|
libertarianism says its okay to gently caress kids so it attracts a lot of adherents who want to gently caress kids.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
Part of me wants to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this is some personality issue where they have a hard time with things not fitting just right or standards that aren't completely adequate. It's a consistent theme to complain about how there's "no one-size-fits-all" standard, especially from people who feel as if they don't fit other standards which have held them back. From that, they have some obligatory sympathy for any argument against the rules holding back all the exceptional people, without realizing that sometimes you just have to draw lines in the sand, and if that means some minority of people end up getting inconvenienced welp that's life. Of course, other people need to feel held back by age of consent laws to offer these kinds of arguments for others to be sympathetic with...
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
i wonder how many of the guys on that strike the root site also write a lot about mens' rights and rape that one also wants roman polanski to be cleared of all wrongdoing quote:“Rosemary’s Baby” is one of the greatest films of all time, a one-of-a-kind original. The director of this masterpiece, one Roman Polanski, raped a thirteen-year-old back in the ‘70s. Technically, he never admitted this, and the charge of rape was dropped during a plea bargain, the state’s cynical way of making its own version of justice easier for the guilty, not guilty, and victims alike. But based on the victim’s testimony and her stalwart defense of that testimony throughout the years, she said, “No” and he didn’t stop. So why would I not restrain myself from praising this man’s cinematic talents? Why would I call for a rapist to be left alone? Two reasons, both of which I think any committed anarchist and individualist should take under serious consideration, and neither of which has to do with Polanski’s artistic abilities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah, even if you run your own business, you're still obligated to pay the self-employment tax, which is social security and medicare taxes at double the rate, since you have make up for the employer's contribution as well. That poor kid's life is basically ruined right out of the gate. The odds he'll homeschool her are basically 100%. She'll enter society as an adult with more or less no record that she ever even existed. For details on how that will go, ask Prester Jane. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
The weird thing is he knows you can get one later in life and seems willing to do it, making it weirdly pointless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:The weird thing is he knows you can get one later in life and seems willing to do it, making it weirdly pointless. He's willing to let her do it whenever he thinks she's capable of making decisions for herself (or the law forced him to let her), so long as she doesn't mind being disowned for being a statist sheeple.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:That poor kid's life is basically ruined right out of the gate. The odds he'll homeschool her are basically 100%. She'll enter society as an adult with more or less no record that she ever even existed. For details on how that will go, ask Prester Jane. I work with people in this kind of situation surprisingly often. Their lives once they turn eighteen is basically hell. This guy is such a dick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
RadioLab did an episode about this exact thing this week. http://www.radiolab.org/story/invisible-girl/ It took state legislation for her to get even the most basic recognition as a person who legally exists. They talk to a full-on SovCit who produces dire warnings about how much she is "giving up" in order to do things like go to school, get a driver's license or a job, travel on an airplane, or take advantage of any government service of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah, even if you run your own business, you're still obligated to pay the self-employment tax, which is social security and medicare taxes at double the rate, since you have make up for the employer's contribution as well. i mean to be fair i learned to drive when i was 12 on the roads around the ponds on my grandparents however the gently caress many acres it was because my grandfather figured it was time for me to be able to drive the truck in case he needed something taken care of out back and didnt want to drive out himself, which meant by the time i was 13 he was throwing me the keys and going "hey go take care of that poo poo" i also learned to drive a tractor before i was out of first grade though and no i dont mean "drive" like an adult was actually in control i was just fuckin tootin along on a case tractor god my childhood was one of bad decisions
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
trinary posted:RadioLab did an episode about this exact thing this week. http://www.radiolab.org/story/invisible-girl/ at least this kid has a fuckin birth certificate, the girl on the radio lab episode had literally nothing
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:i mean to be fair i learned to drive when i was 12 on the roads around the ponds on my grandparents however the gently caress many acres it was because my grandfather figured it was time for me to be able to drive the truck in case he needed something taken care of out back and didnt want to drive out himself, which meant by the time i was 13 he was throwing me the keys and going "hey go take care of that poo poo" yeah I was interpreting that grammar to mean "she'll have to drive around on public roads without ever getting licensed" and not "she may learn to drive before she gets her license"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:libertarianism says its okay to gently caress kids so it attracts a lot of adherents who want to gently caress kids. No it doesn't. Kids don't have the capacity to contract which is the basis for most libertarian systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:No it doesn't. hoo boy we have such sights to show you
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:No it doesn't. Bad news: some libertarians believe either (a) children are literally tiny adults and can make adult decisions or (b) children are literally the property of their parents, so "consent" is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:No it doesn't. Basing a system on contracts leads to effectively defining "adulthood" as "the stage of life where one is able to enter contracts freely." But everyone else defines adulthood and childhood a little bit differently than that, which leads to some uncomfortable implications when various libertarians start speculating that legal adulthood begins a lot earlier than most folks believe actual adulthood begins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Bad news: some libertarians believe either (a) children are literally tiny adults and can make adult decisions or (b) children are literally the property of their parents, so "consent" is irrelevant. Well I can't speak for libertarians which are being inconstant with their own beliefs. But a constant reading of the essential tenets of libertarianism would preclude underage sex. You can find people who think it's okay to have sex with kids in any political view. That doesn't mean it is a central tenet of whatever political views they happen to hold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Alternately, basing your system on contracts leads to effectively defining "adulthood" as "the stage of life where one is able to enter contracts freely." But everyone else defines childhood a little bit differently than that, which leads to some uncomfortable implications when various libertarians start speculating that legal adulthood begins a lot earlier than most folks believe actual adulthood begins. I mean, contact theory has a kind of sliding scale of competency to contact. A 3 year old has the capacity to buy some candy, but not buy a car. Life changing contracts necessarily require a greater degree of competency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You can find people who think it's okay to have sex with kids in any political view. That doesn't mean it is a central tenet of whatever political views they happen to hold. Amazingly, the only think pieces I've ever read about getting rid of the age of consent have come from Libertarians, literally no other political viewpoint seems to hold "let's remove age of consent laws" in their platform anywhere. Weird.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Please show me where on the libertarian party's website they want to remove the age of consent. I must be missing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Please show me where on the libertarian party's website they want to remove the age of consent. You do know that there are more styles of Libertarian than those represented in the Libertarian party, right? Do you also think the Democratic Party represents literally all liberals, too?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean, contact theory has a kind of sliding scale of competency to contact. A 3 year old has the capacity to buy some candy, but not buy a car. Life changing contacts necessarily require a greater degree of competency. In context, it's those larger-scale contracts we're talking about. But it is not clear to me that "libertarianism" actually makes such a distinction, or even how it can from its own principles. If it is fundamentally based on the idea that everything agreed to by contractual consent is ethical, there is nowhere within this system to find the idea that some people can consent to contracts but not others. Who would make this decision for others, thus preventing them from entering contracts? External entities making this decision for others is the kind of thing that a theory of the ethics of contractual consent opposes. This reflects a larger internal contradiction which libertarianism is afflicted with because it assumes an autonomous economic actor as its subject. Such an assumption allows for all sorts of ideas about how everything you do that doesn't involve the government is freely chosen, but makes it very difficult to deal with anyone whose lack of autonomy makes it so that there are many entities besides the government that can render one's actions and choices unfree. For the same reason why libertarianism can't comprehend the idea of desperation as limiting agency, it can't account for the "competency to contract" as anything other than innate: doing so would require appeals to non-parties to contracts having a say in what contracts are allowed, which contradicts its entire reason for being. So libertarianism attracts kidfuckers for the same reason it attracts the struggling petty entrepreneurs who can't leverage the government's intervention in their favor. It might be strictly untrue that "libertarianism says its okay to gently caress kids" but it sure as hell provides an attractive basis for arguing that it's OK to gently caress kids, just as it might not say "it's OK to exploit the poor," but provides a useful basis for justifying the exploitation of the poor. In each case it works by manipulating definitions, either the definition of "adulthood" or the definition of "exploitation," to be consistent with a theory of ethics based on the ability of autonomous economic actors to enter contracts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You do know that there are more styles of Libertarian than those represented in the Libertarian party, right? Do you also think the Democratic Party represents literally all liberals, too? Nitro seems to have confused "political viewpoint" with "political party," or this is just a lovely troll but this thread is so starved for action that we may as well feed it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You do know that there are more styles of Libertarian than those represented in the Libertarian party, right? Do you also think the Democratic Party represents literally all liberals, too? He said it's in the platform which implies a party support. And likewise, just because some socialists want to literally kill capitalists doesn't taint all socialists. GunnerJ posted:In context, it's those larger-scale contracts we're talking about. But it is not clear to me that "libertarianism" actually makes such a distinction, or even how it can from its own principles. If it is fundamentally based on the idea that everything agreed to by contractual consent is ethical, there is nowhere within this system to find the idea that some people can consent to contracts but not others.... There are several requirements for a valid contract. It's not just a contract because one party, or even both, say it is. Gifts, for instance are not contracts because one party is not giving something up for the benefit. But most important here is the meeting if the minds requirement for a valid contact. If person a thinks they are entering into a verbal contact for one thing and person B thinks it's for something completely different there was no contact. Likewise, if one party can't even comprehend what is being contacted for there can't be a meeting of the minds. This is the problem that arises in attempting to handle underage sex.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
"libertarian age of consent" was a suggested Google search term. I found this article (not an official party platform): http://www.sovereigntynetwork.com/the-age-of-consent--a-libertarian-perspective-by-libertariankid.html The definitions of rape in this article makes my brain feel like it's bleeding. Edit: and the use of the word "lady." WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:He said it's in the platform which implies a party support. Okay, you have me on a technically correct point, well done. I shouldn't have said platform. Doesn't lessen my point that I have never read a Democratic, Republican, or even Green party article about removing age of consent laws. For some reason, they're always Libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:"libertarian age of consent" was a suggested Google search term. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorstad Look dude. We can throw individual examples at eachother ask day. That doesn't mean allowing child sex is essential to either Trotskyist or libertarian philosophies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, you have me on a technically correct point, well done. I shouldn't have said platform. For God's sake man. A socialist is a founding member of NAMBLA. Give it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:There are several requirements for a valid contract. It's not just a contract because one party, or even both, say it is. Gifts, for instance are not contracts because one party is not giving something up for the benefit. Yes, clearly, that is the problem. It's a problem for libertarianism because there is no basis for non-parties to contracts to have a say in how contracts are agreed on (which is what is required to both determine that one party "can't comprehend" the terms and to void the contract) in an ethical system based on the assumption of autonomous economic actors giving contractual consent. Thanks for not reading my post!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorstad I didn't say it was. This is just an article that came up when I googled it. It discusses how libertarian theory intersects with age of consent laws. Certainly any party platform could deal with these theoretical issues in a number of ways. Besides, I think this article may have been written by a child and it's very impressive in that light.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Yes, clearly, that is the problem. It's a problem for libertarianism because there is no basis for non-parties to contracts to have a say in how contracts are agreed on (which is what is required to both determine that one party "can't comprehend" the terms and to void the contract) in an ethical system based on the assumption of autonomous economic actors giving contractual consent. Thanks for not reading my post! Very few libertarians are anarchists dude. The vast majority want a court system from the state. You're attacking a strawman. If you're arguing that anarchists have inconstant views i won't disagree with that. But it doesn't undermine the other 95% of libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorstad We're not saying it's essential, we're saying that Libertarianism attracts pedophiles at greater rates than most other ideologies. Not because libertarianism explicitly says "loving kids is cool and good", but because it's the most easily used to justify the act. And I'll gladly match you example for example because I know for a fact you'll run out loooooooooooooong before I do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:We're not saying it's essential, we're saying that Libertarianism attracts pedophiles at greater rates than most other ideologies. Not because libertarianism explicitly says "loving kids is cool and good", but because it's the most easily used to justify the act. WampaLord posted:Doesn't lessen my point that I have never read a Democratic, Republican, or even Green party article about removing age of consent laws. For some reason, they're always Libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you think you're saying here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Very few libertarians are anarchists dude. The vast majority want a court system from the state. You're attacking a strawman. Actually nothing I am saying assumes that all libertarians are anarchists. It isn't even saying much about libertarians at all. It is an examination of, in your own words, "the capacity to contract" as "the basis for most libertarian systems." Now, it's nice that most libertarians want a minarchist state with courts and stuff. But most of them also argue as if contractual consent is the only ethical way to interact, regardless. Rhetoric on this basis is the backbone of most of their arguments against the government doing things they don't like. The majority do not really consider the implications of this for the things they want the government doing. (In this sense, I am actually arguing that out of all libertarians, only anrcho-capitalists have consistent views, but consistent adherence to the implications of terrible ideas doesn't count for much.) Essentially, they have to make exceptions to the principle of "all that is ethical is contractual" to have their state-run courts and stuff. This implies that even for minarchists, "all that is ethical is contractual" is the ethical fundamental from which special exemptions are carved. It is this foundation that provides various useful excuses for kidfucking, even for minarchists, since kidfuckers can apply to age of consent laws the same reasoning that underlies minarchist arguments against all sorts of things the government does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
The argument lately has been over your side's supposition that only libertarians support the ability to have underage sex. My counter has been that you will find supporters for underage sex among both the left and right. I established this by demonstrating that at least one founding member of NAMBLA was a socialist. I then went on to posit that the views of a tiny portion of supporters of a party is belief do not taint the entire party or belief system. Were that true every belief system would be despicable for one reason or another. This should not be a contentious supposition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:We're not saying it's essential, we're saying that Libertarianism attracts pedophiles at greater rates than most other ideologies. Not because libertarianism explicitly says "loving kids is cool and good", but because it's the most easily used to justify the act. This is a good time for me to make a special request: I'm putting together an article specifically about pedophilia apologia within libertarian thought. If any of you can link me examples, I'd appreciate it. I already have a few, but I plan to comprehensively cover the various justifications used, so I'll need a broader sample than what I have. Failing that, you can link me to prominent libertarian forums and blogs, so I can google "sitename "age of consent"" myself and count up the pedophiles. I'd ask you to link me known hangouts for pedophiles, because I've heard at least one person claim they attract libertarians, but I'm not sure I want to end up on any watchlists. The article will be posted on RationalWiki, though if you guys think it's good enough it can be crossposted to SA's libertarian wiki.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Actually nothing I am saying assumes that all libertarians are anarchists. It isn't even saying much about libertarians at all. It is an examination of, in your own words, "the capacity to contract" as "the basis for most libertarian systems." Now, it's nice that most libertarians want a minarchist state with courts and stuff. But most of them also argue as if contractual consent is the only ethical way to interact, regardless. Rhetoric on this basis is the backbone of most of their arguments against the government doing things they don't like. The majority do not really consider the implications of this for the things they want the government doing. (In this sense, I am actually arguing that out of all libertarians, only anrcho-capitalists have consistent views, but consistent adherence to the implications of terrible ideas doesn't count for much.) Essentially, they have to make exceptions to the principle of "all that is ethical is contractual" to have their state-run courts and stuff. This implies that even for minarchists, "all that is ethical is contractual" is the ethical fundamental from which special exemptions are carved. It is this foundation that provides various useful excuses for kidfucking, even for minarchists, since kidfuckers can apply to age of consent laws the same reasoning that underlies minarchist arguments against all sorts of things the government does. What arguments are are going to be posited in a universe where there is a state to enforce or nullify contacts that kidfucking is okay? Your argument so far has been that without a 3rd party to say if a contract is valid no one can nullify and punish someone who attempts to enter into a contract with someone who doesn't have capacity. But that just frankly isn't a problem when there exits a state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The argument lately has been over your side's supposition that only libertarians support the ability to have underage sex. The only person who said that was WhampaLord in what was clearly meant to be hyperbolic. So to accuse "our side" as having that supposition is a strawman (ironic considering that's what you're accusing us of doing).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Again, that's not the claim I was making. It's that every article or think piece I've seen about removing age of consent laws has come from a Libertarian perspective. I am not claiming that only Libertarians can be kiddie fuckers, that would be absurd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:What arguments are are going to be posited in a universe where there is a state to enforce or nullify contacts that kidfucking is okay? Your argument so far has been that without a 3rd party to say if a contract is valid no one can nullify and punish someone who attempts to enter into a contract with someone who doesn't have capacity. What arguments are going to be posited in a universe where there is a state to enforce or nullify contacts that taxation is theft or the government is inherently coercive and therefore immoral? And yet, miniarchists posit such arguments and accept that some "minimal coercion" is a necessary evil to protect negative liberties. This means waving away things like consumer and workplace protections as "paternalistic" intrusions on the right of free people to consent to contract, "Do you think a government bureaucrat knows better than you what jobs you can do or what products you can buy," etc. Hm, now, what does this sound like... some douche posted:It's no fix just to lower the "age of consent." Some girls are mature at 12 or 13, some not until 18. No one-size-fits-all age will do. The whole idea of statutory rape needs to be scrapped. A girl who is not physically mature will not wish to have sex, so will not consent; if a man then forces himself on her, rape will have occurred without question. If on the other hand she is mature and does want it, no third party should interfere. !!! GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:30
|
|