Topic: Libertarianism
Open letter to Shane Cory (LP Exec. Dir.) & Andrew Davis (LP Media Coordinator) Regarding your press release "Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography."by Christine Smith
(Libertarian)
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Dear Shane & Andrew, I appreciated your press release "Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography." ([link edited for length])
Your press release was powerful in that it illustrates how libertarians can lead government (and society) into a more libertarian direction by using such controversial issues to express a better approach. You correctly balanced your statement condoning the need for greater communication between law enforcement agencies while simultaneously focusing upon protection of privacy rights. Further, you elucidated a clear libertarian perspective contrasting victim-less crimes (and the enormous resources wasted on them) versus real crimes such as those in which the the individual rights of the life and liberty of , in this case, children, are at stake.
Thank you for having the courage to express a libertarian perspective on such a matter and for defending the integrity of the LP on this issue. The last thing our party needs is to become associated with an anarchist viewpoint when it comes to the safety of children.
Shane & Andrew, you did an excellent job, as our Executive Director & our Media Coordinator, sharing a libertarian approach to a most difficult and tragic matter in our nation.
Christine Smith
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 15 thumbs so far
2008 Christine Smith, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, April 26, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, April 26, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Christine Smith only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Christine Smith is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
One thing about that LP press release that bothered me a bit is that there was no acknowledgement of the fact that crime is not, constitutionally, a federal mandate, outside of a few specific things, like counterfeiting. The FBI, technically, is not a constitutional agency, yet the LP calls on it to fight child pornography. The LP press release basically calls for a government war on child porn.
Something to consider is that whenever we try to use the coercive powers of government to try to stop something, we generally end up getting more of that thing or, at least, creating a lot of damage while simultaneously not reducing the problem in question.
The war on drugs creates perverse incentives which increase crime, violence and the damage that is often done by drug use. The war on poverty created more poverty. Government attempts to provide affordable health care drive up the price and reduce the quality of health care. Attempts to end discrimination sometimes result in reverse discrimination. Government price controls, designed to make sure that certain goods are affordable, end up making those goods much harder to get. Examples are virtually endless.
Any use of government coercion ends up creating unintended, negative consequences.
I would be concerned that a war on child pornography would only create collateral damage to the rights of adults while not actually protecting children any more than they would be protected without it. We know from experience that all government agencies tend to extend their reach over time. A war on child pornography might make the situation for children worse. I don't know, but I would not be surprised.
The fact is, the best ways to protect children do not have anything to do with government.
Nobody is suggesting that rape should be legal under any circumstances, so the real issue here is age of consent. Unfortunately, arbitrary, one-size-fits-all ages of consent are very problematic. It seems common sensical that (whether we have legal ages of consent for sex, drinking and other things or not) below a certain age, children are incapable of having the knowledge or experience to consent to much of anything. But everyone is different.
At what arbitrary age can one be said to be an "Innocent child" one day and not an "innocent child" the next day? Do we really need laws with specific ages of consent for a jury to decide that a child was victimized?
For teenagers, it seems to me to be even more important that we should look at these situations on a case by case basis. Some 16 year olds are more wise and mature than some 21 year olds.
Sexual age of consent becomes still more problematic when both of the people involved are only a couple of years apart in age, say a 16 year old girl and her just-turned-18 year old boyfriend. What if they videotaped themselves? Teens in such cases tend to get caught up in the letter of laws intended to protect much younger and more innocent children.
What if someone is 18 but happens to be mentally challenged in some way? Do we stick to the letter of the law or adjust our views based on the circumstances? And if we allow for flexibility, why have the specific ages of consent in the first place? We can, and probably should, take all situations on a case by case basis.
What jury would not convict a person who molested a child whether we have laws against child porn or not? As I mentioned, whether pornography is legal or not, rape is always going to be illegal and nobody should be allowed to profit from violations of the rights of others, especially if their victims are children. (And, realistically, anyone doing heinous things to young children would be taking their lives in their hands. Juries might tend not to convict people who physically attack any person who dares to victimize a child.)
We all want to protect children, but this topic is not necessarily as simple as it might seem to be. And, I reiterate -- the best ways to protect children have nothing to do with government.
I should add that if we are going to insist on arbitrary ages of consent, we should be careful to give judges and juries a lot of flexibility in sentencing. We get into trouble when we have harsh sentences based on arbitrary limits.
I'm not sure what's so undesirable about an "anarchist viewpoint" considering that anarchy is the logical conclusion of the philosophy of liberty... But I do know this, sexually mature young people are NOT "children", and so in many cases these statutes fall squarely into the "victimless crime" category. As for actual "children" whose bodies have not matured, in the hyper-repressed atmosphere that is sexuality in American culture, these kids can surely recognize Britney's "boobies" but otherwise lack the actual vocabulary and comfort level to frankly discuss what may or may not have been done to them by an adult. Instead of teaching the FBI to communicate (which, as adults, they should already know how to do).... Isn't a bigger problem PARENTS communicating with their CHILDREN? Why would little Suzy tell you that Uncle Bob took pictures of her at the pool today unless she had been taught that flashing ones cootchie to the camera is NOT couth behavior for a girl? You don't wait until a girl is 16 and then have the FBI explain that to her.........
Posted By: C. Al Currier
Date: 2008-04-28 17:22:40
RE: age of consent
The age of consent should be the same age as voting as the same age of the 'draft' (military).
If you're too young to vote, you're too young to have a say about your fate and definately too young to die. I'm not for the draft, but it's coming and it concerns me more than porno.
I wonder if you have any comments to Stephen Kinsella's review of this release, posted a couple of days after yours:
"While child abuse is obviously evil and unlibertarian, it is still bizarre that the LP would issue this release. To specifically call for the national police force to work more with state and local police is not just something radical libertarians would have trouble with. It is also unconstitutional. Under the Tenth Amendment, criminal justice questions–-including murder, rape, arson, theft, child abuse, violence against women, drug policy, gun laws and the like--are to be handled by state and local governments, not the federal government.
"There is some gossip that this release was a stupid inner-party power play, to make radicals, including believers in decentralist law enforcement, feel uncomfortable in the party. By forcing this issue over the very emotionally charged issue of child porn, some people in charge of the party are trying to force anarchists and other radicals to admit they do not think the federal government should be involved in such questions. Specifically, they are attacking one presidential candidate, Mary Ruwart, over this and using it as an excuse to alienate radicals." (K)
The reason it's an issue is simply because an anonymous troll, called "Ruwarchy," dug up a quote from a Mary Ruwart book in which she seems to call for the repeal of all laws against pedophilia and child pornography. To those few who follow Libertarian politics, it's become quite the issue. Root's campaign, and reportedly Phillies', has called for her to withdraw from the race, and she has accused Root's Campaign manager of fraud.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Christine Smith, all rights reserved.