There’s consent right there.
wouldn’t this encourage more CP because children would be willing to work for drastically lower wages than adults? [:S]
And adults will do anything for money. lol >.>
So the kid goes missing for a few hours, does some CP and that’s it? [:|] lol.
I guess part of the point I’m trying to get at is there are guardianship rights for the child. In the natural state of things, the parent is going to try provide a danger free environment for their children.
Also, what didn’t your mother ever tell you “Don’t ever take candy from a stranger” ? Haha… [:)]
That should not really be our business in the legal sense, what you affirm and detest in your personal affiliations is not really the concern of the state. Vice is a question of character and subjectivity; the only thing a liberal legal system would be worried about is contractual disagreements and crimes such as murder, theft, and fraud.
But what about bad parents?!?!
But CP!!!
What about bad parents now?
The welfare state increase their number. People who otherwise wouldn’t have had children, now do.
If the parents initiate violence against the child, violate its free will, then the parent can possibly lose their guardianship rights.
Also a child should be allowed to run away from home.
But the state can be reformed!!
Who will enforce these child’s rights if not the leviathan!?! What’s to stop human beings from going the way of animals!!!
Seriously if y’all can’t find a solution to this we’ll have to start chanting NCP along with NAP.
Freedom is not for the faint of heart ?
Also, I find it funny how puritans (both theist and atheist puritans) don’t seem upset if children are sent to work in factories (willingly or not) but scream blue murder when sex enters the picture.
The fact is, ‘children’ (a somewhat vague category) can consent to lots of things, sex included. If they don’t consent then there is indeed something to worry about - if they do consent, however, what happens is none of your business.
This is a very libertarian response. Are you conceding that people have a defensible rights to voluntarily produce CP?
My instinct tells me that while the state could certainly prevent CP the state is not the only entity that could do so. Private Anti Porn Agencies (PAPAs) would probably arise to coerce CP groups, as well as others who are perceived of as being morally corrupt. This makes sense because we begin with assuming there is a demand for a CP free world.
And then all the ensuing arguments about why PAPAs are more efficient than the state.
Can you reform a criminal gang which continues to loot?
Leviathan violates those childs rights.
Ludwig von Mises Institute. [:D]
Well Conza88, most of those comments I made were in jest. I’m a dirty no good anarchist through and through.
But in all seriousness this is how people argue. This might be an actual argument though:
This is of course possible isn’t it? Although I think that if there were a human farm (say for organs) the owner of cette farm could be said to have a monopoly of force and therefore constitutes a government, which just brings us back to the “is gov inevitable?” debate.
I know. But I couldn’t let the statist win now, could I? [:D]
Depends what you mean by the “way of the animals”.
Human farm? No. Have you listened to Blocks - Evictionism (Abortion) lecture? It is good. This would play into this scenario.
What’s to stop us from becoming animals? Other people? Ourselves? How did humans get where we are today? How did we stop being animals? Did one of the monkeys decide to start taxing all the other monkeys after he formed a gang of all the biggest monkeys? Even if that was the case, was it not your equals that prevented such devolution? Government was formed by humans last time I looked. So they obviously existed without it, without being animals, because if they were animals they would have never been able to form it in the first place.