/liberty/ - Liberty

Obviously not.

Every DRO/court system would forbid it. It might exist in illegal rings outside of the legal system, but that happens today.

The easiest way to prevent the sexual molestation of children is to make sure they have a healthy parent-child bond, sexual predators look for children that have been abused by/are not open with their parents.

>>10579

Why not?

>>10579

Will the private police bother to follow leads if there's no financial incentive?

>>10583

There's a financial incentive if they are liable to the victims- and prospective customers would want a security service that promised recompense if they were victimized.

>>10581

>>10588

Because it's the same thin that's wrong with fucking someone who is in a coma- they can't consent.

>Fiat currency

Children sure are stupid.

>>10590

This. Because children aren't fully aware of what's happening, they aren't able to make an informed decision. They can also be easily manipulated because of their trust or faith in smarter, older adults, and to abuse that trust is disgusting in and of itself.

>>10593

When did eggplants become pornographic?

>>10597

Just being careful, anon.

Pls no more Japanese kiddie pics tho

>>10590

No. This is a serious problem. There are crimes which pay more money. You're gonna get kids who were diddled going to these security firms only to have them saying: "sorry kid, but it's not worth our time".

Using the big L refers to the party. The party has a set of beliefs as the party's platform of which child prostitution isn't set toward legalization, likely due to the belief of consent in age.

Libertarians in general vary on the issue however most likely prescribe to the notion of consent in age. Consequently, this leads to the idea of parental guardianship to direct the legal autonomy of children until the age of 18.

>>10614

What do you think of babies? 3 year olds? 2 year olds? fetuses?

Though I suppose that the true line here lays upon the person understanding what is entailed by what they are agreeing to. You are correct in the assertion that adults don't always and usually don't make informed decisions.

Some (not all) solutions to age of consent are the following.

First would to define it by the average age of which the brain fully develops.

Second would to define it by the average age of which one can verbally consent.

Third would to define it by the tests of intelligence or some other proving regarding consent.

Fourth would to define it by the average age of reproductive organs to start developing in puberty or after puberty.

These are just off the top of my head, and all points can possibly combine.

Such is the case of a prostitute teaching her children the family profession. However this can possibly extends other powers to children such as the ability to walk away from the family and cases of the child's consent vs guardian's control/authority toward the body and direction of the child.

However, libertarians vary on to what extent libertarianism lay on the levels of government: Federal, state, county, individual. This also includes the amount of force of libertarian values in terms of being the sovereign power. Thus, the possibility of things such as a voluntary communist state/county/individual.

Also I'm sleepy.

It will be legal and it will occur in the places it already does occur because of extreme poverty. You should be glad that these starving children will be fed and not have to constantly run from police and they may finally be able to openly seek out a protective pimp for themselves.

These kids will probably have thier services bid up by overseas businessmen who can now seek them out without persecution. Maybe one or two times of prostitution and they will have completely lifted themselves out of poverty, and they, nor their future children, will ever have to face this moral atrocity again.

Ofcourse you could always make it illegal and chase down evil people who do this. This perpetuates poverty, kinda like in South Africa where 1 out of every 10 rapes is a child under 3 years old.

>>10607

That is only possible if the consumers pay for a security agency that picks and chooses what cases it pursues instead of a security agency that agrees to pursue all cases in which its customers are victims.

>>10619

Unironic COINTELPRO not welcome you sick fuck

>DURR CHILD RAPE SOLVES POVERTY

>>10627

No, specialization of labor solves child starvation without letting subhuman pedos rape children.

>>10626

>Literally using the same flag as the BO

COINTELPRO blease go

>>10658

>I'm more of a caring lover who strives for +13 girls

Only a degenerate subhuman would seek romantic relationships with people who are significantly less experienced/knowledgeable than they. Why do you need to be in a romantic relationship with someone who is so much more immature and experienced? Regardless of your answer

>muh tastes

the reality is that you're probably motivated to seek relationships with young girls because you're incapable of finding a meaningful relationship with someone your own age.

You're not looking for love, you're seeking to use adolescent girls as fleshlights because you apparently lack the self-knowledge or wisdom to recognize that's a disgusting pursuit that, at best, will not traumatize your "partner."

>>10670

You're allowed to question anything.

I'm far more likely to actually present arguments for things I view as common sense- like the idea that humans have moral responsibility, or that it's not okay to fuck children- but that doesn't mean I won't make it clear I think you're a degenerate subhuman that could die in any number of ways that would not bother me in the slightest.

So go ahead and "question," because we all know pedos are all about an open dialogue to facilitate the understanding of moral truths, and definitely not seeking approval for their disgusting fetishes!

>>10671

far more likely to present arguments for things I view as common sense than most people.* I'm not a big fan of attacking people's character as the sole method of silencing them, I like to present a logical argument, and if the situation warrants (because you're a subhuman kiddy diddler) I might make it clear that it would not bother me in the slightest if you jumped off the nearest cliff.

>>10671

In the eyes of the child, I am sure that they would rather accept money from a stranger in exchange for sexual acts that starve to death.

You, however, probably want that child to starve to death so then you don't suffer from the degeneracy of those genes being exposed to sex at such a young age.

I'd also like to talk about your incessant use of the word rape. Obviously you are using it to smear my position as much as possible. I am sure you are going off the definition of rape as "a sexual act done without consent of one party involved", and you are also assuming that a child cannot consent to a sexual act no matter what.

However, I want to point out rape started as a legal issue to punish men who had sex with women without their consent. This was because women may have that mans child and she would have to either kill the child to find a man that will actually take care of her, or take care of it all by herself which is not really good for the child. Also, violence was often used.

Assuming the victim is not hurt and a condom is used (to prevent pregnancy and std), what exactly is that bad about sex without "consent"? also, It may disturb you to know that the first act of sexual reproduction that ever occured was probably rape.

>>10674

>genes being exposed to sex

Can you even into genetics, cunt?

>However, I want to point out rape started as a legal issue to punish men who had sex with women without their consent. This was because women may have that mans child and she would have to either kill the child to find a man that will actually take care of her, or take care of it all by herself which is not really good for the child. Also, violence was often used.

And that's relevant because…?

>Assuming the victim is not hurt and a condom is used (to prevent pregnancy and std), what exactly is that bad about sex without "consent"?

I don't know, probably the fact that children have no fucking clue what's going on and may feel like shit about it for years afterwards?

>also, It may disturb you to know that the first act of sexual reproduction that ever occured was probably rape.

[Citation badly needed]

>>10674

>I am sure that they would rather accept money from a stranger in exchange for sexual acts that starve to death.

I'm sure people would rather provide charity to needy children than let a subhuman degenerate (read: pedos) rape them.

>so then you don't suffer from the degeneracy of those genes being exposed to sex at such a young age.

I'd just give the kid charity/help him or her find a home instead of raping them. But I guess that makes me a real sicko!

>also assuming that a child cannot consent to a sexual act no matter what.

Kids also cannot consent to have their limbs cut off, whereas an adult can.

>rape started as a legal issue to punish men who had sex with women without their consent.

Objectively wrong. Rape was prohibited against married women, because married men wanted their wives' children to be their own, raping someone who wasn't married or the de facto property of a man (a daughter) like a slave was not considered morally repugnant.

>what exactly is that bad about sex without "consent"?

It's rape. And it is harmful to the child. A child needs a healthy emotional bond with its parents, and pedos only ever go after the vulnerable, dysfunctional children who don't have a strong bond with their parents; meaning they target the most vulnerable for further abuse.

>>10693

FBI, plz go.

>>10693

Pictures like this should be banned.

>10596

well i suppose if i were to declare that you aren't fully aware of what's happening, can i take all your stuff, as long as i promise it's 'what's best for you'?

>>10596

well i suppose if i were to declare that you aren't fully aware of what's happening, can i take all your stuff, as long as i promise it's 'what's best for you'?

>>10705

>sex is rape

SJW please go

>>10697

you realize flags can be chosen by anybody right?

>>10715

that picture doesn't prove anything

>>10718

>you realize flags can be chosen by anybody right?

I do. Still, when you see two people with the same flag in the same thread within such a short timespan, both of whom seem to be attempting to disrupt a conversation that was shitty to begin with, you can assume that it's a samefag.

>>10705

>Having sex with someone is, in principle, an act of aggression, and thus requires consent to be legitimate. Theft, which is what you're describing, is also an act of aggression, and requires consent. Therefore, your comparison is whack.

if they are both acts of aggression that makes my comparison valid not invalid.

>>10724

No, because according to your twisted logic, it's not theft unless you can give informed consent. I find it hard to describe just how utterly fucking retarded you are.

>>10747

Can you prove it wasn't censorship of political views?

Also, freedom of speech is universal dick head

>>10763

Fuck off.

>>10747

Rulecuck Stalin please go

>>10777

You're fucking retarded. No one ever argued based on what's best for the child. Our argument is that a) children can't make informed decisions on whether or not to have sex, and that b) sex requires informed consent as it is - barring consent - an act of aggression. This has shit all to do with whether we know what's better for the kid. A very young child can't consent to a surgical operation either, as it doesn't understand the concept of being cut open, having a tumor removed and being sewn up again; this holds true regardless of whether the operation is in the best interest of the child or not. The latter part is important, as it shows you that paternalism plays no fucking part in this and you can kindly get fucked, you pretentious shithead.

>>10779

>a) children can't make informed decisions on whether or not to have sex

What's the basis for saying this?

Is it psychology?

Is it that 100% fool-proof science that we were just discussing?

> b) sex requires informed consent as it is - barring consent - an act of aggression

Ahh yes I remember you making the case for this earlier in the thread:

>If you don't regard sex as aggression requiring of consent to be legitimate, rape is not possible in your worldview.

The question I propose is this: If uncalled for and unnecessary surgery does not lead to any damage to your property whatsoever: can you sue for it?

>bla bla bla physiology

Not the same as psychology. One has repeatable data, while the other has "attachment theory" and other shit.

>>10923

>The question I propose is this: If uncalled for and unnecessary surgery does not lead to any damage to your property whatsoever: can you sue for it?

Yes.

>>10929

Not exactly suing, but you should still get punished.

>>10930

>Not exactly suing, but you should still get punished.

Wait, are you suggesting we jail people who get nose jobs and facelifts?

>>11400

I thought I made it clear what I meant with "uncalled for". If you request something, it's not uncalled for. So if you request someone take out your liver because you fucking hate having a liver, then the surgery may be absolutely insane, but it's not uncalled for, hence should not be illegal. Whether the surgeon does the job is another question. I bet most wouldn't, for obvious reasons.

Libertarians? No.

They will lower the age of consent (probably 15 or 16), pass Romeo and Juliet laws (fuck up to 4 years younger/older if age of consent would apply), and allow child bride contracts.

In terms of prostitution, probably only at legal adulthood.

>>10593

The average human developes awareness of other people around 7, their brain-bridge solidifies around 17, and their brain finishes developing around 25.

So technically, 17 ahould be the "age of independence" (where they can fend for themselves) and 25 should be the "age of adulthood."

>>10674

What's so bad about it is that each person a woman fucks makes her likelihood of staying married lowered.

It's still a net negative youbdumb fuck.

>>10777

Scientifically there's a dozen issues with having copious amounts of sex. Regardless of the child's opinion, theybshoukd not be exposed to those mental and physical issues before an age at which they are self-autonomous.

>>11419

Child bride contracts would only bind the parents, not the children. If the children decided not to get married, then that would be the problem of the parents.

>>11421

>What's so bad about it is that each person a woman fucks makes her likelihood of staying married lowered.

Correlation ≠ Causation. I thought this was common sense at this point.

>>11424

I'm pretty sure it's fucking related. Fuck the sexual revolution.

I agree on child brides though.

>>11443

Last I checked, that part of the sexual revolution never really caught on.

>>11458

It's actually quite common. You just don't hang out around those folks enough to know they've been pushing that narrative for a long time.

Libertarian party is grabbing all the victim minorities lately in the same way the dems did the last couple decades.

>a child is not able to consent

This whole thing sounds all cute and "righteous" until reality strikes. I know for fucking sure I would be able to consent when I was a kid masturbating to Playbay mags. About girls… You guys should come and make a visit to Brazil's finest favelas. E.g.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mc+brinquedo

This music genre – "funk", which has nothing to do with the Afro-American genre of the same name – is the most popular one amongst low (and zero) income Brazilians. The lyrics are always about drugs, sex, ostentation (much like rappers), and more recently "novinhas" (lolis) and their "eagerness for cock". The author of the songs in the aforementioned link is 14yo. MC Melody, whose songs are basically about "eating cock", is a 12yo girl. Brazilian gov. recently banned a show with songs about "novinhas" from a 13yo (MC Pedrinho). There are numerous others, such as MC Pikachu, MC 2K, and older ones who also write about novinhas. Do you seriously believe these kids are not fucking each other every night like the little hormone filled horny devils they are?

And these are just the celebrities. "Bailes funk" (sort of an open night club usually with some MC singing, popular in favelas) are highly sexual, violent, and drug filled environments where the whole favela – and uni sluts and others – go. There are no age limits because who gives a fuck? It's a fucking orgy, just relax and cum (catchphrase by a Brazilian congresswomen). It's not like the police is going into territory commanded by drug lords, like Brazilian authorities are efficient, or like anyone gives a shit. You could probably find an underage prostitute nearby (that is, excluding the ones that do it professionally but not officially), though that might be a bit harder since it's "in the open", they're alone and police can easily make an arrest. I don't know how drug lords see it either, they might not allow it.

YouTube seems to have removed some videos featuring novinhas dancing, but you can get an idea of the content by searching the MC's I posted here and considering the videos you'll find on YouTube are the more moderated ones. You can also search for "novinha" in some porn sites but then again they remove most of the content (the one that features underages).

Anyway, "age of consent at 17" and "14yos can't consent" is bullshit. I do not have a solution for the question "what the age of consent should be", but I sure as hell know the answer is not 17. You can tell me that the kid was not making a rational decision (who does? fucking w/o condoms is commonplace), he/she was influenced by the sexualized environment (who isn't?) or whatever liberal bullshit you want. Come here to Brazil and go out to a party and meet these girls IRL. They are horny, and they are not shy about it. You don't even have to go to a favela, just go to a night club that (unofficially) allow underages. 15~17 yos are more passionate than me, speaking out of experience, in the (rare) times I got lucky enough to get any.

>>11458

Give it time. There's a lot of cultural inertia involved esp. when talking about something as fundamental as monogamy. Harem building already happens as a result of a unrestrained sexual market and a good dose of female hypergamy. Polygyny will follow thanks to the devaluation of marriage (and pandering to Muslims in Europe, too) and the same arguments cited for gay marriage will be cited too.

>>11472

All of that is either anecdotal, has absolutely nothing to do with children being able to give informed consent, or is in no way evidence of this being a healthy lifestyle.

>Do you seriously believe these kids are not fucking each other every night like the little hormone filled horny devils they are?

They're more than welcome to fuck each other all they want. Pedophilia and all special snowflake derivatives thereof are wrong specifically because of the obvious difference in power.

>"Bailes funk" (sort of an open night club usually with some MC singing, popular in favelas) are highly sexual, violent, and drug filled environments where the whole favela

Why the hell are violent drug orgies in territories commanded by drug lords something we should endorse and openly strive for? All you're doing is listing shitty stuff that happens and saying the fact that it happens means children can give informed consent. That's really not much of an argument.

>>11478

>All of that is either anecdotal, has absolutely nothing to do with children being able to give informed consent, or is in no way evidence of this being a healthy lifestyle.

None of _that_ is an argument.

>They're more than welcome to fuck each other all they want. Pedophilia and all special snowflake derivatives thereof are wrong specifically because of the obvious difference in power.

What difference is that if there is consent – i.e. if no power is used? And what are you talking about when you say "Pedophilia and all special snowflake derivatives thereof"? A 14yo and a 18yo? A 15yo and a 19yo? Perhaps a 16yo and a 24yo? Because that's all too common – go to a shopping mall in here (or Google it) and what you'll see the most is high school middle class sluts hanging out with the "cool guys" with a cheap car and marijuana. I'm sure this isn't the case just in third world countries. I'm not arguing for the fucking of babies or something of the sort.

>Why the hell are violent drug orgies in territories commanded by drug lords something we should endorse and openly strive for?

I'm never said one should.

>All you're doing is listing shitty stuff that happens and saying the fact that it happens means children can give informed consent.

If you focused on drug traffic you missed the point entirely. Why is it shitty for these teenagers to be sexually active and outspoken about it? Because it offends _your_ morals?

>That's really not much of an argument.

It was supposed to be an example of "children" or teenagers call them however you like it willingly giving their informed consent. You can babble all you want about theories and brain development, but that will have no effect on someone that knows these kids IRL. Now I know _that's_ not an argument, but it doesn't seem you're much interested in one that isn't supporting your POV.

>>11472

>poor people with no supervision do it, therefore it's natural and healthy!

please jump off a cliff

>>11480

>None of _that_ is an argument.

It's pointing out your whole pedo tirade was irrelevant

>What difference is that if there is consent – i.e. if no power is used

He means the difference in power in the relationship, not physical power you autist.

>Why is it shitty for these teenagers to be sexually active and outspoken about it?

Because their parents are retards.

>It was supposed to be an example of "children" or teenagers call them however you like it willingly giving their informed consent

If it's another person within 1-2 years of their age I don't give a shit. That doesn't include you, faggot.

>>11496

Thank you. I actually have nothing to add to that.

>>11496

So you or the state should supervise them? It's not just poor people, as I

already mentioned.

You didn't "point out" anything, you said "it is irrelevant".

You speak in power difference in the relationship like a leftists speaks of the

power difference in the relationship between employer and employee… Should we

ban women from dating betas who buy them gifts and drool over them? Should

cougars be banned? Should man not date naive girls? Can't he date younger

girls? You have so far spoken like a true conservative, wanting to rule how

other people date (willingly and consensually) because of your family

values and so called moral standards.

Not me not anyone else gives a shit what you think either, and that's the

beauty of liberty, which you clearly do not support, at least not in this case.

If you don't want people to date teenager nynphos that's your fucking problem,

it'll keep happening and you might as well go suck a cock if makes you feel

better.

bump

The status quo age of consent laws discriminate against the sexual freedom of jailbait hotties. The age of consent law should be no higher than 15. I might even suggest it as low as 14 or even 13. If teens are able to consent to sex with each other or with people up to 5 years older than them, I don't see why they can't consent to sex with an adult.

>>12570

Where I live its 16+ and a Romeo & Juliet 5 year exception for 14-15 I think. And 2-3 year exception below that. Something like that. But what's wrong with say 15 or maybe even younger? Girls at that age are already well-developed. They have womanly bodies. Men are programmed to be sexually attracted to youthful women (I'm talking post-pubescent teen girls, not little girls). When you are walking by in a mall or a subway station, have you not ever felt sexually attracted to a girl who was 13-15?

I know for a fact that I'm attracted to 15 year olds. And maybe some of the women I thought were hot in the mall/subway station were 13-14. It's natural for men to feel this way. Feminazis want to suppress this part of male nature because they are over-the-hill and are jealous of men lusting after youthful sexy jailbait hotties. And there are plenty of women who have older guy fantasies. When my girlfriend was in high school, she wanted to fuck her English teacher for one. When I was in high school, I wanted to fuck one of my female teachers. It's natural. Men want to fuck women who look fertile and healthy, whether that's a busty MILF, a girl their age, someone younger or a jailbait teen.

>Libertarian board

>trying to ban things, not because it harms other people but because 'I dun lik it therefore other people shouldn't be able to do it'

The only thing that should ever be 'against the law' is something that directly harms someone else. And sex is not inherently harmful. Children can consent to anything including sex. Please stop calling yourself a libertarian if you think people should be prosecuted for 'victimless crimes'.

>>12613

>15 or maybe even younger

No. If you speak with a typical 13-15 year old, it's clear that they're just not in the same league as the typical adult, mentally/maturity-wise (16 is where I draw my line in the sand, though I personally would never pursue anyone under 18). As I've been saying throughout this thread, the problem with going after children (here defined as "someone who is not an adult", so I include whatever derivatives of pedophilia might exist) is that you're leveraging your greater intelligence and experience to take advantage of someone. There is a clear difference in power in the relationship, and the problem has never been physical attraction.

It's similar (though not exactly the same) to why it's wrong to sell drugs to children even though drug usage is not a moral crime in and of itself: They are not equipped to make an informed, rational decision. This is, in fact, why parents take care of them for so long.

>Feminazis want to suppress this part of male nature

This has nothing to do with feminism. It's just as wrong to do it to a boy.

>>12630

>Children can consent to anything including sex.

Sure, they can consent to sex. Just not with creepy fucks who're taking advantage of their lack of maturity.

Seriously, a solid 98% of the time it sounds like defenders of pedophilia just want easy targets they can manipulate into having sex with their sleazy selves.

>>12659

That's exactly what they want and they slither away or make poor arguments when they're caught.

Power dynamics are a thing even if we don't like to think about them. Just because "that one fifteen year old" who doesn't actually exist acts and thinks like an adult doesn't mean the vast majority do. You are taking advantage of their lack of individual agency/lack of a fully developed world view/their dependency on others at their age in order to form a power dynamic based on coercion which is against Libertarian principles. It's no different than that social worker who was fucking retards inb4 accusations of comparing kids to tards is taken literally.

No ome cares (past concern) when retards fuck each other because the power dynamics are not extremely skewed. In ancient times, your 15 year old was closer to a 20 year old in terms of their economic solvency and autonomy.

>>12661

Your fifteen year old was closer to a twenty year old today*

>>12660

He didn't even say that, you fucktard.

>>12659

Well the human brain doesn't stop developing until around ~25. Does this mean the age of consent should be raised to 25? That's the issue that I take with the intelligence/mental maturity argument.

No I haven't spoke to a typical 13-15 year old recently. I have a niece that age. But we haven't communicated recently. I was 13 when American Pie came out (Stifler's mom was ugly but I liked the idea of fucking a hot teacher or something) and I had a MILF fantasy when I was a teen boy though. I could have handled a sexual relationship with a woman in her 30s as a 13-15 year old boy. I don't see why a 13-15 year old girl can't handle a sexual relationship with a man in his 30s. Does it really make that much of a difference if the younger party has a penis? Trust me, I would NOT have been traumatized if I had sex with a hot female teacher at 13-15. I WISH those horny female teachers went to my school when I was a teen! lol.

I've talked to a feminist about this. And she used the "men are the aggressor" argument to justify giving light slaps on the wrist to female adults who fuck male minors. While throwing the book at male adults who have sex with female minors. But just because she had no sexual interest in adult males (beyond a little school girl crush) when she was a teen girl, doesn't mean that there aren't other girls that feel the same way. Her argument is that all 13-15 year old girls who seriously want to fuck a man more than 5 years older than her are "fucking insane". You see what feminists do? They take away individual agency from people by accusing them of having a mental illness. Third-wave feminism = feminazi ideology.

>>12676

>Well the human brain doesn't stop developing until around ~25.

Great, but that's just one of the factors (and it isn't even one that helps your case). There's also the matters of experience and dependency on others, as >>12661 mentioned.

>No I haven't spoke to a typical 13-15 year old recently.

I feel like that speaks for itself.

>>12677

This conversation is not about feminists and has nothing to do with feminism. Stop trying to change the subject.

When a girl has her first period that's it, that's God and nature saying she's ready to go. Anybody that pretends otherwise is just protecting their own bullshit post-modern sensibilities and you all know it.

>>12680

Yeah this whole "please think of the children, will someone please think of the children!" shit needs to stop. When a girl hits menarche, she's now a woman and is ready to go. She develops secondary sexual characteristics in order to help with child rearing and to attract the sexual attention of men. To signal to men that she is fertile. It's the same when a boy starts leaking semen out of his penis at night or when he masturbates. He's becoming a man.

When I was a horny teenage boy, I had an obsession with MILFs. Boys will be boys but teenage girls are pure angels who never have sexual thoughts about older guys?

>>12690

be careful dude, loli like that might be illegal. Even though it's just fictional drawings and they're not actually having sex. The older brother looks like he is sexually excited by his younger sister sitting on his lap. That might be enough to get you arrested. Even though it's just fictional drawings. The totalitarian times that we live in.

I'm pretty sure that drawings depicting actual sex with minors (including oral sex and that sort of thing) is illegal in my country, the United States and many other western countries in the world. But it's ok in Japan.

>Sex is always rape if it's with someone under 9.467 million minutes old, depending on how the leap years fell!

Can we AT LEAST admit the legal definition of adulthood is at best biologically ignorant and entirely arbitrary? There is no discussion to be had here otherwise.

>>12680

>>12684

Except for all the medical complications involved with girls having children at that age going against that theory.

>>12676

You admit to being a Democratic Socialist, but then you turn around and deny that power dynamics create a form of coercion? What the fuck? No one is going against 15 year olds fucking 15 year olds (though I'd hope parents would keep their children from doing so), they're talking about a 15 year old lacking economic agency and personal autonomy that a 20 or 30 year old does have, creating a power imbalance in the relationship which is interpreted as a form of coercion. This power imbalance can't exist with the traditional family model because the woman had the opportunity to go down the route of economic autonomy and instead chose dependency, whereas a child, unless we're talking about an emancipated minor, has not had this opportunity.

>>12690

>There is no excuse to forbid sexual activity

Yes there is. It lowers your relationship/wedding-worthy capital as an individual and increases your risk of developing numerous infections/diseases (not all of them being STIs/STDs). I as a parent should want to maximize my child's human capital for when they are an adult via instilling strong morals in them.

>women under X age aren't responsible to mate/reproduce!

>let's ban human mating/reproduction under X age!

More like

>Women under X age lack the agency to make this decision with someone who has obviously benefited from social experience and freer human capital investment

>Therefore let women/men under X age fuck with people who have similar agency to them, but protect them from deviants

>Second example

It's more like not trusting a company that hires an electrical apprentice to do a journeyman's job, and suing them for violating common law when someone gets hurt because of that electrical apprentice's shit decision making from lack of experience.

>>12696

Which is why people suggest the introduction of Romeo & Juliet style systems.

Besides, I'm sure our friendly neighborhood DemSoc here would be against having to explain what he wants to do to the child's parents before engaging in those acts, or at least he'd be afraid of doing it before a massive indoctrination… Er… "cultural shift" towards it being more acceptable.

>>12703

>human capital

You sound like an excellent parent, nothing like a caricature of a sick fuck who is concerned about their offspring's "wedding-worthy capital".

>children are too immature to make decisions for themselves

People should have full autonomy over themselves from the moment they are born. When people are not coddled or told that they 'can't do this because it's harmful!' they tend to start thinking for themselves because they start to realise their actions have consequences. Yes, some people will make mistakes, but we shouldn't forbid people from making mistakes because that is how you learn.

>If it's legalised pedos will coerce children into sex

No one can coerce anyone into doing something they don't want to, if they don't want sex then that is rape by definition and they can have the rapist arrested. They would be more likely to do this as well if we live in a society that doesn't see sex as some degenerate shameful thing like fascists want.

>we must protect the children

If anything this would be better for the children. Part of the reason why rape is traumatising is that society sees sex as a shameful thing, if there is a more healthy attitude towards sex then suddenly is goes from being this evil degenerate thing to something that's not that big of a deal. Another point: having child prostitution would likely greatly lower the sex crimes against children, because now pedos can satiate their desires and the kids can make a good buck doing it.. This is opposed to pedos raping random children and them being scarred for life.

Japan is a testament towards this. Look at the Enjo Kosai thread in /n/ http://8ch.net/n/res/191229.html, along with this there is no prohibition on lolicon, and japan has very low rate of child sex crimes. Prostitution = lower rates of sex crimes and the prostitutes being paid well in safer environments, it's win-win.

>>12703

>has anarcho-capitalist flag

>supports prohibition

Guess what, banning things doesn't make it go away, as I've said above, prohibition does nothing but exacerbate the problem. This isn't /pol/ by the way, in case you are lost.

>>12703

>An ancap defending prohibitions by the state.

>In matters on self ownership.

>The state must monitor your personal wedding-worthy capital.

>>12718

Except he never said that, you lying piece of shit. You don't need a state to regard something as a crime. You may need it to effectively enforce a law, but "don't fuck kids" can be enforced just well without it.

>>12710

And you sound like an SJW making a fuss over people calling a spadr a spade.

>>12717

>From the moment they are born

Aight, let your newborn find its own food. Sounds like a plan.

>No one can be coerced into doing something they don't want to

By that logic there's no such thing as rape so long as you keep having sex with them until they enjoy it.

I'm glad you don't believe in common law either. Have fun when your employer doesn't give you full disclosure about the risks on-the-job leading to you getting cancer down the line. While SJWs might have abused the shit out if it, there is such a thing as a power dynamic or unwanted concent in situations that you would not have consented if you had proper knowledge on hand. Ignoring these would ultimately be very bad for society and allow corporations to run amok with pollution, medical patients to have no rights if a cure ends up killing them down the line, automechanics not being able to sue when they get cancer because they consented to working on cars without knowing that many of the materials they work with cause it, etc. That is what you're advocating whether you realize it or not, pedo.

>Literally argues for rape and child prostitution

What the fuck? Are you fucking autistic? Do you not realize what you're fucking saying?

Rape is desensitized by SJWs, so remove the cyst (university degrees) that cause it, damn it. Enough of this bullshit.

>lol legal child prostitution will prevent people from raping children

You sound like

>lol legal sex change operations will keep people from getting sex changes

The solution to sex crimes is eliminating the entitlements that allow people to be polygamous and sexual deviants and (to quote /pol/ just this once) to remove niggers. When your culture is no longer designed around "oh the government will take care of it," you'll stop seeing people acting in these ways and instead settling down- THAT will decrease sex crimes.

>>12738

>How could you possibly enforce victimless crime prosecution without state?

This entire argument is on whether sleeping with young girls is a victimless crime. Your argument here is a classical petitio principii.

This is a good time to mention girls hit puberty at 12

>>12793

>Somebody can be a victim without even knowing.

I think we both know that even little girls know when you sleep with them.

>>12806

Literally sjw tier "all sex is rape"

>>11472

Thank you for the input, anon. Really.

I would add Brazil in my to-go list if it wasn't because I don't feel comfortable in druglord territory. Gonna wait until the nation state collapses. Hopefully it will happen sometime in the next 15 years.

>>14935

you are a sad man.

Gosh I sure hope so.

>>12659

>No. If you speak with a typical 13-15 year old, it's clear that they're just not in the same league as the typical adult, mentally/maturity-wise

Bullshit. Women are the sage from age thirteen to age thirty five.

>>13107

Me too.

The issue of child prostitution is not about political doctrine but about the ability of children to meaningfully consent to potentially damaging activities they don't fully understand. Authoritarian doctrines tend to treat everyone as children until proved otherwise, while libertarians tend to do the opposite. We generally favor letting children do what they want, unless a strong case can be made that those children would thank us later on, as adults, for not letting them do it. Child prostitution is generally regarded as damaging to the child's mind, and on those grounds it can be opposed from a libertarian standpoint, but that depends on the empirical issue of whether it is, in fact, damaging.

Starvation < Child prostitution < Child labour

Banning either child labour or child prostitution, is extremely unlikely to make things better for anyone.

It also looks a lot like aggression. You can stop them if they don't know what they're doing but if they still want to do it after you explain to them whatever (retarded) reason you want to stop them for- and they still want to do it- you should let them

>>10578

I think we need to carefully define what exactly makes one human

and children are property / objects until that is true, whatever it is. be it serm cell, 3months into pregnancy, or whatever else in the future

should animal prostitution (i.e. comemrcial breeding) be illegal?

personally I think most children are very early on eligible for classification as human (like 4years, but this isnt one-size-fit-all)

also

now beneath that, its a very interesting question, because they will eventually grow to be human beeings. so its different from lets say a chair, that you can use up and itll be your problem if you fuck it up. because children will grow up to be sovereign entities. so you are eventually infringing upon their stuff.

this would of course exclude downsyndrom children, and possibly serious autists, because they wont ever grow to be what makes a sovereign human.

in addition to all, what happens at the most basic constitional level (the contract including nonagression principle) and its direct implications, all the societies can do what they want

so do answer your question, the point of something like AnCap is to enable any societal form, so we can see wich does best. wch implies that nearly anything is legal-with-respect-to-the-constitution

>>18353

oh and also there is question of consent

most people think coercion and/or misinformation (like a scam) is not consentual

Im very sure this extends to most children. especially toward understanding the consequences of the transactions

bonus: this would also imply hard to read fineprint isnt binding

>>10583

I can't think of a bigger PR nightmare then letting a kid get raped on ypur watch.