>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).