From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 20:11:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <19920813200818ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>Aha!  Define "maturity".
>>
>The age where the child assumes full responsibility for his needs, and
>leaves the guardianship of his parents or other adults. This may be
>either by his own declaration of emancipation, or it may be by virtue
>of his parents or other guardians having relinquished responsibility
>for the child's guardianship. As I see it, this need not be tied down
>to any specific chronological age.
>
	In other words a child who becomes angered at their parents and
leaves home is _instantly_ treated as adult with respect to sex and labor
laws? Worse, a parent may _relinquish_ repsponsibility (today we call those
kids throwaways), and the same thing happens? 

	The pimps and the sweat shops are going to _love_ that one!

	Do you _really_ feel that an 8 year old throwawsy (yes there _are_
kids that young and younger on the streets) or a 10 year old runaway are old
enough to make adult decisions concerning matters which may result in their
death or destruction of their health? Do you _really_ believe that if
parents are permitted by law to make sexual decisions for their kids, none
of them will be acting from self interest versus the child's interest? If
you think that there aren't a _sizable_ number of parents who would be
prostituting their children - particularly given the Libertarian view on
social programs - you don't live in the real world! They're doing it _now_,
despite the laws - why wouldn't they do so then?

>>
>>Including age of consent laws?
>>
>I find no specific reference anywhere in the Libertarian platform to
>age of consent laws.
>
	That's part of the problem.

	I can agree that age of consent laws are arbitrary, and that
treating mature teens as children with respect to sexuality is absurd - but
there is a degree of difference between considering a 17 year old mature
enough to make their own choices in such matter, and considering a 6 year
old mature enough to do so.

	Admittedly, few parents would permit such behavior - but your
platform doesn't address the fact that _some_ would!

>>
>>So an emancipated "child" could choose to have a sexual
>>relationship with an adult?
>>
>Any child who has moved out of his parents' home, and assumed total
>responsibility for his life's needs is, in my opinion, old enough to
>be considered a legal adult and to make decisions about sexual
>relationships for himself.
>
	Welcome to the land of legalized child abuse! Eight year old female
prostitutes making the "decision" to support a 25 year old pimp, 10 year old
male hustlers pulling tricks for a place to stay the night and a meal.

	Great choices you offer!

>>This stuff is not far off of what NAMBLA proposes.  Perhaps
>>Cr*m*r will now start choose to rave about how libertarians
>>advocate child molestation?
>>

	Actually, its _worse_ than what NAMBLA offers! At least NAMBLA (or
its heterosexual counterpart the Rene Guyeon [sp?] Society) _claim_ that
they are concerned with the emotional and physical health of the child, and
that they oppose child prostitution and exploitation. This position doesn't
even offer _that_ much support.

>I really have no idea about what NAMBLA advocates with respect to
>age of consent laws. I doubt that they base their criteria upon
>whom it is permissible to have sex with upon self-sufficiency
>of children as the views that I've outlined.
>
	What self-sufficiency? You would permit the parent to decide not
only if the child should have sex (even if the child was 3 or 4 years old),
but if the child were to be permitted to remain in the home or turned out on
the streets as well!

	It's one thing to say that a teenager who makes an informed decision
to declare themself emancipated and to live independently of the parents
shold be able to engage in adult sexual behavior - that's not an
unreasonable position. But to eliminate _all_ age criteria and trust the
parent to do _what is best_ is both callous and unrealistic.

	It is _precisely_ these type of poorly thought out (or poorly
presented) positions that keep the Libertarians from attracting more
supporters. I can readily support concepts of personal choice, whether that
choice involves sexual behavior, lifestyle, or drug use - IF those choices
are limited to adults or legitimately emancipated teens. AND I can strongly
support children's rights with respect to legal structures and to their
families. But I cannot - and will not - support any party which would simply
allow children and/or parents to arbitrarily decide on behavior which can
radically affect the child's entire future. I cannot imagine any political
party being so short sighted as to assume _all_ parents - indeed all adults
- would think only of what is best for their children. That isn't politics,
it's fantasy!

>>Ooops, sorry, they'd have to be *gay* libertarians to catch
>>his interest.
>>
>I have no more reason to believe that gay libertarians are any more
>likely to be attracted to young boys than are gays of any other
>political persuasion. If anything, I would suppose them less likely
>to engage in sexual abuse because of their principled position in
>support of individual rights.
>
	I have no reason to assume gays of _any_ political persuasion would
be any more likely to be attracted to children than are heterosexuals. Otoh,
the Libertarian platform _as_you_have_presented_it_ is an open invitation to
molesters and abusers of _every_ persuasion.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)