as far as offline child pornography rings, the market will need to be creative. Combating online pornography is simple, similar to large ISP who track viruses and hackers
Absolute nonsense. If this were the case than parents could beat, rape, and sell their children with no legal repercussions.
It depends. Did you buy the ipod, or did the child? If the child, then no, that would be stealing. You do, however, have every right to kick them off your property as punishment for breaking your “rules”(as is the case with every guest on your property).
As for the original question, no, I don’t think watching child porn would be “illegal”(remember, this is a free society, so nothing is “illegal”). The person who films/engages in child porn would of course be aggressing, and would therefore be prosecuted for it, but we’re getting into the realm of thought crimes if you can be prosecuted for simply viewing something. The viewing of child porn is a victimless “crime,” no one is hurt by it. Of course, there would be various ramifications if people found out you were watching child porn, namely social ostracism, although I could definitely see the situation escalating if parents felt their children were being threatened by you. And besides, as the drug war illustrates, making something “illegal” does nothing to stop people from partaking in it anyways.
If it is not being produced by the parents, then I would certainly believe that the health insurance company of the child’s parents (since, I think the kid would be insured by the parents until they are capable of insuring themselves) would step in and act. Health insurance companies worry not only about physical but also about mental health, as mental health problems can lead to physical problems including (but not limited to) physical self damaging - cutting, attempted suicides, drug addiction, et cetera. I am sure that health insurance companies would develop and enact some form of system which searches for images of their clients and flags images which may be considered indescent. The health insurance company then contacts the parents of the child(ren) and the parents then have the option of seeking restraining orders from the private judiciary, or seeking more extreme measures to be taken through either their private defense or security contractors depending on how harmed the parents feel that their child is. Optionally, upon notification from the health insurance company the parent - and IMO the parent should do this - has the option of going there and beating the living daylights out of the molester.
If it is the parent that is doing the molesting (which I pray would be extremely rare), then:
- If the child has health insurance through the parents, then the health insurance company certainly has stake in the child’s safety and well-being. If the parents are moleting the child that is insured by the company, I would think (I could be wrong) that doing so would constitute a de facto theft from the company. Therefore, the company would be justified in acting through private courts or private security contractors and taking the child into protective custody in the interest of protecting their assets.
- If the child is uninsured, then it is the responsibility of members of the community to act in the child’s defense, instead of running to the State every time things aren’t turning out the way they want them to (as seems to be the case today).
Assuming this young person is consenting, the first important consideration is one of definition. Specifically how do you define child? There was a period in history when the average age for a girl (yes, girl) giving birth for the first time was under 18. Marriage usually occurred at what we would call a very young age. By what standard should we condemn very young people from engaging in sexual behavior? By what standard can you say they are not old enough to engage in a basic biological function? Evolution (or God if you prefer) has given these people the physical ability to engage in sexual activity and even produce offspring. Is there some reason an otherwise responsible teenager should be barred from producing porn but an irresponsible adult should not? What is your standard?
No, it is not “nonsense”. For example, who are you to say that beating a child to teach them obedience is wrong?
Parents should definitely be able to sell their children. They are their children.
As to child sex, I would be interested to see what would happen in a stateless society, whether it would be legal or illegal.
Assault is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Even if you happen to be related to the person you are assaulting.
Oh boy, here we go again with rights.
So, can one assault an animal? I mean, it is a violation of some “non-aggression” principle, right?
I will probably have a number of fellow libertarians disagree with me here. My honest answer is that this depends upon the level of sentience in that particular animal. Lower order animals have no rights. Step on all of the ants or termites you want to. But the more sentient and aware that animal becomes the more I would have to say assaulting it is a violation of the NAP. I would say that once an animal reaches chimpanzee status it would begin to have quasi-human rights if not fully human rights. There are also studies showing a correlation between animal abuse and the abuse of humans – something you may wish to consider before you condone animal abuse. The teen who decapitates his dog may grow up to decapitate you. For me, the key is self-awareness. A being that is self-aware enough to at least partially make it’s own decisions is a being with at least some basic rights. A decision making entity has rights. I would also leave open the possibility that, at some point in a far flung future, we may have machines that could qualify - but the ability to determine rights in a circumstance such as that could be far more tricky.
Mary Ruwart said it very well.
Juan,
“Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally.”
A question I must ask is WHEN should the child be allowed to make decisions like that for themselves. If we accept that a child has the right to make decisions, even poor ones such as to participate in child pornography do we claim that a child of 3 years has the same mental capacity and free will as a child of 17 years. A very young child’s thoughts and decisions can be heavily influenced by an adult. Should an outside group such as government or some private child rights group have the right then to step in and pass judgement to stop the child in engaging in such acts? If a child makes the choice at 3 yrs of age to participate in child pornography do we allow them resource to sue or imprison the person who took the photos if say 10 years later the child changes their mind and realizes that they were being exploited?
If children are free to make their own decisions then a child engaging in a pornographic act would not have any legal recourse like that of a rape victim because it has been agreed that the child is capable of making their own decisions. When someone poses for pictures or videos voluntarily they are not being aggressed against like that of a rape victim. If we accept that a child of any age has the right to make their own decisions then it follows that making child pornography would not be a crime let lone simply being a 3rd party who views it.
I hate to have to be the one to point it out, but you’ll likely find that a very large contingent of the liberty movement has this concept of rights and think it is deserving of quite a deal of respect. For example, almost every major Austro-libertarian political philosopher.
You are pointing it out to the wrong person. I already know property rights stem from man’s ability to reason. I also know that children do not have rights until they have enough mental capacity to be able to reason.
You should be directing your comments to ryanpatgrey.
Do you believe that the capacity to reason is a cut-and-dry situation or a spectrum? I simply believe rationality to be a spectrum. I think that my dog has a (very limited) ability to grasp some simple concepts. A gorilla can be taught to use sign language to communicate and chimpanzees can use tools. Children also develop rationality on a spectrum. They do not go to bed one day irrational and wake up the next day rational.
I don’t have a definitive answer for that question.
This is not a matter of agreement. The fact is, children can make decisions.
Very young children cannot make their own decisions. But as soon as they can they have the right to do so, not because of legalistic ‘agreement’ but because children, just like adults, have natural rights.
I agree with you that rational decision making ability varies with different individuals and at different ages. It seems that there would have to be some form of government to protect the exploitation of those who lack the ability to reason due to being very young in age or lack of mental capacity. Some form of collective group must decide at what point a being becomes capable of reasoning and making their own decisions. This would imply some form of government body and that this body has the authority to intervene to stop child pornography if they deem the child is incapable of rational decision making.
This issue is difficult because the parent could deem that their child is capable of rational decision making and that they were not exploiting them. It would then be left to an outside group to determine whether they should overturn the decision of the parent and force them to stop. Should the viewer of child pornography be punished because they make a faulty judgement of whether the child being viewed was doing it voluntarily and had the capacity to reason when in fact they did not?
It is a fact that children can make decisions. What I am wondering is specifically what decisions should they be allowed to make? I can accept that a child can make their own decisions as to what toy to play with or what cereal they prefer. However, should we accept that a child has the rights to smoke, drink, or enter into contract in child pornography? Children of differing ages mentally develop at varying ages. Who should be the authority that determines whether the child has the capacity to reason and make those kinds of decisions? Should it be the parents, the child, or a government? If we accept that not all children have the ability to make their own rational decisions then it implies that there must be an outside agency to judge whether or not the child can make their own decisions. If there is an outside agency that has authority to determine the childs level of mental ability then could there also be a government that determines what the punishment should be for those who film a child who cannot reason or even view a child without the ability to reason?
The ideas of Maria Montessori are similar in most aspects to the ideas of libertarians and anarchists with respect to raising children. I suggest looking at her works to get a different opinion of how to raise a child that may answer some of the questions you have.
What crime, exactly, did the viewer commit ?
I don’t know if there must be an ‘outside agency’ or not. People concerned can help children they believe are being abused.
However if we accept that some children can make rational decisions it follows that a-priori outlawing of child porn is not possible.
Juan,
I agree that the viewer of child pornography is not guilty of any crime. What I am really wondering is do we NEED some form of government to collectively decide which children are capable of making their own decisions. If it is determined that the child did not have the ability to reason for him/herself does the government have the right to punish the person who exploits the child initially by filming them? I have read arguments for individualist anarchism and anarcho capitalism and the like. I am trying to figure out if there would in fact be market forces that could protect children who are victims of child pornography. Do we not need some form of government to pass laws against parents selling their children into child pornography. Even though the child may agree to it and the parent may agree to it voluntarily, should the government have the authority to deem this voluntary act as immoral? Should the government be able to decide if the child can in fact think and reason? If government can outlaw this form of immorality what is the logical stopping point of government’s intrusiveness? Could a case also be made then for criminalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, smoking, drinking?