We've made lots of attempts to understand your point of view. That's why we've asked you a ton of questions. We're asking you questions to increase our understanding of your point of view.

To be fair none of us really understand the "something something" part of how "bad things happening to children" will be stopped via social norms w/o coercion.

Did you pay your taxes this? Did you pay an arbiter this year?

Would you hire someone or sell goods that likes to that likes to touch little boys?

If you were an arbiter, would you find that damage has been done if someone molested a boy?

I think I made an honest attempt to understand it and I think I mostly got it. Do you not agree that issues like this are some of the major weak points of libertarian philosophy?

I don't disagree at all. However, as I tried to point out to wookie 4 pages ago, you guys are talking about a worst case end point that ALREADY EXISTS NOW WITHIN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM.

No, but plenty of people would, which puts me at an economic disadvantage. Also this doesn't do anything to stop NAMBLA enclaves. Also if you really care about little kids do you think market forces are the quickest or most effective way to stop their abuse? How would you feel if AC-land happened and (ostensibly consensual) child prostitution went up tenfold? Would you be ok with passing some laws at that point?

I, and other statists ITT, think the alternative you present will be much much worse and there will be no means of punishment or prevention.

I have a different take on children's rights than other libertarians. The concept of consent is important but there is really more to it. You'd have to search through this thread but there is some good theory toward the end. link

The 'essential nature' of the thing in question has to be considered when talking about it as "property".

I'm not going to redo the IP debate, but even IP proponents will say that there needs to be special rules for this type of ownership vs. other things. So, the term we use when referring to "ownership" of a child or invalid is usually something like 'guardianship'.

Even if 99% of an area, call it a little 100 sq. mile town or whatever, all agree that they want to be bound by certain rules like no pot smoking, no gay PDAs, etc., it would still be unjust to impose that on the other 1%.

Sure, the de facto rule may be that those 1% are SOL and they better get bigger guns or comply, but this is still different than democratic majoritarianism with religious nonsense like social contracts. Not every issue is such a slam dunk as child prostitution or racism being bad.

The economics of security where everyone has to pay for their feuding is different to how states can just externalize the costs of their agenda. Something more 50-50 like abortion, you'd probably have it being legal because while everyone has an opinion on this it doesn't actually affect most peoples' lives.

What is ACland? Is that where instead of government they build a gator moat around the Walmart?

So the fact that current child labor/abuse/prostitution laws aren't 100% effective proves they aren't even needed? Hey lets wipe those murder laws off the books too, since people still get killed all the time.

The problem for the gibbertarians is that their "ideal" cannot be explained "well", or explained as a coherent and intelligible whole by anyone. Because it's simply not coherent or intelligible at all. The whole genre, from Birchers unto ACists, is simply some LOLtastically simpleminded cold war propaganda which somehow the Koches of the world have lurching on long after the fall of the Berlin Wall. And the "ideal"'s ability to be pseudo-persuasive is because of, bottom line and quite literally: overt sophistry, changing the subject to the "THE STATE" and the "THE FED", and the use of "special" words.

Saying the "other peoples" so-called "ideal" is an exercise in sophistry isn't a sign of us refusing to "understand" their point of view. In this case, it's a sign of understanding the ACist "ideal" perfectly. No not exactly... first off Walwart is real, and so not a part of the ACists alter-verse. And second... they don't do any work themselves. They might hire other people to build a moat however.

But you get the idea, ACland is a magical place where the leaders live in castles and frolic with their free ponies, while the rest of us get to be sharecroppers or something, something, something to support their parasitic lifestyle.

OK, but now we have a town where 99% of the populace believes that 13yo boys can consent to paper routes but not sex with old men, but 1% that sees no difference between the two. They're not going to sit by and let this happen

Your missing the point suzzer. The coercive social rules are used against the people. I'm looking at you drug laws etc. I'm talking about laws in other countries that allow child labor. I'm talking about laws in our country which support these countries. I'm talking about monetary assistance to countries who would kill every child in their country to get a few more barrels of oil out of the ground.

Pretty interesting that you are lining me up with the Koches when these are the people who are writing the rules for forced social rules which I'm against (read as you still have a total failure to understand my position here).

Semantic nitpicking here, but we need to make clear the difference between "coercion" or any use of violence whatsoever and "aggression" or the 'initiation of violence'.

For there to be any law at all, coercion must be used. Libertarianism basically says don't start shiz with other people, not that you can't use coercion when justified. The ideas of private property, first appropriation, etc. help us determine what is justified.

What might become codified is that the local dominant security forces would have a protocol for girls in miniskirts looking sub-15 to be picked up and an attempt would be made to contact their parents and such.

If the girl is still whatever age and has been manumitted... she has made the conscious decision to go out on her own, consent to the trade of prostitution, and is able to sustain herself, there would be no way to compel her to return to her parents just because of some arbitrary number (if we're to follow the guidelines of libertarian law anyhow).

Again, what makes you think that these social constructs will be any different than they are now?

I didn't know what you were even talking about at all (sex with old men) and still that isn't clear enough for me to say anything. Are you talking about children being abused by their own parents or what?

If you read my link above you will get an idea what the standards would be like. Raping a child doesn't aid it in becoming a moral agent and parental "ownership" is limited to those types of actions. So if you are talking about child rape, who cares what % thinks what because it would be a reason for the local SWAT to take down a Sandusky.

The last part is important. Libertarian or praxeological law is not an all-encompassing worldview. It doesn't say smoke weed or not, just that based on the same sort of understanding about civil society, voluntary interaction and such as with Austrian economics—assuming these types of things are taken as "good" and that we're to be consistent—libertarian law just says what should be considered rights violations or not.

So, one famous but unpopular tenet of libertarianism is rights of free association AKA legalized racism. What the people who bitch about forget is that it would be also legal to discriminate against racists and that maybe racism would finally be extinguished fully. States, by granting carte blanche to everyone with a swastika on their forehead perpetuates racism.

Also, even if a collection of 3 (or whatever) local dominant arbitration firms all want to agree to abide by libertarian law fully, nothing requires them to act to enforce the law. They could wink at the group who wants to go lynch the guy who sets up a segregated lunch counter or run a teen brothel.

I think I get it now. In ACland they put turrets up to defend the 7-Eleven® and you get shot on site for stealing corn out of your neighbors garden?

And he is making a good faith effort to understand the AC argument, right?

Seriously, that was just stupid. Do better people. It's counterintuitive but you really should try to at least learn what you are talking about and wish to argue against.

Proportionality would say that killing someone far exceeds the required force to respond to theft, especially when it is some corn out in a field and not a home invasion.

Yeah, Regret$, seems like a pretty good faith attempt to understand this ****.

"Proportionality" is another abitrary statist invention, by the way. Who are you to tell ME what is proportionate?

Well sure suzzer99, what don't you understand with the underlying "reasoning" besides all gibbertarian deregulation arguments: Attempted governmental regulation of X is what causes X, unlike private regulation that works 180 degrees differently. The only way to get rid of X is the eliminate any attempted governmental regulation of X.

This little "fact" is true of child prostitution, food safety, traffic engineering, you name it. So of course pointing out that things like child prostitution, or unjustified killing actually happen right now -- that's complete and 100% proof that none of the law enforcement (those ZOMG RAPE CAGES), nor even the stigma of being accused of something illegal, all has exactly zero deterrence value. Proof positive, how can you argue with that?

But it still leaves some questions un-answered: if the governments threatening harsh disincentives to people caught doing bad thing X causes more X to happen, would the governments offering rewards for doing bad things X cause less X to happen?

I mean, according to gibbertarian regulatory "theory" does the governmental deterrence function work this way...

.. .. .. .. X ^
.. .. .. X .. |
.. .. .. .. .. positive bad X
.. .. .. .. ..
X X X .. .. zero bad X

^ ^ ------------ governmental reward for doing X
.. .. ^----------- governmental indifference
.. .. .. ^ ^------ attempted governmental punishments

.. .. .. .. X <-
.. .. .. X .. <- move X
.. .. X .. .. zero X
.. X .. .. .. <-
X .. .. .. .. <- less X

^ ^ ------------ governmental reward for doing X
.. .. ^----------- governmental indifference
.. .. .. ^ ^------ attempted governmental punishments for doing X

Well now there are two whole disincentives, legal (prison, the stigma of being accused of something illegal) and social norms (old goats shouldn't sodomize children). The ACists claim, without any reason whatsoever except their general deregulation argument noted above, that the first disencentive, the legal one, is completely and 100% ineffective, so... what makes you think that these social constructs will be any different than what they are now?

Well, we got ACists making us think that, because they are championing changing the status quo to legalize child sodomy. Just like they champion the "rights" of racists to discriminate. That's why.