Question for libertarians/anarchists

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AHuman, Jan 23, 2010.

  1. #1 AHuman, Jan 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2010
    So I was thinking that two consenting partners having sex is no business of the state or anyone really except the partners. This means that the age of consent in an anarchist or minarchist state would be voided, something I can agree with generally. However, this is where I've hit a rut - I feel that it's fine for two pubescent people to have sex consentually (most if not all teens experiment sexually naturally etc) and that this lack of legal babysitting in regards to the age of consent is a natural byproduct of your natural right to consent etc. However, what if one or both partners aren't pubescent?

    Biologically, it's against the general rule of nature and procreation - however, using condoms and whatever else is also a rejection of the fundamental nature of human sexuality and reproduction, and you'd have to a fool to propose banning or getting rid of contraception. But there must be some kind of way to draw a line in the sand officially and say that people below a certain level of maturity cannot be 'consenting partners'. This too bothers my sensitivities in regard to freedom, because it IS actually possible that a pre pubescent kid could be a consenting partner - for instance, two 10 year olds playing doctor or something. My sense of moral outrage at two kids having sex overrides this, but from a logical and rational political standpoint I don't know how I can officially align this support of government babysitting over peoples choices and private lives by supporting a general age of consent.

    If needs be, I'm prepared to say I'm a believer in liberty/freedom TO A POINT, the point being pre pubescent kids considered as sexual partners in the same mutually passionate, sexually invigorating way that lovers are, or even not considered sexual partners at all. Based on this, I'll state that my opinion is that I'd support government initiative to oppose acceptance of pedophilia or pre pubescent kids legally having sex, and subsequently for government utitlity to provide whatever kind of support and treatment to pedophiles so that the problem is solved without needing to incarcerate anyone who doesn't want to change etc.

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. Leave it up to the local community to decide what happens to a pedophile. As for 2 ten year olds getting it on, well I know of 11 year olds that are pretty active with their peers let's just say. When I was that age sex was still on the mind, but it wasn't at the top of the priority list of anyone I knew. Nowadays you've got little prostitotts running around still playing barbies. My point is, people are gonna do what they want anyways, even kids that don't have a clue as to what they want. And kids have to experiment with things too, it's all human nature. Deal with the pedophiles, but I wouldn't put too much thought into the rest of it.

    Good question I might add.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. #3 aaronman, Jan 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2010

    Policy affecting such personal social matters should be dealt with on a local level such as the state.

    In a make believe world where the US government follows the laws of the Constitution matters of legal paternalism would be held at the state level. This means federal abortion laws, marriage laws, drug laws, etc. would not be allowed by the Supreme Court (the hypothetical one that was supposed to enforce the constitution, not destroy it).
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page