[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / egy / fa / fur / polmeta / sl / tk / ttgg / waifuist ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: ea9e6069703a0c6⋯.png (664.08 KB, 1024x1314, 512:657, 1482520453467.png)

File: 0118c8bb9329d6a⋯.png (1.38 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1460616837736.png)

 No.44089

What is the ideal age of consent in libertarian society?

 No.44092

File: be06fec8b1f5033⋯.jpg (45.96 KB, 550x700, 11:14, Gulag.jpg)

Stop it pedofag


 No.44093

If she said yes to the money then she is a smart investor

Sex is just like any other commodity


 No.44094

>>44089

That would mean a collective arbitrary age standard in an individualist society. Does not coincide with it and will likely not exist. It will be up to parents, otherwise, common law will apply as soon as you can reproduce. It's not about whether you CAN have sex, but will the public allow you to have it. Your inability to make proper decisions what to do with your own body is not a subject of regulation in Libertarian society.

To answer the question you probably want answered by starting another topic on this, no, you will probably not be allowed to create a harem of underage, drugged up girls for you to fornicate with.


 No.44111

>>44094

>It will be up to parents

So you will be owned by your parents in libertarianism?

It violates the principle of self-ownership.


 No.44112

the market will decide


 No.44113

File: 97dfec4e480e76f⋯.jpg (54.29 KB, 680x682, 340:341, 08a.jpg)

File: 7f38b3800adb946⋯.jpg (43.6 KB, 640x656, 40:41, 98c.jpg)

File: ae494761621ad72⋯.png (209.35 KB, 742x839, 742:839, 407586.png)

File: 7d5d605059ff10b⋯.jpg (28.58 KB, 639x480, 213:160, 0ce.jpg)

File: c76e712d76f625f⋯.jpg (39.14 KB, 640x640, 1:1, acb.jpg)


 No.44114

>>44111

Stop taking any services from them then and be disowned. There is of yet no objective proof of adulthood other than biological maturity. Until then, there will be arbitrary ages of consent.


 No.44115

>>44111

That breaks down at some point. Obviously animals can't own themselves. So I think the standard should be as soon as the child decides to be independent and leave the home. Until then, I don't see harm in the parents arranging sex for them, for profit or not. There is no reason this is inherently harmful and it can stop the minute the child decides it must.


 No.44121

File: c3483e6c814307b⋯.png (396.4 KB, 405x509, 405:509, Absolutamente Subversivo.png)

>>44115

>So I think the standard should be as soon as the child decides to be independent and leave the home.

Muh nig-…

>Until then, I don't see harm in the parents arranging sex for them, for profit or not.

…what.


 No.44122

>>44121

Well, that doesn't mean they can't enforce virginity either. I was just saying either one is their right.


 No.44132

Unironically >>44112 - each community will set its own standards and it may be subjective to some extent, not a hard age limit - but I predict that there will not be a single (respectable) community that places it anywhere below puberty.


 No.44133

>>44121

As long as you live with them under the same roof, you gotta play by their rules.


 No.44134

>>44132

> each community will set its own standards

That's a little collectivist. Rather, it should be decided by the one that controls the property where the act takes place.


 No.44137

>>44122

And I'm saying that you're a degenerate piece of filth. That children are only potential self-owners does not mean parents can actively harm them. You actually managed to take the shitty position from Rothbard and make it even shittier. Sure you're on the right board? Or did you get lost on your way to >>>/fbi/ ?

>>44133

Having sex with a child is aggresion, period. You can pull this card when it comes to teenagers, maybe, but even then only when you accept Rothbards absolutely crappy position on the subject, which no one outside of the Mises Institute really does anymore.


 No.44138

>>44137

>And I'm saying that you're a degenerate piece of filth. That children are only potential self-owners does not mean parents can actively harm them.

I don't see why not. Parent's can teach their children to be creationists, or to believe in homeopathy, and yet that is also harm, and you're not against this. Or are you also against parents hitting their children or forcing them to go to school?

>ou actually managed to take the shitty position from Rothbard and make it even shittier. Sure you're on the right board? Or did you get lost on your way to >>>/fbi/ ?

I think you're simply too afraid of freedom. Most parents won't do this. I just don't think we have the right to interfere. For all you know these parents are poor and the only way to get their kids fed and in school is by doing things like this. Who are you to judge?


 No.44146

File: f2b52ec1672713b⋯.png (184.85 KB, 364x468, 7:9, 60f6e84ceacac156f968b7c5b6….png)

>>44089

None. AOC is government intervention. A child is the property of his/her parents until the AOM (age of majority) at which time s/he becomes a legal person. The real question is when the AOM should be.

If the child's parents permit you to have sex then you're good. If you have sex with the child without the parent's consent then you have violated their property and must pay.


 No.44148

>>44138

>Or are you also against parents hitting their children

Yes. I'm against taking the child away from its parents over that unless they clearly act with hostile intentions, but I'm all for letting the child decide whether or not to press charges once it becomes independent. Same goes for most acts of aggression, including circumcision, tattoos and other body modifications.

>or forcing them to go to school?

A shitty education is a different topic. The parents have a natural duty to raise the child, but all that means is they can't keep it in an abandoned or downright feral state. Complete neglect is against natural law, that doesn't mean the parents have a duty to grant the child a specific education.


 No.44149

File: ae69f38936b88e6⋯.jpeg (135.53 KB, 960x671, 960:671, ae69f38936b88e64c64a27ecb….jpeg)

>>44138

I agree with your point of view, otherwise I would have to demand my parents get branded sex offenders and thrown in prison for psychological torture for having had my cock cut and sucked by a rabbi when I was 8 days old as according to Jewish old testament tradition.

I would have much preferred getting anally fucked for money by men.

PS not Jewish by my parents are jewophiles.


 No.44151

>>44148

>Yes. I'm against taking the child away from its parents over that unless they clearly act with hostile intentions

Under what authority should you take away their children?

>but I'm all for letting the child decide whether or not to press charges once it becomes independent.

I do not think you have the right to sue someone who merely disposed of their property as they saw fit.

>Same goes for most acts of aggression, including circumcision, tattoos and other body modifications.

Again, I think trying to initiate force against someone for this is against the NAP. If the child doesn't want these things, then it should leave the home and become independent.

>A shitty education is a different topic. The parents have a natural duty to raise the child

They may have a moral obligation, but I do not thing they have a real obligation to that.

>but all that means is they can't keep it in an abandoned or downright feral state.

I think they can.

> Complete neglect is against natural law, that doesn't mean the parents have a duty to grant the child a specific education.

I don't think neglect is anything but immoral. I still think they should do as they want. However, I was asking if you thought forcing a child to go to school is against the NAP? I don't think it is. The child does not own itself.

>>44149

I'm sorry to hear about your foreskin. In the future, we will be able to grow it back.


 No.44152

File: ee9f09962fdda2b⋯.png (781.03 KB, 1292x442, 38:13, c321fe3104a38cd715f218b16a….png)

>>44137

If having sex with a 'child' (please define) is aggression, is giving birth to a child with inferior genetics also aggression?


 No.44159

>>44146

>a child is private property


 No.44160

>>44134

You get what I'm saying though, right? Each community will have values that give you a rough ballpark of what's acceptable and what's not, and these will influence arbitrators. If an arbitrator thinks 13 is a good age and the community thinks it should be 18, he probably won't be asked to settle any cases about age of consent. He has an incentive to match his professional views with the community at large.


 No.44163

>>44151

>The child does not own itself

The child does own itself, otherwise it couldn't decide to leave the home of its parents and become independent. The relationship between the child and the parents is voluntary.


 No.44165

>>44163

The child doesn't own itself until it does that. You cannot have self-ownership if you do not know to exercise it.


 No.44168

>>44165

The child doesn't know yet how to exercise self-ownership. So that means the child also doesn't know yet how to agree to things. So basically whatever you do to the child is a violation of the NAP.


 No.44169

File: da9dc7a24bee484⋯.jpg (84.34 KB, 593x539, 593:539, sawed off shotgun.jpg)

>>44089

> Ideal age of consent

Around the time they hit puberty. When I was 13/14, pretty much everybody was having sex with each other left and right. I'm not saying that's a good thing and it wasn't something I indulged myself into, but it was pretty clear that once they acquired sexual ability they were more than able to make decisions in regards to consent and what they wanted to do with themselves.


 No.44171

>>44168

Then I guess the child should feed and clothe itself, then.


 No.44174

>>44115

>Obviously animals can't own themselves.

That's where you're wrong.


 No.44175

File: 162ca0b6f733183⋯.jpg (340.94 KB, 1012x1465, 1012:1465, 1451376359488-3.jpg)

>itself

>most kids did it around 13/14

>most middle scholars had sex, despite me never actually having sex during that time

>a human being is private property

>the parent can forcibly make their child go into child prostitution, despite it being against NAP

>A human doesn't own himself

This thread summed up pretty well tbh.


 No.44177

>>44175

Some humans can be private property. If a man wants to sell himself into slavery, who am I to stop him?


 No.44179

File: 5f93d941789a589⋯.png (296.31 KB, 680x800, 17:20, 3c7.png)

Depends on the culture, genetics, and the individual communities. I doubt any pedo towns would show up long-term, and you'd probably see a general trend towards whatever's considered the age of adulthood. I'd estimate it as being around 15-19.

Honestly instead of asking about the age of consent, we should be asking about the character of people who want to go in and change it, or the character of the people who don't keep a close enough eye on their children/don't provide proper parenting so as to provide the circumstances that would let them engage in sexual activities before they are mentally mature enough to make those decisions.


 No.44181

File: 8521aa58cca75b0⋯.png (184.23 KB, 680x542, 340:271, christ_shrug2.png)

>>44111

Parental "ownership" is more like a contract. Think of it like how old people will give their children "decision-making capability" if they are afraid of being unable to make said decisions (either due to mental illness or becoming a vegetable). You are agreeing to be under the "decision-making ownership" of your parents until either…

A) You have physically cut off that contract (typically in the form of you moving out).

B) Your parents have deemed you fit for elimination of that contract.

Keep in mind verbal and non-written contracts are upheld under various legal systems. This is not to say a child can't undergo a contract transfer/come up with a new contract under different parents (adoption).

If you want to argue about how children can't make said contract because they are unable to consent to it due to lack of mental facilities (or something similar), you better be prepared to answer the question about decision-making for old people as well as why a slut should be able to abort a baby since she obviously lacked the mental capabilities to see the cosequences before fucking someone's brains out while you're at it as well.


 No.44183

File: e58f8256966c32f⋯.gif (490.29 KB, 350x277, 350:277, 1469510074007.gif)

>>44169

>>44175

And this is why Hoppe was talking about when he explained how mental illness will fuck up communities that allow it, leading to individuals banding together and "physically removing" undesirable elements (not letting pedos or parents that allow this kind of behavior into their town).

>>44115

>>44133

Well there's two things I'd like to point out with this line of thinking.

A) Taking someone's virginity IS a violation of the NAP. Period. The thing with the NAP is that it's up to the victim if they want to enforce it or not. In this sense, a parent could not whore out their children for money as it would be violating the child's bodily autonomy. This would unilaterally violate the decision-making contract of the child in virtually any legal system. inb4 some faggot misquotes me on this.

B) While your line of reasoning technically falls under Rothbardian definitions of how child-rearing works (no one likes Rothbardian principles when it comes to child-rearing), as a parent, I can quite clearly tell you that this shit would not fly. Any parent that would allow this kind of conduct is not fit to be a parent in the first place. Thankfully, even in this statist shithole we live in, the opinions of moral-less individuals who would do these sort of things are dwindling as they die out from low birth rates (probably induced by their sick and mentally ill thought patterns). If we're to allow the free market to get invovled in cultural affairs as it does in economic affairs, then one can safely conclude that while some children may suffer from this sort of thinking short-term, long-term, such communities would die off or become a severe minority in an anarchist society by practicing out their mental illnesses and falling victim to their own depravity when society collapses in on itself. We must recognize that the world is not a perfect place, but that in a truly free market, pedophiles and similar degenerates would be unable to endure long-term.

>>44177

For fuck's sake, decision-making contracts are not slavery. The closest thing you can come to is contractual servitude, and even that is completely different from slavery.


 No.44186

>>44183

>This would unilaterally violate the decision-making contract of the child in virtually any legal system. inb4 some faggot misquotes me on this.

Would it? Certainly enforcing virginity is not a violation of the NAP, therefore the opposite of this can also not be a violation of the NAP. A child does not own itself.

>B) While your line of reasoning technically falls under Rothbardian definitions of how child-rearing works (no one likes Rothbardian principles when it comes to child-rearing), as a parent, I can quite clearly tell you that this shit would not fly. Any parent that would allow this kind of conduct is not fit to be a parent in the first place. Thankfully, even in this statist shithole we live in, the opinions of moral-less individuals who would do these sort of things are dwindling as they die out from low birth rates (probably induced by their sick and mentally ill thought patterns). If we're to allow the free market to get invovled in cultural affairs as it does in economic affairs, then one can safely conclude that while some children may suffer from this sort of thinking short-term, long-term, such communities would die off or become a severe minority in an anarchist society by practicing out their mental illnesses and falling victim to their own depravity when society collapses in on itself. We must recognize that the world is not a perfect place, but that in a truly free market, pedophiles and similar degenerates would be unable to endure long-term.

I never said this would be the norm. I said this would not violate the NAP, however, the fact that rich and powerful people do this now suggests that this will not change under an anarchist society.

>For fuck's sake, decision-making contracts are not slavery. The closest thing you can come to is contractual servitude, and even that is completely different from slavery.

Right, however, a contract of indefinite length for a large pay-out is functionally the same as slavery. You could also make contracts for your children for life-long servitude. This would also not violate the NAP. Again, most parents would not do this, but I don't see why I should judge them, as they might contract out one child to feed the rest.


 No.44187

>>44177

>why should i stop someone from making a bad decision

Atleast help them consider all their options first. A lot of people make stupid decisions, and letting them make a everlasting one isn't going to make things any better. Whatever you do don't forces them to live out their life. Just help them consider a alternative. Only after they consider somewhat of a decent amount of their should you let them make their choice.


 No.44188

>>44187

Oh, I'm not saying I wouldn't offer counsel. I'm saying after they have made a choice. More realistically I'd give them a bit of help, or of I was rich enough, I'd adopt their child and make them my heir, as I can't have kids.


 No.44194

File: e45c6682fbbb110⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 88.15 KB, 700x693, 100:99, 4f704396a8366fa11c707e8a3b….jpg)

>>44179

It's amusing you have the christ-chan meme when the Vatican allowed marriage at 12 untill recently when it was forced to concede to secular feminist pressure.


 No.44196

File: c9abe2726a1fcda⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 101.14 KB, 640x920, 16:23, 82580f35e41f554cf5e3588c0f….jpg)

>>44163

If a child runs away, even today, and is found s/he will be returned to the parents unless the parents are proven to have broken the law. Genital mutilation is not illegal.

Factually speaking a child does not own itself. However the age at which a child becomes an adult is at issue. Perhaps a citizenship test where the child has to prove knowedge of the NAP and basic foundations of the society before being granted AOM. There could also be an automatic age at which one becomes a Major as well, perhaps 15?


 No.44198

File: 0c2520fa12a3ee1⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 34.33 KB, 520x537, 520:537, 0c2520fa12a3ee11969532d7b4….jpg)

>>44186

>You could also make contracts for your children for life-long servitude.

But such contracts would be void once the child reaches the AOM or age or majority. If the now adult child want to sell him/her self for the rest of his/her life and his/her children untill the AOM that would not violate the NAP


 No.44203

>>44198

>But such contracts would be void once the child reaches the AOM or age or majority.

Says who? A contract is a contract.


 No.44204

>>44203

I suppose the servant child could attempt to buy out the contract, though.


 No.44209

File: 190f8757ef48395⋯.jpg (260.65 KB, 2268x1603, 324:229, 37a97dcff91be7917d7aa55b1e….jpg)

>>44203

The parent does not have right to make a contract for another adult human. That would be slavery. One has the right to sell their own life's labor and property however.


 No.44213

>>44209

If you can be in debt for your parent's obligations, then surely you can be held to contract for something they signed.


 No.44215

>>44213

>If you can be in debt for your parent's obligations

Who the fuck claims this?


 No.44218

>>44215

It's simply a natural extension of debt obligation. Otherwise older people could get in debt so as to leave something for their kids.


 No.44223

>>44218

Then don't lend to the older person


 No.44224

>>44223

People can also die suddenly. Debt doesn't get wiped out just because you died.


 No.44225

>>44215

!Statists.

>born into defacto chatel due to parents unpayable debt

>spend entire life serving owner to "pay off" unpayable debt

>breed children who will do the same

>repeat

>but its totally not statism or slavery, because usury is okay and Citizen#465436's great-great-grandfather willingly took that stupid loan


 No.44228

>>44224

Except it does. Don't make stupid loans.


 No.44229

>>44183

I don't understand what you're implying? Is that an ad hominem or?

Mind you, I didn't say it was a good thing, I'm just telling you that's what happened.


 No.44233

File: 39a99a5ea9238a3⋯.mp4 (1.95 MB, 960x720, 4:3, Bait Apple.mp4)

You guys forgot to even put the bait on those hooks.


 No.44234

File: 2e2a6b8113978f1⋯.png (716.26 KB, 713x785, 713:785, naughty fantasies.png)

I guess 17-18 is fine.

Not like the law will stop kids from fucking everything that moves anyway.


 No.44240

>What is the ideal age of consent in libertarian society?

whatever the democratically elected legislators decide


 No.44241

>>44234

The state will.


 No.44247

Pedos legitimately need to be physically removed. Fuck these people.


 No.44250

>>44247

If shes old enough to bleed shes old enough to breed.


 No.44251

>>44250

Didn't mean to reply to >>44247


 No.44264

first menstruation (?)


 No.44444


 No.44446

>>44444

Fucking checked.


 No.44448

>Fucking girls in their first menstruation

Okay it seems some ancaps have gone full retard and took "old enough to bleed" seriously.

Here's a hint:

The body doesn't get all its birth features the same instant because, ta-dam, its not fucking magic unlike what those pedophiles told you. The body is developing its vital features during puberty. There IS a time where they're able to prepare a fetus but not grow it into a full-blown child because the vaginal walls are not strong enough, so the child ends up getting ejected.

Lastly, their sexuality is to be explored, not exploited by some 50 year old.

Thank you very much.


 No.44454

>>44444

>quints

very rare indeed.


 No.44500

File: 34ab0dd4b554702⋯.png (37.47 KB, 892x309, 892:309, liberty.png)


 No.44502

>>44500

Beautiful banner.


 No.44581

File: 33a50714e9a6264⋯.png (173.43 KB, 680x540, 34:27, 14432932749.png)

NAP violation the thread. Too bad many of you probably never even read the NAP either. A human owns himself, if he doesn't it's in direct violation of the NAP. Nevermind that though, continue to ravel in your own mental illnesses.


 No.44583

>>44448

Your argument boils down to "if this person can't have a child, having sex with them should be illegal" which is retarded.

By your logic, gays having sex should be against the law since they can't give birth either.

There shouldn't be an age of consent. An act is either rape or it isn't. If the government were to raise the age of consent to 90, it doesn't mean that all sex acts magically become abusive rape.


 No.44585

>>44183

>Taking someone's virginity IS not a violation of the NAP. Period.

>The thing with the NAP is that it's up to the owner if they want to enforce it or not.

>In this sense, a parent could whore out their children for money as it wouldn't be violating the child's bodily autonomy.

>This would unilaterally not violate the decision-making contract of the child in virtually any legal system. inb4 some faggot quotes me on this.

Christian and pedophile, nice.


 No.44635

>>44583

>There shouldn't be an age of consent

The thing is that a twelve year old isn't mentally developed enough to understand the full consequences of sex. Sure there are people in their 30s who don't, however 18 is more of a guideline that should ensure that most will understand. Or do you want to have sex-ed classes in private schools for ages 5 to 10?

This is also ties in the question if a parent can ground a child, as in send him to his room with no dinner and TV or whatever? The answer is yes, but to a certain limit(if the parent starts cutting his son's fingers for every bad thing he does, then it becomes child abuse), a child hasn't matured both physically and emotionally enough to be independent, that is why it's the duty of every parent to raise their children to the best of their abilities.


 No.44640

File: cf8949f15e10ed7⋯.png (339.61 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1453862036766.png)


 No.44646

>>44635

after 14 the girl should decide to have sex or not. your age of consent is dumb even in most of european countries it's 15-16.

If you need a state or some state rule to take care your child or instilling your morals that's your incapability.


 No.44651

>>44646

If you and your wife allow your girl to have sex at 14, then that's your problem(and maybe the problem of a truly Non-Governmental Organization Donation-Based Child Protection Service), however that doesn't mean that every parent will allow their daughter to have sex starting from that age.


 No.44697

File: 5f263e76f0b42a0⋯.jpg (112.86 KB, 500x667, 500:667, 1440471619364.jpg)


 No.44715

>>44635

>The thing is that a twelve year old isn't mentally developed enough to understand the full consequences of sex

Neither do they understand the consequences of eating junk food. Who the fuck cares? Should we arrest them for decades for self rape if they're caught masturbating? If you say no, then you're a hypocrite.


 No.44720

File: 1de2044d869fa73⋯.png (13.73 KB, 254x248, 127:124, 1de2044d869fa73d60a9367645….png)

>>44715

>you're a hypocrite if you don't think masturbation is self rape


 No.44722

>>44715

>Neither do they understand the consequences of eating junk food.

That's why parents need to set a good example of a healthy diet. Of course if the parents only eat junk food and bring their children to McDonnalds at a weekly basis, then it's to be expected that they will eat a lot of junk food. On the other hand, the parents make healthy dishes and explain why they are healthy, not just eat your broccoli or no TV for tonight, then the child will have a healthy lifestyle.


 No.44723

>>44715

You cannot commit crimes against yourself. Even if you could, a masturbating child couldn't be held criminally accountable because it doesn't understand what it's doing. Not only do you raise a non-issue, you also demonstrate your complete lack of criminal law. Read a fucking book, you pretentious idiot.


 No.44731

Civilized countries and societies (Europe) decided its 16.


 No.44740

>>44731

>europe

>civilized

15-17 does seem like a decent number though.


 No.44747

>>44740

>europe

>not civilized

As opposed to what?


 No.44750

>>44747

oh boy, are we talking only currently existing and practiced cultures or any?


 No.44764

>>44750

Currently existing, please.


 No.44845

>>44722

Not an argument.

>>44723

>You cannot commit crimes against yourself

Okay then explain to me what the huge difference is between masturbating and me receiving a handjob?

>a masturbating child couldn't be held criminally accountable because it doesn't understand what it's doing

Are you retarded? Did I spend from the age of 11 to 17 masturbating as a "child" not knowing exactly what I was doing? If anyone under the age of 18 can't understand what they're doing, there's no point of school existing since apparently you can't learn anything until the age of 18.

>Not only do you raise a non-issue, you also demonstrate your complete lack of criminal law. Read a fucking book, you pretentious idiot.

Not an argument.


 No.44846

>>44764

middle united states, russia, the parts of the orient that isnt china, imageboards, maybe east coast usa by a slim margin.

keep in mind I went out of my way not to list any that were obscure.


 No.44849

File: ebd7bfb7a34ec7d⋯.jpg (118.64 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Smug Anime 278.jpg)

>>44845

>Okay then explain to me what the huge difference is between masturbating and me receiving a handjob?

You masturbate. Someone else gives you a handjob. You'd do better to explain why you think there's no meaningful difference between the two.

>If anyone under the age of 18

I never mentioned this age limit.

>If anyone under the age of 18 can't understand what they're doing, there's no point of school existing since apparently you can't learn anything until the age of 18.

Almost as if strict age standards were completely arbitrary and absurd: >>44181

>Not an argument.

I see statists use this meme more often than ancaps. This is why we don't like you.


 No.44853

>>44845

>Not an argument.

>if I say that what you just said was not an argument, it means I won the debate

However, I will give you the benefit of doubt so I will reformulate what I posted. If the child can't understand the full consequences of his choices such as eating junk food, or accepting sex from a 40-year rich guy, then it is the duty of his/her guardian(usually the parents) to explain to him the full consequences of that choice and/or teach him the right answer/solution if it exists(in case of eating junk food, the healthy and thus the correct thing to do, is to eat healthy food).

>>44846

And how are they more civilized than western Europe(I admit, originally you talked about Europe in general, but since you gave parts of the US and Asia as examples, I can talk about parts of Europe as well)?


 No.44857

File: 29db7f50c1de7ec⋯.png (66.15 KB, 631x329, 631:329, Screen Shot 2017-01-10 at ….png)

>>44853

useing a dictionary from google for simplicity, if you have a problem with this dont bother tearing apart my whole post just point it out and we can come to a definition we both like.

most cities in europe with a high percentage of whites are going to be basically civil, but more in a leave you alone way similar to east coast america, the less white in europe (excluding perhaps spain and italy) the streets become less polite and pleasant.

in middle and south america people are very friendly, neighborly, polite ect to the point where it is the stereotype that defines them

the japanese are polite to a fault and I hear similar things about places like korea but im unsure.

imageboards where bait, we are not more civilized but maybe more cultured.


 No.44860

>>44583

>Your argument boils down to "if this person can't have a child, having sex with them should be illegal" which is retarded.

Your reading comprehension boils down to "1st grade" which explains why you need to fuck a child so much.

If you can't read then don't post.


 No.44861

File: 3512759de0112a1⋯.png (277.09 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 1483995388765.png)


 No.44868

>>44849

Waiting for a counter-argument. If I don't have one within 24 hours, I swear to Christ I'm gonna kill this thread.


 No.44926

>>44868

calm down dude don't do it


 No.44971

>>44849

>You masturbate

>Someone else gives you a handjob

These are just two different actions done to achieve the same thing. A 12 year old masturbating to reach orgasm isn't going to care how it is done as long as it is reached. How is it that a person "understands" masturbating but if the hand rubbing away belongs to someone else, it suddenly becomes rocket science and something nobody under 18 could "understand"? Saying that anyone can masturbate but then put arbitrary rules against them having sex with other people is retarded. It is the equivalent of saying that if the legal age of driving is 16, then the legal age of being inside of a taxi should be 21 because it is someone else driving the car and not you.

>I never mentioned this age limit.

You don't need to mention it because it is the law whether you mention it or not.

>>44868

Here it is, cuck


 No.44974

>>44853

>If the child can't understand the full consequences

Then what you have there is a retard. What the hell are these consequences that you keep bringing up? Speaking of retards, they can legally have sex at the age of 18 whereas a 13 year old who is able to recite his ABCs, unlike the retard, can't.

>then it is the duty of his/her guardian(usually the parents) to explain to him the full consequences of that choice

No it isn't. And even if it did, whether the fact that a 14 year old knows what STDs are doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to them. You can't fuck a girl under the age of 18 and not go to jail because you let the cops know that you taught the girl what STDs are.

You aren't given permission from the state to partake in activities after you prove to know that you know of "consequences". Knowing "consequences" have nothing to do with whether laws apply to people or not, so it is completely wrong that you bring it up. Nobody in Kindergarten is taught about junk food and yet their parents don't spend decades in prison for giving it to them.

Anyone can ride a skateboard whether or not they understand that they can become permanently paralyzed from a skating accident. If you allow a 14 year old to skate and break his leg or a 16 year old to drive a car and die, it is retarded to believe that people shouldn't have sex if they're under 18.

>>44860

The post was literally about how some people shouldn't have sex because they couldn't give birth properly.

>The body is developing its vital features during puberty. There IS a time where they're able to prepare a fetus but not grow it into a full-blown child because the vaginal walls are not strong enough, so the child ends up getting ejected.

>>44448

>Lastly, their sexuality is to be explored, not exploited by some 50 year old.

Define "exploited".


 No.44978

>>44974

I'm not surprised a pedophile doesn't understand context

>The post was literally about how some people shouldn't have sex because they couldn't give birth properly.

The post was a reply to >>44264 and >>44250 since they didn't understand basic biology

You're retarded, fuck.


 No.44991

File: b5a3103a60e8914⋯.jpg (404.07 KB, 1216x975, 1216:975, Nuke-1.jpg)

>>44926

Not easy with these pedo-retards.

>>44971

>Here it is, cuck

Yep, and it's shit.

>You don't need to mention it because it is the law whether you mention it or not.

Look at my flag. Does this flag look like the flag of someone who gives a shit about legal age limits? No? Then why do you try to steer the discussion in that direction? Find a statist to talk to if you want to talk to a statist.

>It is the equivalent of saying that if the legal age of driving is 16, then the legal age of being inside of a taxi should be 21 because it is someone else driving the car and not you.

Like I said, your reasoning is shit. First, punishing someone for a crime he commits against himself is absurd. You completely neglected that, after I explicitly mentioned.. Second, you're a fucking autist if you can't see that the two situations you compare are completely different on a psychological level, too. There's no shared intimacy, and no basis for sexual exploitation, because both things require more than one person gasp!.


 No.44994

File: 6dbd2daeec0336c⋯.png (25.83 KB, 326x333, 326:333, 30519-1r9wzdf.png)

>>44978

And what's wrong with fucking a girl after she started puberty?

>>44991

>Yep, and it's shit.

Not an argument, cuckboy

>Look at my flag. Does this flag look like the flag of someone who gives a shit about legal age limits?

You're the one defending the law whereas I'm the one saying we shouldn't follow the law just because it says so.

>Like I said, your reasoning is shit

Not an argument, twink

>First, punishing someone for a crime he commits against himself is absurd

I know it is, I'm just using it to show you how absurd it is to punish people for fucking a 13 year old or something when the 13 year old is just going to masturbate and watch pornography anyway. This example is just to show you how stupid the "they don't understand the implications" argument is.

>Second, you're a fucking autist if you can't see that the two situations you compare are completely different on a psychological level, too

"muh psychology" Yeah I'm sure being a 14 year old dude fucking a 22 year old girl rather than watching a 22 year old get fucked on the internet while masturbating to it is very traumatizing. You're just a retard who thinks that having sex and masturbation is going to ruin people's lives. Why don't you go petition the government to raise the age of consent to 30 while you're at it since sex is so traumatizing?

>There's no shared intimacy, and no basis for sexual exploitation, because both things require more than one person gasp!.

I don't even know what you're even referring to or talking about with that statement.

I'm LMAOing @ ur life! Getting rekt so hard in this thread.


 No.45006

File: fc93bb2254fbf57⋯.jpg (18.63 KB, 255x203, 255:203, Go back to Africa.jpg)

>>44994

>Not an argument

It wasn't supposed to be one.

>cuckboy

Not an argument. See how retarded that is?

>You're the one defending the law whereas

I'm not. I'm defending the notion that child sex isn't awwright. That's got fuck all to do with the positive law.

>I'm LMAOing @ ur life! Getting rekt so hard in this thread.

Not an argument. Holy shit mom I used a meme xD

I might respond to the rest of your shit later. Or might not. This is boring.


 No.45276

Let the market decide. That includes children.


 No.45286

>>45276

I hope the market decides to put a cap in your ass you fuckin retard


 No.45289

Society was so much easier when, if the community decided someone was proven scum and needed to be dealt with they didn't raise any objectives if that person ended up dead or run out of town.

Just saying.


 No.45314

File: 46da744220fe3b9⋯.png (176.08 KB, 600x1080, 5:9, consider the following.png)

>>44089

Not a regular /liberty/ poster.

I'm sympathetic towards the ideology but for me it's exactly these kinds of issues where it breaks down.

The age of consent is government enforced morality, nothing less and nothing more. But it's one that's hard to argue with.

Who does a child belong to? If left to make their own decisions on when they're ready they're going to be easily manipulated.

Even with current tax-paid enforcements we have trouble rooting out pedophilia. You need a big brother to protect the powerless, even if you're a hardcore social darwinist then still the children, against their own parents sometimes.


 No.45315

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>45314

>The age of consent is government enforced morality

>You need a big brother to protect the powerless

I searched "Politician touches young girl" and got this as first result. Debunked.

Come back when you actually feel like explaining why only the state can enforce a default Age of Consent


 No.45316

>>45315

Because the state, by definition, is the institution that makes laws and enforces them.

Any other institution you'd create would just be a government under another name.


 No.45318

>>45316

>Ancaps can't stop child abuse because they don't have a state

>What about X

>X is the state so you can't use that in your argument

I swear if you keep shitposting I'm going to violate the NAP real soon.


 No.45319

>>45314

>dat pic

You browse /co/ too I see.


 No.45324

>>45318

Okay, I'll take the b8: Your logic is fucked up. You have a problem with anarchocapitalism because it cannot solve X, only a state can. You get told that anarchocapitalism can, in fact, solve X. Your next objection is that this makes anarchocapitalism not anarchist. Therefore, you have to go back to wanting a state. But if anarchocapitalism gives you a state - as you just claimed - then where the hell is your problem?


 No.45327

File: 797d2645ac1adad⋯.gif (66.69 KB, 230x230, 1:1, 1399256136465.gif)

>>45324

Did you mean to reply to >>45314


 No.45330

>>45327

That image is creepy enough not being a gif.


 No.45339

>>45330

Its the cat eyes isn't it?


 No.45347

>>45327

Yep, I did. Thank you!


 No.45350

File: 41c6547e53d47ad⋯.jpg (554.06 KB, 1020x905, 204:181, consider the following.jpg)

>>45315

>I searched "Politician touches young girl" and got this as first result. Debunked.

Not the person you replied to you but, pedophilia/crime is going to happen even with/out a state. This is a non argument. Of course there are dirtbags in government who could rape a child. But, they have to do it in the shadows just like everybody else. Otherwise a political adversary could easily expose you and throw you in jail and take away your license to practice law and impeach you.


 No.45373

File: cc1cbf02faeca18⋯.png (118.96 KB, 392x366, 196:183, 1417138851223.png)

>>45350

>This is a non argument

You're right, its rhetoric as the Greeks described. If the opponent is not using logic, I am not either.


 No.45381

>>45373

This shitty attitude that every uninformed, unsubstantiated opinion warrants a quality-rebuttal based on pure logic and well-researched facts is what made me incapable of using the word "debate" unironically. At least in the context of online debates, that is.


 No.45387

My rights are more important than your feelings - there shouldn't be an aoc, we already have laws against rape. You can't arbitrarily set the bar at some age and call sex below that age "rape". People should be able to fuck once they hit puberty


 No.45416

>>44581

>everyone on /liberty/ believes and lives by the NAP

Are you just retarded or are you shitposting?


 No.45419

File: 661a086d27caa48⋯.jpg (18.86 KB, 460x230, 2:1, 144498237893.jpg)

>>45416

>Are you just retarded or are you shitposting?

Neither, it's either you are consistent through and through about what you believe, or you become the double track system you wish to abolish and violate the NAP from day one. This board thread/board is mainly about anarcho capitalism. I don't know, just read the fucking thread and see what some ancaps are talking about… some of them are advocating for blatantly violating the NAP. Here's my thoughts on it:

You are violating the NAP by allowing slavery, indentured or not. It's not a partial violation or a non violation, it's just a violation of the NAP. Someone could point a gun/torture you until you sign yourself into "voluntary" servitude. Same goes for child prostitution/a child doesn't own him/herself. You are voluntarily the caretaker of a child, you do not own him. A person is human being upon conception and is simply wrong for you to say otherwise. This shit in particular is the reason that always makes me stray away from anarcho capitalism. You don't guarantee the safety of children from rape/slavery. Governments run under a state (generally speaking), keep children safe from child abuse/exploitation.


 No.45421

>>45419

Not all Libertarianism deals with the NAP. There is various forms of Libertarianism. On the one hand I'm a Libertarian Conservative, on the other I'm a Christian Libertarian. I have no use for the NAP in either case.


 No.45425

>>45421

True true, but I felt I had to say something about the current state of this thread/what some ancaps are saying.


 No.45446

File: d2bbe7c7bfa13d1⋯.jpg (11.13 KB, 187x255, 11:15, 900k.jpg)

>>45419

>You are violating the NAP by allowing slavery, indentured or not. It's not a partial violation or a non violation, it's just a violation of the NAP.

Rothbard would agree. Block would disagree. Neither of their views can be seen as the consensus among ancaps nowadays.

>Someone could point a gun/torture you until you sign yourself into "voluntary" servitude.

In which the contract wouldn't be binding, and everyone would agree with that.

>You are voluntarily the caretaker of a child, you do not own him.

Rothbard said as much, if you bother to read his whole text on that. What parents have, and what they can transfer, are parental rights. They cannot sell the child itself. That Rothbard apparently said otherwise was for the sake of clarity, because he trusted his reader to know what he was talking about. He didn't think of the faggots that would quote his passages out of context.

>This shit in particular is the reason that always makes me stray away from anarcho capitalism.

You mean, that we allow voluntary slavery or some of us do, that we allow you to coerce people into signing a contract of voluntary slavery we don't and that we say children are the property of their parents we don't?

>You don't guarantee the safety of children from rape/slavery.

>Governments run under a state (generally speaking), keep children safe from child abuse/exploitation.

And now you're touching a completely different topic. Child protective services are pure damage control, and sometimes not even that. They have been known to lock children into torture facilities or bring them to abusive foster homes. If you want to keep children safe, make sure there's little crime in your society in general. Everything else is for do-gooders and bleeding hearts that just want to soothe their conscience.


 No.45473

Someone needs to make the case that there needs to be an AOC at all.

My opinion is that you can tell if someone's been violated on a case by case basis. Yes, there will be some clear-headed 13-year-olds who decide to prostitute themselves. Not your job to police thought.


 No.45476

>>45473

That point's been made here >>44181 and here >>44849 , actually. Statists care too much about legal certainty to accept case-by-case-work, however. Except when they grant every official a huge margin of discretion and make every legal dispute about the weighing of opposed interests instead of the application of strict rules. If they knew how unclear the current law is, they would forever shut up about fictional disputes in Ancapistan.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / egy / fa / fur / polmeta / sl / tk / ttgg / waifuist ]