The right to have sex - at what age?

Miscellaneous General
21

People are capable of making their own decisions. The idea that someone can decide if you are smart enough to consent to sex is the the closest thing to absolute control. As long as it is consensual there is no problem. The whole idea of “statutory” rape repulses me, and how are parents abusing children if they let them have sex. Nobody “lets” people have sex, it is the individuals choice to do so.

At any age that a child can rationally decide to move out he can. The idea of kid and adult is primarily cultural. But the state infringes on peoples rights by declaring people “youths” or “adults” at certain ages. People can think for themselves. But lets face it, most parents usually kick there son or daughter out of the house by 18, or let them stay there till they can function on their own. Parental rights I view as normal but there’s a fine line between care and slavery. I would go so far as to say that children are not legally bound to their parents because they did not consent to life. However I think that parents are legally bound to their children for a certain time

22

I think real libertarianism will lead to outcomes that most people would not like to face - at least not openly. Children are interested in sex. And children are self-owners. See where those two premises lead.

23

I agree

24

Juan, if that’s where libertarianism led, wouldn’t that demonstrate that libertarianism might be flawed?

JAlanKatz, the distinction I tried to make is based on the following classic example: Our right to self-determination almost certainly includes a presumption that if we want to kill ourselves, then that should be our prerogative. No one is justified in requiring that we continue to live if that’s not what we want–at least, that’s what I take most libertarians’ position to be. Further, that same right to self-determination, and our right to bodily integrity, suggests that a person would not be justified in grabbing someone forcefully without permission and preventing them from going about their way.

And yet, if you saw someone walking aimlessly into an intersection as traffic was speeding by, not looking where they were going, you would certainly be justified in grabbing them and saving their life. The idea would be that even though you acknowledged their right to kill themselves if they wanted to, and their right not to be grabbed, you had reason to believe that their choice to enter the road was not based on their desire to be killed, and that you were doing them a favor by grabbing them. You would be operating under the assumption that their choice reflected inadequate knowledge of the full consequences of stepping into the street (as I said, they weren’t paying attention), and that if they knew what you did, they would choose differently.

We might further imagine that upon grabbing the individual and warning them not to go out in traffic, you discovered that they were extremely drunk. In their stupor, they claim that they really do want to kill themselves, because they’re really mad at the world, and that you should let them go. Now what? On one hand, you can imagine that there’s a very good chance that they’re just drunk and temporarily stupid; if they were thinking clearly, they wouldn’t want to kill themselves, but their impaired reasoning is leading them to a different conclusion. If this were actually true, and it were a fact that the only reason that the person wanted to kill themselves was that they were drunk, would you be justified in continuing to restrain the person, even though they asked you to let them go?

If you say yes (and I do; I think it would be ridiculous to say no if we knew that they only wanted to kill themselves because they were drunk), you have to confront a worrisome possibility. Perhaps this individual really does want to kill themselves, and it isn’t just the alcohol talking. If that’s the case, then what you’re doing seems extremely coercive and paternalistic. As libertarians, we should oppose that sort of thing. But perhaps there’s no way to actually tell whether the person is simply drunk and making a stupid decision or whether they really want to kill themselves. So what do you do? To be honest, I don’t know what the right answer is. I don’t think it’s obvious that we should be allowed to restrain the drunk indefinitely, but I also don’t think it’s obvious that we should be morally obligated to let them go kill themselves.

Hopefully it should be clear how this relates to children having sex. There are a lot of bad things that can come from having sex before you’re mature enough to handle it, and the naivity of youth can cloud a child’s judgment so that they might not be able to properly think about the choice they’re making. But at the same time, if a child isn’t making a stupid choice, it does seem unjustly coercive to stop them from having sex. So what do you do? To be honest, I’m not sure; I think it’s a tough case. But that’s not because libertarianism is incoherent or muddled; it’s that there are conflicting values at play, and it’s sometimes hard to know what is the right thing to do.

25

Yes, and I agreed with your earlier claim that this was a difficult question, and that difficult questions exist. My point was saying that it’s hard, even if true, isn’t enough - we need to go further and try to answer the difficult question, not least because we need some answers to the legal questions. So I agree with the point you’ve made here, I just don’t see what the conclusion should be.

I also made a distinction between hard questions, which can be morally relevant, and questions which are, by description, unanswerable. I still maintain that a question that is set up as being fundamentally unanswerable cannot be morally relevant, or if it is, then morality would be arbitrary and cruel. You’ve indicated that you might disagree with this point, but your arguments/examples have always been about hard cases, not questions stipulated to be unanswerable.

26

Why ? because it’s an idea that puritans can’t tolerate ? Libertarianism is flawed because it doesn’t fit your* cultural bias ?

edit :

*yours, or anybody’s else.

27

I didn’t say is flawed. I only meant that I don’t think children make the best decisions, and it often might be morally permissible for their parents to stop them from doing as they please. I’d be uncomfortable with a philosophy which claimed that it would always be morally impermissible for parents to stop their children from having sex, no matter the circumstances, if their children wanted to.

28

I can provide an endless list of so called grown-ups making bad decisions. And the kind of decisions they make include, for instance, attacking their fellows - say by joining the military…I don’t see why your opinion that children can’t make their own good decisions should be taken into account.

29

The age of consent is when the child knowns and understands what the hell is going on. They could be 12 years old and out screwing around or they might not do anything until they are 16 years old. It doesn’t really matter what age they are (and if we want to get biological I would suggest purberty as the starting point) so long as they understand what is happening and consent to it. Obviously a nine year old wouldn’t fully understand what is happening but then again a 12 year old might not either. But say a 30 year old man got mixed up with a 15 year old girl. In todays world, I’m sorry to say, 15 year olds seem to know more about sex than I do (and I’m 26). The 15 year old messing about with the 30 year old obviously knew what was happening and consented to it. I personally don’t see what the “legal” problem is, though I do find it disturbing morally.

Therefore I would say that puberty and an understanding of just what sex is would constitute the age of consent whatever age that might be (since some develop sooner than others).

30

Your argument logically leads to government paternalism. Parents have no right in restricting a childs use of their physicality beyond the parents denying them the use of their own property, that is, unless a contract is drawn up outlining conditions of conduct for the child and the reprecussions of failing to meet said conditions are clearly stipulated.

31

I don’t see how it does so. There are a lot of libertarians, including anarcho-capitalists, who believe that parents have responsibilities over and a limited, temporary right to control their children. An explicity signed contract is not necessary. The only way I can see it logically leading to government paternalism are 1) if the state can be legitimate and 2) if the distinction between adults and children is rejected (but I see now reason why children should be treated legally as adults in libertarian theory).

32

Well, perhaps people that think that children are to be ‘controlled’ don’t have a complete understanding of what libertarianism entails.

33

I think you’re twisting my meaning there.

34

“I only meant that I don’t think children make the best decisions, and it often might be morally permissible for their parents to stop them from doing as they please.”

Replace parents with government and children with people.

Government is only illigitimate because it is not voluntary. If a parent child relationship is not voluntary, yet the child is prohibited in terminating it based on some preconcieved notion of morality, that is just as illigitimate.

Once a child can challenge the authority of their parents the parent can no longer impose decisions upon the child coercively (that is, non voluntarily).

It is not within a parents right to force an exceptionally developed two year old who has the self determination to become a prostitute not to do so. However the parent does have the right to sanction the childs use of the parents property, that is the only just way of dicipline, otherwise the parent has essentially violated the non-agression principle.

35

I did’t mean to. No pun intended.

“There are a lot of libertarians, including anarcho-capitalists, who believe that parents have responsibilities over and a limited, temporary right to control their children.”

A “temporary right to conrtol” sounds not that open to interpretation…

36

Banned, I think it depends what you mean by “government paternalism.” If you mean that the individuals who are employed by the government have the same rights as everyone else, and that means that it’s permissible to intervene to save someone from making a catastrophic mistake due to apparently faulty reasoning, then sure, I can agree to that. Of course, saying that it’s okay to grab someone from in front of a passing bus would justify government paternalism in exactly the same way: government officials would be every bit as justified in doing it as you or I.

But I don’t think that’s what you mean by government paternalism. I think that what you, and Juan, have in mind is that if we agree that it could in principle be justifiable to intervene in certain situations, then people will inevitably intervene in the wrong situations, with the end result that the government will enact some sort of coercive blanket policy which will end up restricting many individuals’ freedom in the name of protecting some people from themselves. To that suggestion, I’ll only say that I have repeatedly stated that my position is not that people are necessarily justified in intervening, because I recognize the difficulty in determining whether or not intervention is justified, and given my hesitation to support government measures to solve personal problems (the state is, after all, a blunt instrument, even when intentions are perfect), I most certainly am not advocating that the state adopt any prohibitionist policies of any sort. And I assure you that I can hold that position without being inconsistent in anything that I’ve said previously.

All I said was that sometimes children make bad decisions and cannot be made to understand why having sex would be catastrophic for them. That doesn’t mean that we can identify those instances. It only means that it happens. Hopefully that isn’t disputed, because I’d be more than happy to resort to a “If you think that, then you don’t have enough experience with children, because you’re objectively wrong” stance. If we were to correctly identify such a situation, and we could not stop the child from making a catastrophic decision except through coercion, then I said that it’s not obvious that using coercion would be impermissible. I didn’t say that it would be permissible. I only said that an argument could be made to that effect, and that it wouldn’t be obviously inconsistent with any libertarian view.

Juan, I’m well aware that you don’t think much of my approach to libertarian philosophy, but I beseech you to stop with this “You’re wrong and evil” attitude that you take towards people who don’t agree with you. It’s not acceptable within the realm of academic discussion or friendly interaction, and it’s completely ineffective at convincing people of your views. If you open your mind up to new ideas, you might just learn something new.

37

What do you think I meant by it? The right to make them do just anything the parents want? To treat them likes slaves or oppress them in a totalitarian environment? No. The purpose is to educate them to be competent adults. Parents are like custodians or trustees.

38

Danny,

I frankly don’t see what you mean by ‘your’ approach to libertarian philosophy, except that you don’t seem to agree with libertarian philosophy and believe that you are somehow called to re-design it. I think it’s totally legitimate to be an skeptic regarding your claims.

As to my ‘manners’…I suggest you focus on my arguments ?

39

No, because if someone stumbles in front of a bus that isn’t a concious decision. If someone is standing in front of a bus deliberately trying to end their life, It would only be logical to move them in order to prevent damage to the bus. However if you know both parties (the bus owner and the individual standing in front of the bus) have consented to the action of the bus killing the person, you cannot legitimately stop either party, for it would require you to be the initiator of force.

40

That’s how the american school system justifies itself. “Dont worry, we’re teaching our youth to be healthy yound individuals”. Hah.