Spideynw:
I also know that children do not have rights until they have enough mental capacity to be able to reason.
Define children for me, then. Because it seems that you must be using it in some way other than to mean some range of ages, given that individuals develop their rational capacities at different rates. If "children" is defined as "humans who lack sufficient rational faculty to make contracts," I'm sure you'll find no disagreement over the illegitimacy of child pornography given the lack of genuine consent involved. However, your definition would include everything from toddlers to mentally handicapped to drunks. But you can't just choose an arbitrary age and imagine that everyone beneath that age is automatically unqualified to make contracts.
Byzantine:
In a free society, rights will have to be purchased just like everything else.
A potential problem with your theory: When something is homesteaded, who exactly are you "purchasing" from and how did they get ownership of this object which lacks an owner?
It might be more correct to say, "In a free society, the protection of rights must be purchased." But then, it would seem your latter commentary is somewhat irrelevant to the issue of legality.
Byzantine: Those people will never be more than a very small percentage of the population nor are they going to be very successful breeders except where they are propped up by government welfare, and able to breed with extremely low status females. Without welfare, the dysfunctional British and American underclasses would go extinct in pretty short order. You seem to think that ideology trumps biology.
Those people will never be more than a very small percentage of the population nor are they going to be very successful breeders except where they are propped up by government welfare, and able to breed with extremely low status females. Without welfare, the dysfunctional British and American underclasses would go extinct in pretty short order. You seem to think that ideology trumps biology.
That's extremely short-sighted. Are people who watch staged raping porn movies rapists? And if I remember correctly, a few studies do indicate that some proportion of those who watch child porn are in fact children (teenagers) looking for similarity in age. Look at this article on Wikipedia for example.
And perhaps we should make the distinction between simple child pornography and child pornography containing sexual intercourse. If we don't, we may end up banning naked infant photos as well, such as those from medical magazines for instance.
In my mind, sexual intercourse with children is a way more useful topic to debate. Chances are no one would be mentally hurt if you took a photo of your 5 years old daughter naked, but having sex with her certainly raises issues.
As to could parents legally rape their children, probably. But it would be interesting to see what would happen in a stateless society.
Parents merely have custodial rights over children, not ownership. If they harm the child by rape (which is by definition nonconsentual), they're no different to any common criminal.
To darkness I condemn you...
Some of the conservative commentary in this thread baffles me.
Jon Irenicus:Parents merely have custodial rights over children, not ownership. If they harm the child by rape (which is by definition nonconsentual), they're no different to any common criminal.
Do you agree that parents should be able to sell their children?
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Brainpolice: Some of the conservative commentary in this thread baffles me.
That's because I'm talking about how the world actually works, and you're commenting from your academic Petri dish.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:And perhaps we should make the distinction between simple child pornography and child pornography containing sexual intercourse.
If you think such a distinction can be drawn, I would love to see it attempted. What, pray tell, is "simple child pornography?"
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:That's extremely short-sighted.
No. What is shortsighted is to believe that a society that tolerates the sexualization of children is in any way sustainable.
No. They can sell their custodial rights, though.
Byzantine:In a free society, rights will have to be purchased just like everything else. What will be tolerated will be whatever has the most purchasing power.
The great thing about a free market is that there are plenty of opportunities for niche marketing--you don't have to be in a majority to get a broad variety of goods and services. A producer of an uncommon or limited-popularity good only has to make some amount of profit to continue to make said items, regardless of his total share of the market.
And I guess I'm still waiting for a definition of "child porn" from someone. Is it the actual depiction of sex with a child on film? Or is it the description of sex with a child in prose text? What about a drawing or animation of sex with a child? A picture of a naked child but no sex?
These distinctions are important in determining what should be considered a crime and what isn't.
macsnafu:A producer of an uncommon or limited-popularity good only has to make some amount of profit to continue to make said items, regardless of his total share of the market.
The costs he must first cover in order to make that profit include defense of his marginal activity from violent action.
macsnafu: These distinctions are important in determining what should be considered a crime and what isn't.
That's tripping over mouse poop. I'm sure you would agree that there is such a thing as "child pornography," however a particular person would define it. Only the general question is under discussion.
Byzantine:The costs he must first cover in order to make that profit include defense of his marginal activity from violent action.
You keep saying that violence will be used against these people, but I fail to understand why this should the normal case, and not the exception. If you're talking about actual sex with a child, this is understandable to a degree, but if we ARE in fact talking about prose, drawings, or animation, it makes much less sense. As long as the "general question" is the only one under discussion, then more specific answers are impossible.
Juan:He's also clearly out of touch with reality since he believes that children can be 'sexualized' when in fact children, like other humans, are to varying degrees, sexual beings.
Children cannot be sexualized because they are incapable of sexual reproduction. They have to go thru puberty first. There may be some books you can read on this process but mises.org doesn't have a section on basic reproductive biology that I know of.
Boy is this a marriageable bunch of alpha's.
I wasn't aware that you're a matchmaker...
I'm just wondering how the glorious anarchist future is going to sustain itself with a bunch of single 20-something men fretting over a right to view child pornography.
Byzantine:Children cannot be sexualized because they are incapable of sexual reproduction. They have to go thru puberty first. There may be some books you can read on this process but mises.org doesn't have a section on basic reproductive biology that I know of.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Jon Irenicus:No. They can sell their custodial rights, though.
What is the difference, besides semantics?
Juan: Maybe you should look up "playing doctor" ?
Vastly different. And hardly a justification for their being employed for the sexual gratification of adults.
Byzantine: I'm just wondering how the glorious anarchist future is going to sustain itself with a bunch of single 20-something men fretting over a right to view child pornography.
We're more "fretting over" the consistent application of the non-aggression principle, which I've been led to believe is rather important.
Morty:We're more "fretting over" the consistent application of the non-aggression principle, which I've been led to believe is rather important.
I may put this in my sig: biology trumps ideology.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap