Signal Intelligence About The LP

Loading Table of Contents...

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Starchild's Seniors No Help For Ruwart

Starchild, the fundamental reality you're ignoring is that the competence difference between a 5-year-old and a 15-year-old is much more predictable than that between, say, a 70-year-old and an 80-year-old.  Similarly, there is a far wider range of competence among 80-year-olds than there is among 5-year-olds.

You've said nothing here about seniors that can even begin to rescue Dr. Ruwart's positions on children, specifically
  • There should be no protection by the state of children from sexual predation, because private defense markets and charity and homesteading of guardianship rights will protect children (even from their guardians) better than the state does;
  • The readiness of children to enter contracts for sexual commerce should be determined not by the judgment of their parents, but by the risk-of-default tolerance of the strangers seeking to contract with those children;
  • Pubescent children can be competent to decide to engage in sexual commerce simply because they are old enough for biological "desire", but pre-pubescent children may or may not be competent to engage in sexual commerce because of financial desire (e.g. to feed their family).
  • Parents have no positive obligation to care for their children, and anyone who thus abrogates her guardianship rights can have them homesteaded away from her.
  • Someone convicted of raping a child merely needs to either cut a check for damages, or (if he doesn't have the cash) work off the damages in the work-prison of his choice, but the victim or victim's family might decide to engage in some non-restitutional prior restraint and imprison the rapist for life.
In Ruwart's words:
  • "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make for choice is just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life." [I haven't seen the anarchist Ruwart write explicitly on how minors would be protected from their guardians, so I attribute to her the least-bad anarchist answer I've heard, about homesteading guardianship rights.]
  • "In practice, you would decide if a child is old enough to enter into a contract with you. Is the child willing and able to provide the contracted service to you?"
  • "Courts are likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred."
  • “Libertarians of this ['predominant'] persuasion generally believe that parents do not have a duty to support their offspring”. [This suggests that Ruwart agrees with Rothbard that parents have a “right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. ...The parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.”]
  • "Work prisons would be owned and operated by private firms with suitable expertise. Inmates could choose the facility that offered them the working conditions most conducive to the repayment of their debt. The ability of the prisoner to choose between competing institutions would provide incentive for the prisons to provide the most pleasant and productive conditions possible. [...] Of course, aggressors can harm others in ways that cannot be totally undone. Monetary compensation to a person who has been raped or maimed, or to families whose loved ones have been killed, does not make things right again. In some cases, the victims, their family, or their insurance company might accept a monetary settlement as the best compensation available. The victims, their family, or their insurance company might insist that a repeat offender be imprisoned permanently so he or she could not strike again."
I don't see the point of you re-opening the Ruwart-on-child-sexuality can of worms, but now that you've done so a question occurs to me.  In the past you've advocated restoring the controversial Children's Rights plank but you didn't include such a plank in your current PlatCom application. Are you prepared to say before the LNC votes on your application which of the above Ruwart positions (if any) you disagree with?

No comments: