No, just like rothbard argued that air polution was non-invasive until it was proven beyond a reasonal doubt that it could damage an affected party’s health, you cannot restrict another person in the practice of their rights without first legitimizing your assertion. Otherwise you would be forced to assume no one could practice their rights until they could prove themselves a rational thinker. Such a scenario would be impractical since there would be no one who could enact judgement on whether someone could practice their rights.
This sort of plays on the “when they move out, they are an adult” idea from the first few pages.
But that’s the whole context of this argument, What’s being argued is that until someone meets a certain level of development or ability of thinking, they should be forcibly restricted from leaving the home.
You’ve tacitly changed the subject from children, particularly young children (like 12 or 10 and under), to the vague term ‘youth’ which I suspect you are including teenagers in (possibly even up to the late teens).
Early in this thread I linked to a blogpost in which Roderick Long discussed age-of-consent issues in relation to child pornography, molestation, etc. He was in part commenting on the false accusations against Mary Ruwart. Well, now Mary Ruwart has answered the false accusations herself, clarifying her position on these issues. Both are recommended reading for everyone involved in this debate.
The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred.
Oh joy, let’s adopt the practices of 18th century English law and assume guilt.
He mentioned his 14 year old.
When I was in 5th grade there were kids having sex with each other, granted it wasn’t rampant or widespread until I started High School, but that’s not of much relevance.
She’s explicitly refering to pre-pubescent children there. And it’s not presuming guilt. It’s a presumption in favor of liberty, the rights of the pre-pubescent child. If he wants to deny he had sex with the child, then of course he would be innocent until proven guilty on this score. But the presumption that pre-pubescent children generally cannot be said to consent to sex with adults is not a presumption of guilt on the part of the adult but a presumption in favor of the child’s rights, held in trusteeship by its parents, such that sex or pornography involving them counts as initiatory coercion (e.g., rape) unless it can be shown that they were exceptionally mentally mature for their age (which strikes me as exceedingly unlikely to happen).
I don’t think that’s really in dispute. So what? We live in a highly sexually charged culture. This is also involving sex between two children of roughly the same age.
If the burden of proof is required to prove one DID NOT do something, generally that means you must assume their guilt in the action. When two concenting adults have sex you dont automatically assume it’s rape until each adult supplies enough information to show that they were with a consenting party.
But I don’t need to explain it: my obligation to leave them alone is in no way conditioned on their being “different from a rock or a parrot.” The default position is that any creature with human DNA is subject to non-aggression, which means I leave it alone as long as it leaves me alone. The only interesting difference is that I can crush the rock, or eat the parrot, but I can’t crush or eat the drunk. That difference springs from the purely arbitrary decision that homo sapiens come under the non-aggression axiom, but rocks and parrots don’t.
Where does “consent” come into it? In the case of a drunk leaping off a tall building, there is no issue of “consent.” Perhaps that’s caused some confusion, so we should go stick to interactions in which someone does something TO someone else. Adult-child sex, or sex with a drunken sorority girl, are apropos.
In those cases it’s helpful to remember something else that hasn’t been mentioned on this thread: the burden of proof. In a free society, it’s legal to produce voluntary snuff films. BUT, if you kill a man on film and then market the movie, that man’s heirs will accuse you of murder and attempt to execute you. To escape execution, you must prove that the man consented, at least to the satisfaction of interested parties that, if they did kill you, it would be deemed murder by your heirs, bystanders and your respective security agencies. If you can’t meet that burden of proof, you’ll be executed or subjected to whatever lesser punishment is agreed by the interested parties.
Adult-child sex comes under the same rubric. If you like, we could say that it’s perfectly allowed–if you can meet the burden of proof in a rape case. In the case of the retarded, insane, senile, or of course young children, you’ll find the case impossible to make. Once it’s proven that sex occured, it becomes your burden to prove that it was consenting. Which includes not only proving that it wasn’t forcible, but also proving that fraud wasn’t involved. Grooming the child, failing to disclose risks, etc., are of course elements of fraud.
I’m ever so sorry that meeting your burden of proof is difficult, but that’s just too bad. You claim that children are oppressed because they’re being forcibly prevented from engaging in relationships with adults that they crave. The burden is on you to prove that they crave these relationships.
That’s a tepid response. It’s unclear whether you actually advocate adult-child sexual relationships, or whether you’re just getting a bit carried away with a theoretical point.
You’re obviously no parent, and haven’t read the bit I posted about responsibility being a continuum. Picking one’s own clothes is a responsibility most kids are given early. Cliff diving, alligator-wrestling and other dangerous sports–that comes later. That could only mystify you if you’ve never (1) had a child, or (2) been a child.
Of course. He was taught to shoot a .22 pistol and rifle by age six. But more to the point, he still doesn’t have unsupervised access to his guns, and he doesn’t carry a concealed weapon.
If the anecdotal “caught ‘playing doctor’” evidence is insufficient to prove that children are interested in sexual behavior, Levine’s Harmful to Minors - The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (University of Minnesota press, 2002) cites several instances of adult-child sexual contact that the child consented to. While I can’t put my hands on any scholarly studies, I expect that same-age sexual contact is likely to be viewed as more accessible by those children who want to explore sexuality.
As a pre-pubescent myself, I actively fantasized about sexual activity with several people, including adults. I did not pursue the activity because I knew I’d be punished for approaching anyone in that fashion.
I haven’t seen anyone advocate adult-child sexual relationships, but I join with anyone who advocates the child’s right to consent. They’re people, not property.
Are you implying that sexual activity is inherently dangerous? More so than, say, crossing an urban street?
Much of the controversy over this evaporates when you examine the widespread assumption that sex is Evil unless licensed by the church or state.
The default position is that any creature with human DNA is subject to non-aggression, which means I leave it alone as long as it leaves me alone.
Len, I’m just a bit confused regarding your position. You say that all humans, regardless of age, are subject to non-aggression. But you said before that you would prevent your 7-year-old from joining NAMBLA. How do you rationalize that?
As a father myself I have no problem embracing the view that children cannot give consent to certain things, because they cannot grasp the consequences or responsibilities associated with that consent. I do not extend the NAP to them. But I do believe that all living things have certain innate rights. This prevents me as a parent from killing my child whenever I want, but does allow me to physically prevent them from jumping off the roof with a superman cape on.
Where does “consent” come into it?
Well in every context I would define “consent” as “understanding the consequences and responsibilities of an action”. A person in a drunken state may want to kill themselves because they are “not in their right mind” and therefore do not fully understand what they are doing. A woman high on X may want to let those three guys gang rape her because she is “not in her right mind” and cannot fully understand what is going to happen. Same goes for a 7-year-old at a NAMBLA meeting.
You mention the burden of proof. I would go even further and say that we must agree on what proof is acceptable. How do you prove that someone understands the consequence of their actions? As mentioned before you cannot rely on the spoken word. Signed documents? You can always make someone sign something under duress.
How do you prove to the relatives of the guy you killed in the snuff film that he really was consenting to your actions of his own free will, and in full understanding of what was going to happen?
I think I’ve answered that at length, multiple times. The direct consequence of my son’s homo sepiens DNA is that I can’t rape him, kill him, etc. Libertarian law imposes no positive obligation on me to protect him from rape, murder, assault, etc., but I choose to protect him from those things.
To the extent I exercise discipline and oversight, I justify it as a pseudo-contractual exchange for the food, shelter and protection I provide him. It’s pseudo-contractual, rather than contractual, because he didn’t actually volunteer to be born in my household, and lacks the emotional or mental development that would enable him to negotiate a new caregiver for himself. He is in that sense intermediate between a comatose patient, subject to the decisions of his caregiver and a free agent responsible for himself. On the day of his birth he was 100% “comatose patient.” At some future date he will be 100% “free agent.”
Put differently, I have some latitude to define what is and isn’t aggression against him, because he is my ward and has limited mental capacity. As a newborn, and just like a comatose patient, I had full discretion to approve painful medical treatment and deem it not assault. The limits of my discretion are somewhat bounded by the burden of proof; see below.
I disagree, taking a stance similar to Hans Hoppe’s. He argues that self-ownership is preferred because it minimizes conflict. Extending that rubric, a libertarian justice system arises from two considerations: the non-aggression principle, including the right of self-defense; and conflict minimization. The non-aggression principle states that if you aggress against me, I can resist forcibly, including deadly force. But the same principle also states that others can resist my aggression. Therefore, if you attack me and I kill you, there is some risk that bystanders will believe I initiated the aggression, and will respond with lethal force against me. Although they are morally in the wrong on this point, they are acting in a good-faith belief that they are right–and apart from divine intervention, the dispute between me and them can’t necessarily be settled. This very principle has given rise, in past cultures, to blood-feuds.
To avoid blood feuds, I opt to convince bystanders that I’m acting in self-defense, so they won’t deem me an aggressor and kill me. While I’m not morally bound to do so, I have no grounds for complaint if I refuse and they decide to treat me as the aggressor. Since I don’t want to be killed as an aggressor, I agree to try and convince them. If I can’t convince them that the accused is a murderer, I might settle for some lesser compensation that can be negotiated. From this proceeds every important feature of a legal system, without the need for any monopolist of force.
Which finally brings us to the burden of proof. The burden of proof is whatever it takes to convince the interested parties that I acted reasonably, and so not to treat me as the aggressor.
A “jury of one’s peers” arises from the same principle: since it’s inefficient to try a case “in the media,” an accusation of rape or murder would not be handled by an arbitrator acting alone, but by an open process in which interested parties can speak, and an agreed-upon panel participates. If the case involves a mental deficient or a child, the defendant will have a hard time convincing the arbitrator and panel that the relationship was consensual. For example, after the child explains why he thought a relationship with the defendant would be a wonderful thing, his parents might ask him to explain all about Santa Claus. Conversely, I’d have a hard time convincing anyone that I bought my pickup truck under duress, and should be excused from paying for it.
Another thing that falls out of this model of the libertarian legal system is that even if a precocious nine-year-old were ready for marriage and a family, one wouldn’t opt to marry him unless you could convince the interested parties that this was so, starting with the parents. If you think he’s a thirty-year-old trapped in a nine-year-old body, but others can’t be convinced of this, then you won’t escape a rape conviction even if you happen to be right. Therefore, prudence dictates that you wait till he’s older. If you can convince others of this, starting with the parents, then you won’t be charged with anything, and may proceed.
Sorry I have to repeat myself verbatim (3rd time I think) : You deny that chlldren are naturally interested in sex - you assert that their interest is merely the result of their being ‘corrupted’ by external factors. You could also be arguing that the earth is flat because the bible say so.
In the message posted on “Wed, May 7 2008 12:40 PM” somebody has provided ‘personal’ evidence and references in the form of a book. Do these items carry any weight ?
Disregarding the sarcastic tone & exaggeration, wich is fine anyways, I do roughly claim that. Children are also being oppressed, for instance, when their parents ‘teach’ them their arbitrary and usually nonsensical mythologies, AKA revealed religion. I think ‘teaching’ religion to a child is a bad case of child abuse. However I don’t advocate that parents wich do so should have their heads blown off.
What’s the difference ?
So, shooting at six is not a dangerous activity ? Teaching somebody how to shoot is not a clear encouragement of violence ? Perhaps you’ve also taught him that he’s going to fight the IRS ? Because he will, right ?
It would be very interesting to know why sex is regarded as undesirable, harmful, criminal, etc, but violence is OK at the age of six ?
One more point for people who like definitions.
Rape is a form of physical coercion, in wich the victim clearly is forced to do something he/she doesn’t want to do.
But technically, the case of somebody engaging in an activity despite the alleged fact that he/she can’t form consent is not the same as being physically forced. At best it’s a grey area.
Finally, the fact that there are people who are ‘retarded’ and so allegedly can’t form consent, does not imply that such is the case with children. It does not follow. It is a fallacy to claim it does. Specifically it’s a non-sequitur.
Another glaring case of non-sequitur is Your claim, Len, that since a parrot can utter a couple of words, wich don’t prove the parrot is consenting (?!), then the words spoken by children are just as meaningless as those spoken by parronts. Such a claim is, of course, ridiculous. Parrots speak nonsense, so it follows, logically, that children speak nonsense. Shall I say - Give me a break ?
An actual advocate of pedophilia should be shunned by all decent human beings, especially libertarians, because he poses a direct threat to our children, and an ideological threat to everything we stand for. A guy who simply got a bit carried away conversing at Starbucks one day should be treated no differently than anyone else who says something ridiculous from time to time.
Something about that question really throws me. If you’re a libertarian, you would recognize the right of self-defense, and wouldn’t say something as crazy as that defensive training “encourages violence.” If you’re a conservative, you’d be even more accepting, because you support self-defense and the initiation of force. Which leaves two possibilities: either you’re a leftist; or else you’re a libertarian who is confused about the right of self-defense. Could you clarify your question by clarifying what could prompt you to ask it in the first place?
As for being a “dangerous activity,” I take my son in my truck when we drive to the store. That’s dangerous. I’ve flown with him. That’s dangerous. I’ve taken him horseback riding. That’s dangerous too. Swimming? Yup, dangerous. Life is bristling with dangers. One exercises due precaution, of course–but who shuns everything in life that might be “dangerous”? Are you afraid in the morning when you take your shower? You could hit your head and drown…
That statement is beyond illogical. My argument proves conclusively that uttering certain words is not sufficient to prove consent. That’s a far cry from saying that words are “as meaningless as talking parrots.” Obviously, to understand whether consent actually exists, more context is required than the fact of having said certain words. Whether the individual was talking in his sleep, for example, or acting under duress, or mentally unable to understand what he was consenting to.
I never made such a claim. I consistently site retardation, insanity, senility, vegetative state and immaturity as distinct cases in which it might be argued that you didn’t really have your victims’ consent. The case against you is easier to make if the child is four, believes in Santa Claus and has an IQ of 70. It’s harder to make if the child is fourteen, has an IQ of 140, and has written well-reasoned op-eds for the New York Times in defense of his relationship with you. It’s conceivable that a truly remarkable eight-year-old can convince his parents and everyone else concerned that he’s old enough to marry you and settle down–but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
Fraud also counts as coercion. Drugging a woman, pretending you can get her a role in a movie, or successfully masquerading as her husband, can also get you charged with rape.
Yup, I’m an aggressor because I would defend my child from rape. Meanwhile, how about answering the question I asked? Are you an advocate of pedophilia, or just a netizen carried away with his own talk?
Your talking about parrots was either a ridiculous analogy, wich might suggest that you think your audience is retarded, or else it was a ridiculous non-sequitur, wich might suggests you are…never mind.
Juan, your last two posts have been so silly that I don’t want to discuss any further with you. My question arises from the fact that if you have any objection to pedophilia, you haven’t expressed it. Dodging the question, calling me a Puritan, etc., only strengthens the impression that you don’t want to speak directly to the issue. If so, that’s mystifying: why would someone be reluctant to express opposition to pedophilia?
Ignoring ALL parental and other defences of children against pedophilia, I’d point out that advocates of that deviant behavior will still by shunned by decent society. So even if we agree not to curtail their “right” to proposition children, they will starve to death for lack of groceries, unless they freeze to death for lack of fuel first. The free world is much less hospitable to such offenders than statist society. Just for starters, it will be legal to operate free-market “Meghan’s List” services, and parents will make full use of them to shun the people so listed. As will family-friendly businesses.
The purely voluntary, 100% non-aggressive sanctions that can be brought to bear in such cases are truly terrifying, if you stop to consider them all.