It is difficult for Children to enter into contracts with any company. If a company sells something to a moronic child they could be held responsible.
There has to be a meeting of the minds in Libertarian societies btw, so there’s no contradiction. As stated before animal cruelty is the only unaccounted for item.
If you’re just whining about unsavory commercials I’m not sure why Libertarians should care.
First, I’m not whining. Second, I’m talking about commercials directed at children who cannot understand the nature of certain products (meth, cigarettes, sex, whatever).
Since you argue:
Wouldn’t that mean the firm should be held responsible for trying to sell something to a “moronic child”? Am I missing something?
You still don’t understand the nature of Libertarian contracts. Yes you are missing something, some “kids” are like six foot eight with full beards, and know exactly what they are doing (I know someone like this btw).
Some adults are mentally handicapped, guilt is determined on a case-by-case basis.
Or even ads directed at parents encouraging the parents to give their kids certain products (drugs, cigarettes, et al.). Would it be legal in a free society to advertise violating the NAP? in this example, advertising child abuse? If that would be illegal in a free society, then logically firms encouraging parents in ads to buy/give to kids (let’s say five-year-olds) hard drugs, no?
This is another flaw of libertarianism. The mentally handicapped don’t have the right to contract like everybody else, I assume, according to this.
Okay, so let’s say by “kid” in my example it means “a five-year-old”.
Again this is a legal issue determined by a court. There is no universal answer and you need to stop looking for one.
It depends on how serious the creepy company is being. For example a Libertarian-Socialist wants to use force to take property from rich people. Should Socialists be prohibited from expressing their opinions because you’re being sensitive? If someone is legitimately plotting a crime, that is a different matter.
Free speech is important, there’s also a fine line between legitimately expressing a disgusting opinion and forming a criminal organization. In either case I’ve addressed the problem.
No the mentally handicapped are like children, mentally is there any difference?
You’re just being obtuse, I’ve already answered your question you just want to make pre-crime legislation which is different. Anyone can see a five year old is unready for various things.
Anyone else notice how QuisCustodiet managed to evade these points?
That doesn’t answer the question! The question is what would the court determine in a free society. For example, a libertarian court would rule murder is illegal. Whether or not someone was murdered or killed in self defense, you have to look at the specific case. To look at a specific case in the issue of advertising, I provided one in the original post. So it’s like a role-playing game – how would you rule as a libertarian judge?
Well, there’s has to be a consistency of logic. You can’t say it would be illegal for a firm to sell a product to a five-year-old, but legal for a firm to advertise the product to the child.
Attempted murder, attempted assault, etc. are all things courts deal with. This is what you’re referring to, and it was addressed.
As for how I rule, it depends on the case and what was being advertised. A suicide machine for kids sold directly to them? That company is probably screwed, but their guilt must be proven in court. There must be an official way of dealing with creeps.
In order for there to be no aggression, you need a fully-consentual exchange. If children are not capable of consenting to certain exchanges, then those exchanges are aggression.
Facepalm. Of course it does! A five-year-old cannot consent to certain exchanges. Surely not every exchange between adults and five-year-olds would be considered non-aggression.
“Fully-formed” as in fully capable of understanding a given exchange.
Yeah. Cartoon characters and everything. It is explicitly for children.
By proving their “guilt” to you mean proving that they were specifically targeting children? Then you’re saying it would be illegal to do so in a free society!
Yes, this is not a foreign concept to Austrians. Walter Block and Kinsella are very respectable on this particular subject.
You need to support the claim that advertising consitutes aggression. Quit evading the issue.
FACEPALM. You have no idea what libertarian law is about. I have tried to help you in previous threads by either explaining or giving you short links to read. You are not attempting to learn.
Also, you are creating a strawman of my statement. I did not say anything about about consent in that statement. I said “fully formed agent” has nothing to do with libertarian law.
IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DEFINE WHAT A FULLY FORMED AGENT IS, THEN MY STATEMENT IS CORRECT BY YOUR CONCESSION.
What an ignorant statement. Read here for more info. There is serious debate as to when someone is “fully capable of understanding a given exchange”. And that might be at age 25. Are you suggesting we ban exchanges with people under 25 years of age?
Fully formed has nothing to do with libertarian law. The matter of being able to speak up for oneself or hire someone else to is what has to do with libertarian law.
IIRC, you chose to ignore that statement of mine previously. I’m curious, do you actually want to learn while you are here? Or are you content with making these ignorant claims about libertarianism and then ignoring people who attempt to have a discussion?
@h.k.
Do you have any suggestions?
This is very long stuff but Kinsella discusses criminal plotting here:
I didn’t make that claim. I claimed that advertising certain things to children (five-year-olds, let’s say) – that which they cannot understand, like hard drugs – is aggression.
You’re right. But consent is important in determining whether or not an act is an aggressive one 
No. I should hae said “‘Fully-formed’ as in fully capable of understanding a particular exchange.” A five-year-old is fully capable of understanding some exchanges but not others. The exchanges that cannot be understood should be considered non-consentual, and thus aggressive.
@h.k.
Awesome. I’ll be sure to check it out.
My request still stands. Are you going to support that claim or not?
Did you read the link? There is evidence to support a claim that 17 year-olds cannot understand taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt in order to pay for college. Is it aggression to advertise school loans to people 17 years of age?