My libertarianism has its limits

by Robert Koehler on June 2, 2006

I consider myself quite liberal in terms of sexual and cultural issues, but I do have my limits.

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

1 MrChips June 2, 2006 at 11:16 am: Well, I’m gonna put my blogging neck in the noose here knowing some folks just won’t accept any questioning of mores. Anyway, I’m a full-blooded card carrying libertarian so to me this is another example of how the government has stepped in and through legal witchcraft turned pedophilia into something that its not. I’m not exactly sure where to draw the line on age but to call an attraction to 14 or 15 year olds pedophilia, I think detracts from the real issue of sickos out there abusing children, i.e. pre-pubescent. I mean really, while we’ve been programmed to understand that 14, 15 and 16 year olds are off limits, by that definition our forefathers were all a bunch of pedophiles. I understand that in today’s culture we aren’t raising kids to be as emotionally mature as before or as possible but that doesn’t somehow turn a physical attraction into something wrong does it? If the government is going to do anything to help real victims they need to get their head out of their collective ass and hunt down the real pedophiles, the ones abusing and manipulating children, not people who were once thought of as prime marrying age. The real pedophiles should then receive the full weight of the law, life in prison without parole. Then you wouldn’t need to spend money keeping track of sex offenders.

Now again, I don’t know what the age limit should be; maybe the age should remain 16 just to remain above the pale; maybe we should even raise it to 18. But, the outrage over wanting to reduce the consensual age to 12 seems slightly hypocritical. The real question of morality should be whether coercion, of any kind, was involved and that should apply to any age whatsoever no matter if they are 15, 30, or 82. Does anyone think it’s more inappropriate for a man to woo a 15 year old than to manipulate a college freshman into sleeping with them with visions of marriage, only to disappear the next day? If so, I think this is a case of “I’m not affected by it so I’m gonna make up a pointless standard which I can use to inflate my own sense of righteousness.” Well hooha… Personally, I don’t get what dudes see in 25 year olds, let alone 15 years olds. I’ll take my mature 40 year olds over any of ‘em.
2 dogbertt June 2, 2006 at 11:17 am: Van den Berg said he was surprised by the reactions. “Ten years ago we were on speaking terms with society but ever since the Dutroux-affair [a notorious child killer jailed in 2004] in Belgium, nothing has been open for discussion. Society just ignores us.”

********

Unbelievable.

They’re lucky then that they’re simply ignored.
3 kushibo June 2, 2006 at 11:42 am: Mr. Chips wrote:
I mean really, while we’ve been programmed to understand that 14, 15 and 16 year olds are off limits,

Well, the issue is that they’re trying to lower the age of sexual consent to 12, and eventually get rid of it entirely.

by that definition our forefathers were all a bunch of pedophiles.

Well if “our forefathers did it” is the standard, let’s also allow rape, murder, incest, and the whole lot of things people got away with in the past.

I understand that in today’s culture we aren’t raising kids to be as emotionally mature as before or as possible but that doesn’t somehow turn a physical attraction into something wrong does it?

It’s not the physical attraction that gets people in trouble, it’s the pursuit of it that does. It often goes beyond mere physical attraction and involves emotional manipulation, of people who are too young and too immature to protect themselves or make proper decisions. It’s about protecting people who need protecting, not allowing something based on a technicality of birthdate.

If the government is going to do anything to help real victims they need to get their head out of their collective ass and hunt down the real pedophiles, the ones abusing and manipulating children, not people who were once thought of as prime marrying age.

The Dutch pedophiles are trying to obscure even that, Mr. Chips, by eliminating the age of consent. Thus the “real pedophile” who has sex with an eight-year-old or younger will still be within the law.

As a libertarian, where are the limits, or are there none?
4 MrChips June 2, 2006 at 12:16 pm: Kushibo, I always like your responses as they make me think more and evaluate EXACTLY what I believe.

Kushibo wrote:

Well, the issue is that they’re trying to lower the age of sexual consent to 12, and eventually get rid of it entirely.

I understand that completely I don’t have any doubt that those yahoos are up to no good. Nevertheless it’s our own mores that say 14, 15, and 16 year olds are off limits and that simple “technical” definition of morality is wrong.

Well if “our forefathers did it” is the standard, let’s also allow rape, murder, incest, and the whole lot of things people got away with in the past.

I was a little disappointed with this response. Not everything our forefathers did was bad and making up an age standard by which we can should label them pedophiles retrospectively is in somewhat poor taste. Is it not feasible that the young people who entered into marriage then did so willingly and in full maturity without coercion? The occurrence of murder, rape, and incest then has no bearing on this issue just like it has no bearing on the issue now. People are still murdering, raping and committing incest. Why don’t we make the concencual age 30. I’ve been hard pressed to find too many people mature enough to enter marriage at that age too ( I speak as a fool, of course) and the fact that murder takes place doesn’t make my statement right.

It’s about protecting people who need protecting, not allowing something based on a technicality of birthdate.

Exactly!! And I thought I implied that. That level of protection is something we can’t do as long as we cling to a technical “birthdate” to define our mores on sex. Pedophilia is a desire for and/or realization of sexual contact with a pre-pubescent person. That doesn’t carry with it a defined age and I think it’s perfectly legitimate for the law to specify an age above what is necessary in order to protect the immature and vulnerable children.

But the point I was making is that we are being hypocrits to focus on only the manipulation of younger people when manipulation takes place, quite effectively by gauging some expat behavior in Korea, at ages well above what’s at issue here.

The Dutch pedophiles are trying to obscure even that, Mr. Chips, by eliminating the age of consent. Thus the “real pedophile” who has sex with an eight-year-old or younger will still be within the law.

That may be and they should be fought on all sides. However, that doesn’t give the rest of us fingerpointers the right to lump all people who have sexual relations with 14, 15 or 16 year olds into one big nasty family with these Dutch dudes who want to eventually legalize sex with 8 year olds. Nor does it give us the right to exonerate ourselves from the debauched behavior that goes on all over the world between supposedly “consenting” adults where manipulation is clearly in play.

Where are the limits? I don’t know but legally we can set them pretty high, that’s fine. But I think the limits for society should also be more sincere and take a more candid view of where to place the blame in all areas of sexual manipulation.
5 Haisan June 2, 2006 at 12:36 pm: Libertarians traditionally put the limits on adulthood. How one defines “adult” has some wiggleroom (so to speak), but certainly not 12.

Age of consent is just 14 in Canada (just no anal sex until you are 18, that is against the law). And, last I checked, a girl could get married at 12 in Quebec with the concent of her parents. Love that Code Napoleon. But most people think Canada has overdone it, and are trying to get the age raised to 16 or so.

That said, people can advocate whatever they want. As long as they obey the laws they are trying to change. I cannot imagine a society where a party based on that platform could get more than a minimum number of votes. Loonies.
6 Iceberg June 2, 2006 at 12:43 pm: Age of consent is just 14 in Canada (just no anal sex until you are 18, that is against the law).

And here I thought Canada was a back~~door~~wards country.
7 jameslayne June 2, 2006 at 12:44 pm: U sickos. Hahaha!
8 R. Elgin June 2, 2006 at 4:05 pm: Whether the subject is pedophilia, mystical healing energy from quartz crystals, Tarot decks that have bad vibes or intelligent design, Intellectual, moral and spiritual dellusion is quite fashionable nowadays.
9 kushibo June 2, 2006 at 4:22 pm: I was a little disappointed with this response.

Well, as I was once told, “You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: Never try.”

Fortunately for me, I’m only here to please myself.
10 Remort June 3, 2006 at 1:35 am: Bear in mind, that in many third-world countries people often are wed by this age of 12 years-old (as soon as puberty begins, 10 – 14 years of age). However, I understand, that there is a clear difference in starting a family to get more hands available to farm and provide for the family, than lowering the age of consent for porn participants.

To make their intent even more clear, is to understand their desire to legalize beastiality too. This is just disgusting! Kids ought to be allowed to be kids, not humping (animals and each other) on videos for cash. But then again, Scandanavia is the land of porn actress politicians.
11 Remort June 3, 2006 at 1:55 am: I hate to follow up to my own post, but I will. Watch any of these silly American talk shows and you’re bound to see “teen pregnancy” shows, with kids wanting to have a kid as young as possible to get on the welfare dime.

For you non-Americans reading this, it might surprise you to know that anyone in the States can have as many kids as you’d like and the government will keep writing you welfare checks, providing free food, free housing, and free medical care until your kids are 18 years-old. So, obviously the outcome of this is generation after generation of illiterate and unproductive citizens that can’t provide for themselves.

I can’t see how allowing children to engage in pornographic acts will produce any different of an outcome.
12 railwaycharm June 3, 2006 at 11:54 am: Sick