This.

And the funny thing is we already know where they go from there... Say for example, if we asked "how would the ACists deal with oligarchy?". The answer is, of course, always... the magical hidden hand of the 'the market' will save us.

But when they get into dealing with children (and woman, by the way, but that's a different ball of LOLZ), that leads them directly to... wait for it... Rothbard's thriving market in children.

And where do they go from there... Well usually one of these...

(a) What are you? Attempting to change the subject to be about the questioner's beliefs.

(b) You must be a pedo yourself if you keep asking about this!

(c) That would be highly unlikely, sure... that makes as much sense as imagining as kicking each other in the groin. Let's be 'realistic'... PLEAZE

(d) We have pedos now, with all these 'statist' laws... (full stop)

(e) The Gubmint causes pedos by it's rules and regulations, pedos wouldn't exist without this Gubmint interference (aka The Libertarian Paradox).

(f) Or a tortured attempt to redefine enough words, usually including 'aggression', 'initiate', etc... to draw some arbitrary semantic distinction that reverse engineers whatever the libertarian's desired outcome happens to be.

And I'll repeat myself (cause I can). Every time youz guyz attempt do (f) above... you open up another gaping whole in your 'logic' somewhere else. The problem is, once again, this whole NAPpy 'Axiom'-loltasticalness just doesn't work. It's bad philosophy, and always, by it's own definition, gives terrible, anti-human, hideous outcomes when followed to it's rotten 'logical' roots.

Here, try thinking about it this way...

I thought we were having a normal conversation. "Crushing" you hadn't really crossed my mind. But this at least reveals your mindset.


I explained that there is no harm in a teenage relationship, by saying that girls mentally mature faster than guys, so the two people in the relationship have a smaller difference in their mental age than in their biological age. I'm not sure in how much detail you expect me to explain. For example, girls' orbitofrontal cortex has a higher relative volume than boys'. The orbitofrontal cortex is very important in impulse control (and emotional intelligence in general) and decision making. The limbic system also develops faster in girls than in boys.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/39/16988.abstract

What's incredibly frustrating is that none of that is ever taken into account. Government bureaucrats decide they can interfere with the natural bonding between teenagers and send them to prison with no evidence that any of what those teens do is harmful to anybody.

These laws can ruin lives, agree? This isn't about "crushing" each other in interwebz debates.

That there is a measurable difference in brain development between boys and girls (I'm not even sure your article elaborates over what time scale that difference occurs) is not proof that 19 yos banging 14 yos is a healthy, natural, and desirable outcome.

And by the way, to all you guys who are saying "but he got a court order to stay away!" - this is exactly the problem that I'm talking about. So two people love each other but can't be together because of a court order? Come on people, be reasonable! Or rather put yourself in those teenagers' shoes. Do you really want to live in a world in which people follow court orders like sheep, no matter how stupid that court order was or how stupid the underlying law was?

Imagine you were 24 years old and were in a long-term relationship with a 20 year old but for some reason the lawmakers in your country decided to push the legal age of consent for sexual activity to 21. Are you really going to break up with your girlfriend because the law says so? Please be fair here.

The legal age of consent for sexual activity in Spain is 13. And not surprisingly, in every Spanish school there are many relationships similar to the one in the article I posted which don't get prosecuted criminally. So what does that mean the exact same relationship would be perfectly acceptable in Spain but a pedophile relationship in USA? Or if they decide to push the age of consent to, say, 16 in Spain, a 17-year-old dating a 15-year-old would turn from a normal guy into a pervy deviant? Because the law says so?

http://www.pnas.org.sci-hub.org/cont...expansion.html

Okay, so let's say we have person A and person B (both teenagers) engaged in a long-term romantic relationship which also includes sex. Then we find out that there is an age gap between the two. On whom lies the burden of proof here: on those saying that the older of the two should go to prison or on the couple? You (or whoever) are suggesting that we should forcefully break them up. Based on what? Your personal common sense? You really think that (with no actual evidence) trumps the rights of the couple?

What kind of proof would you expect from them anyway? I'm giving indirect evidence for why teenage relationships aren't problematic even when there is an age gap of a few years. Do you think I should find a study titled "Nineteen-year-olds banging 14-year-olds is healthy, natural, and desirable"? That's really not how science works. There are infinitely many questions that could be raised and it is in no way practical to always look for 100% direct answer. Sometimes we have to make some inferences based on other things we know. And in this case, we know that females mature faster and therefore the mental age gap is really much smaller than the biological age gap.

From youtube to tumblr to a site called pnas... I see a progression!

Consider the law is not stupid, the girl in question was 15, the parents wanted me away, all reasonable parties told me to stop then yes I think people should blindly follow court orders like this.

Okay, this has not happened. But if it did, all you would have to do is not have sex with her. This guy probably could have kept dating this girl at 18/14 without any problems if he had just not had sex with her while she was pretty much a child.

I cannot speak to that. But yeah, they are an outlier.

Phrenology itt.

Did you read the cartoon? It's actually pretty good, and it makes the right points about the problems with overcriminalization. It's very clearly something a particular lawyer drew to creatively express his frustrations with the criminal justice system.

I don't mean to leap to la6ki's defense here, since I think he pretty thoroughly embarrassed himself (honestly, anyone who isn't embarrassed by Rothbard should seriously reconsider their political strategy), but I think you've picked the wrong point to harp on.

I'm sorry, but these comments are so stupid they practically drool. You can't use the fact that the law criminalizes his initial conduct (or the consequences flowing therefrom) as evidence that his later conduct displays some pathological attraction to younger girls, nor can you use it to argue that he's a criminal deserving of criminal punishment. That's both misguided and (obviously) viciously circular.

Moreover, it's disingeunous in the extreme to use the legal age of consent as some sort of categorical definition for what would or wouldn't make his behavior psychologically abnormal. The fact that that the law prohibits certain sexual encounters does not make them psychologically abnormal; and worse, it's an entirely backwards model of criminality to ascribe guilt prospectively based on what you think these acts indicate about his character. Whether or not you or anyone else find these behaviors to be "gross" or "weird" is irrelevant; it has no bearing whatsoever on the question whether this young man can mature into someone who exhibits normal, healthy patterns of attraction to appropriately aged people, a question that seems to have escaped your consideration in your ardent zeal to condemn the high school senior who had sex with his freshman girlfriend.

Evidently it's your opinion that, since this is a crime, obviously the sexual act itself was grossly deviant, and obviously the law should prohibit it, and furthermore this defendant is some sort of uncontrollable pervert who will likely end up molesting children one day. Christ.

So yeah notice that this internet thread about how libertarians can best influence public policy has been taken over by some weird dude's quixotic crusade against statutory rape being a crime?

So, libertarians are really just like Republicans in their concern over what constitutes "legitimate" rape?

DrModern- I did read the cartoon, and my first thought while reading it is that it was badly in need of citations. I thought they might be at the end, but they sure weren't. And that made me angry. What's the target market for that cartoon, politically active children who run sketchy import/export firms?

Also, while I'm sure in la6ki's brain it speaks to the same issue as statutory rape laws(government=bad!!!!! very bad!!! Bureaucrats!!!!!!!), Lacey Act violations have very little to do with any of the subjects people were discussing.

Do you even know what phrenology is?

So, you're telling me you've been having healthy sex with your girlfriend for years, you have a perfectly functional relationship... And you will quit having sex with her for a full year (or why not even more if she was, say, 18 at the time the law was passed) just because a government bureaucrat told you so?

Why can't you speak to that? That's the whole point. Our moral judgments should be independent of the laws.

No idea. I randomly picked a sciency sounding word out of the dictionary hoping to make a sooper srs point.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you think I've embarrassed myself because I'm not embarrassed by Rothbard?

Clearly you don't.

Well, obviously I can. It's my personal diagnosis on a limited set of facts. He was given an extremely simple directive, don't contact a 15 year old girl. Maybe he will move on with his life now that he spent a combined 7 years in prison and is taking classes about not raping kids. I'm comfortable with my completely worthless internet diagnosis. Also, I did not say he was pathological. I said he has a problem, which is pretty obvious that he does.

It's not that the acts are abnormal. The problem is that the kids don't functionally understand the consequences of their actions. That's demonstrated by the fact that an 18 year old knowingly had sex with a 14 year old who had a father that expressed his disgust with this pedo relationship.

No, the sex act was not grossly deviant in an of itself. Horny kids want to have sex with each other, no shock to anyone. But at some point the law has to step in and help stop 19 year olds from raping 15 year olds who cannot functionally consent.

I don't know if he's an uncontrollable pervert who will attack and rape other kids based on the rape of this girl. I do know that he really lacks self control when he could not stay away from her after spending a year in prison for having sex with her. Nothing wrong with taking issue with me claiming he has issues being attracted to underage women based on a single relationship. But you have to be completely obtuse to not come to the conclusion that this guy has serious control issues that may take the form of being attracted to underage women.

No, I am telling you that your hypo has zero basis in reality.

I cannot speak to how their society looks at those relationships between 18+ people an 13 year olds. I saw an article, that I could not find, that spoke about how there are clamorings in Spain to raise the age of consent. I am sure they will eventually. Because it is pretty creepy to have adults manipulate children into having sex with them. People generally don't like to publicly admit to supporting sex where one party cannot functionally consent.

Don't be obtuse. It's a cartoon on someone's personal blog, not a brief. I think the obvious, albeit implicit, point was that many instances of statutory rape are instances of overcriminalization.

A 15-year-old girl can't "functionally" consent (whatever that means). Source?

What are you looking for here? Do you want an abstract from a scientific peer reviewed publication that speaks to physical brain development of a 15 year old?

Oh come on..

JFC, you sound worse than me in full on troll mode.

I'm not accustomed to seeing this level of histrionics from you.

"What the actual law is UNKNOWABLE. In other words it is impossible to predict what kinds of things can land you in jail."

No, this cartoon is kind of bad.

Should I have said statutory rapist? I'm not trying to troll you. He's a creep who lacks self control. That's honestly what I think.

I certainly feel for this guy getting a year in prison when he was 18. That really messed up his life and took away a real chance to move on from the bad decisions he made by getting into this relationship. After that he should have known better. There are only so many chances this guy can get before it is obvious that he just does not get it.