at first i thought LoneSnark was doing that Libertardian "devils advocate" thing. but now i think he's serious. http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=460812&page=2
2/12/2007 3:39:56 PM
because child pornography only hurts children.And children can't vote anyway, so who cares about them.
2/12/2007 3:51:04 PM
Because it's a good principle taken to its ridiculous extreme.And that's Libertarians in a nut(no pun)shell
2/12/2007 4:06:17 PM
Simple, because they don't. Like I and every other Libertarian has advocated, perpetrators of Child Abuse should be executed on the spot, no trial necessary.Or is it your assertion that someone can create child pornography without engaging in Child Abuse? I'd like to see you rationalize that one. [Edited on February 12, 2007 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .,.]
2/12/2007 4:46:05 PM
2/12/2007 4:51:38 PM
once again, try talking to a Libertarian about Child Pornography. They won't do it.They always try to covertly shift the discussion to "child abuse" -- as if there is a distinct separation.
2/12/2007 5:25:18 PM
the more I see these wonder kids post the more I realize that they are only libertarians when it comes to their money.
2/12/2007 5:28:06 PM
2/12/2007 5:30:23 PM
LoneSnark's Libertarian Perspective on the Relative Harmlessness of Child Pornography:
2/12/2007 5:37:56 PM
I think it's pretty obvious here that LoneSnark is himself a child pornographer.
2/12/2007 6:14:12 PM
2/12/2007 6:15:42 PM
^^ well, i wouldnt go that far.but i think it conclusively demonstrates the absurdity and intellectual bankruptcy of the Libertarian Party's political philosophy.[Edited on February 12, 2007 at 6:18 PM. Reason : ]
2/12/2007 6:18:33 PM
I would consider myself a libertarian, and I don't support/condone child pornography.Or is this a question for capital-L Libertarians as opposed to regular libertarians?You claim that they (whichever type you're talking about) support child pornography due to "warped fantasy-world interpretations of First, Fourth, and Tenth Amendment rights." Or put another way, they support child pornography because (they believe) the pictures don't actually hurt anyone (the whole "do what you want as long as it doesn't cause any harm to anyone else" thing). But the only problem with this is that a child isn't necessarily old enough or aware enough to be making those sorts of decisions. Is little Timmy getting nekid for the camera because he wants to or because Jim-Bob promised him candy and ice cream?Most people can agree that children simply do not have the adequate mental facilities to be making any decisions when it comes to a lot of things, and that includes sexual-related activity. Therefore, child pornography must necessarily involve the exploitation of a group that cannot possibly know or defend itself from any ill consequences. Hence child pornography is bad.As to what age it becomes acceptable? I guess current laws are sufficient. If I had to ere on the side of caution, though, I'd say at least they need to be at least 18 before they could do that sort of stuff.
2/12/2007 6:18:41 PM
2/12/2007 7:04:14 PM
Is no one getting it? The "Creation" of child pornography is condemned by Libertarians on the grounds of child abuse. The "Possession" of child pornography is identifiably unrelated to the original crime of child abuse and is therefore not a felony in the eyes of Libertarians.
2/12/2007 8:40:49 PM
you lose[/thread]
2/12/2007 9:18:29 PM
L-Snark, I think the gov't is trying to take the same approach to child porn as they are to the drug war. They are trying to both stop it at the source and decrease the supply available to users.The actual photos are the 'supply' the gov't is trying to eradicate. They are finding, in this age of the internet and digital photography, that stopping people who are highly motivated to posess child porn is going to be just as tough as trying to round up all the drug users. It's even fuzzier when you consider digitally created child porn. There are no actual children abused, but that images can be just as disgusting. Should it be illegal to create or possess this?
2/12/2007 10:18:08 PM
Libertarians want the government to protect their interests. Their interests include safety and financial freedom, not arresting people for looking at pictures.
2/13/2007 12:30:06 PM
2/13/2007 12:36:40 PM
2/13/2007 1:18:42 PM
2/13/2007 1:21:38 PM
^ By that reasoning, should it be illegal to have fake images of people being killed?
2/13/2007 1:26:46 PM
It shouldn't be illegal to have any images of people being killed, because there is no killing-people-and-taking-their-pictures crime ring, AFAIK, like there is with child-porn crime rings.[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ]
2/13/2007 1:37:32 PM
2/13/2007 1:45:51 PM
hey, i'll be honest.the libertarian views that I subscribe to have everything to do with keeping as much of the money I earn as possible. Usually it's the people who have a shitty work ethic who are in favor of high taxes so they can get their handouts from big daddy government.
2/13/2007 1:47:47 PM
2/13/2007 2:15:12 PM
What about CGI porn?
2/13/2007 2:18:21 PM
^^ children cannot legally consent to sex.
2/13/2007 2:20:00 PM
2/13/2007 2:29:03 PM
murder is illegal
2/13/2007 2:30:23 PM
2/13/2007 2:34:18 PM
2/13/2007 2:38:38 PM
ah, well, from the libertarian perspective, I got nothing.the only lib philosophies i like are the ones that put more of my money in my bank account.
2/13/2007 2:53:15 PM
Nope, sorry. You need to elicit Anarchists or the like to find people that think young children are morally able to consent to sex, even with other children. Now, I suppose if you got a signed affidavit from the future written by the child (who is at that time 18 years of age) you could morally allow the child to engage in sexual activity with anyone.
2/13/2007 2:54:16 PM
^so what you're saying here is that morality and an actual understanding for the ingnorance of others should be reviewed when considering public policy. wow, that doesn't sound very libertarian.
2/13/2007 2:58:13 PM
[Edited on February 13, 2007 at 4:54 PM. Reason : nevermind, someone else beat me to it]
2/13/2007 4:53:22 PM
^^ Why not? Libertarians are all about morality. They believe much of what the government does is immoral, case closed. Bravo.
2/13/2007 5:25:53 PM
2/13/2007 5:42:49 PM
Typical of gov't regulation... it never ends where you want it to end. Once it establishes itself with the best sounding intentions, it continues to grab more and more control over you.
2/14/2007 1:05:12 AM
Clearly not thinking it should be a felony means you support it.Likewise, you must support rape if you don't support the death penalty for rapists, right?For fucks sake, I think it ought to be a felony and I can see the flaws in your logic. Lock this fucking thread, it could have been handled in the referenced thread.
2/14/2007 6:56:01 PM