![When you can safely skip the "early life" section [680x625 - 58KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/20L2az.jpg){kind=link}
Children can give consent. A one-year old can't enter into a contract of any kind, whether it's a rental lease or for sexual activity.
If you had actually done basic research into libertarianism, you would already know this.
But you don't, because you are either a dishonest person, or you're an idiot.
I will assume you are both, as well as a third thing -- a waste of my time.
OK, let's use a slightly less squicky example:
12 year old boy says they are a girl. Parents consent to hormone blockers, kid consents to hormone blockers, doctor consents, insurance consents.
Totally ok, right? Permanent damage to the body of the 12 year old. You can argue they are confused, don't understand the ramifications or suffer a mental disorder - but that's mindreading and to act on those would violate the sacred NAP. They consented to change their gender.
If the idea of kids universally deciding to go on puberty blockers squicks you out, then maybe you aren't as Lolbertarian as you pretend.
Buddy, I'm not getting into a debate with you.
You don't get it, and you want me to spoon-feed you libertarianism.
I'm not going to, because my time is worth more than that.
Go away.
Sorry, I don't consent to going away. I worry that you are hung up on the jewish trick of lilbertarianism. Don't have to spoon feed me anything, I was a lolbert for years. You just have to answer a simple question.
What problem does lolbertarianism have with a 12 year old consenting to puberty blockers? Everybody is ok with it, so it's all good, right?
Child is ok with it, but children can't sign contracts Parents are ok with it, and after checkign if their child is ok with it, they CAN sign on contract n behalf of the child - and they checked with the child. Doctor is ok with it, she's getting paid
Everyone involved is ok with permanently maiming a child, so what's the problem? It's a lolbertarian wet dream!
Children can give consent. A one-year old can't enter into a contract of any kind, whether it's a rental lease or for sexual activity.
According to? Laws? What if everyone decides to reject those laws? What if everyone in a group decides one year olds can consent. After all, when a mother places their nipple at the babies mouth, it instinctually tries to suck at one year old. Maybe these libertarians in this hypothetical consider that consent. But I'll give you the one year old can't consent?
What about a 7 year old who's being given attention and likes it when old men give them cash and candy? Oh, were they provided Pavlovian responses to candy and attention before that, leading to a desire to gain that attention? Well, nevermind that, it's consent, so it's all good for libertarians.
And sure, maybe the parents can prevent it, but what if the parents like money and consent to letting their child consent? If everybody consents, according to libertarians, it's all good.
But let us imagine your argument, that they are not adults. Ok, Are 18 year olds? There's a lot of evidence that suggests the brain isn't fully formed until 25. And it is certainly true that children in the past were much more able to consent to contracts, or at least allowed to before child labor laws.
But you don't, I did do research.
because you are either a dishonest person, or you're an idiot. Nope, not a libertarian, I thought that was clear.
I will assume you are both, as well as a third thing -- a waste of my time.
And yet here you are trying to ad hoc argue against the simple fact that Libertarianism is how corruption spreads. But all you are doing is saying "I'm not going to argue" and then arguing poorly. You seem very confused.
Of course, of course the heroin addict had a choice. Nobody is hurt (except their family, them, the community).
(post is archived)