're pretty much answering your question with an "it depends." To ask for a hard and fast rule is for people with binary minds.

Original Conversation:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...n-WSJ-quot-The-Great-American-Disconnect-quot


Some info on the start of the issue

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/5/12/975605/-

https://www.change.org/p/people-against-pedophile-defenders-get-ian-freeman-off-free-talk-live

Saying trying to get sex with a 14yr old is a "victimless crime"

http://freekeene.com/2016/03/03/sta...-victimless-crimes-facing-60-years-in-prison/

Oh hey, FSP kicks Ian out - 6yrs after he started speaking about sex with kids, way to get right on that

https://freestateproject.org/blogs/...ment-regarding-ian-freeman-and-free-talk-live

Now the FBI raided him:

http://www.wmur.com/news/fbi-raids-radio-talk-show-hosts-home-in-keene-sunday-morning/38609878


So, aside from my own personal disgust in all this, if this is something that is now coming under the eye of the FBI and there are people here who are sympathetic to this sick crap, I don't want my name anywhere near it, I'd imagine others here might feel the same and not want to be drug down with this.

 

[specsaregood]

OK, maybe I'm over reacting here but I got into a discussion with some Free Staters on this board regarding some incidents centered around pedophilia. Links are below if you want to see the stories and follow my conversation with them, but my question is this: reading what they are saying - is that the general feel on these boards? Is this part of "liberty", lowering ages of consent to as of yet unspecified levels?

I'm not one of these people trying to make some "threat" that I'm going to leave, trust me, I know there wouldn't be many tears shed if I take a hike, but I will say if this is the direction libertarians are going down you can count me out. Disagreeing on immigration, or tax policies, or foreign policy is one thing, but when it comes to boinking kids the answer better be an immediate "Hell No!" Yet, the answer I was given went: We're pretty much answering your question with an "it depends." To ask for a hard and fast rule is for people with binary minds.

Original Conversation:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...n-WSJ-quot-The-Great-American-Disconnect-quot


Some info on the start of the issue

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/5/12/975605/-

https://www.change.org/p/people-against-pedophile-defenders-get-ian-freeman-off-free-talk-live

Saying trying to get sex with a 14yr old is a "victimless crime"

http://freekeene.com/2016/03/03/sta...-victimless-crimes-facing-60-years-in-prison/

Oh hey, FSP kicks Ian out - 6yrs after he started speaking about sex with kids, way to get right on that

https://freestateproject.org/blogs/...ment-regarding-ian-freeman-and-free-talk-live

Now the FBI raided him:

http://www.wmur.com/news/fbi-raids-radio-talk-show-hosts-home-in-keene-sunday-morning/38609878


So, aside from my own personal disgust in all this, if this is something that is now coming under the eye of the FBI and there are people here who are sympathetic to this sick crap, I don't want my name anywhere near it, I'd imagine others here might feel the same and not want to be drug down with this.

I doubt you will find anybody on this board (outside a troll perhaps) that would advocate legalizing sex with prepubescents.

 

[TheTexan]

I am against any sex with anyone below the legal age of consent of 16,17, or 18 depending on what state you are in. Anything less than the state-specified age of consent is pedophilia.

 

[hankrichter12]

I doubt you will find anybody on this board (outside a troll perhaps) that would advocate legalizing sex with prepubescents.

Well, that's the hook, they weren't saying they would "legalize it", they are saying "Hey, it's not my thing, but it's not my business". Kinda the whole "who are you to judge", I thought trolls as well, but a few of them have been here for some time according to their profile.

 

[presence]

The existance of a "line in the sand" in and of itself creates moral hazard. These issues should be handled by families and guardians, and when ASKED by families; charges pressed... then by courts, and when they reach courts they should be taken on a case by case level; while chronological solar "age" is pertinent, it should not, in and of itself, be what constitutes crime per se.

To ask for a hard and fast rule is for people with binary minds.

I agree. A free society should not have arbitrary binary rules and regulations. Its absurd.

If a crime occurred a jury should find:

• Actus reus
  
• Mens rea
• Causation
• Concurrence
  

 

[TheTexan]

Well, that's the hook, they weren't saying they would "legalize it", they are saying "Hey, it's not my thing, but it's not my business". Kinda the whole "who are you to judge", I thought trolls as well, but a few of them have been here for some time according to their profile.

Well you were the one earlier saying it might be ok to have sex with an underage girl in some situations. 19 year old with a 17 year old, I believe it was. Where do you draw the line, 16? 15? 14!!?!

 

[presence]

so close to 25% of people loss their virginity illegally per most state laws.

 

[hankrichter12]

So you're in the Ian camp I take it? At any rate, a 16yr old with a 16yr old is not the same as a 35yr old with a 14yr old.

Wonder what that graph would have looked like 100yrs ago? Actually, it might be somewhat similar, but 100yrs ago by 16 most people had worked jobs, dealt with many adult things, disease, war, hunger, likely seeing several family members die, possibly raising their younger siblings, and might even be married. Not like a 16yr old today, living with their parents, using their parents credit card, biggest worry is if their cell phone battery is low.

 

[otherone]

So you're in the Ian camp I take it? At any rate, a 16yr old with a 16yr old is not the same as a 35yr old with a 14yr old.

How about a 33 year old and a 15 year old? Or a 54 year old and a 28 year old?

 

[presence]

So you're in the Ian camp I take it? At any rate, a 16yr old with a 16yr old is not the same as a 35yr old with a 14yr old.

I'm of the opinion that charges should be pressed by victims or guardians of victims, not officers following per se procedures.
I'm of the opinion that local juries should decide whether crime occurred and what the punishment, if any, should be ordered given the specific circumstances of the case; not breach of politicized statutes or opinions of judges.

Wonder what that graph would have looked like 100yrs ago?

100 years ago most marriages occurred before and were consumated upon reaching puberty.
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/

in New York, the age of consent was ten years until 1885

 

[specsaregood]

Well, that's the hook, they weren't saying they would "legalize it", they are saying "Hey, it's not my thing, but it's not my business". Kinda the whole "who are you to judge", I thought trolls as well, but a few of them have been here for some time according to their profile.

So basically, you are upset that a bunch of anarchists don't want a government defining the boundaries of social interactions?

 

[euphemia]

So basically, you are upset that a bunch of anarchists don't want a government defining the boundaries of social interactions?

Clearly *they* are not able to.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So, aside from my own personal disgust in all this, if this is something that is now coming under the eye of the FBI and there are people here who are sympathetic to this sick crap, I don't want my name anywhere near it, I'd imagine others here might feel the same and not want to be drug down with this.

So, you're in favor of the fedgov raiding talk show hosts based on the suspicion that they may have visited an unsavory website.

That just screams freedom and liberty, especially when you consider how easily "kiddie porn" can be planted on any number of the electronic devices we saddle ourselves with.

And if that has you worried, you'd better get to scrubbing any support you ever may have written about Cliven Bundy.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Oh, and I'll get right on this, when FBI starts raiding NAMBLA.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So basically, you are upset that a bunch of anarchists don't want a government defining the boundaries of social interactions?

Amazing...amazing.

 

[tod evans]

, I don't want my name anywhere near it, I'd imagine others here might feel the same and not want to be drug down with this.

Borrowing a line from Dan Aykroid;

Hank you (mod edit)......

I've already told you that government functionaries and church leaders outpace the citizenry in molestation convictions, (in the other thread) yet you continue to trumpet for government to protect the children........

Are you honestly that (mod edit)?

Repealing laws, such as premeditated murder in defense of your child would be a good start.

Repealing all qualified immunity provisions would be another step in the right direction...

(mod edit), such as yourself, running to the wolf of government for protection is really kind of silly....


[edit]

 

[euphemia]

Murdering people who harm children is not a deterrent if the damage has already been done.

 

[hankrichter12]

I'm of the opinion that charges should be pressed by victims or guardians of victims, not officers following per se procedures.
I'm of the opinion that local juries should decide whether crime occurred and what the punishment, if any, should be ordered given the specific circumstances of the case; not breach of politicized statutes or opinions of judges.

Huh? Kinda sounds like you're passing the buck. Goodness people, is it really so hard to wait till 18? Is that really so much to ask? I'm not claiming to have the magic number myself, but come on, it is not that big of a deal. I must say it's a bit unnerving to see people chipping away at the edges of this stuff.

100 years ago most marriages occurred before and were consumated upon reaching puberty.
http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/

I know, that was my point, people had to "grow up" much faster then.

So basically, you are upset that a bunch of anarchists don't want a government defining the boundaries of social interactions?

Yes, if that is what anarchy breads, well, I've never been all that religious, but maybe some of those crazy street preachers aren't so crazy.

So, you're in favor of the fedgov raiding talk show hosts based on the suspicion that they may have visited an unsavory website.

That just screams freedom and liberty, especially when you consider how easily "kiddie porn" can be planted on any number of the electronic devices we saddle ourselves with.

And if that has you worried, you'd better get to scrubbing any support you ever may have written about Cliven Bundy.

Say what? I said if that is what's going to start happening I am not going down with that ship. Whether I agree with the raids or not I'm certainly not going to risk prison to defend the rights of people who want to have a discussion on the finer points of how sleeping with 14yr olds (or younger) might be a liberty position.

Murdering people who harm children is not a deterrent if the damage has already been done.

Very true, someone who says they think a 6yr old is capable of consenting would not last long in any kind of "free society", in fact, it's ironic, if not for the state protecting him, this Ian guy would likely be wearing his balls for earrings right now, at least that is the reaction my family and most in my community would have if he had said that sick crap on a local station here and there was no state to protect him.

 

[dannno]

So you're in the Ian camp I take it? At any rate, a 16yr old with a 16yr old is not the same as a 35yr old with a 14yr old.

I'm not sure if the state is the best way to handle the situation, but I would be ok with an age of consent set at 15 or 16, I think 18 is too high. It appears about 90% of people lose their virginity by that age, and more than half by the age of 16.

The question I've never really had answered is why you would prefer your 16 year old daughter screwing some immature high school loser who will likely never take responsibility for the outcome over a guy in his early 20s who is equipped to deal with the consequences. You are bringing up extreme scenarios that would rarely ever occur, and if they did then the family should be able to put an end to it. But then you are putting these extreme cases in the same category as a less extreme case that would occur much more often.

 

[otherone]

is it really so hard to wait till 18? Is that really so much to ask? I'm not claiming to have the magic number myself

You do. It's 18. You've said it yourself. How did you come up with that number?