FSP & Age of Consent - split thread

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, nice straw man there, come on man, you used to at least post some half way intelligent stuff. So I guess playing by your rules I can say you agree with boinking 6yr olds since you don't want any laws against it right? Or would that be putting words in your mouth?

I've already explained my position, numerous times.

How is it a straw man argument when I am agreeing with you?

What you're doing is all old hat, by the way:

Noob strolls in, sees libertarian "X" is in favor of abolishing government fatwas against some morally or socially unacceptable behavior, based on the fact that government intervention usually makes the problem worse or makes government worse.

Noob proceeds to run around with hair on fire: "ON NOES!!! OMFG!!! LIBERTARIANS ARE IN FAVOR OF SHOOTING HEROIN - SEX WITH KIDS - BOILING CATS!!!"

...or whatever.

Yawn...

 

[otherone]

"ON NOES!!! OMFG!!! LIBERTARIANS ARE IN FAVOR OF SHOOTING HEROIN - SEX WITH KIDS - BOILING CATS!!!"

I'm pretty open-minded...but I draw the line at underage sex with boiling cats...

 

[tod evans]

How is enforcing a law already on the books "more government". How exactly did govt create pedophiles? If a cop molested a child I'd say he was already a pedo prior to that, people in all types of professions molest children, what you said is simply stupid.

No Hank what I've written isn't stupid, with more people alone more government is required to enforce the laws on the books and that doesn't account for the countless new laws and edicts enacted every day.

Again "stupidity" reigns in the assertion that "government creates pedophiles".......A logical man would conclude that government is interfering with families who could and would address these type of individuals themselves at no more cost than a bullet.... Obviously logic isn't your strong suit is it? Yet earlier you claimed that it was only by leave of government that pedophiles could exist? This must be really difficult for you, wanting to support government and her laws on one hand yet having that same government support those you disagree with on the other............Vote harder!

What I actually typed was that there's a disproportionate number of government employees and church leaders who have been convicted of child crimes compared to the general populace. The government you advocate for to enforce laws you agree with........Yet whine when they enforce those you don't.

Is this a joke? Right out of the starting gate Washington violated the Constitution during the Whiskey Rebellion. Slavery was legal. There was corruption between local sheriffs and wealthy land owners, it was legal for a man to beat his wife, I could go on and on.

Give me wealthy land owners, slaves and wife beaters over 24/7 busybodies who want to fine and imprison anyone for anything at a cost to the average man that's astronomical.

You could argue that maybe in certain areas of life there was more freedom, I don't disagree with that, but it only goes to show what I already said: You can have more or less "govt", you will never have none.

Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out where I have called for anything but no federal funding for legislators, courts and kops?
Have a go at it..........

As for all that other horse shit, I never said any of those things, but obviously you can't refute anything I actually said so you have to keep responding to things I didn't say so you can go into your little speeches.

Fun having somebody type your opinions for you isn't it?

Say something worthy of refuting if you'd like to be refuted..........Or keep on being obnoxious and telling others what they think and expect the courtesy returned..

 

[hankrichter12]

I've already explained my position, numerous times.

How is it a straw man argument when I am agreeing with you?

What you're doing is all old hat, by the way:

Noob strolls in, sees libertarian "X" is in favor of abolishing government fatwas against some morally or socially unacceptable behavior, based on the fact that government intervention usually makes the problem worse or makes government worse.

Noob proceeds to run around with hair on fire: "ON NOES!!! OMFG!!! LIBERTARIANS ARE IN FAVOR OF SHOOTING HEROIN - SEX WITH KIDS - BOILING CATS!!!"

...or whatever.

Yawn...

Not a noob, and not what I said, but again....why reply to what I said? You "agreed" with me in a sarcastic manner, taking a jab at me, that is what I replied to.

No Hank what I've written isn't stupid, with more people alone more government is required to enforce the laws on the books and that doesn't account for the countless new laws and edicts enacted every day.

I've never advocated for any new law, ever, I'd like to repeal many, but laws against screwing kids is not one of them.

Again "stupidity" reigns in the assertion that "government creates pedophiles".......A logical man would conclude that government is interfering with families who could and would address these type of individuals themselves at no more cost than a bullet.... Obviously logic isn't your strong suit is it?

I'd agree with letting the community handle it, however, at what point is someone no longer a kid and free to make their own decisions? Ages of Consent vary around the world from as low as 12 to I believe as high as 24, so if we just remain vague and set no age, can I still shoot a 28yr old who is trying to date my 23yr old daughter?

Yet earlier you claimed that it was only by leave of government that pedophiles could exist? This must be really difficult for you, wanting to support government and her laws on one hand yet having that same government support those you disagree with on the other............Vote harder!

No, I said there would never be no govt, I said with the current govt we have a pedo, or suspected pedo is allowed a trial and due process, I said in a private property society a pedo would get strung up by his buster browns, so in other words - getting rid of this current govt will not produce what any of you want, there will be new rules, and consequences for breaking those rules, so trying to claim any of you have some system that is otherwise is just false, get it?

What I actually typed was that there's a disproportionate number of government employees and church leaders who have been convicted of child crimes compared to the general populace. The government you advocate for to enforce laws you agree with........Yet whine when they enforce those you don't.

Once again, never said any of that. I don't like our current govt and I don't pretend there will ever be this silly utopic society you dream of.

I said what I've said countless times - you can erase every govt on this planet, disband every army and police force - in the immediate you will have chaos, but then people will naturally band together into new groups, leaders/power structures will form in those groups, rules will be made, and they will be violently enforced, and not a single one of you can paint me any scenario where this same thing will not happen and we will not wind up right back where we are now or worse, is that clear enough for you?

Give me wealthy land owners, slaves and wife beaters over 24/7 busybodies who want to fine and imprison anyone for anything at a cost to the average man that's astronomical.

Oh brother. I have issues with the govt as a whole, but amazingly I don't seem to be running into these types of cops all of you describe. Most cops I know are lazy as shit and hate getting out of their cars and doing paperwork. Don't know too many who go around trying to create incidents where there are none. I'd be curious to know the details.

Maybe you'd be so kind as to point out where I have called for anything but no federal funding for legislators, courts and kops?
Have a go at it..........

You said we need to go back to how it was at the founding, and I addressed that, and I'll say it all once again, this world all of you dream of does not exist, it never has and never will. All anyone can do is to try and have a govt as small as possible, but I have no shame in saying getting rid of laws that prohibit sex with children is not one of the areas I'd cut, so if that makes me a "statist", well so be it.

 

[MelissaWV]

Yet you refuse to define what a child is.

It's been defined in two threads. The question here isn't really one of sex with children. The question is one of people who do not have the mental capacity to consent to sexual acts. There's already a crime on the books called "rape" that has this pretty well covered, with room for prosecutors to bring in aggravating circumstances. If you are too young, too old, or otherwise unable to consent, then there is no consent, and the activity is likely provable as rape.

What you have been doggedly arguing and gotten upset about is that you want more. You want someone who is demonstrably ABLE TO CONSENT to still be considered a victim and for others to bring charges on their behalf, based on an arbitrary age (which is so common sense that it varies from state to state). Fundamentally, you've expressed disbelief that a teen can consent to sex, but also then stated that you believe they have the mental capacity to consent --- but only at certain ages.

If they're a teen boinking another teen, then they're mentally capable.

If they're a teen boinking an "adult," then they're mentally incapable (in most cases).

If they're a teen boinking an adult... but they slide past that magical AOC line... then all the boinking that occurs after that line is okay, but all that occurred before is not, regardless of the age of the partner.

That's where AOC falls the hell apart.

 

[MelissaWV]

can I still shoot a 28yr old who is trying to date my 23yr old daughter?

If he's trying to rape her, you might have a case.

If she's unable to consent due to mental deficiency (temporary or otherwise), you'd have a good case.

And you wouldn't even have to mention their ages to do it.

 

[tod evans]

You said we need to go back to how it was at the founding, and I addressed that, and I'll say it all once again, this world all of you dream of does not exist, it never has and never will. All anyone can do is to try and have a govt as small as possible, but I have no shame in saying getting rid of laws that prohibit sex with children is not one of the areas I'd cut, so if that makes me a "statist", well so be it.

I actually need to build some doors today, and I honestly believe that what I've been typing is going off in left field somewhere where it's not registering...

You're still telling me "this world all of you dream of" and other such choice tidbits that only point to some type of inability to engage in sane discourse...(There's only one of me)

So how about focusing on one of your logical utterances....

All anyone can do is to try and have a govt as small as possible

Too me, small is as I described, being able to go to the home of he who would govern me on a Sunday afternoon....

Any bigger, or further removed is unacceptable.

I want no part of either coasts politics, I want no part of big city politics.

Off to produce something for a client who appreciates my labors........


[edit before shop work]

The laws you'd keep come with the enforcement, kops/courts and prisons that are all so objectionable, I have no problem with you and your community writing and enforcing laws ya'll like.

I have a big problem with other communities insisting that their laws are enforced in my community and expecting me to pay for the privilege...

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You actually think it's wrong for a good Samaritan to go around and feed parking meters to save people from getting tickets? Are you trolling or just stupid? The issue is not whether or not it's his "business" to feed parking meters. It's a nice thing to do. It's like feeding the homeless. You don't have to do it if you don't want to, but there's certainly nothing wrong with doing it. Seriously, if someone fed your parking meter would you be like "Damn you! I wanted that parking ticket!"

No, I don't think it's wrong. I think the "it's reprehensible, but it's none of my business" line regarding child molestation is made considerably skeevier by his apparent willingness to fight trivial battles. To most observers, it's evidence of misplaced priorities.

 

[jmdrake]

No, I don't think it's wrong. I think the "it's reprehensible, but it's none of my business" line regarding child molestation is made considerably skeevier by his apparent willingness to fight trivial battles. To most observers, it's evidence of misplaced priorities.

Oooookaaaay. So if someone doesn't agree with a particular solution to a particular problem that means they don't think the problem is important?

Ron Paul doesn't want U.S. troops to go to Syria. That means he doesn't care about Christians being beheaded? I've heard that argument.

No libertarian or conservative republican is in favor of Obamacare or Sanderscare. That means they think people without enough money should just die? I've heard that argument as well.

If someone is against statist coercion in all its forms, then it makes perfect sense for that person to say a 14 y/o having sex, whether it's with another 14 y/o or a 40 y/o, is not his business while at the same time being for paying parking meters. Paying parking meters is a non-statist, non-coercive solution to a problem. Do you have a non-statist, non-coercive solution to the problem of 14 year olds having consensual sex with 40 year olds? I'm not saying that should be legal. I'm saying your argument in this instance lacks logic or understanding of the principle being advocated by the person you are criticizing.

And...FWIW....as others have pointed out repeatedly, 100 years ago this wasn't even a problem in most states. Please read:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24
Information on the ages used historically in western age of consent laws is not readily available. This table has been compiled from a combination of historical and contemporary sources. By 1880, the first date chosen, many western nations had established an age of consent for the first time, typically of 12 or 13 years. By 1920, when the influence of reform campaigns that established a new link between the age of consent and prostitution had run its course, most had revised their age upward, to 14 or 15 in European nations, and 16 in the Anglo-American world. In the last decades of the 20th century, states and nations with ages below those averages amended their laws to move closer to them. In Europe that growing conformity owed much to moves toward greater European integration. Given that the rationale for the age of consent has remained essentially unchanged in its emphasis on the need to protect 'immature' children, the table highlights the shifting and various definitions of childhood employed across time and cultures.

Edit: So here's a question for you. Earlier you said this:

It's funny how this is his response to people claiming he thinks sex with 6-year olds is OK - "No, no, but sex with 13 year olds is fine."

Considering that, up until the 20th century, most countries agreed with Ian's position that sex with 12 or 13 year olds was okay but not for 6 year olds, why do you find his position "funny?" I don't agree with it, but it is rational.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Once again, never said any of that. I don't like our current govt and I don't pretend there will ever be this silly utopic society you dream of.

I said what I've said countless times - you can erase every govt on this planet, disband every army and police force - in the immediate you will have chaos, but then people will naturally band together into new groups, leaders/power structures will form in those groups, rules will be made, and they will be violently enforced, and not a single one of you can paint me any scenario where this same thing will not happen and we will not wind up right back where we are now or worse, is that clear enough for you?

To imagine a new world, where that is not the case, requires some vision and courage.

I guess you're not up to it.

Oh brother. I have issues with the govt as a whole, but amazingly I don't seem to be running into these types of cops all of you describe. Most cops I know are lazy as shit and hate getting out of their cars and doing paperwork. Don't know too many who go around trying to create incidents where there are none. I'd be curious to know the details.

Oh, now I remember you. We went round and round in the Fergerson threads.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Once again, never said any of that. I don't like our current govt and I don't pretend there will ever be this silly utopic society you dream of.

I said what I've said countless times - you can erase every govt on this planet, disband every army and police force - in the immediate you will have chaos, but then people will naturally band together into new groups, leaders/power structures will form in those groups, rules will be made, and they will be violently enforced, and not a single one of you can paint me any scenario where this same thing will not happen and we will not wind up right back where we are now or worse, is that clear enough for you?

To imagine a new world, where that is not the case, requires some vision and courage.

I guess you're not up to it.

Oh brother. I have issues with the govt as a whole, but amazingly I don't seem to be running into these types of cops all of you describe. Most cops I know are lazy as shit and hate getting out of their cars and doing paperwork. Don't know too many who go around trying to create incidents where there are none. I'd be curious to know the details.

Oh, now I remember you. We went round and round in the Fergerson threads.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Oooookaaaay. So if someone doesn't agree with a particular solution to a particular problem that means they don't think the problem is important?

Where does Freeman say anything about "not agreeing with a particular solution to a particular problem?" I'm taking issue with the fact that he prioritizes parking meters (the general principle of those things, by the way, is probably not going away in a stateless society) over calling out child molesters. Modern "voluntaryism": taxation is theft, voting is aggression, sex with children is A-OK. The best way to expand the liberty movement is to constantly discuss the right to screw children. And people wonder why libertarianism isn't more popular. It's ridiculous for someone like Ian Freeman to plead apathy on this issue when the chances are statistically very good that either his own child or the child of someone he knows will be a victim of assault.

If someone is against statist coercion in all its forms, then it makes perfect sense for that person to say a 14 y/o having sex, whether it's with another 14 y/o or a 40 y/o, is not his business while at the same time being for paying parking meters. Paying parking meters is a non-statist, non-coercive solution to a problem. Do you have a non-statist, non-coercive solution to the problem of 14 year olds having consensual sex with 40 year olds? I'm not saying that should be legal. I'm saying your argument in this instance lacks logic or understanding of the principle being advocated by the person you are criticizing.

Age of consent laws are imperfect solutions to a thorny issue. The government is guilty of essentially offending the individual by defining minimum ages for people interested in having sex, where the intent of these definitions is the prevention of mentally-scarring repercussions to a minor because said minor is unable to fully consent at the time of the sexual experience and/or unable to revoke consent once the act has begun because of brain-chemistry related factors. If one accepts that the minor is statistically more likely to emerge with a negative experience that impacts them for the rest of their natural lives, robbing them of self-agency that might otherwise had been afforded to them, versus waiting a couple more years and emerging from it relatively unscathed, does the end result justify the means required to achieve it? Defenders of AOC laws might reasonably say yes - the laws aren't about denying people autonomy, and they certainly don't make sex between adults any more prohibited. The law is designed to regulate the patience of children, young adults, and adults, and the time they spend waiting will pale in comparison to the time they spend making up for it. That's how the general defense of AOC laws reads, and although I don't believe it is necessary for the state to enforce such a law, it's a reasonably good one. It's not the hill I would choose to die on as an anarchist.

And...FWIW....as others have pointed out repeatedly, 100 years ago this wasn't even a problem in most states. Please read:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24
Information on the ages used historically in western age of consent laws is not readily available. This table has been compiled from a combination of historical and contemporary sources. By 1880, the first date chosen, many western nations had established an age of consent for the first time, typically of 12 or 13 years. By 1920, when the influence of reform campaigns that established a new link between the age of consent and prostitution had run its course, most had revised their age upward, to 14 or 15 in European nations, and 16 in the Anglo-American world. In the last decades of the 20th century, states and nations with ages below those averages amended their laws to move closer to them. In Europe that growing conformity owed much to moves toward greater European integration. Given that the rationale for the age of consent has remained essentially unchanged in its emphasis on the need to protect 'immature' children, the table highlights the shifting and various definitions of childhood employed across time and cultures.

Right, families used to marry their daughters off as soon as they got their periods (that would mean as early as 10 years old nowadays). 12-year old moms used to barely live through childbirth. What's your point?

Edit: So here's a question for you. Earlier you said this:

It's funny how this is his response to people claiming he thinks sex with 6-year olds is OK - "No, no, but sex with 13 year olds is fine."

Considering that, up until the 20th century, most countries agreed with Ian's position that sex with 12 or 13 year olds was okay but not for 6 year olds, why do you find his position "funny?" I don't agree with it, but it is rational.

Emphasis being "up until the 20th century." Here's another FSPer spewing filth:

I mean, it's just comical that these people would pick this issue, that's all. Chris Cantwell is wrong about 99% of the time, but I'll quote him approvingly here -

"I'm gonna go ahead and posit that if your vision of a free society is one where a junior high school girl walks out and gets a train run on her by Ian Freeman and Brad ********, then a lot of people are gonna be happy to pay taxes to avoid that so you might want to work on your marketing."

 

[caracoid]

OK, fine I guess I should have said: "FSP, while they may not endorse sex with children, they won't specifically define what having sex with a child is and further they have no laws against it or punishment for it, because even tho they don't personally agree with it, it is not their place judge or force their "Puritan" values on anyone else" ---Is that better?

I never said I wouldn't specifically define what having sex with a child is. I haven't so far because I've been enjoying watching a control freak wiggle around insanely. But okay, obviously prior to when Mother Nature designed us to have sex is off limits--boys or girls--and should be illegal. But as for boys, how am I supposed to honestly say without being a total hypocrite that I would be looking to press charges as a father if my teenage son had been totally willing when I would have done the same thing at that age and LOVED it? As for girls? Who knows? Ask them.


Whether or not it would have made you happier is irrelevant. You don't know it would have made you happier, she could have been some psycho who did things to you didn't want, she could have given you a disease, you could have gotten her pregnant - that is not a decision for a 14yr old to be making. Sure, plenty of 18yr olds do stupid things too, once again, I don't claim a perfect age, but I most definitely would lock that sick bitch up and if you were ever putting the moves on a 14yr old I'd say do the same to you.

You're now telling ME that I don't know whether it would have made ME happy? I can't even begin to explain how pathological that sounds. And again your warped mind moves into converting the woman into a psycho "who did things you didn't want." You can't seem to get your mind around the fact that one person imposing their will on another unwillingly is perhaps the number one crime of all in a libertarian society. On this we need to move backwards into our former conversation when I presumed you to be someone with a low sex drive, which--honorably and with my full respect--you acknowledged when you said:

". . . whatever, it's a wet hole, don't exactly revolve my whole existence around it. Can think of any number of things in my life that top it."

That puts us all in a place today where it's the guy who has little-to-no sex drive as being our go-to for defining for us our morality. Hank, if you've never experienced the raging hormones of youth, how can you ever judge a boy for going for it and then being damn thankful in the long-shot chance it should ever happen? Let's face it, there simply aren't enough older women snorting around for boys to make this scenario impact society whatsoever. It's your obsessional, innate controlling nature that attempts to define a world full of worst-case scenarios that will give you "just cause" for your self-righteous invasiveness.

You huh-rumphed when I compared you to Janet Reno, but you tell me how your methods ensure that we will never return to the witch hunts she created twenty years ago--never rectified by law probably because it's impossible to do so without creating innate contradictions in our litigious, unwieldy government--or the actual witch hunts of yore? You give one sexless person enough power with no idea what others are going through but with a mandate from God or government to do what's "right" and then through their "divinations" allow them to tell us all about our "disgusting selves," you end up with a lot of collateral damage including either innocent people eternally locked up in jail (a fate worse than death) or your great-great-great grandfather's preference of consuming them in fire and then merrily watching them burn to death.

What was the ultimate outcome of your hooded crony Janet Reno's actions? You think the end result of your status quo is without cost? You're worried about some poor boy having the opportunity to experience some modicum of joy in his otherwise miserable coming-of-age so much you think it warrants the pulverizing effect that your outcome has already created in society. Think about it. From time immemorial men have instinctively wanted to play with kids by tossing them up in the air, tickling and teasing them (get your mind out of the gutter), and rough-housing until mom shouts "No more!" Now other than with their direct father this is considered threatening to a child's welfare. Not knowing how the mother may react, no man is ever again going to step up and be willing to present that sort of an open arms, life-affirming welcoming to a child. Even the kid's uncle has that going through the back of his mind. What effect has THAT had on society? Certainly anything way beyond any indeterminate scars that may have come about by "all those crazy lusty women" hunting for our teenage boys in school. And this is why I hope never again to allow guys like you and Reno the mandate to determine my world or that of my son.

"You've clearly stated you feel a woman who sleeps with a 14yr should not be punished"

No, once again psychic Hank is putting words in my mouth. By law she should not be automatically punished.

"do tell how I've misquoted you or any of that other stuff you claim."

You mean other than the multitude of deceptive misrepresentations you just committed in this one reply alone? How about the time you slithered sideways yesterday, opened up a new thread without anybody here knowing and lit the fire with this "well-balanced, highly representative line":

"when it comes to boinking kids the answer better be an immediate "Hell No!" Yet, the answer I was given [in this thread] 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."

Never once explaining the restrictions that we've been covering and finer points and without doing so leading some unknowing person to interpreting them as a full-blown endorsement of pedaphilia at any age, willing or not. Recklessly and inflammatorily you left out statements by me right at the beginning (as well as those of others) like:

"And by the way, libertarians can at least agree that the ONE legitimate government function is to protect the weak from the predations of the stronger. And children would certainly fit into that former category. If you were once the libertarian you claim, you would have recognized that and seen any deviation from it as anything but normal or representative."

You then huff and puff:

". . . 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."

You just can't help your nature, can you? Christ! If this isn't using a direct threat through intimidation in lieu of a winning argument I don't know what is. First you conjure up the image of black-gloved FBI agents standing behind you and then you say, "you agree with me, right? . . . RIGHT?"

Harmonizing with your previous bombs, like:

"I certainly never tried any violence on anyone."

preceded by:

I will happily give anyone the address to my MMA gym if they want to come call my bluff, even at 40 I'm sure I could still whoop most people out there, and my town is certainly pretty "old school", we have men out here who still believe men should be "masculine" and I can assure you a guy who says 14yr old sex is acceptable, or that a 6yr old can consent will not have a pleasant day here.

and

"I, no joke, would cut off this (mod edit), he is free to go live his life as he sees fit after that, so, absent, the state, that would be Ian's fate if guys like me were free to do as we please."


(Saved by the moderator from your grizzly explanation of body parts selectively removed, by what means and in which order.)

I was pointing out what would happen in a private society if 30yr olds were trying to get with 16yr olds or younger.

You mean, like in a libertarian society?

"Not what I said at all, and you flat out said you agreed with pedophilia, such as in your childhood fantasy that you keep bringing up over and over, so how exactly do I have it wrong?"


Again, your psychotic mind places any movement from your personal standards into full-blown pedophilia. There is nothing to do to stop you from your wild-eyed delusions. They are innate in your psychological makeup. I've tried time and again to point this out to you but--like any psychiatric disorder--you refuse to consciously absorb it. So again and again we get into the daisy chain of you calling us pedophiles implying advocating sex with kids of any age under any condition and us having to repeat ourselves to correct your libels over and over.

 

[jmdrake]

Where does Freeman say anything about "not agreeing with a particular solution to a particular problem?"

Are you serious? I pointed out that he came up with a solution to a problem for parking meters. I asked you for a stateless solution to something that Germany doesn't even consider a crime. Hmmm...since this is such a priority for you what are you going to do about 14 year olds having sex with adults in Germany? Or are you only looking for a cheap excuse to bitch at Ian?

I'm taking issue with the fact that he prioritizes parking meters (the general principle of those things, by the way, is probably not going away in a stateless society) over calling out child molesters.

1) Just because something isn't "going away" doesn't mean you shouldn't do something constructive to alleviate it.
2) Considering that in 2016 Germany, an adult who has sex with a 14 year old isn't a "child molester", it's silly of you to attack Ian on that point unless you are doing something about Germany.

Age of consent laws are imperfect solutions to a thorny issue. The government is guilty of essentially offending the individual by defining minimum ages for people interested in having sex, where the intent of these definitions is the prevention of mentally-scarring repercussions to a minor because said minor is unable to fully consent at the time of the sexual experience and/or unable to revoke consent once the act has begun because of brain-chemistry related factors. If one accepts that the minor is statistically more likely to emerge with a negative experience that impacts them for the rest of their natural lives, robbing them of self-agency that might otherwise had been afforded to them, versus waiting a couple more years and emerging from it relatively unscathed, does the end result justify the means required to achieve it? Defenders of AOC laws might reasonably say yes - the laws aren't about denying people autonomy, and they certainly don't make sex between adults any more prohibited. The law is designed to regulate the patience of children, young adults, and adults, and the time they spend waiting will pale in comparison to the time they spend making up for it. That's how the general defense of AOC laws reads, and although I don't believe it is necessary for the state to enforce such a law, it's a reasonably good one. It's not the hill I would choose to die on as an anarchist.

Gee. You're sounding like Ian now.

Right, families used to marry their daughters off as soon as they got their periods (that would mean as early as 10 years old nowadays). 12-year old moms used to barely live through childbirth. What's your point?

14 year olds can legally have sex and marry off in Germany now. So...what's your point?

 

[Origanalist]

I'm pretty open-minded...but I draw the line at underage sex with boiling cats...

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Are you serious? I pointed out that he came up with a solution to a problem for parking meters. I asked you for a stateless solution to something that Germany doesn't even consider a crime. Hmmm...since this is such a priority for you what are you going to do about 14 year olds having sex with adults in Germany? Or are you only looking for a cheap excuse to bitch at Ian?




1) Just because something isn't "going away" doesn't mean you shouldn't do something constructive to alleviate it.
2) Considering that in 2016 Germany, an adult who has sex with a 14 year old isn't a "child molester", it's silly of you to attack Ian on that point unless you are doing something about Germany.





Gee. You're sounding like Ian now.



14 year olds can legally have sex and marry off in Germany now. So...what's your point?

Actually, in Germany the full AOC for all sexual activity is eighteen. Fourteen and fifteen year-olds can consent to sexual activity, but if their partner is over 21, the standard assumption (decided on a case-by-case basis) is that the adult is exploiting the minor's lack of maturity - which happens to be a crime in Germany. 16 and 17-year olds can only consent to sexual activity if it doesn't involve prostitution or porn. Any sex with relatives, teachers, therapists, etc. is also a crime at these ages because of the obvious power dynamic.

Like I've said earlier - I have no problem with kids having sex with partners reasonably close in age (within a few years). The FSP situation where a gaggle of dudes who are 30+ years old are talking about banging a 15-year old on a radio show - bad press.

Are you serious? I pointed out that he came up with a solution to a problem for parking meters. I asked you for a stateless solution to something that Germany doesn't even consider a crime. Hmmm...since this is such a priority for you what are you going to do about 14 year olds having sex with adults in Germany? Or are you only looking for a cheap excuse to bitch at Ian?

Apparently it's too difficult for these guys to disavow talking about having sex with children and teenagers. The first question should have been "Why the f**k are a group of adult men talking about a f**king 15 year old girl on a radio show?" Like, isn't that a warning flag right there? No one's talking about "stateless solutions" to anything - but a form of vigilance to keep people with odious views from poisoning the well. Basic PR strategy. You want to know part of the reason why libertarians very rarely enjoy electoral success? Because even the greenest politician knows you should probably avoid using "6/10/15 year old" and "sex" in the same sentence. The same applies for just talking to people about libertarianism outside of a voting/explicitly political context.

 

[Origanalist]

To imagine a new world, where that is not the case, requires some vision and courage.

I guess you're not up to it.



Oh, now I remember you. We went round and round in the Fergerson threads.

Yep, him and Slutter make a good pair.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Has anyone actually said that it should be legal to have sex with a 6 year old, or is this just a massive strawman? So far I havent seen anyone say it. Tod Evans seems to think the solution is effectively vigilantism, which I don't think is the ideal or moral solution, but that's still not the same thing as putting up with it.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Has anyone actually said that it should be legal to have sex with a 6 year old, or is this just a massive strawman? So far I havent seen anyone say it. Tod Evans seems to think the solution is effectively vigilantism, which I don't think is the ideal or moral solution, but that's still not the same thing as putting up with it.

Yes, there are statements to this effect floating around Facebook (and other websites).

 

[Danke]

Actually, in Germany the full AOC for all sexual activity is eighteen. Fourteen and fifteen year-olds can consent to sexual activity, but if their partner is over 21, the standard assumption (decided on a case-by-case basis) is that the adult is exploiting the minor's lack of maturity - which happens to be a crime in Germany. 16 and 17-year olds can only consent to sexual activity if it doesn't involve prostitution or porn. Any sex with relatives, teachers, therapists, etc. is also a crime at these ages because of the obvious power dynamic.

Like I've said earlier - I have no problem with kids having sex with partners reasonably close in age (within a few years). The FSP situation where a gaggle of dudes who are 30+ years old are talking about banging a 15-year old on a radio show - bad press.

You can really get some valuable information on RPFs.