I think this thread needs to get back on topic, or I will close it.
I don’t like the question at all. What upsets me is that proposed libertarians start questions with “Should we allow…”.
There is nothing a we - which is a group anyway and by definition has no rights- can allow or ban or whatever. This is pure collectivst thought.
In a libertarian society there is criminal behavior and all the other acts. Criminal behaviour is not defined by some fancy catagory like “society” but by actions of an individual. Groups don’t act, though individuals might act in concert. Still that means each individual acts.
Child porn might be a crime, if, and only if property rights of the child are violated. In that case the child that is in the possesion of it’s parents as long as it does not choose to leave, has a right, mind the child has a right, not society, the good men from the hill or Mickey mouse, to act in a manner that can force the aggressive actor to compansate. That’s it.
The question of property of a human being is totally cut try. You can not have any property that can not be transfered to you. As every human being posses himself and can not give up this possession, no one else can have a property on another human being. Rothbard thinks in terms of a stewardship which I think is a good way.
The viewing or possessing of photos is not an action and can be no crime at all. To comit a crime the initation of an aggressive action is required. By definition a non action therefor never can be a crime. I can be morally wrong it can be cold blooded but never a crime.
A child agrees to do what the parent says, or the parent will stop supplying the child with food and shelter. If a kid smokes, you can take away his iPod as long as he didn’t pay for it or the child does not take supplies from you in exchange for doing what you say.
Short answer: Viewing child pornography is not a tort.
Slightly longer answer: Victims of recorded child abuse (child pornography) can sometimes be identified. Their extended family (assuming a parent or parents are involved or turning a blind eye) would like to know that information and would certainly be willing to sue (for retaliatory damages, including loss of custody) not only the parents but anyone associated with the whole thing, including resellers. Reselling child pornography would not likely be a profitable business. Busting people for trafficking in child porn could be profitable (and thus, produced in the free market).
In summary, demand for child pornography will not be reduced in a natural order society. Production is a function of demand so production will not decrease due to a decrease in demand. However, insomuch as we can expect protection of children’s interests by extended family to be more efficient in a natural order society (due to the division of labor, private property and so on), we can expect that the costs of producing child pornography would increase and, therefore, profitability would decrease. Capital would flow out of the market and the overall market size would shrink.
Nevertheless, since the act of viewing child pornography would not itself constitute a tort, there would be only as much suppression of the consumption of child pornography as people in society are willing to band together and pay for. In other words, a fictitious Stop Child Pornography Charity might file lawsuits against child porn distributors, resellers, web servers and maybe individual consumers if it can find them but it could only do so to the extent that people willingly donate to its cause. I have no doubt people would willingly donate to such a cause. The lawsuits may or may not hold up legally but that is beside the point, the cost of defending against lawsuits would increase the costs of reselling, distributing and consuming child pornography and would, therefore, have a “chilling effect.”
Clayton -
Your proposed way is a classical example for getting unintendet consequences.
If there is a thread to people, that did not commit a crime, like resellers, distributors or buyers of material, this sure would lead to a higher risk in that business, which in turn raises, not decreases, the riks of having people with, let’s say, questionable business practices, join the business. Those groups are usually referred to as organized crime, Mafia, Cosa Nostra etc. .
There is no crime involved in reselling distributing and possesing anything as long as it is done in mutual consent and by proper transfer of titles.
I would rather promote some kind of watchdog approach, speaking out on moral, religious and ethical grounds against it, but never prohibit it in any way, as this is still another version of the infamous bootleger and baptist scheme, that has done a lot of harm in this country during the prohibition.
And, far from being a way to prevent childpornography from happening it allows another, sure welcomed, way for the bureaucrats to derive more wealth and power.
[deleted; didn’t notice the msg I was replying to was a couple of years old]
An example, what if kids have sex between them, voluntarily, and a security camera filmed it. Who is being agressed? Where is the victim?
I don’t think in a free society, that there would be any organization to stop the viewing of child pornography.
This is a tricky issue. One of my main hurdles about becoming an-cap was how society was going to deal with the protection of children. If you think about it though, a community hiring defense agency workers to come extract kids from harmful situations is not any different than voting on child protection laws and having the state police extract a kid.
The thing about libertarian law is that basically the law will be enforced only when something becomes egregious enough to make people in a community want to pay the defense enforcement agency money to take care of a problem. I’m sure society would fund extraction of kids being used in child pornography. Viewing child porn is probably different in that legal sense.
I think exactly the opposite. And rather than acting as an “ultimate distributor” of child porn, as our Most Wonderful Police Agencies do, such an organization in a natural order would be single-mindedly dedicated to dissuading people from distributing, reselling, consuming, etc. such material.
In fact, I think this is a good object lesson in why the mainstream has so much trouble with libertarianism. We tend to be anti-establishment even on points where the establishment is right, just corrupted by the State. Of course decent people would want to find ways to dissuade people from using or distributing child pornography. In other words, “dissuading people from distributing and consuming child pornography” is a perfectly valid end, as valid as any end which you may have. To say that pursuit of one end (stopping child pornography) but not another (say, promoting libertarian ideals) constitutes “aggression” is arbitrary. And the ways in which people resolve the disputes which arise in the pursuit of their ends is what creates customary law in a natural order. While we can reasonably expect that customary law will be characterized by non-aggression, non-aggression is not the sum of customary law. Human nature is too complex for human interactions to be boiled down to a simplistic rule like the non-aggression principle.
Clayton -
But Clayton, while I feel that viewing child porn is worse than torrenting an mp3, it would be similar to the same thing. Any punishment dealt out would go against the distributors and creators of child porn, not the people viewing it. I’m pretty sure people who are attracted to children have psychological issues and can’t change that on a dime whereas the people who peddle this stuff are trying to make money. It’s not that both parties want to engage in “immoral” acts (like some people would consider drug use immoral), it is the fact that children are, reasonably considered, too young to consent to adult behavior.
It’s not about private defense enforcing some type of absolute moral order, just that it would prevent exploitation of children. Even if one feels that drug use is objectively bad, they most likely will not spend money supporting drug raids because it doesn’t significantly effect them. They likely won’t use force to stop pot usage just like they won’t pay for force to stop child porn viewing. They probably will use force to prevent creation and distribution of child porn, which is different altogether.
What’s wrong with torrenting an mp3?
I would say that downloading music without the artist’s permission is rude. That’s the extent of its "wrong"ness. I wouldn’t call it immoral, and certainly would not call for it to be illegal.
There’s nothing wrong with it I guess, I was just using it as a comparative example. People who oppose torrenting software, music, movies, etc. say it’s stealing but it’s too dispersed to deal with case-by-case, so if the major studios and companies get to sue individuals it is like the people who own the Pirate Bay, etc.
My point was that if people are paying money to stop the spread of child porn, they probably won’t focus on the individual viewers but instead attempt to halt the production and distribution.
The thing about libertarian law is that basically the law will be enforced only when something becomes egregious enough to make people in a community want to pay the defense enforcement agency money to take care of a problem. I’m sure society would fund extraction of kids being used in child pornography. Viewing child porn is probably different in that legal sense.
I don’t see how you could be so sure of that. That’s like saying you would be sure society would fund the extraction of animals that are being “abused”, or even killed.
It’s not about private defense enforcing some type of absolute moral order, just that it would prevent exploitation of children.
And how would it do that? Because the majority would dictate it? If so, then you are not talking about a free society.
“And how would it do that? Because the majority would dictate it? If so, then you are not talking about a free society.”
No social order whatsoever can exist if the majority of individuals oppose it. Like it or not what the majority wills will usually be that which is enforced.
No social order whatsoever can exist if the majority of individuals oppose it. Like it or not what the majority wills will usually be that which is enforced.
Then, like it or not, you are not talking about a free society.
And a society that allowed children to be coerced into pornagraphy is your example of a free society?
The act itself should be illegal, not the photos.