Third Party Watch

Mary Ruwart interviewed by Pat Dixon

This entry was posted by ThirdPartyWatchTV on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm and is filed under News, Libertarian Party, Presidential Race. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

94 Responses to “Mary Ruwart interviewed by Pat Dixon”

Ruwarchy! Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’m back

As a good anarchist, I have been busy evading taxes, shooting up heroin, and having sex with little boys but it is time to promote Mary Ruwart some more.

It looks like George Phillies proved my point that Mary supports having sex with children. Mary writes:

“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.

What we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

Thank you George. I won’t vote for you because I want the anarchist choice and you are a statist. I want to see Mary Ruwart promoting sex with children on national television. After all, it is the pure libertarian position.

Go child sex. Go anarchy.

Ruwarchy, making the Libertarian Party mainstream!

Ruwarchy rocks!
Ruwarchy! Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Where are the rest of the Ruwarchy supporters? Where did you all go? I need help spreading the gospel of Ruwarchy all over the world. We need to make sure the mainstream media sees what Mary wrote.

“from Ruwart’s book Short Answers to the Tough Questions, page 43. Ruwart asks:

How can a libertarian argue against child pornography?

Ruwart: Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can and should prosecute their oppressors.

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.

What we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

Spread the word. Ruwarchy rocks!
Ruwarchy! Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Does anybody know any other libertarian things Mary has written? Mary thinks all families will become clans.

“Clans could be very structured, such as those entered into by contracts that specified the duties of each member. Clans could be informal without any legal obligations associated with membership, similar to the “extended family” of today. Eventually a preferred structure might evolve, but variety would likely be maintained to accommodate alternative lifestyles.”

And Mary thinks we should honor the clan lifestyle.

“Libertarians honor all lifestyles. People of one way of life should not be sacrificed to others or ask that others be sacrificed to them.”

And Mary thinks its OK for little kids to be in the free market child porn business.

“What we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

And Mary thinks it is OK for little kids to have sex.

“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.”

This must mean that Mary like all good anarchists supports the Yearning for Zion Ranch. Lots of kids and sex and stuff. Libertarian purist heaven. We need Mary on national tv defending those poor kids who can’t have sex with their husbands any more.

Does any one have any more stories for Mary to tell on national tv?

Ruwarchy rocks!
Steve LaBianca Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
This is a reasonably good interview, albeit it that it goes for an hour. I highly recommend viewing it. Mary’s positions are made very clear in this video.
Alex Peak Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
This person posting as “Ruwarchy” is rather immature. When he/she is ready to grow up, I’ll be happy to discuss with you why you don’t like Dr. Ruwart’s candidacy in a civil and respectable manner. In the mean-time, all this “Ruwarchy” person is doing is embarrassing the libertarian movement by making it appear petty and childish to all readers of this site. I’d rather vote for Obama or McCain than have this sort of immaturity embraced by the libertarian movement or its members, for surely this sort of conduct will only drive otherwise-good people away. In short, I invite this person to grow up.
brian Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
as stated before, ruwarchy!, i’d be glad to have you strengthen your position by engaging me in discussion. the anarchist position, if it is so ridiculous, should be easy to discredit, so simply agree to discuss it and everyone here will know you are right to warn us of dr. ruwart’s candidacy.

if you won’t, will it hurt your credibility? probably.

i’m looking forward to it!
Ruwarchy! Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Brian, what sort of discussion do you want?

Here’s a question. What is the anarchist position on laws preventing 50 year old men from having sex with 5 year old children?
Ruwarchy! Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Dear Mr. Peak,

In response to this quote of yours, I humbly request your attention: “I’ll be happy to discuss with you why you don’t like Dr. Ruwart’s candidacy in a civil and respectable manner.”

I’d most humbly and civilly like to know what the anarchist position on laws preventing 50 year old men from having sex with 5 year old children is?

Sincerely,

Ru Warchy
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Ruwarchy,

You write:

“Here’s a question. What is the anarchist position on laws preventing 50 year old men from having sex with 5 year old children?”

The only thing that anarchists can be guaranteed to agree on is the illegitimacy/undesirability of the state. Beyond that, it’s a mistake to assume that there is “an” anarchist position.

Here’s one article by an anarchist (me) on the subject.
LifeMember Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I was thinking of supporting Ruwart until I read what she wrote about child porn in her book. Now I’m taking a totally different look at Ruwart. While she is a gifted speaker and has an ability to make bad things look good, now that I listen to her again, I see a lot of things I didn’t see before. Here’s what I see in her interview:

Ruwart says Healing Our World was on the Amazon bestseller list this time. Most of the time she says it was an international best seller. Her site says “Dr. Ruwart’s International Bestseller…” making it look like a New York Times Bestseller, not a Badnarik internet gimmick best seller. She’s slicker than Root, because she pulls this off without looking like a used car salesman. Unless she has sold millions of copies, which I doubt, she being less than totally honest here.

“Heart to heart” makes me think of Badnarik’s bumper stickers. We all know how far that got him.

She wants to reach out to the left in a year where the major opportunities are on the right.

“I think liberty works best for everyone”—does that include murderers and rapists?

She answered Dixon and said that the book goes into a lot of detail about how she would govern. I suppose that includes the detail provided on Page 43 (above) of her book.

She had good lines on spending.

Pat Dixon thinks he’s Chris Matthews. Hahahahaha!

She says she’s a candidate for everyone. Including people who prey on children, I presume.

She thinks she is going to get votes from the left—she said it again. Has she checked the news about Obama’s supporters lately?

OMG, she just ran through a long list of races she has LOST and thinks this qualifies her to run for PRESIDENT.

She brags about the Dr. Kevorkian connection again. Weird.

She takes the credit (she shares it with libertarians, though) for killing socialized healthcare. I don’t even remember the word libertarian being used about this in the 90s. As much as I hate them, I’d credit Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich more than anything. Mary seems to think the truth is a slippery notion.

She goes on about people voting for black people or women. Being female is a slight advantage, but not a libertarian argument.

When asked about her management credentials by Patrick Hardball Dixon, she evaded the answer. Chris Matthews is so snowed by her than he never followed up. More like softball than hardball.

Here is how Mary disses the other LP candidates.

In general. most haven’t been in the party long enough. She says you have to be in the party a long time to be a good candidate, so I guess no one should try to get prominent libertarians to run for office on the LP ticket.

She said the newcomers can’t communicate the Libertarian message to the American people. She implied that some of them aren’t principled.

Root only is good with the right, not the left.

Imperato asked for input on libertarian positions. Mary is “delighted he is running.”

Jingozian wants to bring people together. He’s not libertarian enough.

Smith is a good speaker. Mary approaches a broader band of people.

Kubby is awesome but is seen as a single-issue candidate by the media.

Chris Matthews Dixon can’t pronounce Gravel correctly. And again.

Gravel is not libertarian and not been a member long enough. For some reason, Mary seems to hate tenure for teachers but loves it for her campaign. She’s opposed to the free market in politics, I guess.

She wants to be a leader in the LP after the race.

Barr has good qualities but will only attract people on the right. She brought up his voting record on the Patriot Act and drugs, but failed to mention his work with the ACLU, MPP, Patriots for Checks and Balances, where he has actually done something to stop these laws.

She says the media will only say he voted for these things and never mention his work opposing them. I’ve am calling bullshit on this one. This is the theme of almost every article about him. Maybe Mary is jealous because they don’t write articles about her.

She did mention that Barr has a lot of good contacts.

She name dropped Ron Paul again. I wonder if he even remembers who she is. She mentioned his “endorsement” of her book.

She said she was a big part of the Ron Paul Revolution. I never saw her on TV or even read about her at TPW, which covered every possible LP tie to Paul’s presidential campaign. What was she, a MeetUp member or something? Another bullshit call on this one.

She tried to make it sound like her application for FDA Commissioner was something that was seriously considered, when in fact it was an application which was never seriously considered and probably immediately thrown in the trash. She has more hype than Wayne Root.

She thinks pro-life constitution-thumping Ron Paul supporters are going to vote for her pro-choice anarchistic message. Funny.

Pat Hardball Dixon just bought the Ron Paul endorsement spiel hook bait and sinker.

I was right about how important she was in the Ron Paul Revolution. Her hubby set up two meetup groups. And that qualifies her to be president how? She says she has a lot of name recognition in the meetup groups (it sounds like she means nationally). Got to call bullshit on this one, too.

A libertarian wants the smallest government possible. In other words, she’s an anarchist without saying the word.

She’s good on the principles behind the war. Quotes Paul on solutions. Weird environmental stuff, though. Created another Viet Nam—good line.

Offer reward for bin Laden. Can’t acknowledge that surge has improved things. (I’m very opposed to the war but one has to look at facts, too).

Mostly good on Iraq stuff, but goes out on a limb when talking about WWII stuff. She will get creamed by the mainstream media on this issue.

She would not have sent troops into Afghanistan (I think is what she’s saying, but not sure). Mr. Hardball didn’t follow up on this one, either.

We can’t withdraw all troops safely in one day. OMG, she said we should withdraw in several DAYS or weeks. If she hadn’t lost my support already, she did now. There is no way to withdraw that quickly. There aren’t enough boats and train cars. Who is her military adviser, Susan Hogarth? This is as irresponsible as Christine Smith’s position.

Good on national health insurance. Good on FDA. Really good. She is good on her fields of expertise.

Bullshit meter just went off again: If you have a libertarian economy, everyone has a job. And I was starting to like Mary once again.

Good on housing crisis, inflation, fed reserve. Better than Ron Paul, even.

She would eliminate the Fed, as opposed to eliminating the strong US tie with the Fed. She would shut down a private organization.

Global warming: she doesn’t seem to think we have it. Or maybe she does.

Courts will solve problems like CFCs. Hahahahaha.

Cutting back on fossil fuels with alternative sources isn’t worth it.

Day one in office. Bring troops home from Iraq and Europe. Economy.

Pat Dixon actually thinks Mary can get into a debate with Hillary Clinton. What is he smoking?

About debating Obama: Change in the wrong direction. First clue that Mary has read a newspaper in the last three months.

On debating Dixon’s obvious hero McCain: Peace and prosperity. 100 years.

On wasted voted: Why would you vote for someone you hate? (she thinks Obama supporters hate him?).

On campaign fundraising, she can “deliver quite a bit” because Libertarians get more votes per dollar. That is the lamest thing argument Libertarians have ever come up with. It’s also not true sometimes, just ask Allen Hacker.

Our PRESIDENTIAL campaign is about winning local races??????????????

It gets worse, she says the LP has 1000 elected office holders. Now she’s just telling outright lies.

She brags about her competent professional campaign staff and then says it is managed by Lee Wrights, the guy who doesn’t even have a drivers license and wears the same clothes at every convention for the last decade. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

She mentioned Jeff Neale. He’s OK, I suppose, in a LP way, but she was talking about professional staff. She implied that they will be getting a campaign manager from presumably Ron Paul’s staff post-nomination. The post-nomination line set up the bullshit meter again, just like Richard Campagna’s post-nomination promises.

Biggest post-nomination thing will have “so many volunteers” from the Libertarian Party. This campaign just lost, big time.

On the million vote record question: Hints at voter fraud. Will touch new people that are politically homeless. Will bring them in in droves. Won’t answer question.

Liberty Decides: She set Dixon straight on the program. She says they are doing well on fundraising. I’m sure she just outfundraised Hillary and McCain in the last month, too.

She doesn’t want to win or have a high vote total, she wants to “teach the philosophy.”

She mentions Crazy for Liberty and Freedom Rings and blog radio as her highest level media and seems happy about it. She thinks she can get on major television programs. Hahahahahaha.

She thinks that the eventual LP candidate will get more media than Barr has already.

Reformer or Radical: Presidential candidate must present “total Libertarian message.” Will be hardcore.

Shared needles are greatest cause of AIDS, she said.

She wants to get rid of factionalism in the party right after she said she will push a hardcore message. She doesn’t understand how many of us feel, obviously.

I’ve decided that Barr is my first choice. Root, unfortunately is my second choice (I still don’t trust him on Iraq). I will now vote for Imperato before voting for the scam artist Mary Ruwart. Mark my words, she will destroy the LP.
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
LifeMember:

“She wants to reach out to the left in a year where the major opportunities are on the right.”

There are no opportunities on the right. After pissing and moaning for awhile, conservatives are closing ranks behind McCain, and the Democrats are going to nominate either a center-rightist (Clinton) or a centrist (Obama).

The opportunities are entirely on the left this year (as they’ve been for the last 36 years).
Ruwarchy! Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I am being most polite now, but no one is answering my questions. Mary Ruwart wrote:

“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.”

Does this mean she supports or would allow for a 50 year old man to have sex with a five year old?

What we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

Does this mean she supports or would allow for a 50 year old man to have sex with a five year old on film?
brian Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
ruwarchy!,

in your question there is the assumption that laws prevent crime. writing words on paper and calling it “law”. rarely prevents anything, but provides arbitrary guidelines for punishment after the fact. in the free society, the existence of a market-based justice system ensures that punishment for violations of rights is based on restitution sought by the victim. this hinges on the idea that someone’s person or property was violated. in your example, there is no direct evidence that anyone was forced to do anything. but i think we can all agree that the example is fairly revolting. but is there a right to force people to refrain from activities that you or i deem disgusting? of course there isn’t. but there are built in disincentives to pursue such behavior (i am assuming that the act was voluntary):
first, the child’s parents may be able to bring to justice the violator, if the child is under their care.
second, as a businessman, i am in no way obligated to do business with anyone engaging in such activities. this type of exclusionary behavior has the ability to make life very difficult for one pursuing widely recognized immoral acts.
so, in the free society, there are still no laws that can prevent crime, just like there are none now, but the justice for crime and incentives for avoiding such behaviors are magnified as compared to the state.
Fred C. Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Well here’s a bloodboiler of a thread.

Tom Knapp: Your paper on the subject is well reasoned and thoughtful. It’s also lightyears ahead of Ruwart. I knew there were some kooky ideas in higher theory towards children and age of majority questions, but damn…

As it stands now I don’t think I can even vote for Ruwart should she become the nominee, and just as I was reaching a sort of blissful acceptance where I could have voted for the majority of the pack.
Alex Peak Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Ruwarchy! writes, “I’d most humbly and civilly like to know what the anarchist position on laws preventing 50 year old men from having sex with 5 year old children is?”

This is an issue where huge disagreements exist within the movement. I could see a variety of anarchist arguments being given, ranging from letting common law establish an age of consent (which would probably keep it around 18, give or take a little), to saying that one can consent as soon as one can speak clearly. I could also see anarchists using human biology as the determining factor, and outlawing sexual activity before physical maturity. I could see other anarchists arguing that mental maturity is necessary to establish rational consent.

In short, I don’t think there is any one specific anarchist position on this topic.

LifeMember writes, “She wants to reach out to the left in a year where the major opportunities are on the right.”

Dude.

We could reap so much from disillusioned Democrats! Let’s look at the facts: The Democrats were elected in ‘06 to end the war primarily. Have they? No. Have they ceased funding the war? No. Have they even put forward a time-table? No. They claim they don’t have the votes, but that’s too easy an excuse. If they really cared, they could keep pushing the issue until they get the votes; but no, they don’t really care.

In reality, the Democrats know exactly what they’re doing. They have every incentive to keep the war going, because even though they were complicit in the war from the beginning, the public still looks at it as Bush’s war. They know that if the war is still going by election time, they can say, “Look at what these horrible Republicans are doing! Vote Democratic for peace in 2008.” That’s why they want the war to continue.

If they truly cared about the people who are dying, then why aren’t either of the candidates calling to begin the withdrawal immediately? Both candidates want to leave the troops there, just as the troops were left in Vietnam. Neither candidate supports peace, although both candidates will pretend to rhetorically.

If you want a candidate who supports peace, it behooves you to vote libertarian.

So, what have the Democrats done since getting elected? Have they worked to repeal the misnamed USA PATRIOT Act? How about the horrible REAL ID Act? Have they acted to reinstate Habeas Corpus? No, instead they’ve wasted their time supporting various new Big Government proposals, just like the Republicans were doing prior to 2006.

Isn’t it about time we stop supporting the same Democrats and Republicans who consistently break their promises to us? Isn’t it about time to vote Libertarian?

Besides, I don’t think she’s focusing any more on the left than she is on the right. In other words, I think she’s using the Harry Browne strategy of focusing on both sides equally. (Although I haven’t watched the video yet, so perhaps she does not make the same claim about her own campaign that I make about it.)

“’I think liberty works best for everyone’—does that include murderers and rapists?”

Rapists, by committing rape, sacrifice their Liberty, and I would argue their lives as well.

Murderers, by committing murder, sacrifice their Liberty and their lives.

I would argue that even the commission of manslaughter entails the sacrifice of life and Liberty.

The rapists and murderers have the freedom to not rape and murder, and if they use that freedom, they will find it works quite well. Conversely if they choose to deny others their life or Liberty, they thereby sacrifice their own.

“Barr has good qualities but will only attract people on the right.”

I think he’ll repel people on both the left and the right. Bob Barr: Libertarian?

“She thinks pro-life constitution-thumping Ron Paul supporters are going to vote for her pro-choice anarchistic message. Funny.”

Ron Paul and Mary Ruwart have the same exact federal policy on abortion: overturn Roe v. Wade and return the abortion question to the state level.

“A libertarian wants the smallest government possible. In other words, she’s an anarchist without saying the word.”

Harry Browne was a minarchist famous for saying the exact same thing, that libertarians are those who want the smallest government possible.

Government Doesn’t Work by Harry Browne, a letter to Reason MagazineM, March 1998

“We can’t withdraw all troops safely in one day. OMG, she said we should withdraw in several DAYS or weeks. If she hadn’t lost my support already, she did now. There is no way to withdraw that quickly. There aren’t enough boats and train cars. Who is her military adviser, Susan Hogarth? This is as irresponsible as Christine Smith’s position.”

Not having been able to see the video yet, I can’t judge whether she’s being toungue-in-cheek or not. Although it sounds from the text like a toungue-in-cheek comment.

“She would eliminate the Fed, as opposed to eliminating the strong US tie with the Fed. She would shut down a private organization.”

There is nothing private about the Fed.

“Our PRESIDENTIAL campaign is about winning local races??????????????”

Of course, and about spreading the message of libertarianism to ever wider audiences. If someone actually thinks we’re going to get elected in 2008 (without Ron Paul as our presidential candidate), I would say that person is dillusional.

“I’ve decided that Barr is my first choice. Root, unfortunately is my second choice (I still don’t trust him on Iraq). I will now vote for Imperato before voting for the scam artist Mary Ruwart. Mark my words, she will destroy the LP.”

Barr has lost any possible support from me. Root is actually growing on me. All he has to do is drop the Goldwater/Reagan rhetoric… Ruwart is still number one for me. Barr is below Imperato in my book, who is in turn below Milnes, who is in turn below Gravel. Root and Kubby are tied in second place right now, with Smith a close fourth. If Hess ever gets a wab-site, I’ll factor him in there somewhere. Barr, I fear, could destroy the LP—unless he makes some extremely-quick changes to his philosophy.

Alex
LifeMember Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
You guys are making me absolutely sick. Without answering the question directly, you are defending Ruwart’s statements.

It’s really simple and doesn’t require long articles or convoluted libertarian theory. Do you support this statement, or not:

“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.”

Do you support this statement, or not:

“What (when???) we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

Each question only gets a yes or no answer. It’s that simple.
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Fred,

You write:

“Your paper on the subject is well reasoned and thoughtful. It’s also lightyears ahead of Ruwart.”

And neither is particularly relevant. Ruwart is running for President, not state legislature, prosecuting attorney, etc. Her opinion on age of consent has no application to the office she’s running for. If this is the worst her opponents can come up with, then they’re essentially certifying her as bulletproof.
LifeMember Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Why is Stephen Gordon covering this up? Of all issues, someone who will allow child abuse who is running for president should be the top story at Third Party Watch.
LifeMember Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm

And neither is particularly relevant. Ruwart is running for President, not state legislature, prosecuting attorney, etc. Her opinion on age of consent has no application to the office she’s running for. If this is the worst her opponents can come up with, then they’re essentially certifying her as bulletproof.

That’s a cop out.

This will destroy the LP no matter what level office she is running for. Even if she gets creamed in Denver, people will say Libertarians didn’t cream her bad enough. This is devastating.
G.E. Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
LifeMember – As a Ruwart supporter, I’ll give you yes/no answers.

Do I support these statements?

“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.”

No, I do not. I don’t think “children” possess the ability, and thus the right, to contract.

“What (when???) we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

I absolutely support this statement because it is just demonstrably true. This does not mean I think child pornography should be legal (I don’t), but to suggest that its illegality does not drive up prices is to reject economic law.
Alex Peak Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
LifeMember writes, “Do you support this statement, or not:

‘What (when???) we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.’”

Regardless of whether you support laws against child pornography or not, I think we can all agree that this is an economically sound statement.

But I think you’re trying to imply that one has to oppose laws against child porn to be a libertarian purist. If this is indeed what you’re implying, then I must say you’re wrong. There is nothing inherently unlibertarian about supporting laws against child pornography.
Stephen Gordon Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
By request, for the time being, the word “Ruwarchy!” is banned from comments.
Jeff Wartman Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
LOL…Touché, Gordon
Dave Williams Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“As it stands now I don’t think I can even vote for Ruwart should she become the nominee, and just as I was reaching a sort of blissful acceptance where I could have voted for the majority of the pack.”

Agreed.
LifeMember Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
This is too much for me: Libertarians defending child abuse.

Now I have three choices to vote for. Socialists who believe in civil rights. Fascists who will cut taxes. Libertarians who want to have sex with children.

Maybe writing in Ron Paul’s name isn’t so crazy after all.
Fred C. Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“And neither is particularly relevant. Ruwart is running for President, not state legislature, prosecuting attorney, etc. Her opinion on age of consent has no application to the office she’s running for.”

Perception can be as consequential as substance in shaping voter attitudes. I get annoyed when reporters or moderators ask questions irrelevant to the office a candidate seeks, but s/he has to live with the answer anyway. Here, Ruwart offered up this opinion of hers, and she has to live with that. So will the LP if it nominates her. So will everyone else that’s ever used the term “libertarian” to identify themselves.

Look at worst case scenario here. If any republican remembers that they were once worried about those Libertarians, or we actually do focus against the left and get democratic anti-3rd party machine on the attack, all they have to do is quote this little passage to make libertarian synonymous with pedophile in the popular opinion. No shift in focus to local candidates, educational efforts, platform reform or high-profile candidate will ever be able to salvage what remains after that.
LifeMember Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Regardless of whether you support laws against child pornography or not, I think we can all agree that this is an economically sound statement.

You are a sick fuck (I’ve never used this word ever before online).

But I think you’re trying to imply that one has to oppose laws against child porn to be a libertarian purist. If this is indeed what you’re implying, then I must say you’re wrong. There is nothing inherently unlibertarian about supporting laws against child pornography.

The simple question for you is: Will you support or oppose Mary Ruwart?

No matter how the philosophical questions are raised, the issue will end up being whether very young children and significantly older adults should have sex with each other. Answer now, for the permanent internet record, whether you support Ruwart’s views on child sex or not. Will you vote for her or not?
Steve LaBianca Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
1. LifeMember Says:
  April 23rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“someone who will allow child abuse who is running for president should be the top story at Third Party Watch.”

I guess at “Major Party Watch”, the top story should be that they are ACTUALLY “allowing” child abuse . . . all the child abuse going on today is under the careful watch of elected and appointed officials from the “major parties”.

The problem with you analysis Mr. “LifeMember” is that “promoting a non-coercive solution to the problems in America “, as Mary Ruwart does, is automatically “allowing child abuse”. What about the neighbors who have an inkling that child abuse is going on? What about friends of children who are being abused . . . are they allowing it too? Unfortunately, you have very little desire to think “outside the box” (overused phrase I know but true nevertheless) in that only through law, administered by coercive governments, are crimes “prevented”. How’s that working out lifemember?
We have a harmonious society right now?

Finally, you paint a picture of Ms. Ruwart as one of scheming, fact twisting, even outright lying, not to say that nearly supports the idea of child molestation! You may disagree with her viewpoints, but Ms. Ruwart is no schemer or liar.
texpat Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Stop agonizing over Ruwart’s views on children and sex. It’s a matter that would be delegated to the states in any case.

But assume that there are no laws against sex with children. Wasn’t Ruwart also on the board of FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association)? If so, then consider the following.

Some pederast seduces your kid. You find out about it and shoot the perv or merey remove his testicles with a dull spoon. What jury will convict, when the prosecutor can no longer exclude all the jurors who aren’t sheep, and when the judge can no longer stop you from laying out all the facts and appealing to the jury? This assumes, reasonably enough, that you can prove the seduction and that whatever jury you get, even in a retrial, will contain at least one member who thinks your actions were justifiable.

This is a good way to handle extreme situations, like morons who agonize over the proper ethical behavior when falling from a tall building, grabbing a flagpole, and then having to decide whether to drop to their death rather than trespass on a handy balcony.
Catholic Trotskyist Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Ruwarch is a statist because he wants the state to dismantle, which requires use of the state itself. I agree with Life Member that Ruwart should lose all support because of her positions on children. Laws are very important for the public safety. The Libertarian Christian Socialist Revolution of Barack Obama will get rid of the bad laws and strengthen the good laws.
Catholic Trotskyist Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Nothing should be delegated to the states. Global sovereignty should be instituted for the entire world, and all locations should have the same laws. Barack Obama will give most powers to the Secretary-General of UN, getting rid of the economic disaster of globalization but instituting political and social globalization.
texpat Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Catholic Trotskyist wrote,

“Barack Obama will give most powers to the Secretary-General of UN, getting rid of the economic disaster of globalization…”

RotFLMAO!
johncjackson Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Child-fucking is not a winning position. I can see it now when she is on MSNBC and they put the bullet points up: Outlaw All Taxes, Legalize Child Rape, Heroin over the counter at Wal-Mart
Tom Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 12:37 am
I’m sorry but I thought this child consent stuff was just a sick joke being made by the Rwacko. Now you guys are talking about this as a fact.

And Tom K you defended it? As not important? God man what are you smoking?

I can’t tell you how distrubing this is to me. Every candidate for the LP will now have to answer this question for years to come. OMG I thought answering drugs and prostitution questions were hard enough. This is a death nell.

But then that’s Ruwart’s history. Killing our party’s chances. Surely, this isn’t real? She didn’t say this. Tell me she didn’t say this. Please.

Does she have kids of her own? There is no justification ever for letting a 50 year old man have sex with a child of any gender. Never. Not even philosophically.

This just made me sick. If this is true she has got to withdraw NOW.
Steve LaBianca Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 12:38 am
LifeMember Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm

This is too much for me: Libertarians defending child abuse.

As Harry Browne said in his essay “When Will We Learn”, the day after 9/11, “First of all, stop the hysteria”. Then again, in “When Will We Learn II” after being verbally attached he said “Did I mention that there was a lot of hysteria and a lynch-mob sentiment right now?”

We would do well to heed Harry’s prophetic demeanor and words. STOP THE HYSTERIA! It is the twisting of words and meaning you are emotionally responding to. I know you all are much too smart for that.

LifeMember, THIS is too much for me – people (other libertarians allegedly) ACTUALLY believing that there are libertarians who defend child abuse.

I said from the beginning that Ruwarchy! was a troll, and a slanderer. And I don’t have to remind you, trolls prey on emotions. Well, he searched around and tried different topics, and finally found the one which he could twist and turn inside out and get the most shock value out of . . . child abuse and pedophilia. Mary Ruwart ? As if she ACTUALLY supports child abuse! NONSENSE!

I could practically see the troll’s eyes light up when DebbieKat started calling it “sick”. He knew he had hit the topic which would get the most emotional reaction, the most bang for the buck. So he twisted and insinuated and made phony correlations and judgments. And you people bought this CRAP? Shame on you! Example – Anarchy = children having sex with 50 yr olds. Anarchy = children doing their drug of choice. I challenge anyone, anarchist or not to defend such phony relationships of anarchy with such things. It used to be Anarchy = chaos. Since that has been discredited, now it’s even more ridiculous things anarchy is equated with. What’s next . . . A free society means ALL the terrible things in the world will happen to EVERYONE, ALL the time? What’s the solution . . . Life Member? How will the “laws” stop pedophilia? I’ve got it! We’ll put a cop in every house, on every streetcorner, in every establishment of dining, shopping, entertaining, every office building, NO every OFFICE in every office building, every men’s room, women’s rest room . . . except there is only one problem, since this is such a sick society how do we know what all those cops are doing? We need cop watchers, and watchers for the cop watchers. Where does it end? This is hysteria folks, plain and simple, and you let a troll control your emotions.

The posts here just show how easily, supposedly grounded Libertarians are swayed by BS. Plus, don’t forget, the terrible situation in Texas happened WITH laws against such things. Unless we make a total police state as I’ve described above, the laws are nearly useless, if not totally so.
Wes Benedict Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Every Democrat knows Republicans want old people to starve to death in the streets without food or medicine. Every Republican knows Democrats hate America and want Islamo-fascists to destroy America and impose Cheri-a-law.

Now every Barr and Root supporter knows Ruwart wants perverts to rape children.

This just goes to show that the Libertarian Party is a real political party and that Mary Ruwart is probably the front-runner based on all of the hysterical nonsense going on.
Thomas M. Sipos Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Life Member: “Most of the time [Ruwart] says it was an international best seller. ... Unless she has sold millions of copies, which I doubt, she being less than totally honest here.”

You don’t need to sell “millions” of books to qualify as a bestseller. I’d read back in the 1990s that for a hardback book to qualify as a national bestseller (by publishing industry standards) it had to sell 25,000 copies.

It’s much harder to move 25,000 hardbacks than most people realize.

A mass market paperback bestseller might have been 100,000 copies. I forget.

I think Mary’s book is a trade paperback? I don’t know, but if she’d sold 50,000 copies, that might qualify for national bestseller status. Don’t know about international.

(This article mentions that an author’s 40,000 sold copies qualifies his novel as a bestseller, and the book he’s holding looks like a trade paperback: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060730/asp/look/story_6518591.asp )

Alex Peak: “We could reap so much from disillusioned Democrats!”

I agree. Which is why I’m surprised that you put Root second, yet Barr last. They both seem pretty Republican me (except that Barr has the gravitas and resume, while Root has the glitz and ego).

Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies, and Gravel all seem better able to appeal to disillusioned Democrats than does Root.
Tom Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Wes I never said a bad thing about her personally and never wanted to believe anything bad. I just thought she was a weak candidate. I thought this character Ruarchy was a sick joke and gave him no consideration at all.

But is this true? This my first question and if so how can it be defended?

Why even put that question into her book in the first place. Of all the tough questions I’ve faced about our lib philosophy that’s (age of consent) one I’ve never encountered and certainly never want too. If this is the bullet proof candidate you purists really do want to kill this party and any hope for a successful LP. You obviously have no children of your own.
Wes Benedict Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 1:08 am
This also goes to show that Libertarians are not self-righteous philosophers uninterested in politics. They’re willing to stoop as low as Republicans and Democrats and engage in silly name-calling.

I think name-calling is wrong and stupid.

You name-callers are disaffected stupid moronic beastly immature self-serving fat white puffy hairy bone-headed know-nothing spineless cowardly goofus dufus spufus grotesque witless whimpy childish and even more than that and multiply it all by two then square it.
Tom Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Hey Wes there’s no name calling going on here. This is a substantial political gaff at best. At worst it speaks to a candidates values. If Root or Barr had said something this stupid you would be all over it.

I haven’t had anyone tell me it’s not true. I’m beginning to smell fear in the purist heart of hearts. This could be the end of your part of the movement which truthfully I have begrudgingly valued as a balance point to our pragmatic interest.

This is just too much. It wasn’t necessary in the first place and is not at all libertarian…this is Ruwartian. If true she must withdraw NOW!
Wes Benedict Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Tom,

I’ve actually been asked the proverbial heroin for children question by one of the biggest Republican talk radio hosts in Houston and I responded with the Demcrats say Republicans want old people to starve and Republicans say Democrats want so-and-so ridiculous outcome. It was very effective.

Any candidate, whether it be Root, Ruwart, Barr or whomever may get asked some inflammatory question and with practice all of them will probably be ready to shove it right back up the questioner’s ass with a comment like “as far as I know, it’s the Catholic Republican Priests who are doing most of the child-molesting.”

Tom,

Have you seen what Hillary and Barrack supporters are saying about each other?

Most of you on this site are a joke. “LifeMember: oh gee I’m all da sudden concerned! Boy oh boy.”

This reminds me of a city council meeting about Wal-Mart I went to where some obviously insincere impostor said, “well, I was going to support Wal-Mart, but after what I’ve heard tonight, ba-doo-ba-doo-ba-doo I changed my mind and I’m against Wal-mart.”

What a bunch of stupid cheap shit comments. I’m inspired by all of this. The Libertarian Party is a real political party.
Wes Benedict Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Tom says:

I’m beginning to smell fear in the purist heart of hearts. This could be the end of your part of the movement which truthfully I have begrudgingly valued as a balance point to our pragmatic interest.

Wes says:

Tom, thanks for calling me a purist. Can I get your full name, address, and phone? I would like to use you as a reference against the few purists who have occasionally asked me to resign from this or that position in which I serve for not being a purist (whatever that is).

While you’re at it, please call me a Rothbardian and send me some of his/her books (I assume he/she wrote books?). I keep hearing about this fellow/gal, and feel like I know him/her based on all of the discussion about him/her, but a few books about myself would be nice to have so that I can get to know myself better.

I have yet to see proof that Barr never had sex with Imperato and that Root never had sex with Tom. When will that proof be presented? Nevertheless, hear me now but believe me later, I don’t think Barr or Root ever did that and I am offended by any one who would lodge such accusations.

Basically, I’m a Root, Ruwart and Barr for President supporter. I think they’re all great. I think some of their fans are great because they are typical low-life political activist scum which gives me hope that the Libertarian Party is on the move.
Less Antman Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Since this is an unmoderated board allowing people to have multiple identities, claim any affiliation, and claim any statements without providing links, I would suggest that everything be taken with a grain of salt unless and until evidence is offered.

Every society of which I’ve read, including those without formal governments, has considered capacity to be a required element in a contract, limiting the ability of children to consent to anything. The notion that any libertarian minarchist or anarchist believes there is no such element should be assumed to be false in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Citations by anonymous people that haven’t been verified are not evidence.
Wes Benedict Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 2:10 am
I just re-read Bob Barr’s “Issues” page. Nowhere does Bob Barr deny the right to shove a bag of Doritos up his own ass. Not only that, there’s nothing denying his right to shove a bag of Doritos up his children’s ass. When is someone going to clarify Bob Barr’s position on Doritos, and their proper place in America and what the boundaries are? Everybody, please don’t let Sean Hannity find out about this.

It’s things like Doritos that are proof to anyone that is serious about being a real political party that if we don’t have a clear position on Doritos in our platform, people will use that against us. If the Libertarian Party won’t put a Dorito plank in its platform, then I might quit.
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Lifemember,

You write:

“This will destroy the LP no matter what level office she is running for.”

Surely you jest. It didn’t destroy the LP in 1993 when the book was released. It didn’t destroy the LP in 2003 when the book was reissued. It didn’t destroy the LP in the 1970s when the LP apparently shared office space with NAMBLA. But now all of a sudden it’s going to destroy the LP, because, OH MY GOD, you‘ve noticed it?

Tom (the one who doesn’t use a last name here),

You write:

“And Tom K you defended it? As not important? God man what are you smoking?”

I didn’t defend it—as a matter of fact, I linked to an article I wrote with a much different take on the issue. It is, however, not important. Unless you believe the rumors of pedophile parties in the first Bush White House attended by high-level GOPers, this is simply not a presidential issue.

And if it is a presidential issue? Hmmm … libertarian theoretically posits that children having sex might not be the end of the world. In the meantime, Republicans and Democrats non-theoretically claim the power to abduct and murder children at will. More than 400 kidnapped this month in Texas alone, and God only knows how many murdered in Iraq. Please, B’rer Bear, don’t throw me in that briar patch!
Dave Williams Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Tom (the one w/ no last name),
You asked a legitimate question, and from what I’ve read three individuals with leadership roles in the LP (and one shill wannabe, Binaca) have dodged, spun and shifted the seriousness of your question to humor of all things. What a bunch of candy assed potential pedophiles.

Benedict,
You fucking cocksucker, go to your list of Texas LP members, look up my name…and then make a note not to send any more requests to my address begging for money. You and Tom Knapp are to fucking works of crap.
Dave Williams Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Sorry I spelled ‘Krapp’ incorrectly.
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Oh yes, because we all know that if you want to legalize something you must really want to do it. I tell you, I can’t wait to get my hands on some heroin once the libertarian revolution comes around.

Seriously though, can we stop slandering each other? If you sit down and actually think about the issues of child porn and voluntary child sex, you’ll see that it is much more complex than our biases make it seem.

First of all, why should child pornography be illegal? Libertarian theory rests upon the concept that for a crime to exist, there must be a victim. While the photos depict an act of aggression, the possession of the photos harms no one. Certainly, the person collecting them could be seen as rather questionable, but so could a person who collects pictures of dead people or watches slasher flicks. There all sick in one way or another. An argument against this could be that the child owns the copyright or some such, but that would be a very different crime with very different penalties.

On the issue of child sex, the question of what is voluntary for a child is a very complex one. Many things most libertarians would allow for a child are certainly not voluntary, such as spanking. My girlfriend and I were arguing just the other day over whether second-hand smoke could be considered an aggression against a child by their parent. Circumcision is also something that is becoming increasingly questioned in the United States. A related, though significantly worse issue, is that of female genital mutilation in Africa. Young girls have much of their erogenous zone removed, both voluntarily and sometimes forcibly, to match the cultural norm. And of course in some cultures children are involved in sex from a young age. I would even go so far as to ask how much of the mental damage caused by child sex is due to victimization of children by social norms? Certainly there are physical effects that can be very damaging, and I have to assume that anyone engaging in sex with a child must be a major asshole, but when done with concern for child’s pleasure (I feel disgusting just writing this sentence), can it be as bad as some of the things we allow to be done to our children?

And regarding the topic of consent, where do we draw the line. How many twenty year olds have sex for all the wrong reasons and end up regretting it. Obviously the ability to communicate “yes” and “no” is important, but beyond that? When does one become smart enough to start making decisions about their life? And do the mentally handicapped have rights in a libertarian world? Surely people are not “owned” by others until this vague point of maturity. If a child does feel that his rights have been violated, does he retain the right to leave? And is that enough.

My point is not to suggest an answer (I don’t have one), but rather to show that there is question beneath the issue of children’s rights that is important to libertarianism. Obviously, the most important thing we can do, whether it be now or in a libertarian world, is be vigilant and open to children who have an unhappy family life. The fact is that many children are raped and physically abused, and the voluntary aspect is so minor as to be hardly worth worrying about by comparison.

Also, it’s worth noting that the book we’re talking about was written practically a decade ago.
Clark Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 7:58 am
DAVE WILLIAMS, you apparent loud Republican/crat dullard, and/or the rest of the Ruwart smear machine, ...please provide some links, etc. to back up your assertions..

(with goddamned fool “Libertarians” like these dopes, who needs Republicrats!) ;o)
Dave Williams Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I wonder what Shane Cory has to say about this Bullshit…because if it’s true…then you guys win. I will not associate with this level of trash…

Shane,

I just left the GOP for the LP. I know that things are different here in the LP and I’m open to most of it, but some of the folks in leadership positions in the LP seem to be a bit odd.

Spend 15 minutes scrolling through this link and then tell me that Wes Benedict, Tom Sipos, Tom Knapp and Mary Ruwart are not insane people. I really want to believe that this is not part of the LP’s platform. I really want to believe that this rhetoric is false and will never be an issue in an election year. This information if true, would torpedo the LP into oblivion.

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/23/mary-ruwart-interviewed-by-pat-dixon/#comments
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Torpedo the LP? Why don’t you guys check out the Children’s Rights section of the 1990 platform: http://web.archive.org/web/20030520205432/http://archive.lp.org/platform/1990/plat1990.txt
Gene Trosper Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Mary Ruwart’s views on child pornography and child sex are beyond the pale. I was thinking she would make a nice VP candidate, but not now.

So, when was the last time Mary Ruwart spoke with an 8 year old child who “consented” to penetrative sex with an adult only to wind up having their vagina or anus ripped open due to said penetration? When was the last time she spoke with a toddler and the toddler’s family after the toddler had been filmed or photographed having sex with the uncle, neighbor or someone else?

She may have a Ph.D. in biophysics, but she flunked the basic course on common sense.
George Phillies Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Let me remind readers that for Washington, D.C. Congress and the President pay the role played elsewhere by the State Legislature and the Governor, namely they are the highest legislative authority.

It is certainly legitimate for the press to inquire how this responsibility will be discharged.

There are lots of ‘libertarian’ books out there. When you make someone teh nominee, you are endorsing their ideas.

Those of you who want to apply this test to me will find that my books are available commercially

This Shining Sea
The MinuteGirls
Nine Gees— fiction

Contemporary Perspectives
Design Elements —game design

Stand Up for Liberty
Funding Liberty —Libertarian Party

The above are from Third Millennium http://3mpub.com/phillies

Elementary Lectures in Statistical Mechanics
Springer Verlag, New York —statistical mechanics, based on the ansatz of the late Josiah Willard Gibbs.
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Gene,
I don’t think it counts as consent once they’re screaming, “Stop!” Besides, what if the guy has a really tiny penis, and only goes for kids because they won’t know the difference (it’s all big to them, right?). Oh, never mind.
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 8:30 am
That’s just low, George.
The Democratic Republican Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I’m sure glad the politically astute individuals out there are offering tips to Ruwart on how to spin her ridiculous ideas. I won’t go over all the reasons again about why her arguments are ridiculous.

All I want to ask is this: why are we giving spin advice to someone who is an anarchist and represents the most radical view possible within the LP? Shouldn’t we consider WHY we would even want someone like this representing the party? Anarchism IS NOT THE SAME as libertarianism.
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Tom (of the no last name variety),

You write:

“Why even put that question into her book in the first place. Of all the tough questions I’ve faced about our lib philosophy that’s (age of consent) one I’ve never encountered and certainly never want too. If this is the bullet proof candidate you purists really do want to kill this party and any hope for a successful LP. You obviously have no children of your own.”

It’s definitely a question that comes up whether Libertarians want it to or not. To the extent that we’re seen as completely in favor of freedom, an obvious point of attack is “what about the children?” And that question will be asked on various fronts:

– You want CHILDREN to be able to buy drugs?
– You want CHILDREN to be able to buy guns?
– You want CHILDREN to be able to have sex?

I don’t agree with the answer that Dr. Ruwart is quoted as giving to that last one—and I’m far from the only libertarian who would disagree with that answer. However, I think that the major defect in the answer is not that she wants kids to have sex (I doubt that she does), but rather that she’s attempting to apply a “short answers to tough questions” approach to a question that can’t be handled with a short answer.

And yes, I do have kids. Three of them. My two sons are 9 and 7, and if anyone molests them the police need to get there before I do or there will be a funeral instead of a trial. My daughter is 17, and in my opinion hasn’t been a “child” for some time. That doesn’t mean she’ll always make the right sexual decisions, but at some point in the last few years she became qualified to make her own decisions of that type … and take responsibility for them.

What bugs me—although I went through the same phase myself—is how many people show up in the LP, run into something they don’t like, and immediately start wailing about how it will be the death of the party if not “fixed” to their satisfaction. Hint: This issue is not new, and there have been much bigger fights over it than this one through the years.
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Minarchism is not the same as anarchism. Libertarianism is a broad philosophy including both views. The Dallas Accord in fact assures that the Libertarian Party cannot officially say that government should exist. Anarchists represent a large portion of the Libertarian Party (which is still not much considering our size).
Steve LaBianca Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Dictionary- “A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer.”

I have never pretended to NOT have any association with the Mary Ruwart for president committee. I am a volunteer for the campaign. Just read my posts, and you’ll see that in many of them, I ask for support, whether by vote, financial or voluntary means, of people who have left positive comments.

I also don’t pretend to be in a position of “leadership” nor do I aspire to such a role in the LP. I am a life member of the party. Any presumption to the contrary is purely speculation . . and is absolutely incorrect.

Let there be no doubt, that all the hullabaloo about nothing regarding “age of consent”, anarchy, etc is as purely speculative of Mary Ruwart’s personal and political positions as that I am a “shill” or a wannabe LP “leader”.

Less Antman is absolutely correct: he says “Since this is an unmoderated board allowing people to have multiple identities, claim any affiliation, and claim any statements without providing links, I would suggest that everything be taken with a grain of salt unless and until evidence is offered.”

I offer up my beliefs in an untainted way . . . yes I support Mary Ruwart, and I am honored to have been asked to help out as a volunteer with the campaign. You may disagree with my views, strategy and objectives for the LP, and liberty in and for America. That is in my view the purpose of these boards and websites. However, I will not allow objectionable charges go unanswered as to my motives.

Certain people who post comments on this site and others, by virtue of their continued use of degrading, foul and offensive language, as well as making unsubstantiated claims, have completely discredited themselves as having anything to say of value whatsoever. You know who you are, and I hope that anyone reading this knows it too.

It is no wonder there are so many “libertarians” who feel the need for the state . . . just look at the temperament of these people . . . on a nearly unmoderated board, these folks have no clue as to how to act in a civil manner, no less keep their posts on message without making wild and unsubstantiated accusations.

As far as the comment “I’m beginning to smell fear in the purist heart of hearts.” I believe that the smear tactics of the detractors of Mary Ruwart is evidence of FEAR ON THE PART OF SUPPORTERS OF MARY RUWART’S LP PRESIDENTIAL COMPETITORS!
Steve LaBianca Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I post my comments here as everywhere, using my REAL first and last name. I have no need to hide behind any ambiguous “pen name”, or first name only like the weenies who won’t put their own name and reputation on the line.
G.E. Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Lifemember – If you think one is a “sick fuck” for recognizing economic reality, then you are a DUMB fuck. And to be clear, I think pedophiles and child pornographers should be stoned to death.
Andrew Taylor Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I’ve already stated here at TPW in other threads that Dr. Mary Ruwart is my preferred candidate for the LP presidential nomination. I would like to see the quotes that are being discussed in their context in the book before I make any judgments about whether or not I agree with what she has written.

My first inclination is to believe that those who dislike Dr. Ruwart are reading her statements in the most uncharitable way possible. I find it not merely hard, but impossible, to believe that anyone who has either ethics or intelligence—and she seemingly has both—could possibly believe that the sexual abuse and coercion of children is in any form, shape, or way tolerable, much less permissible.

That’s not to say that she hasn’t written something in a less than clear way that opens herself up to such ugly charges. But I would be shocked if she affirmed that she does indeed believe her statements are true in the manner in which they are being uncharitably interpreted. And, of course, I could no longer support her candidacy, and would actively work against it, as well as make every effort to marginalize her in the party. There can be no room for pedophiles or their defenders in the LP. How can the sexual abuse of children ever be defended or justified as “non-aggressive”??

Let’s not pretend, however, that there are not problems with the way current laws approach this problem. For example, almost all cases of an adult male having consensual sex with a teenage female are seen as a terrible breach of ethics, morality, and trust. However, when a teenage male has sex with an adult female (e.g., Debra LaFave, Mary Kay LeTourneau, ad infinitum), blogs of all political persuasions and none are quickly filled with comments like, “Where were all these horny teachers when I was in high school?”

Sexism appears to enter the picture here. Young men—even as young as 13—are given credit for being fully capable of making sexual choices for themselves. However, young women—until they reach the magical age of 18—are considered to be the “victims” of any consensual sexual encounter with any male 18 or above—as witness the case of the Georgia student from last year (which also had racial implications, because he was African-American).

Rest assured that I’m not claiming to have any answers here. I’m with Knapp—anyone who was to harm any of my children would quickly find himself or herself sucking on the business end of my .45, while the sharp point of my USMC sword rested gently in their anal cavity region. But I do think that the issues involved in some of this discussion are far from clear-cut, and that’s why thoughtful people like Dr. Ruwart think and write about it—even if they do so less than artfully. So I have to give her benefit of the doubt until I know for sure otherwise.

And, just to make myself perfectly clear, I think that pedophiles deserve the death penalty. There is no “cure” for baby rapers or child molesters. They should be given instant admission to a dirt nap.
G.E. Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 10:47 am
“I’m with Knapp—anyone who was to harm any of my children would quickly find himself or herself sucking on the business end of my .45, while the sharp point of my USMC sword rested gently in their anal cavity region.”

Not to make light of a serious subject, but they would probably like that.
G.E. Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 10:48 am
“I think that pedophiles deserve the death penalty. There is no ‘cure’ for baby rapers or child molesters. They should be given instant admission to a dirt nap.”

I agree.
C. Al Currier Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 11:17 am

“what about the children?” And that question will be asked on various fronts:

– You want CHILDREN to be able to buy drugs?
– You want CHILDREN to be able to buy guns?
– You want CHILDREN to be able to have sex?

.....Thomas L. Knapp Says

The view from the street in America is frequently the opposite of what I hear from those who speculate about the problems.

I see CHILDREN not buying the drugs, but selling them; not buying the guns, but selling them; not buying the sex, but selling it.

-And that’s with the Government in charge of stuff in America.

Let’s get our questions straight before we start working on the answers.
G.E. Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Here is why the purchase and possession of child pornography is an act of aggression and should be illegal: If I were to hire a man to kill my wife, who would be committing the act of aggression? Most libertarians would agree that both the man who pulled the trigger and the man (me) who conspired to have it happen would be guilty of murder. By hiring the triggerman, I’m sending a market signal (directly) that there is a demand for my wife’s murder, and thereby directly causing the act to come into being. Child pornography works the same way—by purchasing materials which depict actual incidents of child sex abuse (or any other act of aggression), I am in essence hiring the perpetrators to commit the act. The only difference is I pay up front for the murder, and I pay after the fact for the child porn. Child pornographers are more “entrepreneurial” than hitmen, but particularly with a steady stream of customers, the result is exactly the same. A market signal is being sent to commit an act of aggression, and the act comes into being as a direct result of that signal.
Tom G. Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Arrived late to a controversial thread….

Until I get a better sense of what Mary Ruwart intended by her “short answer” – i.e. a longer one – I reserve judgement. But I don’t expect to throw her overboard for this issue.
She apparently didn’t make it clear what ages she speaks of (so drop the inflammatory “50 yr old with a 5 yr old” BS, please). There is also a definite distinction between ephebephilia and pedophilia which some people are unaware of.

At the present time, if I do vote at all (BIG if, that…) it will be for the Libertarian candidate – and Mary hasn’t lost my confidence just yet.
btk Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 11:42 am
You’re all missing the essential point – popular politics isn’t the answer no matter if it’s Ruwart or the libertarian saviour Ron Paul. Wake up and don’t waste your time playing this collectivist game.
Old Whig Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Consensual child sex is actually being debated? WTF?

Once again the Libertarian Party finds a way to maintain its fraction of one percent on election day. I pray to God that you guys aren’t the only ones standing between us and tyranny.

O.W.
parse Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
G.E., you say the only difference between purchasing child porn and hiring a hit man is that “I pay up front for the murder, and I pay after the fact for the child porn,” and you don’t find this difference particularly salient.

What if somebody killed my wife, and I find out who it was. I tell him, “I am so glad to be rid of that bitch” and I give him $200. Are you saying I’m guilty of murder?

I think the notion that “sending a market signal” that there is a demand for something “directly causes the act to come into being” is somewhat muddled.
Roderick T. Long Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
This quote, taken out of context, makes it sound as though Ruwart doesn’t believe in age-of-consent restrictions. If you read the actual context in her book, however, she makes clear that she has no objection to such restrictions, though she thinks they should be sensitive to the details of the individual case rather than being applied robotically across the board. Is that an unreasonbale posiiton?
Catholic Trotskyist Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I’m with Dave Williams on this.
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Do we not see the slippery slope of the argument that “encouraging” an act is aggression? Hell, what can’t be made illegal if encouraging someone else to do something illegal is the test of aggression? Besides, economic incentive? Most child porn to my knowledge is shared freely on p2p networks (if I’m to trust the names of the files). Perhaps there is some trading going on, but I don’t think many pedophiles buy their porn. Besides, what can be effectively done? Only a tiny portion of the population engage in looking at child porn anyway, most people (even those with an attraction to children) rightfully find child porn to be immensely disturbing.

In my mind we should focus on actual crimes against children, of which there are many. Pretty much every libertarian believes in some form of consenting age, and I’m sure that Ruwart is no exception to this. Honestly, in a anarchic society, more child rapists would probably be brought to justice, if I’m to trust the comments on this board. The system we have now sure isn’t doing much to stop it.
Gene Trosper Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
1. ShadowOutlaw Says:
  April 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Gene,
I don’t think it counts as consent once they’re screaming, “Stop!” Besides, what if the guy has a really tiny penis, and only goes for kids because they won’t know the difference (it’s all big to them, right?). Oh, never mind.

********************

Yeah…good idea: never mind.

As for screaming “stop”, there are quite a few kids who won’t scream or complain because they are SCARED.
G.E. Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
parse – My correlary is better than yours. The child pornographer produces his product with the belief that someone is going to buy it. The random murderer does not act out of the expectation that the victim’s husband will pay him after the fact.

Shadow – There is a difference between “encouraging” an act of aggression and producing a product that depicts an actual act of aggression. I’m against laws against products that theoretically “encourage” acts of aggression—who is to say? But a product that depicts an actual act of aggression being committed is entirely different, for the reasons I’ve outlined above. I don’t see a slippery slope at all.
Dave Williams Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
“Certain people who post comments on this site and others, by virtue of their continued use of degrading, foul and offensive language, as well as making unsubstantiated claims, have completely discredited themselves as having anything to say of value whatsoever. You know who you are, and I hope that anyone reading this knows it too.”

Followed by calling folks names…

“I have no need to hide behind any ambiguous “pen name”, or first name only like the weenies who won’t put their own name and reputation on the line.”

‘weenies’... hahahaha stick to whining about your pedophile loving candidate.
Dave Williams Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
1. Catholic Trotskyist Says:
  April 24th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I’m with Dave Williams on this.

Thanks commie, I’ll be sure to administer your fate quick and painless.
Alex Peak Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 12:22 am
LifeMember, after calling me a “sick fuck” for my understanding that black markets always artificially raise demand relative to supply, asks me, “The simple question for you is: Will you support or oppose Mary Ruwart?”

Will I support Mary Ruwart for a federal office? Absolutely I will. She wants to get the federal government out of all the areas out of which I also want to get the federal government.

If you don’t support her, don’t vote for her. But don’t expect her to make her view on state issues a focus of her federal campaign. That would make about as much sense as focusing her campaign on her views regarding Coke or Pepsi.

You don’t want to vote for her. That’s fine, I respect your view. But I will continue to support her.

Hell, just a few months ago, I was supporting a doctor in the Republican who wants the government to enact horrible, unconstitutional immigration laws. (I will still vote for this man if he somehow gets his party’s nomination.) If I’m willing to vote for a man who holds a view on a federal issue so contrary to mine, why wouldn’t I vote into federal office a woman who agrees with me on the federal government, especially given her ease in communicating libertarian principles?

LifeMember writes, “This is too much for me: Libertarians defending child abuse.”

I don’t see where any libertarian has done this. To quote one of the libertarians currently running for president, “Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can and should prosecute their oppressors.”

This is Ruwart’s view, and it’s common sense. Saying that she’s a “Libertarian[] who want to have sex with children” is outright libel.

Mr. Sipos, I give the reasons I can no longer feel optimistic about Barr here.

Democratic Republican writes, “Anarchism IS NOT THE SAME as libertarianism.”

True, but then, it’s also true to say that Red Dye #9 is not the same thing as “red.”

Libertarianism can be subdivided into two main factions: minarchism and anarchism. A minarchist who calls an anarchist a non-libertarian for being an anarchist is just as flawed as an anarchist who calls a minarchist a non-libertarian for being a minarchist. Not only are both groups factions of the libertarian movement, I would argue that both factions need the other.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Alex Peak Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Mr. Trospers writes, “As for screaming ‘stop,’ there are quite a few kids who won’t scream or complain because they are SCARED.”

That’s true under anarchy, under minarchy, hell, even under status quo statism. Your point? If I may be so bold as to presume to know ShadowOutlaw’s point, it is that rape is always unjust, and that any person has the right to withdraw consent at any time. That principle holds true no matter what system you advocate; and the fact that there will inevitably be some sick assholes who rape and get away with it will remain true no matter what system we’re under.

As for age of consent itself, I wish to say as a disclaimer that I don’t claim to be wise enough to know certain things. For example, I don’t claim to be wise enough to know whether or not there is a God. Likewise, I am not wise enough to know what age should constitute ability to consent. I think one is too low and eighteen is too high, but exactly where the line is, I don’t know, don’t claim to know, and may never know. Further, I have no intention of ever putting myself in the situation where I’m unsure of the ability of the person with whom I wish to engage in sexual activities to consent. I won’t even get near that sort of thing.

I maintain my support for Ms. Ruwart.

Alex
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Thanks for clarifying my opinion Alex.

G.E. – I simply cannot agree that someone who views a recording of an aggression is somehow culpable for the crime. For instance, viewing the picture of the napalm girl does not mean you have helped spray her with napalm, no matter what your reasons for viewing it. Certainly, anyone viewing it for pleasure is positively demented, but they have not committed an act of aggression. If you seriously argue that intention matters, then child pornography is a thought crime, and by extension the viewing of atomic bombings for pleasure is equally (if not more) criminal. As I’ve said previously, it can be argued that the subject owns the rights to the photos, but I personally don’t believe in intellectual property. And as I said, that would be a much different crime, with a very different punishment.

As a side discussion, I have to wonder what your opinions on this situation would be: say a young girl decides to photograph herself nude or in lewd sexual positions, but waits to distribute them until she is an adult. Is she committing a crime? Are the people who view the pictures? I vaguely recollect a situation like this actually occurring.
G.E. Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Shadow – As far as the napalm spraying, it depends on the intent of the act itself, as I have explained. Did the napalm spraying itself occur for commercial reasons, i.e. to produce documentation of it for commercial profit? This DOES matter the same as the hitman analogy. And I would also agree that the victim has the rights to his/her image and likeness. As for your second scenario, I would fall back on the ability of the girl to consent. Is she able to rationally consent and contract? I don’t know a method for determining one’s ability to do so, so I’m willing to leave that up to common law. I know of no better way.
Clark Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 7:28 am
...ah yes, some thinkers, Shadow, Parse..etc..

...these !poor Republicrat prohibitionists, know-it-alls, pecksniffs, etc. ad nauseam..not appreciably different from Hitler as to views on ‘law and order’..

..the ‘hitman analogy’ seems to perplex them..

...particularly as to ‘abortion’..

...where many of these Republicrat crude fakes claim “a first-degree murder” has occured..

...yet they nearly all choke like goddamned fools when you ask them to state, PRECISELY, what the penalties should be for violation of their stinking laws..

..NEARLY ALL of these inconsistent fools, loudmouths, etc. prohibitionists, would punish ‘the hitman’ (doctor) more than the person who initiated, participated in, etc. ‘the murder’..

..thoughtful libertarians, the Republicrattery of Dave Williams, etc. loud, shallow, Republicans here, is bound to happen when GD fools, peckerheads, Republicrats, etc. such as radio “Libertarian” Kneel Boor, etc.. are your/our biggest recruiting tool..and he do appear a tool) ;o)
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Um, Clark, your writing has a very schizophrenic feel to it. You, uh, might want to get that checked out.

Honestly, G.E., I think all questions of consent should be left to common law. And while I still disagree with you on the “commercial purposes” argument, I can understand your viewpoint. My point here was simply that when a libertarian follows the non-aggression principle, they can reasonably end up on either side of the argument. In other words there are gray areas, particularly with the child porn issue.
G.E. Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Shadow – One more time. If I kill a man’s wife because I hate her and then her husband gives me $10k because he hated her too, only I would have committed a crime (although the husband would certainly be under suspicion). But if I kill the man’s wife with the intent of collecting the $10k bounty, and the bounty is paid, then we both have committed crimes. How would I know the man would pay? He could either contract me directly, or he could make it generally known that he would be $10k to whomever killed his wife. Maybe there were certain (cyber) communities where people who would pay to have their wives killed congregated. Apply this same rationale to racially motivated killings. If I paid $10k per minority kill, would I not be committing a crime? By your rationale, I wouldn’t. What if I started sending $10k to every person who murdered a black man? That would be sending a market signal to kill blacks. How would this be different from paying directly? It wouldn’t. Child porn follows the exact same logic.
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
However, there is no contract, verbal or otherwise. To conspire, you must necessarily have made an agreement with someone. But even if you are right, that would only apply if it was paid for in some manner, and in most cases I’ve read about, child porn is a freely shared commodity. The situation I gave earlier completely avoids this problem as well.

Also, it should be noted that you open up a can of worms with your argument, which doesn’t necessarily make it invalid. I wonder how you can even consider paying taxes, since you know that a portion of your money is going to commit evil deeds (I at least imagine that some of what the government does, you would consider evil). In fact, this is even worse. You are literally supporting financially a system that takes property and kills innocents. This is assuming you pay taxes, of course. I realize this is a bit of a different topic, but I’m interested in your response.
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Also, regarding the “market signal” argument, it’s not a crime. Many people do just that, in fact. Many people support through donations and fund raising people who are otherwise criminals. This has happened in cases of animal rights supporters committing arson and other property violations, and then having people donate. Maybe it should be illegal, but I haven’t seen that it is.
G.E. Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Shadow – So do you think bounties should be legal? And child porn is not “freely shared.” The givers and receivers get some type of remuneration, even if non-monetary, for their trade. And I don’t like paying taxes or supporting the crimes of the U.S. (which include child rape, see Iraq), but I do it at gunpoint and under threat of imprisonment.
ShadowOutlaw Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
G.E. – The legality of a bounty should be judged on a case by case basis (there is a possibility that such would be justified), but in general I don’t believe they should be. But I think I fundamentally agree with you. Now we just need to figure out how to determine one’s purposes in obtaining said material. After all, there are a great many depictions of aggressive acts in the world, and it’s not unreasonable that someone might want to show child porn for the purpose of illustrating how cruel it is (in the same way a pro-lifer might show a dead fetus or an anti-war supporter would show dead Iraqi children). And of course the question of when someone is of consenting age is an iffy one (though five year olds are obviously not and 35 year olds obviously are, in most cases). And of course with the internet it would be practically impossible to attempt a war on child porn that would be more effective than the social pressure that already exists. I suppose for practical purposes, the best thing someone could do would be to create simulated child porn to alleviate demand for the real thing. Now I’m probably just being edgy for the hell of it.

As for the issue of paying taxes, I’m still not sure whether you or I are doing the right thing. Certainly, we shouldn’t be held responsible in a lawful sense, since we are vocal in protest and are being forced at gun point. However, do we not share some guilt regardless? Would we not be better people if we didn’t participate, even if it came at risk to ourselves? I’m still not sure.
G.E. Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Shadow – I think the distinctions are pretty clear and easy to see. There’s a difference between a snuff film and a camera-phone recording of police brutality.

As for taxation, I would admire people who refused to pay their taxes out of civil disobedience if I knew any. Right now, all I know is deluded people who insist that “there is no law” and that they have secret invocations they can recite before a judge to receive a get-out-of-taxes-free card. I don’t respect these people, at least not for this reason. But I have a family to provide for and a daughter to raise—it would be morally cowardly for me to “take a stand” and go to the state’s dungeons, leaving my child to fend for herself. I guess truly committed libertarians should not have children.
Alex Peak Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 3:32 am
The debate between G.E. and ShadowOutlaw is a very important one. I think I side with Shadow. Let’s say person X committed a crime, paid his time, and is now free. Let’s say I’m rich, and I give a million dollars to X. I have committed no crime, but if this is not a crime, then it cannot be a crime to give a million dollars each to a million murderers. It can only be illegal if I contracted to have the murder committed, requested it in some way, or petitioned for it in some way.

I currently do give money to murderers, by the way; although the only reason I do so is because Uncle Sam will lock me up if I don’t. The question comes down to whether or not it is injust to volunteer such money, and as long as it’s okay to volunteer the money in the form of charity to some sick nut, it must be okay to volunteer to donate to all the sick nuts of the world. To claim the ‘market signal’ argument upons us up to allowing for the banning of boycotts.

ShadowOutlaw writes, “As I’ve said previously, it can be argued that the subject owns the rights to the photos, but I personally don’t believe in intellectual property.”

I’ve generally come around to opposing IP, but I still remain very open-minded on this one. Nevertheless, let me pose this hypothetical to you:

Let’s say we accept that IP is unjust. Could we instead say that, in the same way a slave has a right to own the land on which he was forced to labour, a woman can own all the copies derived from a photograph taken by a rapist as he is raping her? This wouldn’t simply be an IP case, since we’re not simply dealing with what Kinsella refers to as “libertarian creationism,” we’re dealing with the homesteading of property from an act of aggression. Certainly, among other things, the girl would gain immediate ownership of the original photo. If the rapist takes the photo with him, he is usurping from the girl her just property. Any copies he makes of her property is made without her consent, so her property rights are thereby further violated. Would this violation not allow her to homestead all copies?

I’m not sure where I stand on the thought experiment I pose, but I did want to bring it up to see where you stand.

“As a side discussion, I have to wonder what your opinions on this situation would be: say a young girl decides to photograph herself nude or in lewd sexual positions, but waits to distribute them until she is an adult. Is she committing a crime? Are the people who view the pictures?”

I would say that only a complete fool could say she doesn’t have the right to sell pictures of her younger self.

“As for the issue of paying taxes, I’m still not sure whether you or I are doing the right thing. Certainly, we shouldn’t be held responsible in a lawful sense, since we are vocal in protest and are being forced at gun point. However, do we not share some guilt regardless?”

Why should we feel any guilt? The criminals doing the murdering are the same ones stealing from us: the politicians. THEY are to feel guilty for their many crimes, not us? We are but victims in their sick game. We should feel outrage, not guilt.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak
MY WAR! Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Alex, why do you support pedophilia?
G.E Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Alex – It looks like you didn’t read the entire debate. I concede the obvious that giving someone a million dollars after the fact for a murder he committed with no expectation of remuneration is legal. But I say, “What if a genocidal racist began paying $100,000 for every minority kill—would that be legal?” Are bounties legal? The buyers of child porn are essentially putting out bounties, standing orders, for pictures of child abuse (in which the child abuse must actually happen). Would it be morally legitimate and thus legal in a libertarian society to advertise the fact that I would pay $100,000 to anyone who raped a child and provided evidence of the rape?, or b) just began sending money to people who did? If so, then it must also be legal for me to pay people for killing minorities or gays. After the initial payment, word would get around, and then there would be a de facto contract. Unlike the scenario presented by you and Shadow, my scenario is quite “realistic” (at least by comparison), and has direct implications to child porn.
Alex Peak Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“MY WAR!” writes, “Alex, why do you support pedophilia?”

Given that there are no Alexes in this thread that support pædophilia, I do not know who you could possibly be directing that question.

If you’re asking me, then you clearly haven’t read what I’ve written. The disclaimer I give above states rather clearly that I do not know at what age a person gains the ability to consent, that I do not claim to be wise enough to know, and that I have no intention of ever putting myself in a situation where I do not know if the person with whom I’m engaging in sexual activity has the ability to consent—I wouldn’t even touch that with a ten foot pole.

If you would like a second disclaimer, allow me to add that I oppose the sexual engagement involving persons unwilling to or unable to consent. I’m, philosophically, still trying to figure out where that line is; but believe me, where ever it is, I’m quite far from it. I have zero intent of engaging in any such activity with anyone under the age of 16—Maryland’s age-of-consent—not because the law is there, but because the thought of engaging in activity of that nature with young children personally sickens me.

Do you need a third disclaimer, or will that be enough?

Ruwart 2008!
Alex Peak Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Mr. Smith writes, “But I say, ‘What if a genocidal racist began paying $100,000 for every minority kill—would that be legal?’”

And I believe I made the case that as long as said genocidal racist does not specifically ask anyone to kill and does not contract to have anyone killed, he/she has not violated anyone’s natural rights. We may wish to say it is subjectively immoral to do what he is doing, but we cannot say it is objectively unethical unless he actually tells people, “I will give money to those who kill whom I want to to see killed.”

“Are bounties legal?”

If a court finds that person X is guilty of killing or of raping, whether purposefully or by accident; and if the victim wishes for execution be used as the punishment against X (if the victim is dead, we check his will—if the victim is alive, he/she is likely the plantiff); and if the plaintiff suing on behalf of the victim wishes to pursue capital punishment; then it’s perfectly justifiable to hire a bounty to perform the execution. The bounty, of course, must not kill or harm anyone else in his/her pursuit of X.

“The buyers of child porn are essentially putting out bounties, standing orders, for pictures of child abuse (in which the child abuse must actually happen).”

This is where it gets into IP.

If copyrights are just, then the victim necessarily owns the pictures, and may either deny access to them of anyone she/he wants, or may conversely sell them her-/himself for profit.

If copyrights are not just, I think a case could still possibly be made for the victim ownership of the product. But let us assume for a second that such a case absolutely cannot be rationally made. In this scenario, no one can own the images, nor can anyone compell others not to look at the images.

I think, in this situation, that I side against general copyrights yet in favour of the victim homesteading the images. The result is something very similar to classical IP, but rather than being based upon what Kinsella calls “libertarian creationism,” it is based on Rothbard’s homesteading principle.

Let’s look at another scenario: privacy rights. I contend that privacy rights are a negative right, not a positive right. If two famous people have sex on a public beach, and someone record it and sells copies of the recording, the two being filmed have no legal recourse. Likewise, if they are in their home and have the windows open, so that anyone can see what they’re doing; and if someone records their activity from somewhere off their property, makes copies, and sells them; the two being filmed have no legal recourse. Conversely, if they close their shades, and the only way someone can see them doing the act is by coming onto their property and manipulating their shades, then the two being recorded are having their negative rights to privacy infringed upon, and thus have a right to not only the tapes, but to all profits made from their sale.

“Would it be morally legitimate and thus legal in a libertarian society to advertise the fact that I would pay $100,000 to anyone who raped a child and provided evidence of the rape?, or b) just began sending money to people who did?”

(B) would be legally permissible, for reasons I detail in my post at 3:32 AM.

(A) would not.

“If so, then it must also be legal for me to pay people for killing minorities or gays.”

If you advertise that you are going to pay for murder, or ask someone to murder, or contract to have someone murdered, you are acting illegally. If all you are doing is giving money to murderers, you cannot be said to be acting illegally, only charitably.

“After the initial payment, word would get around, and then there would be a de facto contract.”

Nope! That’s exactly where you are wrong, Mr. Smith. There would be no “de facto contract,” and we can be sure of this because contracts are enforceable. This is not. No one can compell you to give money to the murderers, and you’re free to stop giving at any time, or to discriminate by only giving your charity to certain murderers. Not one of these murderers has any legal recourse against you for failure to donate.

Conversely, if you say, “I will give money to anyone who murders Mexicans,” then you are creating a contract, and therefore are acting illegally.

:)

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Mary Ruwart interviewed by Pat Dixon

94 Responses to “Mary Ruwart interviewed by Pat Dixon”

Leave a Reply

Navigation

Other Useful Sites

Party Websites

Archives

Categories