Ah, Gmail.
Taken from [url]Could anarchy work in human society?]
That seems to somehow invalidate the position you so stubbornly (if not consistently) have argued for in this thread.?
Let’s see if I have this straight. You’re saying that since three-year-olds understand that it’s bad to take their toys, therefore they are ready to consent to being sodomized by a twisted thirty-year-old. Hmmmm. Looks like a complete and utter non-sequitur to me. Can you fill in the logical canyon gap there?
(And why are you so persistent about defending twisted thirty-year-olds’ right to sodomize three-year-olds? I’m still not getting that part.)
–Len
If I spend more effort, is this an example of my lack of understanding of sunk costs? Will I respect myself in the morning? Oh, well… another shot, I suppose.
Len - you’re the only one talking about 3-yos being sodomized by twisted 30-yos. You are, simply, not reasoning on this topic - you’re reacting emotionally and rationalizing it, which makes it remarkably difficult (yesterday, I’d have said pointless) to discuss it with you around.
The same emotion-driven reasoning you’re presenting here can, and frequently has, been used in discussions of economic policy. “If the only available industry in an area is taking advantage of the workers (who sometimes know no better, because they’re not sufficiently educated) and paying them too little, the industry must be regulated, because the workers can’t defend themselves, so let’s pass a minimum-wage law - it’s only fair.”
Is it possible that an industrialist could set up a “sweat shop” factory in a remote area, giving local residents the choice between severely underpaid and unreasonably dangerous work or no work at all, leading to starvation? Theoretically, it could happen. Is the urge to prevent such a situation sufficient cause to regulate whatever industry you’re focused on? By your reasoning here, it would be.
“But - this is different!” Yes - it always is. Every time you claim a just departure from the ideal of self-determination, it’ll be because that situation is different, somehow. That’s okay - after you’ve made the fourth or fifth such departure, it gets much easier. After a while, you’ll barely even notice.
You acknowledge elsewhere that, in other subjects, children (younger than anyone else was talking about here) readily understand the concept of property (though 3-yo kids cannot be expected to always respect others’ property rights). In this topic, your basic assumption seems to be that (while there may be exceptions) children do not understand their own consent, and will be the victims of those evil industrialists er, pederasts, unless you use victimization as a basic premise (even if the children mistakenly claim that they consented) to decide what rules to enforce - in this subject, anyone younger than the age at which they’re self-supporting apparently cannot be relied upon to know what they consent to or not, so they must be prevented from anything that would need their consent, to keep them safe. Just like the workers can’t know what their rights are, so someone else must protect their rights, to keep them from being exploited by those evil monopolistic capitalist industrialist .bastiches.
Nobody in this thread has defended anyone’s right to violate anyone’s consent except you, and you’re the only one seeing anyone else doing so. You would prevent that 3-yo from consenting (if they can, and wish to), to protect them. (Personally, I can’t envision someone that young or small to consent to something that’d likely be quite painful - but that’s the sort of example you pick, the outrageous. I can envision someone that young having a wonderful time with manual exploration - I’ve caught kids about that age doing it, and the literature you claim I cannot have read is full of such examples.)
I say that they should have the right to choose, you say that they must be prevented from that choice to protect them. According to you, my stance is the moral equivalent of saying that much-older perverts should have a right to harm small children - which is clearly an unrealistic (and remarkably insulting) characterization to everyone - except you.
If unreasoned, emotion-laden hysteria is all that’s available here, I fail to see why I should spend any more time in this discussion. If, elsewhere, you present a picture of a cloverleaf as proof that there could be competition for the owner of the street that runs past the front of my house, I’m beginning to wonder if the software here has a killfile feature. I got tired of debating absurdities many years ago. With a killfile, I could at least have a discussion on this thread with the people who want to discuss it reasonably, without interruption.
I make this effort with very little expectation of success, and am a little ashamed - I’m usually better at declining to tilt at windmills.
Danno
I think I’m responsible for some confusion here. The original question was, “The right to have sex–at what age?” THAT question was DOA, because NOT A SINGLE LIVING SOUL on this forum supports age-of-consent laws. They are inherently unjust, and furthermore are ineffective for the stated purpose: they fail to “protect” individuals above the age lacking the “maturity” deemed “necessary” to give consent; and they unjustly coerce individuals below the age who have the “maturity” to, for example, settle down, marry, and have sex with their spouse. No age would fulfill the stated purpose: lowering the age would increase the first type of error; raising the age would increase the second type of error.
Therefore, I blatantly ignored the implied request for a suggested age of consent, because it’s a given that age-of-consent laws are out of the question. If you’re really interested in “what age,” you’ll find it hard going here: none of us will suggest an age. If you suggest one, none of us will support it. If you suggest an age of three days, we’ll still oppose it, because whatever your arguments against sex with newborns, such a law would be ludicrous for suggesting that those reasons don’t apply to four-day-olds.
Age of consent laws are off they table. They were never on the table. Does that clarify why I’m not even discussing that specific question?
I don’t think we’ve been introduced, but I’m a mathematician (by training, if not by current employment). Logical arguments are the only kind I make. If it appears otherwise, then we’re having some sort of communication breakdown.
Let me explain why I keep mentioning young children. Juan has clearly and explicitly stated that any child who affirms, “I consent to this sexual relationship,” is proven a voluntary participant, is not the victim of aggression, and that parents attempting to intervene ARE aggressors. It is possible for any three-year-old, and many one-year-olds, to articulate the words, “I consent.” Therefore, Juan explicitly forbids parents from intervening if a one-year-old says, “I consent,” to a sexual relationship with any consenting party–and since “any consenting party” clearly includes consenting 30-yearl-olds, say, Juan specifically believes that it is lawful (though perhaps “not to be recommended”) for a one-year-old and a thirty-year-old to have sexual relations regardless of the parents’ wishes.
Juan, I, you and everyone around here agrees that sex with a newborn is ispo facto rape. We also all agree that sex with an independent adult living on his own can have sex with whoever he chooses, whether or not it’s “a good idea,” and anyone interfering is guilty of aggression. We all agree that somewhere in between, the legal status of sexual relations changes from ipso-facto rape to the discretion of the parties involved alone. We ALL agree that this transition can NOT be defined by an age limit. So, to sum up: newborns, never; adults, whenever they choose; age limits, never.
Juan contends that there is a bright line of fire in the sand defining the limit: any being who says, “I consent,” is deemed consenting. Including two-year-olds, or one-year-olds, or six-month-olds if they can actually articulate the statement.
I contend that there IS NO bright line in the sand. As for “limits,” not only CAN’T there be an AGE limit, but there ALSO can’t be a numeric IQ limit either, nor a numeric limit on some scale of “mental wellness,” nor any other such law. All of them are objectionable on precisely the same grounds. But NEITHER is it sufficient to articulate the words, “I consent.” I have proven this rigorously by pointing out that the words can be uttered: under duress; in one’s sleep; by someone who speaks no English and reads the words phonetically from a cue card; by a hopelessly insane individual; or even by a parrot. The words “I consent” are not magical, and “consent” refers to the existence of agreement between two parties, NOT to a specific form of words.
In the case of children, I proceeded to point out that “duress” and “hopeless insanity” aren’t the only ways a child can be induced to articulate “consent.” Repeated mention of toddlers becomes important again in this context, because anyone who isn’t an idiot understands that toddlers are malleable, and can be induced to “consent” to practically anything. In particular, they usually are induced to “consent” to their own abuse. You appeared to disregard that assertion completely, which provoked the comment that you appear ignorant of the vast literature on child psychology and abuse. This is something you should realize about children if you’ve read anything on the subject, OR if you’re a parent, OR if you haven’t completely forgotten your own childhood. There are many ways you can learn of this fact, but it’s a sufficiently well-known fact that you can be taken to task for not knowing it.
(You turned this into a tangent about expertise. I’m a parent, am well read, have taken psychology courses, have a nearly eidetic recall reaching back to the age of two, and flashes from before that, and have first-hand experience with abuse, including being induced to “consent” to my own abuse. But none of that’s any of your business: the above observation is too well known for you to demand credentials before accepting it as fact. Go look it up.)
The consequence of this fact is that children can be induced to “consent” to aggression, and therefore that their testimony on the subject is suspect. Extremely young children, exactly like the extremely retarded or insane, cannot testify reliably, and in particular cannot be taken at their word to be “consenting.” Lack of mental capability is the controlling factor here, AND MENTAL CAPABILITY LIVES ON A CONTINUUM. For that reason, “consent” in young, retarded or insane people IS A WIDE GRAY AREA, and in general the question of consent can only be determined on a case-by-case basis in litigation. The law is crystal clear: actual consent disposes of any claim of aggression. What’s extremely unclear is a question of fact: did the child in fact consent? That fact can only be determined by examining the specific child in question, and the specific circumstances under which “consent” was given.
Frankly, I don’t see how you can disagree with that, if you’ve actually understood it. Suggesting that any child who says “I consent” should be deemed unconditionally as consenting is as ridiculous as making the same claim about an institutionalized individual who is severely retarded or insane.
Since I considered the above uncontroversial, and still can’t imagine what is controversial about it, I’ve already proceeded to the next interesting question: what role do guardians have in overriding their mentally-deficient wards’ claims to be consenting? That they have SOME role is evident, because even you wouldn’t claim that a six-month-old (who can speak in full sentences) has discretion to enter into sexual relationships with adults regardless of the parents’ wishes. Unfortunately, even considering the possibility causes you such an emotional reaction that you become distracted, and suppose that the emotional reaction was my goal. It wasn’t. I’m pointing out that in AT LEAST ONE CASE you recognize that parents have some authority. Therefore, you’ve already abandoned Juan’s position (which says the six-month-old can indeed enter into sexual relationships, as long as he can articulate the words).
So, having admitted that parents have some discretion, and that it’s extremely great for newborns, and nonexistent when the child moves out on his own, you’re finally up to speed on the only interesting question in the thread: what is the justification for parental authority, and what are its limits?
–Len
Len,
You seem to be good at doublethink. Children can grasp the basic principle of libertarianism(you say), but if they want to go against the dictates of the anti-sex-league, then you claim children are mentally defective. That doesn’t seem consistent, does it ?
Since you came up with the strawman, you should be able to explain it.
However I did present a case (posted Thu, May 8 2008 8:23 PM) wich seems (to me) to qualify for your execution-on-the-spot kind of “justice”. You didn’t bother to address that case and merely called it a ‘sick parody’.
So let’s say a 18 yos girl seduces a 7 yos boy. According to you she deserves death ?
Stop wasting your time, troll.
–Len
How odd - I had no idea that the subject line was “The effective parental control of their children - until what age?”. Pardon my misconception. Nor had I noticed you saying “some parental guidance may be necessary to prevent 3yos from being sodomized by drooling 30yo perverts or newborns raped by NAMBLA members”. While laws may be off the table (given the assumption of an anarchist milieu, which remains unconvincing), an age-relevant general assumption of a right to engage in consensual sexual activity with the willing partner of their choice is clearly implied by the question in the subject line. This is not what I’ve seen you talking about.
Oh, yes - mathematicians have great renown for their political and philosophical insight. Einstein’s political philosophy was sage, indeed.
To be blunt, I don’t give a rip what your formal training was, or what field you work in now - and that goes for everyone else, too. What you say will be persuasive or not, regardless of claimed qualifications. I may put some weight on appeal to authority with someone whose work I’m familiar with and respect, but it’s never decisive in itself, and what I know of your work here is, frankly, not impressive.
There does, indeed, seem to be a communication disconnect - but I’m fairly certain that it’s not in my reading comprehension.
Not in the least - you started down that road by claiming I could not possibly have any understanding of the field (of either sexology or child psychology, or the overlap - you were never specific). I did, indeed, probe to see what level of familiarity you had, but don’t necessarily agree with someone just because they have a PhD any more than I automatically discount the opinion of someone who has no degree.
You keep bringing up your own provenance, never failing to remind me that it’s none of my business. I’ve agreed repeatedly - it is none of my business, nor do I consider it relevant. This does not prevent you from responding to my nonexistent request for that personal history, however - kind of like an algebra student trying to add a factor to one side of an equation to balance an illusion on the other side. You may never make any arguments but logical ones, but it certainly looks as if you do.
How logical, to repeatedly offer information that I haven’t asked for, while you remind me that it’s none of my business. If you can quote me demanding credentials (other than asking how conversant you were in a subject you claimed I could have no knowledge of) from anyone, in any topic, you may have cause for this. Else, it’s your favorite ploy - the straw man. I would really prefer to let him dance his way back to Oz.
But, since you’ve brought it up again, I’ll respond. You have my sympathies - I hope you heal well and quickly. Unfortunately, ‘therapy’ in treatment for such abuse has repeatedly and clearly led to disassociations from reality - the children who, in all earnest, report events in places that do not exist, the young adults who clearly recall the ‘repressed memories’ of events, regardless of the witnesses who say they’re mistaken - it’s a remarkably touchy field, and notoriously prone to abuse by investigators and therapists. This history of yours certainly explains why you’re so vehement on the topic - but it does not add any authority to your arguments. Quite the contrary.
One of my acquaintances some years ago was such a young lady. She’d been in therapy for depression, and her therapist had helped her uncover ‘repressed memories’ of horrific abuse in her toddler years. She, at her therapist’s urging, demanded an apology from her ‘abuser’ - her father. Her father denied all. Her therapist recommended closure by way of the court system, and she brought charges.
It looked like an easy victory in court, until she reported how he’d brought the family dog into the abuse. On the stand, her mother claimed that the dog had been a birthday present to her - some years after the alleged abuse. The poor girl could remember that birthday, and her joy at getting that puppy - but could also remember the dog being part of her abuse, several years earlier. She recanted, but the damage was done - nobody in her birth family would forgive her for the damage she’d done, and they were shunning her. The therapist offered therapy to help her deal with the guilt, but some of us were able to convince her it was a bad idea. There was talk about a lawsuit against the therapist, but I lost contact with her before anything came of it. I do clearly recall the night we talked, well toward dawn, and her confusion - she clearly remembered two conflicting versions of reality. She knew which one had other witnesses and could be trusted, but she still remembered the abuse she knew couldn’t have happened.
A few years later, another acquaintance of mine had a different problem. He’d met a fellow college student on Friday night, and the evening had ended in sex. After an affectionate (and public) breakfast on Saturday, he promised to call her later. On Sunday, she declined to take his phone call. On Monday, he was accused of date rape, and expelled from the university. In later private conversations with her, he reported that she acknowledged that she’d ‘seemed’ to consent on Friday night, but on Sunday afternoon, had, in discussion with her friends, realized that she’d really not consented. He not only lost that semester’s tuition, but had a permanent strike against him in any academic endeavor he’d try for. And so we live in a society in which consent is revocable, after the fact. I have heard people acknowledge the injustice of this, yet claim that it’s better to have a dozen innocents suffer than have one guilty parties go unpunished.
It’s not exactly a sane society we live in.
Does sexual abuse happen? Incontrovertably. Should it be the basic assumption in any case of someone who is not totally self-supporting having sexual contact with another? Not so much.
These are just two of the many examples for why I am very wary of people who assume that consent is ‘manufactured’, unless it can be proven to be otherwise. For any who think that this is a small, rare problem, I recommend reading here: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/t/tong/2004/tong051104.htm
Anyone, at any age, given the proper conditioning, can be made to say and believe almost anything. Why not use this fact to protect innocent, helpless adult women as well as children? Sex is obviously, until proven otherwise, abuse and aggression - and, if I cared, I could come up with dozens of ‘experts’ with degrees who would testify to that. The universities of the USA that do not have a ‘Women’s Studies’ program are remarkably rare. (Not all such programs are run or staffed by people who subscribe to this philosophy - but it’s not rare or difficult to find them there, either.)
{shrug} Now we’ve both given personal stories, and you may have a slightly better understanding of why I have no wish to discuss this topic with you. Following your ‘logical’ arguments elsewhere, I’m not particularly expecting better from you on any topic - your definition of ‘logic’ does not seem to be the one I use. I hold no animus, bear no grudge - but can see no benefit to either of us in continuing this conversation.
Danno
Now you’re just being ridiculous. Age of consent laws are off the table, period. Everybody on this forum agrees on this point, and everyone on this forum already knows why. If you really want to see people proposing a specific age of consent, then you’ll have to look somewhere else, because NOBODY on this forum supports such an idea. Got it?
You’re confused on this point as well. I do not claim infallibility; merely that I know better than to commit basic logical errors. The errors you’ve alleged so far are mistakes I would not make, any more than an expert plumber would install a toilet upside down. That’s my only claim, and I substantiated if fully by explaining, in exhaustive detail, the structure of my argument. Feel free to point out the childish errors in my logic, if you can find any.
You realize I’ve already stated, and countered, this observation of yours? I said that independent adults on their own can be manipulated psychologically in the same way as small children. And I’ve stated that in that case, there will be no help for them unless they seek it. Welcome to the incredible discovery that adults eff up their own lives.
Because the harm from granting anyone that power exceeds the harm of giving freedom to those who use it poorly. I hope you realize that this question of yours is one of the first questions that any anarchist grapples with? So you’re asking something we’ve already asked ourselves, and answered to our own satisfaction. You aren’t exactly blind-siding me with some clever question I’d never anticipated here.
I didn’t say it IS. I said it CAN BE, and you’ve just agreed with me that it CAN BE. So you agree with me. Are you “leery” of yourself now?
You do appear to be denying that idiots, infants and the insane are more easily manipulated than the average human. Are you really saying that? Are you actually attempting to make a coherent argument that toddlers, if they can speak in sentences, are capable of exercising the rights and privileges of adults? Or, since you’ve already told us you aren’t an anarchist, are you trying to “prove” that anarchy is unworkable, and hence that minarchy is the only coherent choice? Come clean and stop being coy here.
You keep asking for my credentials–or, in other words, HOW I KNOW. That’s how I know. Therefore, it’s precisely what you asked. Your question was stupid, because anyone with half a brain should already know that small children are highly suggestible.
Your point here is valid, and it’s one I agree with–though it’s not the topic of this thread. That is, ONE SHOULD NOT CONVICT A “RAPIST” ON A TODDLER’S TESTIMONY. I said that testimony isn’t trustworthy, and I mean it: it’s virtually useless for defense OR for prosecution. An accusation of molestation, supported by nothing more than a child’s testimony, should not result in conviction except under truly extraordinary circumstances. I don’t have a problem with that at all. If I suspected you, and believed my child’s testimony, but couldn’t prove my case, I would not accuse or shoot you: I would exercise my libertarian right not to associate with you, and would keep my kid away from you.
But by Juan’s argument, I’d be committing a crime if I “kept my kid away from you.” You could sue, and he could testify in court that he wants to hang around with you, after which I’m as powerless as a divorcee whose ex has visitation.
Funny, Juan said something similar back in a discussion about 9/11 truth, before he came out on this thread as “not opposed to pedophilia, but not recommending it either.” You can accuse me of being wrong, or being a jerk, of being ugly, or of being fat–but you can’t accuse me of bad logic without proving it. Which you won’t be able to do.
Of course it doesn’t matter why you don’t want to talk to me; it simply means that talking is pointless. Nothing will convince you if it comes from me. It’s a shame, because I’m always ready to bow to superior logic, and relish the chance to learn something–and at the same time, I hold the ideal of liberty passionately, and am saddened when someone rejects it (or, in Juan’s case, distorts it into a justification of child abuse). So I regret that I shall neither influence nor be influenced by you. I’m also mystified how a coherent discussion of the libertarian approach to child moelstation (which is one aspect of child sexuality) should so turn you away. Do you have a better approach to handling child molestation in a free society? Or alternately, would you prefer that a free society NOT “handle” child molestation at all?
–Len
…for instance claiming that since a parrot can repeat a couple of words, children can’t form consent.
So, since all humans indeed can be manipulated, manipulation is beside the point. For the record, manipulation can be described as seduction, depending on context.
I seem to understand that manipulation was/is rampant in places like Germany, Britain, the US, Russia, etc during wars (and peacetime as well). So much for the immunity of ‘adults’ to propaganda.
Are you talking about my arguments ? Shall I reply “Stop troll” ? At least you’ve given up your ‘libertarian’ theory of shoot-at-first-sight ?
You keep on talking about my ‘arguments’ ? If I recall correctly you contributed nothing to that thread except disruption - and finally acknowledged that ‘burden-of-proof’ is not logic, but roman legislation ?
I never said that. By continuing this trolling, you’re only making yourself look worse and worse. Engage the arguments themselves, avoiding all personalities, straw men and other distractions, or get off the bus.
–Len.
If you can quote or point to the post in which Juan justified child abuse (said it’s okay to violate their consent), I’ll accept that you’re not using illogic to attempt to prove your points, and that you’re debating this issue reasonably.
If you can’t - my point is proven - you’re not debating this issue with reason or logic.
Simple enough?
Danno, thinking he’s about to placed in the ‘troll’ corner with Juan - which will have Len leaving me alone, so that’s okay.
He stated that any child who articulates the words “I consent” is deemed consenting. In particular, if a two-year-old says those words, he is deemed consenting. Anyone not suffering from cranio-rectal inversion understands that a two-year-old cannot consent to sex with an adult, because he is mentally equivalent to a severely retarded individual. Since Juan deems sex with said two-year-old legal, he is justifying child abuse.
I think we’ve gone way past the point where you’d have clearly stated your opposition to sex between adults and, say, two-year-old children. Your consistent refusal to state it indicates either: that you’re not being serious in the first place; or that you, like Juan, does not oppose adult-child sex but instead believes that it can be perfectly consensual at any age (presumably, as long as the child can speak). If so, arguing about the finer points of liberty is truly pointless: child-predators and their enablers are a problem with or without a state, and in a free society they would be, at the very least, utterly shunned. Lovers of liberty should shun them now, because they do much to hurt our cause.
–Len
And, without any evidence, supporting or to the contrary, anyone who can clearly communicate that they were doing what they wanted to be doing should be deemed to be consenting.
I do not agree that a 2-yo cannot decide to give or withhold consent. I do not agree that sexual contact with a 2-yo is necessarily child abuse. (I do agree that they’re not mature enough to understand or live up to the ramifications of pregnancy, but at 2, that’s not much of an issue.) In fact, I find it very easy to visualize a 2-yo enjoying the heck out of someone older giving them sexual pleasure. In the literature I can not have read, that’s about the age when you’re going to start catching them “playing doctor”. It’s absolutely amazing how quickly their peers can turn into abusers if they have the privacy to attempt it.
About 100 years ago, in Victorian times, it was the de facto expectation that the nanny, if unable to distract the colicky toddler in another fashion, would soothe them orally. It didn’t get talked about much, was not viewed as abusive to the child, and apparently left no lasting scars on children so treated. Now, we have better ways (Gads, they’d taste like diapers! Yuk!) - but societies were indeed structured to support such activities, and while it may have happened without being reported, there were no reports of the children so soothed objecting to it.
Am I advocating this? Certainly not - it’d raise nanny wages far too high. Do I recognize it as an unrecognized crime that should have been punished? Not at all. On some level, I envy those little tykes - all I got was a piece of rubber to suck on. Then again, I wasn’t raised in Victorian times, so I probably did better without, all in all. Mostly, the 2-yo who consents is gonna consent to another munchkin, who means (and generally does) no harm. The rare adult who is intrigued by a 2-yo, if a true pedophile, is very likely to avoid harm - pedophilia is, literally “love of children”. The adult that so abuses one that young is unlikely to be able to convince an unwillng child that they really wanted to consent with casual contact - it’s hard enough to convince them that it’s bedtime when you’re the parent. In some very rare cases, an adult with frequent contact could so program the child - and if the opportunity to do so was there, it’d be prudent to investigate further. But to assume that they must have been programmed, because 2-yos have no sexual urges is simply displaying your ignorance of human sexual development.
If a 2-yo can express non-consent about eating the strained squash, they can express non-consent about anything - even bedtime when they’re obviously sleepy. Do I believe that an adult who did such a thing with a child who did not express non-consent should be punished horribly? No.
It must be that awful cranial-rectal inversion. Maybe a cream would help…
Then I should go shun myself. Or you should shun me, and leave me be. Oh, and watch your kids - statistics indicate that there’s a very good chance that one of them has “horribly abused” another - no harm done, and almost certainly a passing phase, nothing for a rational parent to worry about - but there’s a good chance that you’re gonna want to blow one’s head off for abusing another. Or don’t you read the literature on the subject?
Danno
Yes, I do think that consensual sex is possible between a child and whoever the child ‘chooses’. No, I don’t think that 2 yos will choose to have sex with adults - that’s a strawman of yours.
On the other hand, I’m still waiting for you to be honest enough to admit that your moral system includes the killing in cold blood of people who don’t fit your ‘cultural preferences’.
You can keep on calling me a ‘predator’(ridiculous) and I will keep on quoting you :
That’s hardly the kind of thing a libertarian and a ‘master of logic’ would say.
Have to tell you that this thread is taxing our spam filter!
I’ve noticed. Is it because of the word ‘sex’ ?
I rest my case.
People like you and Juan are probably the biggest reason most people fear anarchy: they fear that the members of a free society will be more like you than like themselves. Our biggest task in advocating anarcho-capitalism is to convince them that they’re wrong–that a free society will not tolerate such scum. Infiltration of libertarian ranks by such scum is our single biggest credibility problem today. Non-aggressive purging of them, by shunning, is absolutely necessary (but not sufficient) to spreading the concept of liberty.
Meanwhile, just stay out of my neighborhood.
–Len
I do not know but I want to know. I agree that it is indeed the only interesting question in this thread. I would also say that it is the MOST interesting libertarian question. Personally, I have no idea how to approach it from a secular point of view.
Here is my attempt:
The justification for parental authority originates from the fact that the parent “made” the child. Now, I do not want to exclude adoptive parents. Therefore, the justification for parental authority arises by treating the child’s body as a piece of property rightfully “owned” by the parent.
The rightful limits of the parental authority are set by negotiation between the parents and the child.
Then can they force circumcision?