I have recently read Walter Block’s book “Defending the Undefendable”. It is a book that presents an argument to vindicate the supposedly criminal, immoral, and exploitative members of society. If we accept that in a free society it is not a legitimate function of government to legislate morality, what would be the postiion of a libertarian /minarchist /anarchist on the ethics of allowing someone to view child pornography? Many of us can agree that Child Pornography is an immoral act. It is clear that the individual who manipulates a minor into engaging in such acts is commiting an act of aggression and coercion. Can this also be said for the individual who purchases such materials? This is the question that I ask. Can we in a free society allow consumers the freedom to purchase child pornography even though the product purchased was produced in what many would feel is an illegal, immoral, coercive, and exploitative way? Is the consumer to be restricted in purchasing this material because it was fraudulently produced?
parents should legally own their kids until the kids reach the age of consent, whatever it may be.
How is this to be stopped?
But if the parents own their children are they allowed to film them in a pornographic act. Does this also give the parents the right to beat, murder, rape their children just because they own their children. Should the child be subjected to coercion and violence by their parents until they reach the age of consent which is arbitrarily decided upon by some form of government? Is your postion that children are the Property of their parents and therefore the parents have the right to abuse or neglect them in whatever manner they choose? Or should the children’s natural rights of life, liberty, and property to be protected even against their parenst?
This ‘owning’ people is also known as slavery no ?
so the defense contractor in your community will come and take my kids away if I take away their Ipod for smoking?
the kid has a right to smoke right? he’s a human being with the full faculties to make decisions affecting his future.
Who will pay for this?
so I can dictate what my kids do until people are outraged enough to pay the defense contractor to come take them away. that sounds a lot better than any natural rights sillyness.
Natural rights are silly ?
Charitable people ? Libertarians who believe in individual rights ? People nazgulnarsil once pissed off ? Who knows ?
natural rights as absolutes are silly. IRL everything is a compromise between desire and cost.
Ok. If in RL I manage to cut you into little pieces without getting caught, I will.
Lets stay on topic for a change shall we. Is it wrong to view a crime. Should a person be punished for viewing somehing illegal. I would have to say no. Although I find the thought of child pornography dispicable and the idea of someone profiting from it even more deplorable i don’t think the government has the right to legislate morality.
I think the answer could still be “no” in a libertarian society. Because a child cannot legally consent (what the age of consent should be is a different topic) to having his/her photograph taken, the pictures were obtained unlawfully. The original photographer did not obtain lawful title to the pictures. Since the original photograph is not a legitimate owner, i.e., does not have lawful title, then he/she cannot legitimately transfer title to any other person whether by gift or sale. So, a viewer could not lawfully view child pornography. This probably has several flaws. But, from the other responses, it seems we are searching for a way to say viewing child pronography even in a libertarian society is still unlawful. This is my attempt to support that idea.
"legally consent … to having his/her photograph taken, the pictures were obtained unlawfully. The original photographer did not obtain lawful title to the pictures. Since the original photograph is not a legitimate owner, i.e., does not have lawful title, then he/she cannot legitimately transfer title to any other person whether by gift or sale. "
I don’t think I agree with this. If I sneak up to you while on a private street, take a photograph of you and run away, I dont need to have your consent. No crime has been committed. I do not see why any ‘lawful title’ is needed to take a photograph of someone.
Perhaps if you believe in intellectual ‘property’, you might have a different view, but good luck enforcing those in a liberatian society.
I agree with the first sentence - even in a libertarian society, by definition, child porn would be banned. I am not sure how, logically, child porn would liberate a child (who probably does not understand things like economics, law or sex) - the facts are clear: children who are molested either commit suicide, go into a long-term depression or molest children when they told older. Such purely horrible outcomes do not advance the needs of the child nor the cause of liberty.
sicsempertyrannis you are comparing apples and oranges. If I own the private street and you do not have permission to be there, then you are a trespassing. That I could enforce. If I do not have permission to be on the private street, then I am trespassing and you could use the photographs as evidence. But, we are not talking about this situation. We are discussing taking pornographic pictures of a child who cannot legal consent to such photographs being taken. Even if you were on a private street and took pornographic pictures of a child, then you still have violated the law. If you murder someone on private property, i.e., have no justification for killing that person, then you still have broken the law, correct?
If I voluntarily go out to a public place, I consent to being viewed by others and to have my picture taken. A picture is simply an extension of being viewed in public. I doubt seriously that pedophiles photograph pornographic pictures of childen in public setting. I also doubt that the child would be voluntarily in a public setting to be so photographed.
If you agree with Kinsella’s idea that copyrights can’t be enforced upon 3rd parties, then child pornography can be watched by 3rd parties. Example: someone takes photos and starts distributing them. He surely is guilty of breaking child pornography rules, but you can’t say the same about 3rd parties that view or redistribute them.
You’ll say that this isn’t a contract or EULA. True, but breaching of the minimal ethical conduct in this free society is done only by the guy who actually takes those photos.
The role of such laws is to protect, not preserve some sort of morality, at least in a free society.
It won’t be banned. Parents concerned by it will just have to monitor their kids.
Still, I believe the problem of children isn’t quite cut and dried in anarcho-capitalist theory. What if the parents are abusive themselves, e.g. they take pornographic pictures of their own children?
As Rothbard puts it, a market for children is going to reduce abuses. But my guess is we should allow children more liberty. For those abuses that children are aware of, they can choose to flee their current parents and choose more appropriate caretakers. As for abuses they aren’t, I’m not sure.
Also, a market for children may not imply a transfer of property, but transfer of “possesion”, in the sense that the child can choose to walk away. For babies, this isn’t a problem, although for older ones it might be.