From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:59:32 PDT

In article <q38mgcg.adamsr@netcom.com>, on 16 Aug 92 20:11:57 GMT,
adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>
>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?
>
A petulant child running away from home because of (temporary) anger
with his parents does not seem to me to be the same thing as a child
assuming full responsibility for his food, shelter, clothing, and
other obligations. In the latter case, the child is a de facto adult
and must be presumed competent in all his affairs. I don't see why
he should be deemed responsible in all matters except for sex.

>        The pimps and the sweat shops are going to _love_ that one!
>
No more so than they already do. Pimps control their prostitutes
through coercive force and the threat of force. Whoever said that
this should not be a crime?

As to so-called sweatshops, frequently, hard work for long hours is
the initial step to a process of acquisition of marketable skills and
the betterment of one's economic lot in life. No doubt such an
alternative seems unattractive to you; however, it is a better option
than condemnation to a life on welfare.

>        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?
>
What makes you a better judge of their alternatives than they
themselves?

>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?
>
You've answered your own question. They're doing it *now*. At least in
a libertarian society, a child's right to seek other guardians who have
the child's best interests at heart would be recognized and protected.
>>>
>>>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!
>
You've misstated the platform. A child who lives in his parents home
does not have the liberty to make his own choices; he must obey the
rules set down by the parents, seek other guardians, or establish his
autonomy. As to sexual behavior, if both the child and the parents
consent, what exactly would prevent it from happening today in a
non-libertarian society? And, aside from your pop-psych notions that
this is not a good thing, on what basis do you make that determination?

Age laws *are* arbitrary. Criteria for autonomy should be based upon
demonstrable ability to function, not chronological age. There are many
over 18 who cannot or will not assume responsibility for their actions
as well. 

>>>
>>>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!
>
Do you know something about pimping that I don't? :-)

At least as the situation is usually portrayed in TV movies, the
prostitute is not free to terminate a relationship with a pimp, but
is forced or threatened with force to turn over 90% of his/her
earnings. In a libertarian society, such criminal behavior could
actually be prosecuted. As things are now, the prostitute remains
silent out of fear of prosecution by the law.

>>>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!
>
You really are determined to read something into the platform that is
not there, aren't you? The platform states that the parents have the
right to seek other guardians for the child if they can't or don't
want to support him. It is silent as to whether parents can turn the
child out into the streets having failed to make such provision.

The Libertarian Party Platform is not a perfect document handed down
by the Almighty. There are clearly issues wrt children that must be
thought out and developed further. What it is is a first step toward
the recognition of children's rights and a significant advance over
what is currently practiced in society today.

>        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.
>
If a child is capable of providing for all of his needs and assuming
all legal responsibilities of adulthood independently of his parents,
why should this be prohibited by law? The de facto situation of his
actually establishing such independence demolishes your assumption
that an age test is necessary.

See my above remarks covering the situation regarding sex when both
the parents and the child consent.

>        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!
>
You're the one who lives in a fantasy world if you think that any
party is going to enunciate positions with which you are in 100%
agreement. By opting for the status quo, which is where you're at
if you support the non-positions of the Democrats and Republicans, you
effectively endorse both institutionalized child abuse AND the absence
of children's rights.

>>>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,
>
Good! Then we agree on something, anyway.

>the Libertarian platform _as_you_have_presented_it_ is an open invitation to
>molesters and abusers of _every_ persuasion.
>
Only because that's what YOU would like to read into it. You have
absolutely no evidence to support your irrational belief that
recognition of children's rights are open invitations to child
molesters and abusers. What is clear is that the plank represents an
opportunity for children to end up with better guardians than they
might have with their natural parents. It also provides a means for
children who have abusive parents to escape that environment without
having to run away to the streets or become wards/prisoners of the
state.

>--
>    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)
>
    ====Jack====