![When you can safely skip the "early life" section [680x625 - 58KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/20L2az.jpg){kind=link}
No, I am obviously not ok with that at all.
This is a discussion board, not a place to write a novel. I can't convey every nuance of libertarian theory here.
However, what's great about the internet is that you have access to the largest repository of human knowledge ever collected.
A great deal of that knowledge is about libertarianism. At any time you like, you can learn how a free society might deal with the problems of child sexual abuse, or drugs, or any other social problem.
There is a wealth of literature just a quick web search away.
The fact that you have not done that, and are quick to make judgments and pronouncements about a philosophy that you know nothing about, shows that you are not an intellectually honest human being.
And for that reason, I will not engage with you further.
Nice novel. Would read again.
Why are you still wasting my time?
Oh. I didn't know I ever spoke to you before.
I have done that, actually. I find no way that you actually prevent it.
When did I say sexual abuse? Child is consenting, remember? If everybody consents, it's ok.
Same with porn - it's a victimless crime, right? Except we have plenty of evidence that it is incredibly harmful and addictive. First hit is free, nobody get;s hurt, right?
So save me your philosophical fantasies of libertarianism - they are Jewish tricks not worth considering. The fact that Libertarianism still falls onto "well, it's the addicts fault, not the dealers/pusher's fault" is exactly what allows Jewish Pornographers to thrive.
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.
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)