Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography

From the Libertarian Party:

The Libertarian Party is calling for increased coordination and communication between federal and state law enforcement agencies in order to help to apprehend and convict child predators and those who engage in child pornography.

“FBI Chief Robert Mueller was correct when he said we are losing the war on child pornography,” says Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory, referring to comments made by the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday before a House Judiciary Committee meeting. “We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children.”

Muller stated federal, state and local agencies all needed to be integrated as one method of helping to pursue child pornographers. Mueller also stated that while the FBI had nearly 270 agents working on child pornography cases, there needed to be more resources dedicated to stopping the child porn industry.

“One way in which the FBI can free up more resources for combating child pornography is by reducing expenditures made in investigating and prosecuting victimless crimes among consenting adults,” says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. “Instead of going after crimes where no rights are violated, and both parties involved are consent-giving adults, the FBI will be able to better go after sexual crimes involving children. Protecting individual rights is a core function of government, and that includes protecting the life and liberty of children harmed by exploitation and sexual predators.”

The Libertarian Party is America’s third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

76 Responses to “Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography”

  1. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Damage control?

  2. Mike Theodore Says:

    I guess. /:

  3. Jerry Baner Says:

    This just gets funnier and funnier.

    Everyone everywhere is doing exactly what they shouldn’t do to make this not be news. Ruwart isn’t responding, Root is asking Mary to drop out, and now the LP is making formal statements.

    They need to hire a new PR guy. Stephen, considering quitting the Barr campaign and go back to the party directly, would ya?

  4. Bill Crain Says:

    Not a bad response I’d say: they put it out with the trash on Friday afternoon. This is doing it by the book.

    Wasn’t so long ago Harry Browne would have had everyone in DC busy stuffing envelopes with fundraising letters instead.

  5. Jared Says:

    Why would the FBI be best suited for this?

    Why is the federal government the solution? Where in the Constitution does the government have the duty to combat this?

    Anytime the LP supports the FBI or any federal agency it makes my stomach turn. What’s next, an endorsement of the BATF or FEMA?

  6. Geofrey the Liberator Says:

    Well the FBI is already involved, and obviously spending way too much of your money. I believe your USLP is correct in advocating “reducing expenditures made in investigating and prosecuting victimless crimes among consenting adults” and yes, indeed, their resources are better put to use elsewhere.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, society, and yes sometimes that means a government for the people and by the people, must protect those that can not protect themselves. Most Libertarians in this world are Federalists, thus they would not have a problem with government doing the protecting. Indeed that is one of their duties as outlined in your own Declaration of Independence (Guaranteeing a right to safety) & Constitution (Amendment IV).

    However for the anarchists out there, I dare say go buy yourselves and island and go live happily ever after and see how long you last (or your young children when all the pedophiles move into your little world). Well the sun is coming up and I’m off for an early morning run so good day to you chaps and good luck.

  7. Tom Says:

    Thank Mary the spin mistress. Why hasn’t she said a peep.

    It’s only going to get worse as every libertarian candidate everywhere is going to get grilled over this. Talk about a set back for the LP. Maybe not if we spin Mary out of the party.

    I don’t think the short answer is working. Other web sites have picked it up and it’s not a pretty picture.

    Of course that doesn’t bother a true pedo. Now does it Jerry?

    Good work LP, keep up the PR to let everyone know this Ruwart crap doesn’t pass the smell test with us.

  8. disinter Says:

    Why would the FBI be best suited for this?

    Why is the federal government the solution? Where in the Constitution does the government have the duty to combat this?

    Anytime the LP supports the FBI or any federal agency it makes my stomach turn. What’s next, an endorsement of the BATF or FEMA?

    Exactly. This statement by the “Libertarian” Party is about as repulsive as they come.

  9. Geofrey the Liberator Says:

    Please sir—you are repulsive. This all started because someone who wants to run for your President, executive in chief of your Federal Government, apparently thinks it is OK for a 5 year old to have sexual relations with a consenting 50 year old. This may be an ever so slight exaggeration but you get the drift. What is the role of a Federal Government if not to protect those who can not protect themselves? And what should be a role of a national political party and those that want a position of leadership in the governing of their federal system? The role should NOT be to eliminate that government, for that is not the role of a national party. The role should be to lead that government into a more Libertarian direction. You must start with small steps, but abolishing the one role that is most important, protecting those who can not protect themselves, is not the answer. Please go back to looking at child porn on the net or better yet, move to an island, preferably one for the insane, and not mine! Thank you and good day!

  10. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Just by odd coincidence, I happen to be reading “Short Answers” for the first time right now. I’m not a plumb-liner by any means, but I’ve liked Dr. Ruwart’s approach in the past and wanted to get a sense of how she would promote libertarianism. Most of the short answers are understandable if not always persuasive, and that’s true of most of the children’s rights answers as well.

    It really doesn’t matter whom I support for the nomination, since I’m not a delegate. But I really want Ruwart to address this unfortunate issue, sooner rather than later.

  11. Mik Robertson Says:

    It seems to me a fair role for government to play is to secure individual rights. The federal government in this case could further conserve their resources by focusing on interstate or international activity. Increased communication to facilitate that role is not a bad idea. This appears to be a reasonable position for the LNC to take.

  12. Alex Peak Says:

    Geofrey writes, “However for the anarchists out there, I dare say go buy yourselves and island and go live happily ever after and see how long you last…”

    We’ve tried that. We’ve tried homesteading land, buying islands, creating islands, even buying third world states from petty dictators. So far, nothing has worked.

    Tom writes, “Of course that doesn’t bother a true pedo. Now does it Jerry?”

    So suddenly all constitutionalists and federalists and Jeffersonians are paedofiles? Dude! The federal government has no authority whatsoever to be involved in issues of sex, molestation, rape, murder, property damage, libel, slander, or any of the other areas reserved to the states under the tenth amendment. Advocating the tenth amendment does not make you a paedofile.

    Geofrey writes, “This all started because someone who wants to run for your President, executive in chief of your Federal Government, apparently thinks it is OK for a 5 year old to have sexual relations with a consenting 50 year old.”

    Infer much? I have yet to see proof that she would agree with your inference of her opinion.

    “What is the role of a Federal Government if not to protect those who can not protect themselves?”

    The role of the federal government, if you actually read the Constitution, can be found in Article I, Section 8. Read it. Very, very, very little power is granted to the federal government because the Founders wanted most of the powers to rest with the states.

    “And what should be a role of a national political party and those that want a position of leadership in the governing of their federal system?”

    No political party has the authority to infringe upon the tenth amendment. The Libertarian Party has never shown any signs of wanting to infringe upon the tenth amendment, and I’d like to keep it that way.

    Mr. Robertson writes, “It seems to me a fair role for government to play is to secure individual rights. The federal government in this case could further conserve their resources by focusing on interstate or international activity. Increased communication to facilitate that role is not a bad idea. This appears to be a reasonable position for the LNC to take.”

    The reason the LNC’s position is reasonable is because they do not explicitely state that it is a proper role of the federal government to involve itself in this area, and instead just points out the truthful fact that if the federal government didn’t waste so much time on victimless crimes, it would be able to do a better job at fighting child porn and child sex slave rings.

    You’ll see the libertarian in the release says, “Protecting individual rights is a core function of government, and that includes protecting the life and liberty of children harmed by exploitation and sexual predators.” He does not say “the federal government,” just “the government.” So the press release is fine.

    Yours,
    Alex Peak

  13. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Whoever put that piece of garbage out at LPHQ needs to be given about a five second window to resign before being fired.

  14. Jerry Baner Says:

    Tom,

    Can’t agree more.

  15. G.E. Says:

    Geoffrey the “Liberator” is a Euro-social-democrat surrender monkey who should keep his fucking mouth shut when the subject of liberty is at hand.

    The LP further establishes itself as a joke. The entire LNC should be thrown out on its ear. The FBI should be abolished, for god’s sake! Shane Cory is just another fascist Friedmanite wannabe “efficiency” whore for the state, and he should NOT be speaking on behalf of dues-paying libertarians.

  16. G.E. Says:

    Alex Peak – The 10th amendment is irrelevent (and redundant). The power is NOT enumerated in the Constitution, and therefore is reserved to the states or to the people.

    THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER dealing in this issue, unless you apply a Phillies-liberal interpretation of Supreme Court opinions as de facto amendments, which no real libertarians ever would. Even “libertarians” in this thread have been indoctrinated with liberal, anti-Jeffersonian Catoite faux-constitutionalism in their public schools. Inter-state or not, there is NO BUSINESS for the feds to be involved in child porn, PERIOD, no exceptions.

  17. Jerry Baner Says:

    I love reading the point counter point point system with libertarians. It’s funny when people like GE chimes in, USING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON EXCEPT ANNOYANCE.

    PERIOD.

  18. Liberated Woman Says:

    I’m a mom. Have children. If someone hurt them, husband would be the first to take law into his own hands.

    Need laws for sorting out the mess that would ensue. Laws … yes, laws. OMG, I hate government, but I like laws that prohibit exploitation of children, especially my children.

    Hmmm … I’ll bet that 99% of Americans agree with me. Maybe even the Ivory purity test, 99.44% of Americans agree with me.

    Why is this a discussion? Lame.

  19. Liberated Woman Says:

    Oh, my friend’s daughter was raped in one state while visiting from home statel. Problem.

    And, a school teacher. Convicted abuser in one state, came to my school district. Convicted! Still teaching, still abusing!

    Hello!

  20. G.E. Says:

    Why is it a discussion? Because when you give the federal government centralizing authority to combat one particular type of crime, even a crime which you cowardly and immorally make an “exception” for, the federal government WILL use that newfound centralized power to prosecute others for other (non)crimes, that’s why!

    Take the law into your own hands and let a jury acquit you as most would. But leave the federalis out of it!

  21. G.E. Says:

    1. Friend’s daughter raped out of state: Let the state authorities deal with it. Not satisfied with that? Well, what if your friend’s daughter was raped in China? Should the U.S. start a war with China? The federal government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to intervene here. Just because you want justice doesn’t mean you should make a pact with the devil and aggrandize the greatest aggressors in the history of civilization with more power. If you cannot get justice from a neighboring state or a foreign government, the solution is simply not to go there, not to call in the U.S. or the U.N. or whomever.

    2. Take your kids out of the public schools, which are nothing but juvenile detention centers, Marxist indoctrinational concentration camps, and breeding grounds for amoral and aggressive behavior. Problem #2 solved!

  22. Jerry Baner Says:

    I disagree with the philosophy “if it’s not in the constitution, fuck it.” The Constitution was developed to be a living document, open to interpretation. As part of the necessary and proper clause, the FBI does indeed have the ability, the right, and the responsibility to intervene in cases such as these.

    People like GE is why most people consider Libertarians and libertarians crazy.

  23. Fred C. Says:

    Well if HQ was trying to change the subject, good job! Now everyone’s arguing about states vs. DC and the competence of the staff again. Let’s see how long it lasts.

  24. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. G.E. writes, “Alex Peak – The 10th amendment is irrelevent (and redundant). The power is NOT enumerated in the Constitution, and therefore is reserved to the states or to the people.”

    It’s good to have something to cite when dealing with those who believe in government. If they believe in it, then they ought to believe it possesses authority, and if they believe it possesses authority, they ought to believe that its authority is defined by a rule of law, in this case, the provisions of the Constitution.

    Ms. Liberated Woman writes, “Need laws for sorting out the mess that would ensue. Laws … yes, laws. OMG, I hate government, but I like laws that prohibit exploitation of children, especially my children.”

    Anarchists don’t have a problem with laws. In fact, we’re the only ones, in our opinion, who believe in following them. We have a problem with any statutory law that violates natural law, since the existence of statutory laws that contradict natural law necessarily creates a system of outright lawlessness and inevitably leads to chaos. In short, government is chaos, the destroyer of order and law.

    You say your husband would take the law into his own hands so as to protect his children against aggressors. Good. Very good.

    “Hmmm … I’ll bet that 99% of Americans agree with me.”

    The size of a majority faction is irrelevant. It’s still a majority faction.

    “Oh, my friend’s daughter was raped in one state while visiting from home statel. Problem.”

    The rapist should be executed, or in the very least have his dick cut off. (And people say anarchists are pacifists. Sheesh. Like a pacifist would say what I just said.)

    Mr. Baner writes, “The Constitution was developed to be a living document, open to interpretation.”

    If that’s true, then what’s the point in having a Constitution? Might as well be a blank piece of paper. (Yes, I’m paraphrasing Jefferson.)

    No, the Constitution contains a very clear process for changing it: the amendment process. And the Founders made this process a hard one for a very specific reason: because they did not want people whimsically altering the meaning of the document and the power of the government.

    Moreover, your claim to reject the notion that “if it’s not in the constitution, [screw] it” ignores that the tenth amendment clearly states that if it’s not in the Constitution, then the federal government must say “screw it” and leave it up to the states or the people.

    “As part of the necessary and proper clause, the FBI does indeed have the ability, the right, and the responsibility to intervene in cases such as these.”

    No, sir, the necessary and proper clause does not grant to the federal governnent a plenary power to do whatever it wants, and does not grant to the federal government even the power to create the FBI.

    Not to sound patronising, but you seem unfamiliar with the history behind the Philadelphia Convention.

    The only reason the necessary and proper clause was included was because people at the Convention objected, saying essentially (and I’m again paraphrasing the sentiments), “We need Article I, Section 8 to explicitely say that the federal government has the power to create laws. If we do not include this sentence, then some anarchists in the future will claim, ‘Hey, the Constitution says this and that, but it doesn’t say that the federal government may actually create even a single law. Therefore, all federal laws may be ignored!’ And surely we do not want that. So, we must include a sentence saying that the government may actually create laws.”

    Why then, you ask, did they word the clause in the manner they did?

    Had they simply worded it as, “The Congress shall have the power to make laws,” people would have interpreted it to mean that Congress can make any laws it wants. So, instead, they made it clear in that clause that the clause did not actually grant to the federal government power over any areas except for the proceeding clauses in Article I, Section 8.

    Ergo, the necessary and proper clause could only ever allow the federal government to create an FBI if such an organisation is permitted by Article I, Section 8, or by one of the subsequent amendments to the Constitution. But, as we know, this bureau is not permitted by any portion of the Constitution, and therefore Mr. G. E. must be absolutely right that it is unconstitutional.

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  25. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    The federal government is always the solution. The elastic clause in Article 1 Section 8 makes the federal government able to get power over everything. States should have no right to have different laws than the federal government, and should be there only to enforce federal laws. This is the step that will be taken before national sovereignty is given entirely to the UN and the social democratic world government will be ushered in. I agree that public schools are marxist endoctrination, but when balanced with some religious education, preferably Catholic education, they come together to create the best system of morality, which in fact is similar to what libertarians strive for, as the New Order of world social democracy is ushered in.
    Please pray for the pope and please pray for Barack Obama.

  26. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Alex, It doesn’t matter what the historical background was or what the founding fathers intended. That’s a good subject for biblical theology, but not constitutional law. It only matters what goes together with the new order of Catholic Trotskyism.

  27. Alex Peak Says:

    I cannot support the ethical nihilism that your views are predicated upon. Sorry.

    Regards,
    Alex Peak

  28. Less Antman Says:

    How disappointing. The LP Executive Director issues a press release that isn’t derived from any LP platform or program, coincidentally about the same topic being used to smear one of the candidates.

    Now, it is quite reasonable for someone to look at the answer Dr. Ruwart gave to a question 10 years ago and find it unclear on whether she believes a child has the same ability to enter contracts as an adult, and how she would define”child” in the first place. It is not reasonable to presume the ugliest interpretation, post anonymously on an unmoderated board, and complain that the candidate doesn’t respond to a question that was never sent to her campaign. Not to mention expect her to drop everything to respond to obvious smears (has Barr yet responded to the questions asked of him about apparent violations of libertarian views?).

    Even worse, divisive people, some not even members of the LP, are calling for a purge of a subset of members who have not used the LP to promote views inconsistent with the platform (for the record, a government that doesn’t aggress, doesn’t tax, and allows secession is consistent with market anarchism), while accepting people who have openly contradicted the platform on intervention, taxes, and drug policy.

    This is one reason we need a comprehensive platform, and must undo the damage caused by the gutting of 80% of it in 2006. If the LP Platform had a clear Children’s Rights plank, there would be no crisis right now. I hope people will sign the www.restore04.com petition started by LP founder David Nolan (definitely NOT an anarchist).

    Whoever our candidate (and I hope it is Ruwart) should be expected to pledge not to campaign in contradiction of our platform. I am quite sure Ruwart’s views are consistent with the LP plank that used to be in our platform, but there is no need to trust her on this: put it back and demand that the candidates seeking the nomination give an answer to the question of whether they support the entire platform and, if not, what specific disagreements they have.

  29. Less Antman Says:

    Roderick Long has an excellent discussion of Dr. Ruwart`s statements on children`s rights, along with his own intelligent views, at http://www.praxeology.net/blog/2008/04/25/ruwart-on-childrens-rights/ . Long is not an LP member, by the way, but is a market anarchist.

  30. MY WAR! Says:

    “Protecting individual rights is a core function of government, and that includes protecting the life and liberty of children harmed by exploitation and sexual predators.”

    Well said LNC.

    Why are people on this site supporting kiddie porn? Who is this Ruwart gal? If it were up to me, there would be mandatory castrations for pedos like this ‘[editors note: the name provided has been deleted by request]’ asshole.

    And this one;

    1. Thomas L. Knapp Says:
      April 25th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    Whoever put that piece of garbage out at LPHQ needs to be given about a five second window to resign before being fired.

    And this one;

    G.E. “The LP further establishes itself as a joke. The entire LNC should be thrown out on its ear.”

    And this one;

    1. Jerry Baner Says:
      April 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    Tom,

    Can’t agree more.

    And this one;

    disinter; Exactly. This statement by the “Libertarian” Party is about as repulsive as they come.

  31. Stefan Says:

    IMHO a very good, appropriate statement and should reflect the official LP statement on the issue. They could go further and ask all candidates to sign or approve this. Then the issue with Mary Ruwart would be resolved.

    “Why is the federal government the solution? Where in the Constitution does the government have the duty to combat this?” Read the statement again:
    “The Libertarian Party is calling for increased coordination and communication between federal and state law enforcement agencies in order to help to apprehend and convict child predators and those who engage in child pornography”.
    This is sees the issue of life, liberty and persuit of happiness as both a federal and state issue, where they should coordinate to work effectively together. It is not only a practiced reality, but fully constitutional as well.

    I think any Libertarian would agree that child prostitution/rape should be combatted in the strongest way. It could be argued that child pornography can also lead to child rape and that it damages the privacy and intimacy sphere of the child. The child, say up to 18 years, is unable to really decide to allow pictures to be taken and spread in the public/international (internet?) sphere and that it is a totally immoral way by the makers and distributers of such items/movies to make money. The long term psychological effects of child pornography can be very damaging and lead to a loss in human dignity and freedom. Imagine yourself such a child growing up and to be confronted with pictures at a stage when the child is an adult. To certain (sensitive) people at least, it could be very damaging, almost like a rape case.

    During his interview with revolutionsradio this week, Bob Barr has said a very true thing: that is that some changes should be incremental. It will take not only a lot of time, but also some time to educate people to accept a more radical libertarianism and change in the country. One should also keep in mind that certain current libertarians probably went through a lot of internal struggle and thinking before becoming fully libertarian. Most people are libertarian leaning in some way or another, and the LP should focus on them with a mainstream approach and philosophy. This does not mean principles need to be watered down. It is more absolute strategy and convincing people to look at the LP, perhaps on a one issue like the Iraq-war, or warrantless searches etc. alone , making them LP voters and then they will gradually study the whole LP platform and think about the other basic issues and be convinced. A LP political revolution should take an evolutionary approach. To the very radical LP political demanding an immediate radical approach and sharing of their views by the electorate, you are NEVER going to reach the majority in this way ever and consequently, you will not be able to implement libertarian principles also. The LP should also allow for a wide range of creative and stimulating ideas to address issues like security etc. With a creative approach, it could also set itself apart from the current two big parties in an attractive way.

  32. Robert Milnes Says:

    Usually the FBI operates secretly. But when their name actually comes up in conversation, look out. I know from experience. The first I heard of them was about a month before they pounced. Les Antman, the coincidence goes even deeper than you note. There is Congressional testimony by the FBI Director right about when an anonymous post smearing a LP presidential candidate appears. So the LPHQ grabs onto that in need to help deal with the new situation. This sounds a lot like the covert operation against my dad I described in comments before. Briefly, I was in prison. My dad got an anonymous phone call threatening my father & mentioning my federal case at the time. So understandably my dad calls the FBI reporting it. He authorizes an investigation which in effect covers the FBI’s previous illegal investigation of him as part of their operation against me. So, LPHQ, you have been investigated by the FBI & are the target of some sort of domestic covert operation. Agents have probably infiltrated & informants & operatives are at work. All this has something to do with the extremely important upcoming LP presidential nomination. If not for that, they probably wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about the LP other than general ongoing secret persecution.

  33. Robert Milnes Says:

    So the LPHQ has made friends with the FBI in effect. Shortly something will happen involving the FBI & some high up LP member just before the convention. I’d guess an arrest on kiddie porn charges.

  34. Clark Says:

    THOMAS NAP WHINED: “Whoever put that piece of garbage out at LPHQ needs to be given about a five second window to resign before being fired.”

    ..agreed..BUT WHAT DO YOU LP RINGLEADERS, PONTIFICATORS, etc., EXPECT WHEN KNEEL STINKING BOORTZ IS YOUR/OUR MOST PROMINENT RECRUITING “TOOL”..

    (sorry for the capital letters, Boner) ;o)

    ..btw, i don’t know about your Republicrat neighborhoods..but in mine, i don’t believe ‘pedophilia’ is a big problem..in fact, the only case about which i personally know even resembling ‘pedophilia’ was a 19 y.o. guy banging an apparently very willing 15 y.o. ‘girl..’ ..of course, he was skewered by you Republicreeps as a “rapist/child abuser”..

    ..it would seem a MUCH more widespread ‘societal problem(s)’ can be attributed to the worse than ignorant condition of Republicrats, Von Mises alchemist$, etcetercrats galore, as to the hideous nature, origin, reality, etc. of the very ‘money’ about which you Republicrats have $tructured your ooga-booga lives/existence..

    ..(Republicrats have strange priorities indeed!..btw, CLARK would be meaner to child abusers than you Kneel Boor ‘Libertarians’/Republicrats!...na na na na nah…) ;o)

  35. Kelly Parker Says:

    Was this press release really necessary?

  36. disinter Says:

    ..btw, i don’t know about your Republicrat neighborhoods..but in mine, i don’t believe ‘pedophilia’ is a big problem.

    But the media told me it was an epidemic! And they never lie!

    And the morons swallow it whole, as usual.

  37. disinter Says:

    Was this press release really necessary?

    No, it was completely stupid. But I am glad they did it as it reinforced my growing disgust with the LP.

  38. severin Says:

    I don’t understasnd why they would have released this. As far as I can tell, there is no child porn problem, it is a non-issue. If it were rampant, you would think that you would hear about arrests for CREATING child porn. The only thing I ever hear about is possession of it and it is very dubious how it got to the people being charged, if it was intentional or not, what is defined as “a child” in these cases, and if there was any harm actually done. The only times I remember reading about someone being charged with creating child porn is in very odd cases like grandma taking pictures of her grandchildren in the bathtub, or teenage girls taking pictures of themselves and posting the pictures online. I am not saying the bad stuff never happens, but I haven’t seen any evidence it happens frequently enough to be a problem worth diverting our attention away from real problems.

  39. disinter Says:

    If it were rampant, you would think that you would hear about arrests for CREATING child porn. The only thing I ever hear about is possession of it and it is very dubious how it got to the people being charged, if it was intentional or not, what is defined as “a child” in these cases, and if there was any harm actually done.

    Exactly.

    problem worth diverting our attention away from real problems.

    This is the goal.

  40. G.E Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    Jerry Baner – PLEASE tell me you’re not a libertarian! The Constitution was NOT written to be a “living document”—that is pure invention. I don’t blame you—you were probably stored in a concentration camp for 7 hours a day, 13 years, and filled with lies. But do some independent research and until then, shut you stupid fucking mouth.

  41. G.E Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    The intellectual sloth and moral feebleness of the “opponents of this statement support child porn” crowd is overwhelming. Both Alex Peak and I have called for execution or castration of child-sex abusers. Does that sound like we coddle pedophiles? The question is WHO does the execution or castration? If your answer is “the federal government” or “it doesn’t matter, who’s ever biggest and strongest (i.e. the federal government)” or “if it’s the federal government in this one instance, I’m not going to argue” then you are WORSE than a child molester, because your collectivist-centralist mindset has caused more death, destruction, murder, poverty, and RAPE then all of the individual child molesters in the history of mankind. You are the people who empower the federal government to send hired killers to Iraq—GED-holding ex-cons, psychos and sociopaths—who rape and murder Iraqi girls and their families. QUIT CODDLING PEDOPHILES, you centralist babyfuckers.

  42. disinter Says:

    GE - well said.

    psychos and sociopaths—who rape and murder Iraqi girls and their families. QUIT CODDLING PEDOPHILES, you centralist babyfuckers.

    Exactly.

  43. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Huh??

    The LPHQ is calling for a Child Pornography Joint Tactical Response Authority??

    I wasn’t aware of a problem. But we DO know that, like any bureaucracy, it WILL need to justify it’s existence. And like any government bureaucracy, it will be lazy. So they will go for the EASY marks.

    Like going after parents taking photo’s of their young children in the bathtub.

    Way to go LPHQ

    bleah

    PEACE
    Steve

  44. John Shuey Says:

    Most of the voices I hear above seem to be of the opinion that there are only two ways of looking at this issue constitutionally: Literally (i.e. the Scalia view) or Living (Suter).

    There is another perspective however: Original intent.

    The framers of the Constitution did not, nor could they, foresee air travel, interstate highways, or modern communications such as the internet. The fact is that individual states are rather helpless to deal with crimes that originate a half a nation (or around the world) away and/or involve instantaneous communication. There is, therefore, a Federal role in those areas effected by these recent developments so long as that role remains consistent with the original intent of the Founders. For example, policing multi-state fraud perpetrated over the internet (or through the mails) would be a legtimate federal function, interference with a state’s legalization of medical marijuana would not.

    And in as much as child pornography is both an interstate and an international problem, a Federal role seems to me to be appropriate.

  45. G.E. Says:

    John Maynard Shuey—Amend the Constitution then. THE POWER IS NOT DELEGATED.

  46. Andy Says:

    “Exactly. This statement by the ‘Libertarian’ Party is about as repulsive as they come.”

    Yeah, I remember back when the Libertarian Party called for the FBI to be abolished.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Steven,

    “The LPHQ is calling for a Child Pornography Joint Tactical Response Authority??”

    These days, the primary function of LPHQ seems to be protecting LPHQ staffers’ self-image as “serious” Beltway insiders (e.g. “they don’t laugh at us when we ask for a table at the Capital Grille”).

    If the chair gives a tinker’s damn about the future of the party, Monday will be moving day for Shane Corey. Perhaps Steve Dasbach can be talked into returning and putting the national office back together.

  48. Kira R. Says:

    Mr. Knapp,
    Why do you continue to support child pornography?

  49. Kira R. Says:

    QUIT CODDLING PEDOPHILES, you centralist babyfuckers.

    The hostility levels on this site are repulsive. Also, I think you pedos are very poor cover up artists. You’ve a very large guilty sign around your necks.

  50. G.E. Says:

    Kira R. – Why do you support the rape and murder of Iraqi girls and women?

  51. Kira R. Says:

    If the chair gives a tinker’s damn about the future of the party, Monday will be moving day for Shane Corey.

    Mr. Knapp,
    Admit nothing, deny everything and fabricate counter allegations. This is your current tactic to draw fire from your obvious support of Dr. Ruwarts controversial policies and beliefs?

  52. G.E. Says:

    Kira R. – Yes, we are all secretly pedophile child pornographers. You caught us! Pedophile child pornographers are at least 25-50% of the population, and a truly serious threat—almost as much of a threat as abortion-clinic protesters.

  53. G.E. Says:

    Oh, and one other thing: Need I say in my own “defense,” that I have made the logical case for why child pornography SHOULD be ILLEGAL based on libertarian ethics, and joined fellow Ruwart supporter Alex Peak in calling for the penile dismemberment and/or execution of child rapists? The question is who does the castration, and it IS important—should it be local authorities or the U.N.?

  54. Kira R. Says:

    Mr/Ms GE,
    Please, along with Mr. Knapp add your name to my last post. I refuse to discuss any topic with you due to the current hostilities you and others like you harbor and are brazenly displaying on this site.

  55. Andy Says:

    “disinter Says:

    April 26th, 2008 at 9:18 am

    Was this press release really necessary?

    No, it was completely stupid. But I am glad they did it as it reinforced my growing disgust with the LP.”

    The same with me!

  56. Andy Says:

    “Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    April 26th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
    Steven,

    “The LPHQ is calling for a Child Pornography Joint Tactical Response Authority??”

    These days, the primary function of LPHQ seems to be protecting LPHQ staffers’ self-image as “serious” Beltway insiders (e.g. “they don’t laugh at us when we ask for a table at the Capital Grille”).

    If the chair gives a tinker’s damn about the future of the party, Monday will be moving day for Shane Corey. Perhaps Steve Dasbach can be talked into returning and putting the national office back together.”

    Agreed.

  57. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Kira R, a/k/a Dave Williams, a/k/a MY WAR! etc. (IP 68.92.207.162):

    “Why do you continue to support child pornography?”

    I don’t—and you’d know I didn’t if the truth mattered to you enough that you could be bothered to check your facts before posting falsehoods. I’ve addressed the issue in detail, and have linked to it several times.

    Ruwart’s take on the issues of child sex and child pornography is such a tempest in a teapot that “Ruwarchy” had to clip and caricature it, and even then had a case so weak that he or she was too embarrassed to put his or her real name on it (for the record, I suspect that “Ruwarchy” is either Brian Holtz or a composite including him, but I could be wrong).

    What I’m really interested in knowing is whether Corey’s completely unprofessional reaction and abuse of the party’s communications apparatus to heighten the effects of the smear was a function of stupidity, or of collusion on behalf of one of Ruwart’s opponents.

  58. Scott Lieberman Says:

    Thomas L. Knapp Says: April 26th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    Quoth Kira R, a/k/a Dave Williams, a/k/a MY WAR! etc.

    “Why do you continue to support child pornography?”

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

    I don’t—and you’d know I didn’t if the truth mattered to you enough that you could be bothered to check your facts before posting falsehoods. I’ve addressed the issue in detail, and have linked to it several times.

    TK

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

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

    Mr. Knapp refers to a link in his original post, but I am not sure if it appears as a link in my quoting above.

    In any event – it links to an essay that is 15 screens long, and my monitor is in portrait mode so it measures 15 inches vertically. That is 225 column inches of essay.

    An essay of that length is perfectly okay in an academic journal, but if you need that much space to explain your take on a “no-brainer” issue like child sex or child pornography, you should not be dabbling in politics.

    If Mr. Knapp disagrees with me, I invite him to distribute the 225 column inch…

    “The Age of Reason?
    Child Molestation, Child Porn, and Jurisprudence”

    door to door during his current campaign for public office (Congress, I think)

  59. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Shuey writes:

    “Most of the voices I hear above seem to be of the opinion that there are only two ways of looking at this issue constitutionally: Literally (i.e. the Scalia view) or Living (Suter).

    “There is another perspective however: Original intent.”

    I reject original intent just as much as I reject the living constitution theory.

    Originalism is based upon what the writers intended. But as Spooner, a textualist, points out, even if the Founders intended to protect slavery, the word “slavery” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and therefore, based on textualism rather than originalism, slavery is and has always been unconstitutional. As for living constitutionalism, that’s nothing more than a way for tyrants to pretend they have a right to be tyrants.

    “The framers of the Constitution did not, nor could they, foresee air travel, interstate highways, or modern communications such as the internet.”

    This is why the Founders included an amendment process.

    “There is, therefore, a Federal role in those areas effected by these recent developments so long as that role remains consistent with the original intent of the Founders.”

    You cannot objectively know what the original intent of the Founders was, so originalism fails. Textualism is the way to do.

    With that said, both originalists and textualists can agree that A) the Founders intended for us to amend the Constitution instead of just letting the government do whatever it wants (living constitutionalism), and B) that the amendment process is part of the literal text of the document. So, even if you accept originalism, you, sir, must reject your own argument. Only living constitutionalists, who don’t care what the Constitution says nor what the Founders thought, can argue otherwise.

    “And in as much as child pornography is both an interstate and an international problem, a Federal role seems to me to be appropriate.”

    The Constitution allows for the federal government to create tariffs between the states if it wishes. It can also make tariffs on the importation of child porn. And, it can make these tariffs as high as a trillion dollars, if it wishes. But it has no authority, under the Constitution, to ban child porn. That power rests with the states, as per the tenth amendment.

    Mr. Knapp writes, “What I’m really interested in knowing is whether Corey’s completely unprofessional reaction and abuse of the party’s communications apparatus to heighten the effects of the smear was a function of stupidity, or of collusion on behalf of one of Ruwart’s opponents.”

    Not being a conspiracy theorist, I’ll assume he acted on his own until I see evidence to the contrary.

    Ms. R. writes, “Mr/Ms GE,
    “Please, along with Mr. Knapp add your name to my last post. I refuse to discuss any topic with you due to the current hostilities you and others like you harbor and are brazenly displaying on this site.”

    Notice, this was in response to Mr. G.E. writing that he agreed with me that rapists, including the rapers of children, should be executed or in the very least have their dicks cut off. Ms. R. replies that Mr. G.E. is too hostile.

    I’m confused, does that mean that Ms. R. does not believe that those who rape babies and young children should receive harsh punishment?

    Mr. R., I recommend you issue a policy statement explaining your position. Otherwise, I’ll have no recourse but to assume it is correct that you support child rape, to constantly ask you why you support child rape while simultaneously asking you to step down from any office you hold, to exit any political race you may be in, and to leave any party of which you may currently hold membership.

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  60. Stefan Says:

    http://nvp.mypodcast.com
    Thomas: I do agree the issue has been blown out of proportion by bloggers, starting with “Ruwarchy”. One big mistake they may is if you do not outlaw something – I am speaking in general terms – then you are necessary for it and even rooting for it, which is utter nonsense. I do detect some strategy to go after Ruwart indeed. I want to understand her argument, as in Friday’s radio interview, comparing child pornography analogically to drugs, and that outlawing it does not mean it will not take place e.g. there is a lot of drug smuggling taking place with
    the war on drugs. Then it is also so that certain hard drugs can lead to irregular behavior, where one can loose control and that could contribute (though not the cause) to pronography and rape. It should be clearly stated that child rape/prostitution is not an issue, also for Mary, who describes herself as a radical libertarian. I want to understand the logic of her argument, and there is a difference between pornography and rape or prostitution.

    Now she said taking advantage of a child by rape is unlawful and should be punishable. Now my argument would be that this law also does not withhold people from still committing such acts against children. The occurrence is low, of course. Now based on this, I do think in a libertarian world once can and should prohibit child pornography as well, as this can involve the hurting of the child at some stage in her/her life, could theoretically lead to physical misuse of the child and involves the liberty, security, health and happiness of the child (negatively). Therefor it should be constitutionally legitimate to prohibit such act with children, though with adults not. In the same way with regard to drugs: children cannot be allowed to use any drugs, also with their smaller bodies, the effect is much bigger.

    SO I would say the simple solution for Mary is to connect it to an age, say 18 or 16, e.g. someone in his/her early twenties can also be a child, not only biologically, but also psychologically.

  61. Stefan Says:

    http://www.politechbot.com/p-03690.html

  62. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Scott,

    Obviously I wouldn’t use the article in question as a campaign brochure. You’re right—it’s much too long for that, and it wasn’t written for that purpose.

    If child pornography becomes an issue in Libertarian congressional campaigns this year (as LPHQ apparently wants to make it), I’ll have a one- or two-paragraph summary statement on it in my issues brochure.

    If child pornography becomes a MAJOR issue in Libertarian congressional campaigns this year, I’ll also go ahead and write model legislation on the issue, and have a short talk on said legislation prepared for use as needed.

  63. UMA Says:

    Quoth Kira R, a/k/a Dave Williams, a/k/a MY WAR! etc.
    _
    Have you ever heard about subnetting? One external IP address can have multiple hosts and multiple private IPs within one particular organization.
    ___
    On child porno: your earlier positions on this matter were different from those you have expressed recently. Are you flip-flopping to cover up your wicked mind?

  64. This is the LP? Says:

    “If child pornography becomes a MAJOR issue”

    I had considered joining, but I’m not so sure now.

  65. askyourself Says:

    The friggin Republicans have taken over. The LP is dead. Now we have neocons liek Root and bigots like Barr and then this sort of demand for more federal action.

    The US is now routinely confiscating computers from travelers to investigate under the pretext of “child porn.” They can keep your laptop for months and download all the private information on it. And the LP just gave them the excuse they need. What the hell is going on? If this is part of Gordon’s legacy at the LP I hope the party collapses. This is not libertarianism. Any fool (and that ought to include Barr, Root and Gordon) should know that the government looks for excuses like this to infringe on legitimate rights of people. Now the LP joins the hysteria demanding more action. What sort of action do these assholes think they will get? Nice federal agents kindly asking people questions or armed thugs knocking down doors. The LP should disband. It is worthless.

  66. Iquit Says:

    I hereby cut all my ties with the Libertarian Party. I am sorry I was ever a member or helped it with donations, time, etc. The LP has just called for more federal action in a field where the feds have no Constitutional authority. I am disgusted at how the Barr and Root teams are cooperating to effectively splinter the LP so that social conservatives like them can take control.

    I can’t believe how Root’s people managed to manufacture this crisis. They start by posting anonymous messages here then Root goes public with it so the media will get hold of it. Then the LP head office fuels the whole hysteria with this press release and their demand for the expansion of federal powers. Root’s people have a lot to answer for. I am now ashamed to be called a libertarian. Apparently anyone can now join the party no matter how unlibertarian they are. Just look at Root and Barr for the evidence.

  67. G.E. Says:

    Alex – You’re totally wrong. For one, it does not matter AT ALL what the WRITERS of the Constitution intended. What matters is what the ratifiers intended. To suggest the intent of the writers is what’s important is to say that the intent of the staffers and clerks who write legislation is more important than the intent of the legislators who pass it. Secondly, slavery was “intended” to be protected for a very short time. The Constitution gave it an expiration date. And here, the ratifiers were far from being of one mind.

    The fixation on the intent of the “framers” is just as damaging and illogical as fixation with the Bill of Rights, and is a product of the liberal-statist public school system.

  68. Robert Capozzi Says:

    There is a case for a Nonarchist Party, for the few who wish to continue the Rothbardian tradition of holding high the banner of reducio ad absurdum anarchocapitalism.

    If that happens, I for one hope that posters here are incorrect that the LP is becoming “Republican.” That seems not worth the effort.

    Now, if we’re talking mainstreaming a small government centrist view, as I think we are, that gets very appealing on a lot of levels. Outlawing child porn seems well within bounds, although it is best addressed at the state level, technically speaking.

  69. Clark Says:

    ..!great posts, ask yourself, iquit, GE (now if you could only truly understand the nature, origin, reality, etc. of ‘the money’..) and others!..

    ..but you must understand that when your greatest recruiting tool/advertisement over time has been stinking, loud, know-little, Republican radio bloviators..well, what it is…honest, knowledgeable ‘Libertarians’ will tend to ‘leave the party’ and loud, know-little Republicans/crats will tend affiliate/associate..(and the next thing you know, stinking Republican warmongers like Root and Barr are the party favorites!)

    ...btw, all of you numb Republicrats who keep bringing up ‘The Constitution’: BE IT KNOWN, DUMMIES: THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN A DEAD LETTER FOR A STINKING LONG TIME!..

    I refer you gd republicrat fools who hallucinate otherwise to, AMONG MANY OTHER THINGS, ART. 1, SEC. 8 Clause 5, ART. 1, SEC. 10, etc. ad nauseam..

    (btw, i recently heard some famous loud radio Republican/’conservative’ fool blither, ‘follow the money’..i thought to myself, “I’ve listened to this goddamned Republicrat fool long enough to KNOW this fucking radio idiot has truly never ‘followed the money’ back to it$ issuance, etc…) ..(as one wag put it, “thy worketh thy cakehole about illion$, ignorant of even one!”) ;o)

    ..Btw, i recently heard that stinking loud Republiclown O’Rielly claim he’s ‘libertarian on many things!’..oh goody!..

  70. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Somebody is blowing smoke:
    _

    Have you ever heard about subnetting? One external IP address can have multiple hosts and multiple private IPs within one particular organization.
    _

    Not really. An external IP does not serve multiple hosts. The external IP is assigned by the ISP. The internal IP is assigned by the your router. Unless your IP is 169.254.x.x, then you’re screwed.

    Subnetting is sort of a way for the ISP to manage multiple (and ever changing IP’s within it’s network. Usually when you turn off your modem and router, your IP will change.

    Unless your IP is 127.0.0.1, then you are home.

    PEACE
    Steve

  71. Tom Blanton Says:

    Since much of the child pornography is produced in foreign nations, the obvious neo-libertarian solution would be to create a new branch of the military empowered to act in America and abroad to nip this child porn epidemic in the bud. Special forces could be used to launch missile strikes on anyone suspected of producing child porn no matter where they operate.

    Or, perhaps it would save money to just provide the FBI with bombers and foreign bases. After all, neo-libertarians are for small government.

  72. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Tom, the lack of evidence they find will mean absolutely nothing.

    It will mean only that the evidence is inconclusive.

    PEACE
    Steve

  73. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Bob,

    “There is a case for a Nonarchist Party …”

    Maybe there is, but you’re the only one who seems to be interested in making it, usually in the course of trying to convince everyone that the only alternative to bigger government is no government at all. and that you prefer the former.

  74. UMA Says:

    Subnetting is sort of a way for the ISP to manage multiple (and ever changing IP’s within it’s network.
    _
    WOW not only ISPs use subnetting ;)

    _
    Usually when you turn off your modem and router, your IP will change.
    __
    Unless the person or organisation use permanent IP address for going out to the net
    _
    CONGRATS!! YOU GOT AN “A” FOR COPYING FROM WIKIPEDIA!

    _______________________________________________________

    Anyway, why do you change the subject?? o_O The real issue here is that [B]anarchists support child pornography[/B], NOT the IP problems ;)

  75. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Actually, what I wrote was from memory. I am well aware that a business might have a static IP, but that does cost considerably more.

    Good to know that wiki agrees with me.

    I was not the one to change the subject. It was somebody else that was trying to use geek bafflegab to obfuscate their lame use of pseudonyms. Wonder who that was?

    FWIW, nobody here is in support of child porn. But rather is child porn a legitimate Federal function? The consensus appears to be that it is not.

    PEACE
    Steve

  76. John Shuey Says:

    G.E. Says: “John Maynard Shuey—Amend the Constitution then. THE POWER IS NOT DELEGATED.”

    Ah…an ad hominem attack and a false dichotomy in one sentence. I am awed!

    Of course, it’s easier than arguing the point, not?

    Throughout the Constitution – the Commerce Clause, the Preamble, and several of the first ten amendments, the intent for the Federal Goverment to have a law enforcement role is quite obvious. Therefore prohibiting the interstate commerce of child porn is well within Federal jurisduction. Any other conclusion is reductionist to the point of absurdity.

Leave a Reply