Thoughts on the libertarian perspective on children,cp and age of consent

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The author of the source you cited is a whore and lolcow who LARPs as a researcher when she isn't one, her methods are laughable, she does whatever she can to justify her whore-brained worldview and she has a thread here on the Kiwi Farms.

Really? I didn't know that.

 

[Lapsus of the bepsus]

one major failure of lolbertarianism is that it fails to protect children from the consequences of liberty

 

[Idiotron]

The thing about libertarianism that I never liked is that it's a system designed for con artists and sociopaths.
Basically , if you can fool and convince somebody to sign a contract with you, you can do whatever you wish, no matter how evil.
They don't like those pesky human rights, laws and regulations that prevent them from hiring children for their businesses or pouring liquid uranium waste down the drain.

It's like socialism.
There's about 5% of it that makes sense and should be applied in society but the rest would completely destroy everything.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Basically , if you can fool and convince somebody to sign a contract with you, you can do whatever you wish, no matter how evil.

That's false
There are many stipulations according to which contracts are partially or completely null and void
For instance, if you try to offer me a contract according to which you become my slave, then you are in that moment attempting to commit fraud, because such a contract is (at least at the current level of technology) not possible to act on
Or if you were to attempt to sell me the sun, that is also attempted fraud

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

Anyone who argues for the exploitation and abuse of children is a pedophile. There is no justification other than the desire to abuse children. Has there ever been anyone who argues this stuff who doesn't turn out to be a sick fuck?

 

[Black Spruce]

There is no movement by libertarians that has anything to do with pedophilia, age or consent, or child porn. It's just memes. Actual instances of pedophilia advocacy comes from the authoritarian-left and the authoritarian-right. In the left's case, pretty much everything to do with LGBTQIAP+∞&BEYOND, and in the case of the right, it's the groypers. I've been in even the most fringe, cringe of libertarian circles for quite some time, some of which have threads on the farms, and I have only seen a single instance of someone advocating for pedophilia based on libertarian principles, and he was given the boot very quickly.

As for the whole Rothbard shit. None of that has anything to do with sex. His opinion on children was that they are not yet moral agents, thus guardianship was justified, and that guardianship was a voluntary mantle you took on that you could pass on or sell at any time. I disagree, of course. A lot of Rothbard's later writings are very contentious among libertarians while a lot of the earlier ones aren't really controversial. If you want a better example of a libertarian, try Lysander Spooner. His main hiccup is on intellectual property. Which is far less hiccups than Rothbard or Hoppe ever had.

 

[No. 7 cat]

• Thank God this Rothbard lolbertarian never had any children.
• Vaush is a disgusting coombrained swine.
• Anyone caught with CP should be thrown in the ocean with a millstone around his neck. Decency, morality and the Lord commands it.

Libertarian is frankly a sort of synonym for pedo.

 

[Mound Dweller]

Oh no not again.

Basically Rothbard's whole thing was he wanted to make an ethical system centered purely on property rights. This is a pretty flawed idea for reasoning like this.

This is what it comes down to really, blue sky thinking based on a flawed premise of possibility, you can file it away with "actual communism" and "the wealth will trickle down" in terms of "is this shit ever going to happen/do we really want it to?".
What sets it apart is the up-front pedoshit which I generously assign to in-your-faceism, much like how other ideologies declare property to be theft or how all melanoids must hang, the problem with this particular permissiveness is that pedoshit is quite righteously considered anathema and much like why I had watery shits that one time is therefore not worth talking about.

 

[Buck Broken Chimp]

Nope. Pedophilia as a sexual trait is absent for both male and female right Libertarians. You might expect therefore that pedophilia is in the domain of left Libertarianism though, right? After all, left-libs are the hippy dippy free love LSD dopers, right?

No, that's wrong too. Turns out the political outlook most strongly associated with pedophilia, ageplay and 24/7 power dynamics is right Conservatism.

https://knowingless.com/2021/10/26/political-compass-fetishes/

View attachment 6784335

I think libertarians have the more embarrassing fetishes. Humiliaiton,masochism and exhibitionism are pretty embarrassing.

Auth-right has raceplay I guess, that tracks since I have all the raceplay shit in my pfp and bio but that is ironic lol

If you want a better example of a libertarian, try Lysander Spooner. His main hiccup is on intellectual property.

I always thought Lysander spooner opposed Intellectual property and most libertarians do as well. I was under the impression his defense of it was more of a thought exercise and more of him saying "If intellectual property has to exist this is how it should work"

 

[Idiotron]

There are many stipulations according to which contracts are partially or completely null and void

In a truly free market with no government regulations, what will prevent companies from doing every shady thing they can think of?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

In a truly free market with no government regulations, what will prevent companies from doing every shady thing they can think of?

The consequences.

Insofar as a "shady thing" is logically equivalent to implicit or explicit theft, it is legitimate to use coercion against the culprit. That is, it is legitimate for you yourself or your agent(s) to use force in order to make the situation right.
For instance, the example I mentioned earlier, if you offer me a deal according to which you agree to become my personal slave. That thing you agree to is simply not technologically possible. Or a deal in which you agree to sell me something that you don't own, such as the moon. If I agree to your deal and transfer a sum of money to you, then you have committed implicit theft via fraud. In that situation, I am within my rights to use force against you in order to regain my money in case you don't comply with restitution.
cf. M. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, chapter 2 (Direct Exchange), section 13 (Enforcement Against Invasion of Property), can be read here

Insofar as the "shady thing" in question is legally valid (cf. NAP compliance), then you still have extralegal means to make use of.
Protests (assuming NAP compliance), boycotts, ostracization, blackmail, slander, libel, or simple reporting on shady deals and consumer advocacy, nobody has the right to stop you from doing any of these.
Unlike in today's world where there is a general trust in and benefit of the doubt in favor of official reporting and official media (because if it was fake news, surely there would be legal penalties), there is nothing of the sort in a truly free society, meaning that sussing out disinfo becomes just as much of a crucial skill in having a successful life as personal finance skills or taking care of your health.

Do bear in mind that "shady shit", especially aggressive "shady shit", is really fucking expensive. "In a truly free market" there exist no taxation, no government subsidies, no government grants, and no government inflation. Meaning that the only legal way for someone to obtain an income is by means of voluntarily paying customers. That alone puts a huge stop to "shady shit". Especially since there are no government barriers to entry and compete. No IP laws or licensing.

 

[Idiotron]

If I agree to your deal and transfer a sum of money to you, then you have committed implicit theft via fraud. In that situation, I am within my rights to use force against you in order to regain my money in case you don't comply with restitution.

But who is going to enforce it?
And how expensive will it be to prove it if there are no regulations in the market?

Protests (assuming NAP compliance), boycotts, ostracization, blackmail, slander, libel, or simple reporting on shady deals and consumer advocacy, nobody has the right to stop you from doing any of these.

But all of that might not do a thing.
Some companies also have monopolies in certain industries in a lot of areas.
What do you do then?

Do bear in mind that "shady shit", especially aggressive "shady shit", is really fucking expensive.

A smear campaign can be very cheap.
And very often, shady shit is very profitable too so you're not actually losing money, you're making it.

 

[Polyarmory]

I took the bait

Insofar as a "shady thing" is logically equivalent to implicit or explicit theft, it is legitimate to use coercion against the culprit.

"Implicit theft" in whose opinion? For example, a Californian government might judge being white as an "implicit theft" and "use coercion" to extract reparations. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. If it's in the "victim's" judgement, then anyone is allowed to do anything as long as they can confabulate an explanation.

That is, it is legitimate for you yourself or your agent(s) to use force in order to make the situation right.

And if you can't? For example, if a criminal organization has tanks and bombs, and they rip me off, I can't possibly make the situation right. And when starting a criminal organization, you start with soft targets (isolated and/or impotent individuals), and use what you extract from them to prepare yourself for harder targets.

Unlike in today's world where there is a general trust in and benefit of the doubt in favor of official reporting and official media (because if it was fake news, surely there would be legal penalties), there is nothing of the sort in a truly free society, meaning that sussing out disinfo becomes just as much of a crucial skill in having a successful life as personal finance skills or taking care of your health.

Most people are preoccupied with their livelihood and shit; "sussing out disinfo", when it's even possible, is very time- and energy-intensive, which is precisely why mis/disinformation persists and propagates in the first place. And in any competently-performed disinfo campaign, debunking it will require information that the rube cannot access. The reality of the situation is that a broadly truthful information environment is essentially impossible in the modern day, as any system of "checking" is itself just as suspect as that which it "checks". I think an upstanding and self-sacrificing journalistic culture is the only way possible, and creating/sustaining such a culture is against the interests of everyone in power.

Do bear in mind that "shady shit", especially aggressive "shady shit", is really fucking expensive.

No it isn't. You can strangle lonely old ladies who failed to pay your protection racket with your bare hands, and that's free.

Especially since there are no government barriers to entry and compete. No IP laws or licensing.

Seriously, just think about this for a moment. Why does the government erect barriers to entry? Corporate influence. Without a government, where would barriers to entry come from? Corporate influence. The difference is that instead of the Police attacking you for competing (who are bound by jurisprudence), it's the Walmart Gestapo, who have no duty or obligation to have any mercy whatsoever.


I look forward to your textwall in response wherein you cite pompous dead retards and presuppose that bad actors will ever give a shit about the "NAP".

 

[Fruttasecca]

I think (((Rothbards))) idea is that if parents cant and/or are unwilling to take care of their children, they should be able to give them away. Its a less complicated version of adoption basically.
The problem, besides the trauma of separating a child from their parents, is that people who would make good parents could just make one for free. People who adopt/surrogate have some ulterior motive (i.e. rape or profit or both) or are themselves damaged in some way so they cant have children naturally. Rarely it is because of some physical infertility they had no influence on. So somebody who would buy guardianship over a child would most likely not do so in the interest of the child.
Anyway, what would you buy kids for in the libertarian utopia? What do you think the market value for children would be? Would boys or girls be more expensive?
I think I would buy tons of boys and make my own Jannisary™ corps. I would use them to take over local businesses. With the new income I would buy more Jannies until I could rival the McDonalds® Syro-Ukrainian mercenary force and take over as they are distracted fighting the DonMak™ separatists over the right to sell burgers in the Ukraine. With burger supply under my control I would be the undisputed master of America.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

But who is going to enforce it?

In the first instance: You.
In the second instance: Everybody who you can get to act on your behalf. Be it local police, dispute resolution organizations, courts, etc.pp.
Just as with the production of shirts, you make use of division of labor and leave it to specialists, it is predictable that peacekeeping and law enforcement will be conducted by freely competing enterprises

And how expensive will it be to prove it if there are no regulations in the market?

I'm not God, I can't predict that.

But all of that might not do a thing.

And?
If, right now, government doesn't do shit, or government does do shit, but badly (see Louis Rossmann complaining about the FTC fining companies for just a small fraction of their net profits for egregious offenses), what then?
In a free society, you have much more power to change things.

Some companies also have monopolies in certain industries in a lot of areas.

That is nonsensical.
A monopoly is categorically impossible in a free society, as a monopoly is a government-granted privilege so that only company X may sell or manufacture good or service Y.

I took the bait

It's not bait, you whore.

"Implicit theft" in whose opinion?

Libertarian legal philosophy. At its core, libertarianism is a legal philosophy, and everything else (free markets, capitalism, etc.pp.) are just the logical results of people abiding by the legal code that is compliant with this philosophy.

And if you can't?

Tough luck.

For example, if a criminal organization has tanks and bombs, and they rip me off, I can't possibly make the situation right.

Yeah, we're having that issue right now with most governments. One thing I advocate for is sabotage in combination with asymmetrical warfare. It's been proven to work against overwhelmingly superior foes.

Most people are preoccupied with their livelihood and shit; "sussing out disinfo", when it's even possible, is very time- and energy-intensive

Which is why people are willing to pay for others to do it for them. You know what else is also time and energy intensive? Refreshing storefront websites and staying in line to obtain a product that is on sale at a (too) limited quantity. "Scalpers" are essentially brokers, instead of you paying in time and energy, you pay in money to obtain access to such a product. When there are problems, people will find solutions.

No it isn't. You can strangle lonely old ladies who failed to pay your protection racket with your bare hands, and that's free.

If everybody in society is tolerating people who go around and strangle lonely old ladies for seemingly no reason, then surely the problem is society, no?
At least that is the conclusion I would reach in this example.

Without a government, where would barriers to entry come from? Corporate influence.

Name one (1) way how a barrier to entry can exist in a free society while not violating the ground rules of society (cf. libertarian legal theory)

I look forward to your textwall in response wherein you cite pompous dead retards and presuppose that bad actors will ever give a shit about the "NAP".

You dense motherfucking retard
In the status quo, bad actors who don't give a shit about "NAP" can just go and become politicians or use other political tricks to get away with all sorts of shit.
In a free society, not giving a shit about the "NAP" comes with a risk of getting shot on sight.

 

[Polyarmory]

Libertarian legal philosophy.

"Libertarian legal philosophy" is not an actor who can enforce rules and make verdicts against the will of the perpetrators. For a philosophy to be implemented in the real world, it needs representation in the form of force.

just the logical results of people abiding by the legal code that is compliant with this philosophy.

The "logical results" of an obvious logical impossibility. The human animal is not pre-programmed with libertarian philosophy. And if you're thinking that you'll have a grassroots imposition of libertarian ideals onto everyone, I have a bridge to sell you. I mean, you're experiencing a failure to convert someone right now, and I'm not even a psychopath profiting from the status quo.

Tough luck.

"Tough Luck" to an unpunished violation of the NAP is an admission that your "philosophy" could not survive even in a society where it has (however impossibly) been made predominant.

Which is why people are willing to pay for others to do it for them.

I addressed this in the post you're responding to. The credibility of the checkers is just as suspect as the news organizations themselves.

If everybody in society is tolerating people who go around and strangle lonely old ladies for seemingly no reason, then surely the problem is society, no?

"The problem is society" is just admitting defeat. It's not good enough to just thumb your nose when your system doesn't work. Ultimately, the problem is the species, which is why every functioning society on Earth has law enforcement. (see: Bystander apathy)

Name one (1) way how a barrier to entry can exist in a free society while not violating the ground rules of society (cf. libertarian legal theory)

You have conceded twice at this point that the "ground rules of society" are not at all inviolable. ("Tough Luck", "Problem is with society")

In the status quo, bad actors who don't give a shit about "NAP" can just go and become politicians or use other political tricks to get away with all sorts of shit.
In a free society, not giving a shit about the "NAP" comes with a risk of getting shot on sight.

I quite simply think it is impossible for such a culture of unorganized vigilanteism to win against emerging governments existing within the same society because determining the rules and enforcing them demand greater commitment and coordination from uninvolved bystanders than is realistic. And not "realistic" in any particular society, but "realistic" for the human psyche.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

"Libertarian legal philosophy" is not an actor who can enforce rules and make verdicts against the will of the perpetrators.

You moved the goalpost. You asked according to whom. You didn't specify that the who had to be an actor.
Although if you weren't so obstinate, you could take the logical next step and say "actors who abide by libertarian legal philosophy".

The "logical results" of an obvious logical impossibility.

Prove it.
Show me this obvious logical impossibility.
Since it's obvious, it shouldn't be a big challenge for you.
Since it's logical, it shouldn't be easy to debunk.

The human animal is not pre-programmed with libertarian philosophy.

And the observable universe is not pre-programmed with ray-tracing GPUs, complex financial derivatives, MRT machines, and skyscrapers.
So what? Human effort, labor, capital, and ingenuity brought all of those things into that universe.
Granted, all of those things obey the laws and nature of reality, they are not in violation of it. And neither is libertarian legal philosophy.

"Tough Luck" to an unpunished violation of the NAP is an admission that your "philosophy" could not survive even in a society where it has (however impossibly) been made predominant.

Are you fucking retarded?
If I (dishonestly) assert that a libertarian society would magically prevent each and every crime from occurring, you would (rightfully) label me a retarded utopist who's basically no different than a Marxist.
If I (honestly) assert that, as long as human nature is the way it is, it is predictable that there will always be crime, there will always be people willing to break established rules in the hopes of obtaining a personal profit, you (retardedly) say that the philosophy can't survive.
What the fuck do you want from me?

The credibility of the checkers is just as suspect as the news organizations themselves.

If you're a more credible checker, congratulations, you can make money off your virtues by providing a better service that will reach more satisfied voluntarily paying customers.

"The problem is society" is just admitting defeat.

See above

Ultimately, the problem is the species, which is why every functioning society on Earth has law enforcement. (see: Bystander apathy)

Are you laboring under the misapprehension that a free society is devoid of law enforcement?

I quite simply think it is impossible for such a culture of unorganized vigilanteism to win against emerging governments existing within the same society because determining the rules and enforcing them demand greater commitment and coordination from uninvolved bystanders than is realistic.

Why do you presuppose a "culture of unorganized vigilanteism"?

 

[biglurker]

These kind of "arguments" are fundamentally retarded, and are only posed by idiots who think libertarianism = no laws.
Even the most autistic variants of libertarianism would illegalize CP/Child sex slavery since you are violating their rights in order to create the market. I also don't see how a child, whom could not consent to be created, would violate the rights of the parent by needing care.

People make these arguments either because they need an excuse to openly endorse being a piece of shit, or to try and discredit libertarianism as an ideology (see any typical lolberg strawman).

 

[Polyarmory]

Prove it.
Show me this obvious logical impossibility.
Since it's obvious, it shouldn't be a big challenge for you.

Where's your free society? Where does it actually exist, in the real world, in lasting form, at any point in history? Also, you're supporting my point with this very conversation: You are failing to impart the values that necessary for a society governed by your principles to exist.

If I (honestly) assert that, as long as human nature is the way it is, it is predictable that there will always be crime, there will always be people willing to break established rules in the hopes of obtaining a personal profit, you (retardedly) say that the philosophy can't survive.
What the fuck do you want from me?

Obviously crime will always exist. Ideally, society would minimize and punish crime. "Tough Luck" and "it's society's problem" are failures to minimize or punish crime. What I "want from you" is for you to realize that the NAP isn't some sacred tablet handed down from God, and that some magical system existing on paper doesn't necessarily result in real-world improvements.

Are you laboring under the misapprehension that a free society is devoid of law enforcement?

Why do you presuppose a "culture of unorganized vigilanteism"?

This quote strongly implies that you're expecting neighbors to kill eachother in lieu of law enforcement:

If everybody in society is tolerating people who go around and strangle lonely old ladies for seemingly no reason, then surely the problem is society, no?

If you're a more credible checker, congratulations, you can make money off your virtues by providing a better service that will reach more satisfied voluntarily paying customers.

The problem is that the average person can't discern credibility. Trying to be a "more credible checker" doesn't fundamentally solve the issue that each person chooses what to believe and what not believe, and that they will think things are credible that aren't. That said, this issue of mis/disinformation is not by any means specific to your philosophy, so I'm only criticizing your assertion that it will be solved, not criticising the philosophy for having the problem.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Where's your free society? Where does it actually exist, in the real world, in lasting form, at any point in history? Also, you're supporting my point with this very conversation: You are failing to impart the values that necessary for a society governed by your principles to exist.

The free society exists at every point in time and at every location at which people abide by the ground rules.
The goal is to make this as big as possible.

But you failed to follow my request.

just the logical results of people abiding by the legal code that is compliant with this philosophy.

The "logical results" of an obvious logical impossibility.

You spoke of obvious and logical, I am still waiting for your logic.
Or your reference to someone else's logic. I'm not picky in that regard.

What I "want from you" is for you to realize that the NAP isn't some sacred tablet handed down from God, and that some magical system existing on paper doesn't necessarily result in real-world improvements.

Are you fucking braindead?
Prove that I have once claimed, asserted, proven, or simply stated anything of the sort.
Or, hell, I'm not picky, prove that some other libertarian has done that.

The problem is that the average person can't discern credibility.

Yes, which is one of the reasons why I am in support for the free society.
In a free society, there are fewer mechanisms by which people surrender their personal responsibility to other actors, meaning that they can coast by in life without ever developing virtues. In a free society without those mechanisms, there is more pressure for the average "quality" of man to go up over time.