From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:08:52 GMT

jb> Jim Burke
gs> Gary Strand
lp> Libertarian Party 1992 platform

lp> "Children should always have the right to establish their maturity
lp>  by assuming administration and protection of their own rights,
lp>  ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and
lp>  assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood."

gs> Now, where Jim gets the idea that child-abuse laws will be repealed is
gs> by a libertarian society is beyond me. Perhaps he can explain further.
gs> BTW, the LP doesn't want to repeal laws against rape either.

jb> Where I got the idea was from the Libertarian platform that states (in 
jb> paraphrase) that all laws based upon a person's age should be rescinded.

  Do you know why? Because age is not a good indicator of ethical maturity
  and level of responsibility. I know teenagers that are more mature than
  some 30-35ers I've met. 

jb> Therefore, it would be impossible to pass a law preventing an adult from
jb> having sex with a child based upon the child's age. 

  Because it isn't the age that's the gauge, it's maturity. So, we change the
  laws from age-based to maturity-based.

jb> I presume what Gary is pointing out is that if a child is allowed to
jb> establish their maturity legally, then they have the right to sexual
jb> consent, whatever their age.

  Trust me, it's not going to be simply a matter of a kid saying "I'm a big
  person now, treat me like an adult", and the rest of us adults merely take
  her at her word and let it go at that. How dumb do you think libertarians
  are, anyway?

jb> It would seem that under such a scenario, every single person would have
jb> to, at some point in their lives, prove that they possessed the maturity
jb> to be declared an "adult".  Until that point, they are subject to parental
jb> control, not government control.

  Generally speaking, yes. They would have to prove their maturity.

jb> This makes "non-mature" children basically the property of their parents.

  Not quite. It makes non-mature children the responsibility of their guard-
  ian(s), whomever that may be. Parents, usually, but not always. Libertar-
  ians have no problem with communal parental relationships. We don't think
  that children are *property*, any more than we think adults are property.

jb> Can any 3 year old consent to sex?  I don't think so.

  And obviously, I agree.

jb> Can the government ban sex with a 3 year old?  Not under the Libertarian
jb> platform.

  The government can ban acts which do not receive the consent of all involv-
  ed, which, since you say that a 3-year-old can't give consent, ergo, sex
  with a non-consenting person would be illegal. The age is immaterial in
  the broadest sense, since lack of consent is the real issue, correct?

jb> Who can prevent or grant this consent on behalf of the child? The parent.

  Parents cannot force their children to consent. Again, you're operating
  from the misconception that libertarians view children as mere property
  of their parents. The sections I posted from the platform made it quite
  clear that this is not the case. 

jb> And what if it is the parent who wants to have sex with the child? Who
jb> then protects the child's rights?  The government? On what basis? Not
jb> age, according to the Libertarian platform.  

  Lack of consent. Sorry, but no amount of protest by the parents would con-
  vince a jury that, yes, little 2-year-old Timmy really did want to have
  anal intercourse with Daddy. Give us all a break and quit equating liber-
  tarians with pedophiles. You're almost as bad as Cramer.

jb> So, some "maturity" test would determine whether the child was able to
jb> consent. And if the child was not able to consent, then I suppose the
jb> government could do something.

  That's right, protect the child's rights. Children do have rights.

jb> However, when it comes to children around the age of puberty, say eleven
jb> to fifteen, I can see the court battles raging.

  Probably. There are no hard-n-fast rules.

jb> Establishing maturity by non-age based means will require some other 
jb> objective criteira for assessing a person's maturity.  What such objective
jb> criteria exist?  Would a parent be able to control the life of a 20 year
jb> old person if they were as irresponsible and immature as most 12 year 
jb> olds?

  Perhaps. I'll let a jury of individuals decide such cases, based upon the
  facts and the specific context. I don't think it's possible to decide all
  possible permutations (with accompanying rules) beforehand. Let's judge
  each case on its merits, with an eye toward general principles. Is that
  so wrong?
--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35669 alt.politics.clinton:543