Ruwart answers accusations made at Indiana LP convention
From the Mary Ruwart for President Committee:
Dr. Mary Ruwart reiterated her position on child pornography during a two-part Presidential Candidate Forum at the Indiana Libertarian State Convention April 26. Each candidate was given one minute to respond to each question. Candidates also had three minutes for a closing statement at either the afternoon or evening session.
“Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as any rape victim,” Dr. Ruwart said in response to a question on child pornography during the afternoon session. “We can, and should, prosecute their oppressors.
“But bans on child pornography are like bans on drugs and prostitution. They don’t work. They only make a bad situation worse. We’ve driven the child pornography market underground, where profits soar and criminals abound. That’s why thousands of children are kidnapped each year and forced into sexual slavery.
“In states where prostitution has been banned, prostitutes have no recourse if they are exploited or abused. In Nevada, where prostitution is legal, exploitation and abuse are limited.
“We can limit abuse of children in the child pornography trade by ending its prohibition. We can’t end child pornography any more than we can end prostitution, gambling, or drug use. Utopia is not an option, but liberty does make a bad situation a bit better.”
Because time for answering the question was so brief, Dr. Ruwart did not elaborate on how predators would be prosecuted without legislation specifying age of consent. In other discussion, she explained to delegates that courts were likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred.
With older teens, the burden of proof would likely be to show that coercion had occurred. A number of 17 and 18 year old teens have been convicted of statutory rape and labeled as a sex offenders for having relations with slightly younger females, even if they lived with them or later married. “Some teens are quite capable of choosing a mate. Why punish them for life because they are mature for their age?” she asked.
“Coercion with children coming into puberty (junior high school students) are more likely to be considered on a case-by-case basis by the courts,” Dr. Ruwart explained. “Junior high students often have consensual sex, even though society frowns upon it.
“Doing away with age-of-consent laws means that fewer teens will be unjustly convicted and sentenced to a life with a ‘sex offender’ label,” Ruwart told her listeners. “Liberty protects our children, both from coercion and injustice.”
In his answer to the same question, Wayne Allyn Root’s campaign manager claimed Dr. Ruwart said “pedophilia is OK” in her book “Short Answers to Tough Questions.” Mark Schreiber said he paid $100 to have the book shipped overnight to him and that it contained that phrase and the words “a contract exists.”
He also repeated the call, posted on Mr. Root’s website, for Dr. Ruwart to withdraw from the presidential race.
Dr. Ruwart then used the three minutes she was planning to reserve for the evening session to answer this false accusation. She pointed to copies of “Short Answers” and invited convention attendees to read page 43 to prove to themselves those phrases do not appear.
“I’ve been very disappointed in my dear colleague, Mr. Root, who just last week, at the Washington LP presidential forum publicly declared that I would be his preferred vice presidential running mate should he prevail in Denver,” she told Indiana Libertarians. “Yet, when he found something objectionable in my writings, he did not call or write for further explanation, he simply condemned me.
“This is particularly disheartening because Mr. Root himself was accused of misrepresenting the facts in the Ohio Libertarian Convention forum. He came to me and asked me not to condemn him as a liar until I heard his side of the story. I told him—even before hearing his side—that it had never crossed my mind to think him guilty of any impropriety.
“I’m sorry that he did not give me the same consideration he wanted for himself.
“Mr. Root owes me no apology. He simply made a mistake, the kind of mistake neophytes make when they are new to the Party and new to Libertarian campaigns.
“This is why, when choosing your presidential nominee, I suggest you choose someone experienced in libertarian campaigns. This is why, when choosing your presidential nominee, remember this person will be looked to as a leader for years to come.
“Do you want a leader who condemns without consideration? Do you want a leader who will perpetuate the in-fighting that has crippled the LP for so long, or someone who can unify diverse factions and encourage them to pull as a team?
“We are selecting more than a presidential nominee in May; we are choosing the person whose example we want to follow. Choose wisely for you are choosing the Libertarian Party’s future.”
May 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
What did the other candidates say about this issue? Inquiring minds want to know.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Good for Mary! While I have not yet endorsed any of our Presidential hopefuls, I am always impressed by Mary Ruwart’s commitment to principle and her civility. We could do far worse than nominating Mary Ruwart as our candidate.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I’m certain the other presidential candidates are preparing to devastate her in the presidential debate. Should be interesting.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Much better, though I still disagree with her.
Root was and remains an ass.
O.W.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I’ll quote Ms. Ruwart from a blog posting here about the Indiana interview:
http://letlibertyring.blogspot.com/2008/04/mary-ruwart-attacked-for-her-alleged.html
Ruwart: “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.”
So if a 5 year old “willingly” participates in sexual acts with a 50 year old that’s fine and dandy with Ms. Ruwart? What makes her think young children are even capable of having the ability to “willingly participate” in anything? Thank goodness Libertarians in the rest of the world see no problem with governments protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. Those that agree with Ms. Ruwart are not Libertarians. You are disgusting individuals who society needs to be protected from!
Shame on you people for continuing to make this an issue when it should not be. it should not be because 99.9 percent of humans on the planet earth will agree that Ms. Ruwart is 100% wrong on this issue. If we as society do not protect those that are unable to protect themselves, then society is doomed.
There is a reason why our movement is growing everywhere else in the world and yet in the US, where it was founded, it is shrinking. For example—Movimiento Libertario is one of the most successful libertarian political parties in the world. Costa Rica’s Movimiento Libertario (Libertarian Movement) is a libertarian party which holds roughly 10% of the seats in Costa Rica’s national assembly. In France, Liberté Chérie gained significant publicity when it managed to draw 80,000 Parisians into the streets to demonstrate against the French government.
As I said elsewhere in this blog before, what have you done today and will do tomorrow to promote and expand your party in the US? I dare say going off on the above subject will do neither. If you want to move your nation in a Libertarian direction and more influence in national politics, then pick a subject that 99.9% will agree with you on, like more tolerance for others, perhaps! Once you have grown, then you can work on more freedom for 5 year olds to have sex with 50 year olds!
PS —Mr. Noland, you should be ashamed of yourself by the way, but then you are a sicker and older man than I.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
It has been said, no matter what Mary Ruwart releases in defense of herself, there will be people who will simply sweep it aside just continue talking trash.
Geoffrey the Liberator is just that sort of person. One comment about his supposed comment:
“If we as society do not protect those that are unable to protect themselves, then society is doomed.”
This is collectivist thinking of the first order. A socialist, fascist, communist or other anti-individualist could not have said it any better. Forget that parents, friends, concerned neighbors should have any input into this . . . no its just “we as a society”. Go back to socialist Britain.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“I’m certain the other presidential candidates are preparing to devastate her in the presidential debate. Should be interesting.”
Preparing, but Libertarians will see right through whatever they’ve “prepared”.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Wow, she actually said it: legalize child porn. Makes me glad I left the party.
As for the problem of where to draw the line, an answer exists, albeit imperfect: have a fuzzy line. The idea that it is rape if 17 years 364 days but legal if 18 years (or 15/364 vs. 16 as in most states) is dumb. One day doesn’t make that much difference.
But it makes some. And the days add up.
Consider speed laws. The penalty is a function of how much over the speed limit. Unfortunately, the generally use step functions, but they could use continuous functions. Going 56 in a 55 is treated differently than 80 in a 55. The same logic could be applied to age of consent. One day under the threshold should be a mild penalty whereas several years under the threshold should be MUCH bigger penalty.
The threshold age and how steep the penalty function should climb cannot be determined perfectly. But it can be done much better than the current system in most states and WAY better than Ruwart’s idiotic suggestion.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Steve LaBianca,
Even Rothbard admitterd that there was a certain age at which children could not be expected to engage in voluntary contracts.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
My dear Mr. LaBianca – all because one’s views may differ from yours, doesn’t make them a commie or socialist. We in the LPUK are trying to move our nation in a more Libertarian direction through small steps, much like what Movimiento Libertario has done.
You however are demanding perfection or nothing. Sorry but your way is not the only way, nor is it necessarily the right way. I suspect you have nothing better to do but bitch slap those that do not meet your perfect world view, but I am busy fighting for freedom so I am now signing off.
PS —Re-read what I wrote about tolerance, because obviously you have none. I suspect you might also be a plant from an opposing party (Republican perhaps) since you wish your beloved USLP to be a small club rather than a larger tent.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
These are simple Libertarian principles & she stated them well. If you have a problem with the concept, perhaps you should look within. Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of Libertarianism at all. Perhaps you are not even a Libertarian and perhaps you should find a candidate in another political party. Indeed, perhaps you are not even a member of the Libertarian Party anyway. After all this IS Third Party Watch, not (U.S.) Libertarian Party Watch. So this site ends up being a dumping ground for anyone and everyone who wishes to participate in any topic. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
As Jefferson said, “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock,”... AND “True wisdom does not lie in mere practice without principle,”... AND “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
It is time to stop this irrational madness. There are many issues on which Libertarians have disagreed & debated for years. The answers given are the best there are from a truly Libertarian perspective & that should be the end of it. Shall we start arguing about abortion now? For Christ sake! Oh, speaking of Christ, let’s start arguing about religion too…
Yes, shame on everyone who is involved in continuing this ridiculous & irrevelant discourse. Let it go. This seemingly endless debate is useless. You are all wasting precious time.
Furthermore (for those of you who actually ARE U.S. Libertarian), if we water down our positions & shift our movement toward the center, then WE are moving closer to THEM, the other political parties, the mainstream. What purpose does that serve? Wouldn’t we just end up merging into one of them in the end & eventually fade to non-existence? What purpose does it serve to grow our party if our beloved party eventually doesn’t exist anymore anyway? Aren’t we here to promote Liberty, help people understand it, & help them move closer to us? Have we lost sight of what our main purpose is?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Three cheers for Geoffrey the Liberator!
May 1st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Carl wrote:
“Wow, she actually said it: legalize child porn. Makes me glad I left the party.”
Yeah, she said it. So what? The reason gambling, legal in Vegas for so many decades, lost its luster was because its taboo-ishness went away when it was legalized. Ditto alcohol, prostitution in Europe and NV. The act is bad enough, but the taboo of the act is worse and causes the enticement. When a government enhances a taboo beyond social norms by legislating restriction or prohibition, it’s interfering in areas where it shouldn’t. Libertarians understand that. Social conservatives (statists) don’t.
“As for the problem of where to draw the line, an answer exists, albeit imperfect: have a fuzzy line. The idea that it is rape if 17 years 364 days but legal if 18 years (or 15/364 vs. 16 as in most states) is dumb. One day doesn’t make that much difference.
But it makes some. And the days add up.”
Agreed, but the world uses the numbers to differentiate: trimesters, birth, 12, 16, 18, 21, 25, 35, etc. That’s not going to change whether we’d like it to or not.
“Consider speed laws. The penalty is a function of how much over the speed limit. Unfortunately, the generally use step functions, but they could use continuous functions. Going 56 in a 55 is treated differently than 80 in a 55. The same logic could be applied to age of consent. One day under the threshold should be a mild penalty whereas several years under the threshold should be MUCH bigger penalty.”
Consider that speed laws are merely a revenue tool. Ask Montana drivers about that, and ask them about their $5 cash on-the-spot fines for “wasting natural resources”. Go read the basic speed law in your state. You will see that your argument doesn’t make any sense.
“The threshold age and how steep the penalty function should climb cannot be determined perfectly. But it can be done much better than the current system in most states and WAY better than Ruwart’s idiotic suggestion.”
Nah, you’re just married to a statist philosophy here.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I think this position is an improvement over what she had before.
Still, it remains a political disaster.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“There are many issues on which Libertarians have disagreed & debated for years. The answers given are the best there are from a truly Libertarian perspective & that should be the end of it.”
Can someone please provide me with a list of items we can disagree and debate about, so I can know what to think regarding the ones that are already decided from the truly Libertarian perspective.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Ruwart’s to be commended for her forthrightness and civility.
However, it strikes me that her analogy is false. Kiddie porn and prostitution are different, very different. The first does not involve consent of both parties, the second does.
Personally, I have no problem with the law recognizing that children are not adults, deserving special treatment by holding high the banner that certain behavior is verboten with children. Murder is illegal, and kiddie porn should be, too.
Waiting for restitution misses the point entirely.
Of course I agree with Ruwart’s sentence: “Utopia is not an option, but liberty does make a bad situation a bit better.”
I just don’t happen to believe that liberty means “right to produce kiddie porn.” I support attempts to pre-empt most if not all kiddie porn.
If that makes me a Statist, so be it.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Re: “Aren’t we here to promote Liberty, help people understand it, & help them move closer to us? Have we lost sight of what our main purpose is?”
No sir—that is not a role for a POLITICAL NATIONAL PARTY which must work within the system to create change by ELECTING people to office.
What you describe is what educational foundations are for. If you tell me where you live I’d be happy to provide you a link. Perhaps Cato?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I should be ashamed of myself for saying that Mary Ruwart is both principled and civil? Well, I’m not.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
People keep saying Ruwart wants to legalize sex between five year olds and adults. But this release clearly says, “Because time for answering the question was so brief, Dr. Ruwart did not elaborate on how predators would be prosecuted without legislation specifying age of consent. In other discussion, she explained to delegates that courts were likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred.”
So she’s against drawing a clear legal line. So what? It’s clear she’s for prosecuting people who have sex with kids too young to consent, and it’s obvious she believes that that line would tend to fall much higher than people here imply she thinks it would. Before puberty, the burden would be on the accused to prove it was informed consent. That burden would be difficult to overcome, and given that, on all other questions of guilt or innocence, the burden is supposed to lie with the prosecution, it does not seem like this would, in practice, lead to any problems. Are you worried defendants would be able to prove that young kids were consenting? I’m not.
What’s the problem? Not having a clear line would fail to have all the guilty punished? ANY system would fail to have the guilty punished. Is there evidence that her policy would allow more child sex abuse than the current, horrible status quo? I don’t see it.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Cato?
WTF they could not even manage to support Ron Paul. LOL
May 1st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Age of consent laws are a possible subject for intellectual debate. But given the current widespread beliefs on the issue, including my own as a stepfather, taking the stand as Mary Ruwart has is like painting a bullseye on your chest and taunting someone with an arrow.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
jre—who has the best ass in the lp? Starchild has the best man ass. He’s got the ass of freedom.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Geoffery the Liberalfaker – Please go bow down to the Queen, have some tea and crumpets, and then stick you head up your own arse, Commie!
May 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I applaud Dr. Ruwart for putting forth a much more definitive statement on her position.
However:
“In other discussion, she explained to delegates that courts were likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred.”
Is she saying that, essentially, all decisions of consent should happen after the fact? Not sure I’m comfortable with that. If libertarians begin to rely on the determination of consent “after the fact”, it erodes our strong stance against body rights in general.
Also, by saying that we should not ‘ban’ child porn, and then citing the economic advantages to not doing so, she seems to be stating, implicitly, that there will be some “willing underage performers.” The implication is derived from the simple fact that if there were no “willing underage performers” their would be no economic relief from the high cost/demand of the current legal structure, which:
““. . .only make[s] a bad situation worse. We’ve driven the child pornography market underground, where profits soar and criminals abound. That’s why thousands of children are kidnapped each year and forced into sexual slavery.”
Without a supply of “Willing underage performers” this, economically speaking, will continue to be the case- especially given that 99.99999% of current child porn is, from my understanding, produced under duress.
The only possible (and ghoulish to think about) benefit to Dr. Ruwart’s position is that copyrights could be restored to the victims of the current batch of child porn out there, who could then sell legally, if they so choose. I suppose that will help pay for therapy, etc.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Ouch! What in gosh darn’s name is wrong with this woman? She’s become an utter embarrassment to the Libertarian Party and to the entire libertarian movement.
The news cycle for the last three days in the major media has been focused on this nutso Austrian guy who jailed his daughter for 18 years in the basement and repeatedly raped her.
Does Mary Ruwart even watch Fox or CNN? This is horrible timing.
Someone pleas shut this woman up now!
May 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Oh my gosh. For the first time in 20 years I find myself in agreement with Gene Berkman. He’s right. Intellectually one can debate the merits of age of consent laws – 16, 17 or 18 – but politically this is an utter disaster.
Haven’t any of you Ruwart people been watching the news the last few days? It’s all about that Austrian case. The American public does not tolerate anything that even remotely resembles supporting child pornography or abuse. Intellectual arguments fall on deaf ears with the vast majority of the public.
So, please shut this woman up. She’s embarrasing our entire movement, and even worse, making the likelyhood of our libertarian candidate being taken seriously in this election cycle, even less so.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Eric, are you an ass or a tit man?
May 1st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Here’s an unpleasant little fact that most all of you here have completely ignored.
David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate wrote a two page article in a 1985 issue of LP News suggesting that Libertarians work with NAMBLA. That’s right, Bergland suggested an alliance between the Libertarian Party and the North American Man Boy Love Association. At the time the entire LP was up in arms over the article. He was blasted by many top LP leaders, and even Karl Hess got some hell over it for even running the piece. (Hess was serving as LP News Editor at the time.)
Well, Mary Ruwart was a diehard Berglandista in the 1980s. Are we to be surprised by her soft on Child Porn views today? After all, one of her closest friends and political allies was in favor of outreach to NAMBLA in the 1980s.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Nice doging and smoke screenin’ for the cover up of Scratch’s murder and the lnc shemale scandal. Dudes, you got a dead body on a blog and fake chicks running the party. What’s Ruwart gonna do about the shemales? Is she gonna investigate Stevo and the rest of you for Scratch’s murder? That’s the issue, NOT ASS!
May 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Some candidate needs to start attacking Wayne Root. It’s very simple. the target is as big as the side of a barn. Start with asking him why the prices he charges for each particualr club and season aren’t on his website? He’ll come up with some bull*hit answer. The reason is because he runs a high pressure boiler room sales office. They charge people whatever they can get or based on how much the person bets. The term scamdicapper fits Wayne root very well.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Al from Cinci, just about every thread on TPW has people attacking Wayne Allyn Root. Wake up and pay attention.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
It’s nice to see that Ruwart has backed away somewhat from her book’s statement that “A libertarian society would not have laws that discriminate on the basis of age.” Apparently, what she meant to say was that a libertarian society would not have laws that draw bright lines regarding age, but that it’s OK to have legally-binding court precedents—and perhaps even laws—that make the burden of proof a function of age. She now says:
“Courts are likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred. With older teens, the burden of proof would likely be to show that coercion had occurred.”
So it seems she’s answered my question #5 to her: “Should there be no binding laws/rules that consider age to be any kind of rebuttable factor in sexual consent, or are you only opposed to “bright-line” age discrimination that creates crimes because of rigid calendar calculations?” It turns out that she does, after all, think there should be laws/rules that consider age to be a rebuttable factor in sexual consent.
It’s nice to see our candidates grappling with political theory and growing in their libertarian journey. Of course, if she’s against all bright lines regarding age, one wonders if she thinks children should be allowed to vote or hold elective office. And Justin Grover’s question is an excellent one: is there anything a parent or guardian can do to forestall an attempt by a pimp/pornographer to persuade the child, or does it violate somebody’s rights if the pimp/pornographer is prevented from making his case?
Another question her press release didn’t address is my #3: “In your ideal anarcholibertarian legal system, who would prosecute parents/guardians for aggression against their children?” She used the verb “prosecute” twice, but as an anarchist she wants to fire all the government’s prosecutors. Perhaps she believes that the Red Cross and the local Baptist church and the Gotti Defense Agency would be (amicably?) competing to homestead the right to prosecute parents that these groups considered aggressors. (You could sell tickets to that one!) All I see in her book about her preferred enforcement mechanism is the following.
In the “short answer” immediately after talking about “the incentives for parents to use children against their will”, the only limit she identified to any child’s rights is this: “In practice, children’s rights are limited by their inability to take responsibility for their actions. For example, a child who wishes to work, but can’t convince his or her parents to provide the necessary transportation, will be unable to exercise that right.” One wonders what recourse Ruwart would give to a parent if a pimp for 12-year-old prostitutes offered a ride-sharing service. The very next “tough question” indeed asks generally “Would parents decide?” The answer: “In practice, you would decide if a child is old enough to enter into a contract with you. Is the child willing and able to provide the contracted service to you? If so, what kind of recourse would you expect from the courts if the child if the child refuses to provide the contracted service. The age of majority for marriage, work, etc. is most often established by custom of the society and will vary with the individual’s circumstances rather than being dictated by law.”
So if you’re a parent with a 12-year-old, you better hope you are more persuasive than the local pimps and pornographers and pedophiles—or that none of them have cars. If Ruwart does in fact say that parents and guardians have more legal standing than the neighborhood pimps and pornographers to guide their 12-year-old’s choice about whether to engage in the sex trade, then I’d love for any of her supporters to quote her saying so.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Brian,
You should consider writing a book called Tedious Answers to Easy Questions. It could be a companion piece to Mary’s book!
May 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Geoffrey, it’s despicable to suggest that “if a 5 year old ‘willingly’ participates in sexual acts with a 50 year old that’s fine and dandy with Ms. Ruwart”. You’re ignoring not only her line-drawing regarding pubescence, but also the standard non-identity between what is virtuous and what should not be illegal. Stop it.
Bollocks, thank you for illustrating for Tom Sipos that those who complain about “watering down our positions” often invite moderates to consider alternatives to the LP. However, thanks to Wes Benedict, I already have my example for today. Come back again tomorrow.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Geoffrey the Liberal wrote “PS —Mr. Noland, you should be ashamed of yourself by the way, but then you are a sicker and older man than I.”
Nice job. Made a valid point well then totally underminded it with an ad hominem.
I liked Dr. Ruwart when I voted for her for vp oh so many years ago. I still like her. I just prefer the opportunity that a Barr candidacy gives us.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Why is this party so afraid of ass?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
The Libertarian Party needs to decide whether we are a debating society or a political party. We’ve already decided that at the local level we will allow candidate that deviate from libertarian orthodoxy. Now we have the chance with a Barr candidacy to build on the Ron Paul momentum and vastly increase the number of people who become familiar with the libertarian party.
I admit some ambivalence because if the Libertarian Presidential candidate doesn’t make the principled case for liberty, it won’t get made. But if few people hear it, has it done any good.
That’s the trade off as I see it. Do we go with an imperfect message and messenger that gets widely heard or a purist message and messenger that is largely unheard, ignored or distorted and ridiculed?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I’d like to respond to above-written post by the individual who identifies himself as Geofrey the Liberator.
I want to address the following quoted comments that he write (considering he also provided the link to my blog which I posted hours ago on my blog, point of fact):
>So if a 5 year old “willingly” participates in sexual acts with a 50 year old >that’s fine and dandy with Ms. Ruwart? What makes her think young >children are even capable of having the ability to “willingly participate” in >anything? Thank goodness Libertarians in the rest of the world see no >problem with governments protecting those who are unable to protect >themselves. Those that agree with Ms. Ruwart are not Libertarians. You >are disgusting individuals who society needs to be protected from!
First things first.
Mr. Liberator (or whoever he really is, considering his nick is a pseudonym to protect his real identity) is taking Dr. Ruwart’s comments out of context and coloring them to suit his collectivistic, statist agenda.
First, Mary did not say that a five year old SHOULD be participating in sexual acts, particularly the acts to which he alludes. That’s not what Mary Ruwart said, and this type of spinning is akin to the spinning propagated by the collectivists in the Republican and Democratic camps. His statement about Mary is a bald-faced lie, and it’s nothing more than sandbagging a candidate in order to hide and protect his real vile, diabolical agenda, which is to paint a candidate as the typical “you-must-be-for-pedophilia-and-child-porn” nutjob.
Second, Mary was NOT talking about toddlers or 4 year old children in THAT sense. She was talking about post-pubescent teens who have already been childified by the vile, diabolical state—teens who have been grossly and disgustingly (not to mention inaccurately) painted as “children,” when they are NOT children but rather young individuals who are between the phases of childhood and adulthood. They are actually youths but also young adults who are capable of making adult decisions if they were taught the responsibility of and given the chance and the ability to reason, think, and act like responsible adults in their early years.
Third, Mr. Liberator is ignoring the reality that has consumed our society in so many ways. Too many parents have abdicated their legal and moral responsibilities to raise their children and handed them over to the state, especially—ESPECIALLY —when it comes to educating them on human sexuality, reproduction, and responsibility. Because of this, too many young adults (who are called “children,” “teenagers,” or even “adolescents” by the state) learn about human sexuality from their friends and watching pornos. That’s how they learn about this stuff at an early age, especially when too many irresponsible parents neglect their legitimate responsibilities and obligations to the health, safety, and protection of their children, yet they are more than willing to let the state raise them FOR them.
Fourth, the sex registry claptrap has become both a political, societal, and legal nightmare all the way around. The system has led to so many abuses of individual rights violations, including violations of civil liberties as well. For example, in many states, a 17 year old male who engages in consensual sexual activity with a 15 year old female most often becomes arrested for the criminal charge of statutory rape (a state construct created by the government, considering no actual rape occurred). The statutory rape rap says to the male, “You have no right to have sexual contact with this little girl…this child…so therefore you are a child molester and we will put you in prison for a few years and, at the same time, add you to the national and state sex registry, on which you’ll be listed for life. How dare you have sex with her, you pervert! Go to prison!” Since no crime was committed against the girl, he goes to prison, becomes a registered sex offender (which he carries for the rest of his life), and, once released, must be forced to see a parole officer and check in with his assigned officer every three months at his local police precinct.
The “accosted” female is told by the state, “I, the state, don’t care if you consented to the act. You’re still a child, and we must coddle you, protect you, and treat you like a child for the rest of your life, even when you reach the age of 18.” Because of that mentality, that 15 year old teen is locked into a child-like mentality that becomes a part of her for life. At that point, it becomes almost impossible for them to break out of it.
Tell me, Mr. Liberator, how is that system fair? When it comes to these legal and prosecutorial situations, teens who become treated like the state become PROPERTY of the state. They are treated like toddlers. If they are treated like children, they will ACT like children. Once again, how is this system fair?
When you have so many rights violations and the age of consent laws don’t take into account of how the teens act and feel naturally and are willing to take responsibility over their lives, how is this system truly fair? Who are the REAL victims in these cases? The real victims are the so-called “sexual predators” and “pedophiles” who are locked up in prison because they were told by the state that they are prohibited to engage in consensual activity with other teens who will act irresponsible for life.
And it doesn’t stop there. The logic of the system makes no sense whatsoever. A teen, whether a male or female, who commits the crime of murder (especially with a firearm) is charged as an adult for the crime, yet when he or she pulls his pants down and enages in a nonviolent, non-coercive activity, he or she is treated like a child. Either that teen is a child or an adult, Mr. Liberator. You CANNOT have it both ways.
If that teen is a child, then he shouldn’t be charged with the crime of murder, because the state defines that “child” as not capable of making a decision and is not capable of reason with his or her action. But if the teen is an adult, then he should be charged with that crime or any other crime he commits and must also be given the right to make adult choices that will him or her to live his or life to the fullest.
Those adult choices include:
1.) The adult decision to whether he or she should a job long before the age of 18
2.) The adult decision to whether he or she should marry long before the age of 18
3.) The adult decision to whether he or she should have sex, regardless of the age of his or her partner (with the exception of little toddlers and 5 year old children)
4.) The adult decision to whether he or she should take pornographic pictures of themselves long before the age of 18
5.) The adult decision to whether he or she should fight in a war and report to the military for combat duty long before the age of 18 (if they choose to join the military that is)
6.) The adult decision to whether he or she should drink before the age of 21
7.) The adult decision to whether he or she should start up a business before the age of 18
8.) The adult decision to whether he or she should educate himself or herself without being forced into the government schools long before the age of 18
9.) The adult decision to whether he or she should use illegal drugs recreationally or medicinally long before the age of 18 (this is a drug war point, and the WOD should be abolished along with this as well)
10.) The adult decision to whether he or she should have children long before the age of 18
Etc.
If those young adults are not ready for those responsibilities, then fine, they are not ready. But that’s a decision to be made by them and their parents as well. The state should NOT be in the matter at all.
Mr. Liberator, as far as I’m concerned, you’re a collectivist, a statist, and an advocate of childifying our children, as I believe you want them to be irresponsible and encourage them to lock up innocent individuals who are not the criminals with respect to this issue. Furthermore, you want to protect the REAL criminals: the pandering, self-aggrandizing, and self-serving politicians and bureaucrats who think they know our families and children better than you do. Hell, they have skeletons in their closet, and they can’t protect their own families; why should we give them the power to “protect” us when they can’t even protect themselves?
Think about that before you throw your accusations against Mary Ruwart around, sir.
Yours in Liberty,
Todd Andrew Barnett
May 1st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Yank, the LP is not afraid of ass. In fact, one could paraphrase TANSTAFL to “gas, grass or ass, nobody rides for free”.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Well all I can say is that we here in the church like what we hear from Dr. Ruwart. Keep up the good work.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Wow, I think we have a clear sign of the End Times. Berkman and Dunderhead on the same page? And my husband ain’t far off, maybe just the next paragraph?
The moment Berkman, Dunderhead, and Tannim are all on the same damn paragraph, I may just convert Christian.
Ahem.
Seriously I do think there is a time to debate a flexible age of consent. There is a great deal of injustice that occurs with soft targets of teens doing it/ using technology for it. While I do think they are too young to know what they are doing in full, they think they are mature enough and trying to tell them otherwise doesn’t seem to work anymore.
BUT Berkman is right that society would currently throw a tempertantrum over this. We would have to have a very solid alternative mechanism in play before people would even think of accepting such an idea. You know, in tribal societies it was pretty clear—when you passed your coming of age ceremony, you had all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. We don’t really have that in America, just some arbitrary numbers. The difference is that in the old times it was based more on maturity than age. that is perhaps what is most needed, in a much wider context, some sort of societal mechanism that would function in a similar way. Hispanic Catholics have, for example, the quinceanera. Jewish people have the bar and bat mitzvah (sorry if I didn’t spell those right). Many of the Nations still have theirs.
REally this is much, much wider than being able to have sex (camera optional) this is about a long overdue societal debate about giving teens their due when each one is ready to do so. With teens reaching puberty at younger and younger ages, things are not going to get better any time soon. When you consider that the average age is now 10-12 and can be as young as 8, this problem is going to get worse. why that is happening is a totally separate issue but nonetheless it’s the reality. It used to be that maybe 3-4 years were between puberty and AOC. Now it’s longer, and that may be part of the issue we have in society (generally speaking)
Obviously none of this is going to get solved before the Convention. For the moment, I have to concede that an AOC is probably necessary. However this debate cannot be postponed indefinitely.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Fear not, Susan, I’ve already written texts that may be more suited to your reading level:
http://marketliberal.org/Primer.html
and to your attention span:
http://libertarianmajority.net/dueling-bumper-stickers
Enjoy.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Yes, what is Bob Barr’s position? Surely TPW can find the time to report on that since it is addicted to trying to smear Ruwart on this issue.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Brian, you want to spank Susan’s ass, don’t you?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
TAB —It is past midnight here so I’ll make this short. Thank you for pointing out the laws in your country. I agree they are restrictive and anti-freedom. However if you want to change the laws, then your party will have to get people elected to office in order to do so.
With statements like your Ruwart’s, not only will she not ever be elected, but anyone with your LP is in danger of not being elected because others will use Ruwart’s statements against them, unless they take an anti-child porn stance in return. Thus, the end result is you do not ever get what you want.
On an intellectual basis, it is perfectly fine being a purist. However when running for public office, one must be a little less pure at times. Unfortunately, it’s the nature of the game no matter what country your in. Change is a very slow thing, but getting Libertarians ELECTED to office is the first step. I’m sorry—that’s the second step. How about being more tolerant to each other first and focus on attacking those other parties for their very anti-freedom stances?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Dondero: David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate wrote a two page article in a 1985 issue of LP News suggesting that Libertarians work with NAMBLA.
Me: Interesting. I was at the 1983 LP NatCon in which Ruwart was in 3rd place for the presidential nomination. She dropped out, and endorsed Bergland.
Talking Heads prophetically told us: “Same as it ever was.”
May 1st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Poll question: Whose libertarian ass would you like to spank?
May 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Well all I can say is that we here in the church like what we hear from Dr. Ruwart. Keep up the good work.
More trolls who can’t show their face.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Hmmm, best not answer THAT quesiton.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I agree that’s a troll. Any Catholic worth their rosary automatically capitalizes “Church” even if they haven’t been Catholic in many years.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Steve LaBianca,
Even Rothbard admitterd that there was a certain age at” which children could not be expected to engage in voluntary contracts.”
I never said that there wasn’t, nor did Mary Ruwart say there wasn’t “a certain age at which children could not be expected to engage in voluntary contracts.”
Those of you who ARE saying that she has, are in no uncertain terms “torturing” the statements Ms. Ruwart has made.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
stopdrugwar Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“I admit some ambivalence because if the Libertarian Presidential candidate doesn’t make the principled case for liberty, it won’t get made. But if few people hear it, has it done any good.”
By the same token, if what they hear is simply “federalism” from Barr, or something, who knows WHAT if W.A.R. is nominated, is that better than not hearing anything at all? I think hearing the wrong message and identifying it with libertarianism is worse than no message heard at all.
My suggestion has been, getting the LIBERTARIAN message out there, from the best candidate at delivering it (Mary Ruwart in my opinion) is way better than both, even if the audience is smaller.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Brian Holtz Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
It’s nice to see that Ruwart has backed away somewhat from her book’s statement that “A libertarian society would not have laws that discriminate on the basis of age.”
Please explain.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Question to Dondero: what age were the prostitutes he were hanging out with during his military service overseas? It should be note that he is a strong proponent for the legalization of prostitution.
The AUstrian had locked his daughter up for 24 years, not 18, she is 42 now. This is a case of rape, as Eric remarked, something that should be rejected, as Ruwart has also done in the statement. Thus it is totally unclear why he try to suggest she would condone the action of Herrn Friedl.
disinter: do you have any proof that Barr tried to smear Ruwart? I think you must be confusing Barr with Root…
The LP would be well advised with the insistence on as less laws as possible, to combine with social conservatives in preaching moral laws like high moral standards. This way the perception that it is a libertine party, can be combatted. Co-operation with the CP, also with this issue, would be important.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Geofrey the Liberator Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
You however are demanding perfection or nothing.
I posted, just yesterday how Mary’s detractors would always paint “purists” as “all or nothing”. Well, it didn’t take but, hell LESS that 24 hours for someone to say it almost verbatim!
For those who are slow, or who missed class, the principles are fine . . . if an incrememtalist strategy is necessary, fine, but incrememtalism is just the strategy! The “all or nothing” characterization is just, plainly, simply WRONG!
May 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Mary’s position is unacceptable and repulsive. Ensuring that people are competent to consent is a bedrock libertarian/classical liberal principle. We can debate where the age should be all day, but she is outright rejecting the principle. Nasty. And opening the floodgates of child porn? Horrible. Disgusting. I do not know that I could stay in a party where she is the nominee now.
Anyway, this goes back to the heart of the issue: the fundamentalists always angry at ANY government action. This is why anarchism and libertarianism are NOT the same thing. If all government action is unjustified coercion, how can a libertarian who believes that support any government at all?
May 1st, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Who’s Tannim? Lidia, I think you’re getting people confused again.
And let’s leave all the spanking to consensual private adult activities, meaning not here, OK?
Getting back to the topic at hand:
Lidia has it right on rites of passage. We do assign numbers to them, but it’s because of the melding of cultures in America that tend to also eliminate most of those specific cultural rites. It used to be that the tow exceptions to that rule were marriage and having kids, but no more with divorce and single parentage so prevalent.
I favor the 18 AOC rule in general. I know that at 16 I was too immature for a lot of adult decisions (even though I thought I was mature at that point, pass the car keys, please!), but the idea of a 21 drinking age is hypocritical. If everything were at one arbitrary age it would be simpler. It doesn’t get away from the numbers argument, but that’s not going to end anytime soon anyway, so that’s a moot point.
I’d like to pose a cultural question out there for anybody here it applies to, Jews, or other cultures with rites of passage: What is the significance of those rites to your culture and what do they mean for the individual after they go through them in relation to the rest of life in this world? I’m asking to genuiniely get an idea of the significance of it, and I think if we can understand the factors that people think change people from children to adults (besides age) there might be an answer in there, or at least some tidbit of understanding we can gleam from it.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Dr Ruwart says,
“Coercion with children coming into puberty (junior high school students) are more likely to be considered on a case-by-case basis by the courts,” Dr. Ruwart explained. “Junior high students often have consensual sex, even though society frowns upon it.
“Doing away with age-of-consent laws means that fewer teens will be unjustly convicted and sentenced to a life with a ‘sex offender’ label,” Ruwart told her listeners. “Liberty protects our children, both from coercion and injustice.”
I’m thinking about this from the very pragmatic perspective of a teenager contemplating sex with another. Bad as it is, at least a hard and fast age of consent rule provides me with an idea of when I might get into trouble.
Do I have sex with that 15 year old and gamble that she or her parents won’t retroactively haul me into court to argue she did not have the capacity to consent and therefore it was rape?
I’d support the idea of community-based age of consent, but this abstract philosophical stand for ambiguity as a workable idea is a non-starter.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I agree with her. The act of making child pornography should be illegal, but simply possessing it should not. While owning child porn is certainly distasteful, the owner has done nothing wrong to a child themselves. Why waste prosecutor resources on people guilty of only owning a few .jpg files? Hell, many countries even prosecute for owning files which depict /animated/ children, when there aren’t even any real children who were harmed!
Rather, we should prosecute those who actually produce the child pornography, that is, the the ones who are actually committing an act of aggression by forcing/coercing children to commit sexual acts before a camera. Now, what a “child” is could be debatable. I think the 18 thing is pretty arbitrary. Really, I think that many 16-17 year olds are old enough to consent, possibly even considerably younger. A case-to-case basis would likely be preferable.
Hell, if you were dumb enough to campaign on this issue you could make a slogan:
JPEG FILES ARE NOT A CRIME!
=P
May 1st, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Steve,
It’s not a “philosophical stand for ambiguity.” It’s a political stand for THE AMERICAN WAY —presumption of the defendant’s innocence, burden of proof on the prosecution.
If a prosecutor believes a rape (sex without consent) occurred, then let that prosecutor PROVE HIS DAMN CASE.
If part of his case is that even though there was formal consent, the alleged victim was not competent to render meaningful consent, let him prove that, too.
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
To a jury.
That’s the American way, period, end of story.
Time to stop pussyfooting around and coddling you goddamn fascists. Drawing numbers out of hats and declaring anyone on the wrong side of those numbers an automatic criminal is goose-stepping Gestapo-Stasi horseshit, and there’s no two ways about it. If you support that, you’re neither a libertarian nor a civilized human being—you’re just an anti-American terrorist thug.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Thomas
It’s most certainly not the end of the story: I’m thinking far more about civil damages cases.
Where the standard is preponderance of the evidence, not a reasonable doubt.
Now let’s see, I’m a “goddamn fascist” because I happen to disagree with you on an issue?
Yeah, you’ve got the American way down pat, don’t you?
May 1st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Quoth Eric Dondero:
“Someone pleas shut this woman up now!”
Not just once, either.
This, folks, is the guy who claims to be our defender against Sharia law. And his political platform is? “She opposes Taliban-style sexual restrictions? Stick her in a burqa and tell her to leave the politics to the men!”
May 1st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Steve,
You write:
“Now let’s see, I’m a ‘goddamn fascist’ because I happen to disagree with you on an issue?”
Well, that’s the roll I’m on at the moment. If you prefer, you can be a pusillanimous antedeluvian or a defenestrating polymath instead.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
It should be a crime to MAKE child porn but not to POSSESS child porn? How do you possess it without making it? Those are the same silly distinctions people make when they “decriminalize” marijuana possession but still make it illegal. Sounds to me like a pragmatic distinction to make. Where is the pure principle in that stand?
The part of what Mary says that really sticks in my craw is the part about how outlawing child porn drives it underground, just like outlawing prostitution, etc. This makes it evident to me that it will never matter how principled someone is if their first principles are just WRONG. Her argument is based on a false analogy. Outlawing murder drives up the prices of hitmen; oh, well, better legalize it.
And I don’t see kiddie porn gangs battling it out on the streets of LA. One black market is a violent cartel created by banning behavior between consenting adults. The other black market is protecting children from perverts. The price of kiddie porn ought to be through the roof—it ought to cost your balls to get it.
If Maculay Culkin was manipulated and used by his parents as a child actor, think what might befall the hundreds or thousands of kids who would suddenly “consent” to the new market that Mary would create.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I’m having a wonderful evening. I hope everyone else in the Third Party Watch Debate Society is having a wonderful evening, too! Keep debate alive!
May 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
>TAB —It is past midnight here so I’ll make this short. Thank you for >pointing out the laws in your country. I agree they are restrictive and >anti-freedom. However if you want to change the laws, then your party >will have to get people elected to office in order to do so.
Mr. Liberator, well, thank you for agreeing with me that the laws I paraphrased (not quoted, mind you) are restrictive and anti-freedom. But there’s more to the issue than just that.
Saying that “[my] party will have to get people elected to office” just “to change the laws” is not what the LP historically has been about, nor should it be about “changing” laws. The LP’s true mission is NOT to elect people to public office (although its original mission statement has been altered for that purpose); rather, it is to throw a monkey wrench into the political system to disrupt the political process and to educate the people about the ideas on liberty. The Party was NEVER intended to gain power at the federal, state, and local levels, and if it ever did, chances are that it will rule like the Democrats and Republicans. That brings me to my next point, which is that I wish David Nolan never started it as a political party but as an educational and research institute to educate the masses on liberty. We don’t need libertarians in power, particularly in Congress.
If it were up to me, I’d abolish the government and leave it to the self-governing individuals. And yes, I’m now on record saying that I disavow the Libertarian Party because of its new-found anti-freedom stances. I repudiate the Party. Therefore, I no longer consider myself a libertarian (or even a Libertarian), but rather a free marketeer who espouses the ideas of liberty. Mary is NOT interested in seizing power, but rather inform the masses about the evils of the system. “Reforming” the system is an exercise in futility; education and, more importantly, civil disobedience are the ways to go.
>With statements like your Ruwart’s, not only will she not ever be elected, >but anyone with your LP is in danger of not being elected because others >will use Ruwart’s statements against them, unless they take an anti-child >porn stance in return. Thus, the end result is you do not ever get what >you want.
Ruwart isn’t running to win; she’s running to deliver the message of liberty. If she really WANTED to win, she’d run as a Democrat or as a Republican to seize power. She’s not interested in that.
As for the LP, who cares if the LP “is in danger of not being elected”? So what? The LP is NOT supposed to elect people to public office. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a third party to elect candidates to public office at the federal and state levels and run on a pro-liberty platform; it’s VERY EASY to run as an authoritarian and propose more government. If the neocons in the LP want MORE government, perhaps they should try the major parties, because they can deliver exactly what they want out of it.
As for the statists “using Mary’s statements against the LP,” no, a handful of collectivists in the LP are using Mary’s statements against her. They are merely interested in sandbagging her. The points I made about the teens are correct and dead-on. These “reformers” want to keep the status quo going; they don’t want the system to end. Sure, they’re looking to change the appearance of the system, maybe even rearrange the decks of the ship. But they don’t want the system to end. They are for tyranny, not freedom. And I do NOT want to be associated with them.
Plus, they are statist losers who will NEVER get it. Freedom always wins in the end; tyranny, on the other hand, doesn’t. It’s a shame that they can’t ask ancient tyrants like Julius Caesar about how the Roman Empire fell in one full swoop. Considering this country is now an empire unto itself, it will surely fall as ancient Rome did. That is to be expected.
>On an intellectual basis, it is perfectly fine being a purist. However when >running for public office, one must be a little less pure at times. >Unfortunately, it’s the nature of the game no matter what country your >in. Change is a very slow thing, but getting Libertarians ELECTED to >office is the first step. I’m sorry—that’s the second step. How about being >more tolerant to each other first and focus on attacking those other >parties for their very anti-freedom stances?
Sorry, but running for politics is not something libertarians should be doing. Why try to be Republican-lite or pretend to be pro-freedom (like Neal Boortz or Gary Nolan) when you can be another conservative like Sean Hannity or Ted Nugent? Even Rush Limbaugh?
The American people love their socio-fascism. The LP has adopted the ideas of that system with the help of these neocon traitors who have no business being in this country. They have perverted liberty all across the board. Opportunists like Wayne Allyn Root and Bob Barr are the ones who wish to dilute the libertarian philosophy that has become the bedrock of the Libertarian Party. By doing just that, the Party has become another statist party that should be opposed.
Besides, once the LP seizes power, will that power ever be enough for the statists in the LP? I doubt it.
Plus, with all the infighting occuring within the party now, imagine how worse the infighting will be once the Party BECOMES a major party.
Quite a waste of time, if you ask me.
Yours in Liberty,
Todd Andrew Barnett
May 1st, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I am failing to understand how age of consent laws would achieve some, I don’t know, lofty goal.
If two 14 year olds have sex, is there a criminal and a victim?
If a 15 year old boy and a 13 year old girl have sex, again criminal and victim?
I have picked two “underage” scenario . . . how is “age of consent” law supposed to apply here?
Now let’s assume a 13 year old girl and a 16 year old boy have sex. Again, criminal, victim and how does age of consent apply?
Obviously, the lower the age of one and the higher the age of the other, the more people start to get repulsed, until we get to the very offensive, to most, 50 year old man , and the 8 year old girl, as characterized in many posts.
This last scenario (50 and 8 y.o.) is a no brainer . . . the 8 year old is NOT a willful partner. Mary Ruwart has already addressed this as the 8 yr old girl is not motivated for sex; she hasn’t reached (and is, in nearly all cases at least 3 to 4 years from) puberty. Thus Mary has stated where she stands on this.
So, what we are arguing about on and on with no end in sight is, for the great majority of cases, age of consent of about 13 or 14 years of age to about 16 to 17 or so. The same basic analysis applies to child porn. So what is so wrong about a case by case basis/understanding of these 3 to 4 years of age group?
This is what Mary Ruwart is saying ought to be the guiding principle . . . case by case. Law is, by necessity way too rigid. A small minority may be ready physically and emotionally at 13. A few more are ready, physically and emotionally at 14. Many are not. For others, it may be 16, or 18 or 20. Mary’s point is missed here by many. Branding a 17 year old for having sex with a 15 year old as a sex offender would be ridiculous in most, in not nearly all cases. Case by case basis is. . . the voice of moderation if you ask me. Mary Ruwart has this right. You who appear to disagree seem to think the state can get this right. Sure it can.
I for one, CANNOT BELIEVE that the motivation for this brouhaha is anything other than sheer NEGATIVE politics and an attempt to bring Mary Ruwart down, from opposing candidacies or supporters of other candidates.
That’s it for me. unless someone has something to offer that is truly a legitimate question about this beaten to death topic, I am done commenting on this. I’ll let the idiots parrot the slanderous posting for the sake of being slanderous. Fight amongst yourselves. I am absolutely comfortable with Mary Ruwart’s explanations and beliefs.
Grit your teeth over, pound your fist, and name call it to your hearts delight on your own. And forget that there are 4000+ Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, taxes and regulations from the state and feds are crippling the economy, fiat money is being doled out like on a “Monopoly” game board, and we are getting all bent out of shape because a candidate thinks we should use a case by case basis for 13 to 17 year olds regarding sex.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 am
May 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
More trolls who can’t show their face.
more shitbirds who can’t get their face outta my ass.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 am
if labianca and itch have sex with a turtle, is there a criminal and a victim?
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 am
You people need more ass.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 am
Why is Dondero worried about the LP since he’s a war loving Republican with little libertarianism in his bones. He seems to want to push the LP into being just like the Republicans.
But wasn’t it a Reagan appointee, Judge Posner, who wrote a book, Sex & Reason, published by Harvard University Press where he noted that the evidence shows that banning child porn increases the number of attacks on children. He argued for legal possession and criminalization of production. Posner said that those people so inclined found porn a low cost (in terms of penalities) substitute to use porn over using a real child. Posner is still a judge on the US Court of Appeals and so far no one has said he was supporting abusing children. But then he doesn’t have Root pissed at him.
Posner’s book is well worth reading on the top of legal regulation of sexuality and the perverse (pardon the pun) effects of such attempts. The regulations do more harm than good. We know that is true in field after field so why are we assuming sex laws in regards to kids are any different? Is that the one area where more regulation and state involvement will magically solve the problem? Apparently the assholes in the LP office think so. Root thinks so but then he’s a conservative Republican not a libertarian.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 am
Todd Andrew Barnett Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
“’...to get people elected to office’ just ‘to change the laws’ is not what the LP historically has been about, nor should it be about ‘changing’ laws. The LP’s true mission is NOT to elect people to public office (although its original mission statement has been altered for that purpose);...”
Todd, where did you get that idea? Certainly not from the LP’s first (1972) platform’s Statement of Principles (from before the belligerent anarchist minority managed to change it in 1974):
“Libertarian Party Platform of 1972
“THE PARTY OF PRINCIPLE
“Adopted in Convention, Denver, Colorado, June 17-18, 1972
“STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
“Adopted unanimously by the delegates to the first national convention of the Libertarian Party, on June 17, 1972.
“We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state, and defend the rights of the individual.
“We hold that each individual has the right to exercise sole dominion over his own life, and has the right to live his life in whatever manner he chooses, so long as he does not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live their lives in whatever manner they choose.
“Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the life of the individual and seize the fruits of his labor without his consent.
“We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that the sole function of government is the protection of the rights of each individual: namely (1) the right to life—and accordingly we support laws prohibiting the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action—and accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property—and accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support laws which prohibit robbery, trespass, fraud and misrepresentation.
“Since government has only one legitimate function, the protection of individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. Men should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders on a free market; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of man’s rights, is laissez-faire capitalism.”
This declaration, passed unanimously by the first convention’s 89 delegates less than 6 months after the founding of the LP, must be considered definitive. Note that it specifically allows a place for government. And laws. Note that is calls upon us not to challenge the state but to challenge the cult (mindset) which believes that the state is or should be omnipotent. And finally note, as accounted on pages 393-98 of Brian Darby’s “Radicals for Capitalism”, that the LP was all about running candidates for office before it was financially (and some say fatally) crippled in 1974 by FECA, the Federal Elections Campaigns Act.
Perhaps you have the Libertarian Party confused with the libertarian movement? Yes, movements are educational and lots of other things. But the LP is the political wing of the movement, not the movement itself, and therefore the LP’s purpose is to be political, by definition. To say otherwise is to openly declare that the self-styled Party of Principle has never been possessed of Integrity.
Perhaps you have ben hoodwinked by those who choose not to remember that pre-FECA period and choose only to recall and speak of the imperfect solution to FECA-imposed realities of pretending that we were only going to educate anyway.
Or perhaps you are privvy to some secret documentation that those of us who were around in those days missed?
0May 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 am
I think there has been a failure to get a clear understanding as to what child pornography is, since in some parts of the country pen and ink sketches of nude children have been called pornographic and in others family pictures of the kids in the bath tub have as well. So what are we talking about here? Any one got a clue?
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
Hey Tom, I note that Christine Smith also slammed Ruwart on this child sex deal. She’s a women. Most certainly a women.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:08 am
Eric,
Several people have slammed Ruwart. You’re the only one I’ve noticed who’s
a) belabored the fact that she’s a woman; while
b) demanding that she be “shut up.”
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Geoffey opposes Ruwart 100% on this position? In other words, Geoffey believes (1) that small children should be purpetually raped, (2) that seventeen-year-olds should be thrown in jail for having consensual sex with sixteen-year-olds, and (3) that courts should not prosecute the rape of children.
Geoffey also accuses Ruwart of thinking it’s “fine and dandy” “if a 5 year old ‘willingly’ participates in sexual acts with a 50 year old.” He clearly either (1) cannot read, or (2) was too lazy to read, what was written.
Carl then says he’s surprised that Ruwart doesn’t want to ban the sale of videos depicting said seventeen-year-old and said sixteen-year-old.
For those that don’t understand, if you’re too young to consent, and Ruwart makes it clear that some people are too young to consent, then sex with them is rape. Porn depicting this would be treated in the same way as any other rape porn or snuff film. If the sex is consensual, however, as I think we can all agree sex between a sixteen-year-old and seventeen-year-old absolutely can be, then there is nothing just in banning a film of that.
Use your heads, people.
Carl says he supports a fuzzy line. Read what Ruwart has written, she supports a fuzzy line as well.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 am
I think there has been a failure to get a clear understanding as to what child pornography is, since in some parts of the country pen and ink sketches of nude children have been called pornographic and in others family pictures of the kids in the bath tub have as well. So what are we talking about here? Any one got a clue?
Well, someone who actually poses a legitimate question. As I said in my post “. . . unless someone has something to offer that is truly a legitimate question about this beaten to death topic, I am done commenting on this.”
Mary Ruwart has said that in many cases, traditions or “societal norms” would dictate the understanding of this. IMO, not a perfect solution by any means (Does anyone have one?), but it certainly beats the heck out of the legislative process which may ultimately enact some standard which may be nothing like it was originally intended. (See Harry Browne’s “The Dictator Syndrome” in “Why Government Doesn’t Work).
I trust people in their voluntary and general cooperation on these things, however imperfect, much, much more than I would trust the “there oughta be a law!” route.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
I don’t feel any need to come up with the perfect solution to “age of consent” issues.
Apparently, Ruwart believes that she needs to have some answers based upon what she understands to be “libertarian theory.”
Unfortunately, Ruwart is on record with some extremely
controversial and unpopular stands on this matter.
That she has modified her position with “burden of proof” shifts at
puberty is an improvement, but it hardly solves the political problem.
How difficult would it be to prove consent for a 10 year old? “Desire?”
While I suppose lust would be relevant for a “case” involving a love affair with a pedophile, what about desire for money as a motivator for commercial sex?
And the case-by-case approach to 11, 12, and 13 year olds
is political suicide.
Moving the age of consent down towards 14 is just a horrible disaster
when coupled with positions in favor of ending the legal prohibition on
prostitution, drug use, etc.
If she is the nominee, it is too late to hope that these issues won’t come up in the general election. The Constitution Party is competing for Ron Paul supporters. The neo-libertarians are going to try to keep libertarians supporting McCain because of the war
My guess is that the CP people will keep this alive on talk radio. If Ruwart comes up in discussion, they will make sure that everyone knows that she favors legalizing child porn and that Baldwin doesn’t support that. He is the anti-war smaller government alternative.
And both the CP people and neo-libertarians will keep this up on blogs and so available by a google search.
It is hard to believe that it wouldn’t have come up anyway. But it will
certainly come up now.
Those of us who disagree with Ruwart on this issue.. Do we want the LP tarred with the child porn position? Do we really want another general election where we just pray that our candidate gets no coverage?
Those of you who agree with Ruwart more or less. Do you want this issue to serve as a distraction away from more important and even popular libertarian positions, say on the war?
Think about it.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 am
Thank you Mr. Hacker—in case all of you are not aware, as the name implies, the LIBERTARIAN PARTY is a POLITICAL PARTY —like it or not. As Movimiento Libertario has already proven, Libertarians can and do get elected to Federal office, and can have major influence in government policy. On the local level you already have some 500+ Libertarians in office in the US and thousands around the world. I recall reading in these pages about major rebates a Libertarian controlled water commission in Florida, USA were able to achieve for their constituents. I understand they even got re-elected.
Thus, my dear Mr. Barnett, if you really care about the movement (and are not a Republic spy) then you would understand why Ms. Ruwarts comments may be hurtful in getting Libertarians actually elected to office in order to create real change. However, it is very clear that you do not want Libertarians elected to office nor do you believe they should, thus you hold up Ms. Ruwart as some god like savior—knowing that by doing so you get to keep this child porn thing out in the open, thus making it much more difficult for the movement to grow and create the change you so desperately are afraid of.
Thank you sir for showing your true colors. Now go back to your Mc Cain.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Bill Woolsey Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
“Unfortunately, Ruwart is on record with some extremely
controversial and unpopular stands on this matter”
Unpopular . . . by who standard and with which “group”? That is an assumption which needs to be clarified, IMO.
“Those of us who disagree with Ruwart on this issue.. Do we want the LP tarred with the child porn position? Do we really want another general election where we just pray that our candidate gets no coverage?”
The only tarring is from people who support another candidate, and Ruwart has come out already that she is against children who are coerced against their will. What is not libertarian about that? Why should we “pray that our candidate gets no coverage?”
If worrying about controversial issues is the main focus, why say anything which more than 50% of the voters would likely disagree with? Is this the Libertarian Party, or the Populist Party?
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
79. Bill Woolsey Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
And the case-by-case approach to 11, 12, and 13 year olds
is political suicide.
I was suggesting that the 13 – 17 year old range was a case by case age range, as biological, mental, and emotional aspects “come together or into alignment” so to speak. We can quibble about just what range is relevant . . . maybe it is 12 – 18 years olds, that case by case is appropriate, but are you saying that “case by case” is political suicide, period?
If so, then how is it that a one size fits all law is better? Or, if wiggle room is allowed under law, how is it that the government bureaucratic “experts” are better at deciding (case by case) over parents, other loving adults, or even experts hired by the parents through some sort of counseling?
I have tried to give my views on this, and I am appreciative of legitimate questions and concerns, but if Libertarians can’t believe that family, close friends, even extended family are to be trusted to get this “age of consent” and “child porn” thing right, what do Libertarians believe? That the state is the answer?
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Ruwart and LaBianca are right: you define an age range starting a bit after puberty and ending a bit before 18, and say that the rebuttable presumption of ability to consent changes as you age through that range. I and others said this within 24 hours of the controversy erupting, but it took Ruwart a week to get on board and step back from the notion of age-blind rules, and both she and the LP suffered somewhat as a result.
We still don’t know who in Ruwarchotopia would prosecute parents/guardians that pressure their pubescent children into sex(ual commerce), but the LP’s anarchists never really tell us how the weak and helpless would be protected in anarchotopia, so that’s not news.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Susan has a juicy ass. I’m voting for her.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Brian,
You write:
“Ruwart and LaBianca are right: you define an age range starting a bit after puberty and ending a bit before 18, and say that the rebuttable presumption of ability to consent changes as you age through that range.”
Why?
Come on.
Give me your best argument for departing from the long-established standard of American criminal prosecution—the prosecutor proves his case and a jury decides whether or not he’s done so beyond a reasonable doubt.
Give me one good reason for departing from that standard in favor of drawing numbers out of hats and building complicated legalistic teeter-totters with them.
Are you afraid that juries will tend to find that two-year-olds can consent?
Or that 17-year-olds can’t?
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“Give me one good reason for departing from that standard in favor of drawing numbers out of hats and building complicated legalistic teeter-totters with them.”
The problem with the current age of consent laws (as far as laws go, anyway) is that they are mostly “black and white” – there is no ‘give’ to them to allow juries to take the logical step to say that two 16 year olds caught in the back of a shed probably aren’t violating anything other than their own dignity.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I believe that the key target for the LP presidential campaign is the 10% to 20% of voters who generally favor more personal and economic liberty.
It would be possible to promote a position on an issue that was unpopular with more than 50% of the voters (and, in fact, unpopular with up to 90% of them) and still be supported by 100% of the target population.
However, I do think that it is good to focus on issues that have broader support. That is, where the target population actually agrees with a majority.
Prompt withdrawal from Iraq is on the top of my list.
I don’t have polling information regarding child pornography. I think
you are wildly out of touch if you believe that ending prohibition has more than a fraction of 1% support.
Naturally, Ruwart doesn’t intend to focus on that issue. Unfortunately, her “paper trail,” makes it very possible that her opponents will focus on it. Of course, not the major party candidates, who will ignore her. Rather, the others scrambling for crumbs as well as neo-libertarians who will harp on this for no good reason.
For local, winnable races, the criterion is different. Yes, you need to stick to postions that are supported by more than 50% of the voters.
My paper trail is probably a bit controversial for a winnable race. On the other hand, I have won election a couple of times.
But then, I have never felt the need to pontificate on the ideal solution to age of consent issues and how that applies to prostitution and pornography. There is controversial… and controversial.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
In South Carolina, anyway, the age of consent is 16, unless the “offender” is a teacher or a whole bunch of other special authority figures. However, no one less than 18 can be convicted of an offense against a 14 or 15 year old.
In other words, high school students of the expected ages can’t get into legal trouble for having sexual relations with one another. (The oldest
seniors and those repeating a grade better stay away from the fresman and many sophmores.)
There are other, more stingent rules for those under 14. I am not sure, but I do think that 14 year olds can get into legal trouble with 13 year olds. Again, in SC.
And, 18 year olds can get into legal trouble with 15 year olds.
I have a 17 year old son and a 19 year old son. I had cause to look into this matter.
As a rule, older people are subject to legal sanction for voluntary sexual relations with younger ones. They don’t generally punish both or pick one at random.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 am
Tom, the phrase “rebuttable presumption” is straight from your essay. Who do you think would be doing the rebutting, if not a prosecutor? Who do you think would be doing the presuming, if not a jury?
You join Starchild, another of the absolutely smartest radicals, as drawing the 180-degree wrong conclusion from what I thought was an obvious contrast with bright lines. I get accused of writing too much so I always try to be terse, but it looks like I blew it here.
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 am
Brian,
You’re correct in pointing out that I’m rejecting my own previous reasoning. Frankly, I wasn’t being libertarian enough in that essay.
The American legal standard is fairly simple: The presumption is that the defendant is innocent, period. The burden of proof to rebut the presumption is on the prosecutor, period.
I don’t see any reason why that standard should be changed on the basis of the alleged victim’s age when trying a defendant on charges of rape.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Brian, what challenge do I have to take to touch your butt?
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Bill Woolsey,
Assertions that accepting children’s rights (i.e. treating them as individuals) may seem totally self-evident from the perspective of 2008, but many societies have held far different views. Look how much attitudes toward sexuality have changed over the past 50 years. Yet by historical standards, the U.S. is still a pretty prudish place in many respects.
The term “child pornography” for example, simply refers to photographs of children that people find titillating, and is not the same thing as physically abusing a child. Is there really any harm in someone being sexually excited by looking at photos of children, as distasteful as we may find it? I find the idea a lot less troubling than imagining someone getting off looking at photos from the Abu Ghraib scandal. But that would be perfectly legal.
The ACLU has stood up for the rights of all kinds of people unpalatable to the majority—Nazis, the KKK, etc.—and they’re still doing all right. But even if it could be proved that failing to pander to the prejudices of the majority on a topic had a net popularity cost to us, we shouldn’t refuse to stand up for certain freedoms simply because they are unpopular. I don’t want us to be another party willing, in the name of political expediency, to throw a group of people under the bus and turn away as their rights are violated by the State. Those most disfavored by the law and society are the equivalent of the canaries in the coal mine—if their rights are allowed to be trampled, a more “mainstream group” may be next.
Nor is standing up for the marginalized and demonized necessarily a bad or impractical political strategy. A loyal “fringe” group here, a loyal “fringe” group there, pretty soon you have some big numbers. It’s been widely noted that Ron Paul has attracted many supporters from among the adherents of various “conspiracy theories.” I’m not saying we ought to make full children’s rights, or conspiracy theories, our front-and-center issue, but we should not be afraid to talk about such topics and stand up for freedom where it is being denied.
In California, some 700 men labeled as “registered sex offenders” are being detained against their will at Coalinga State Hospital, despite having already been incarcerated for the full duration of time to which they were sentenced. Check out the site http://www.SexGulag.org to see more stories of registered sex offenders having their incarceration extended without due process, being murdered in prisons, being potentially denied the right to vote and targeted by asset forfeiture laws, being arrested for merely talking with children, being banned from parks, schools, and other taxpayer-funded facilities, having their information automatically posted to the Internet, etc.
In the big picture (as opposed to in the minds of those LP members obsessed with the party not being “taken seriously,” etc.), the Libertarian Party is a generally respected political group. Maybe not respected for our ability to win elections—having power not being what makes a group worthy of respect under libertarian values in any case—but respected as a sincere political organization with principled positions on both sides of the conventional political aisle. As such a group, we have the opportunity in speaking out on issues such as those addressed by Mary Ruwart, to help reduce the demonization of “sex offenders” by society.
Speaking out now will help reduce the extent to which their rights are violated, and perhaps prevent the establishment of rights-abusing practices by governments which will later spread to others. I cite Pastor Martin Niemoller as my backup on this—http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html .
The site http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/files/lec_lev.htm also notes that “In 1990, the Dutch parliament made sex between adults and children ages 12 to 16 legal as long as there was mutual consent. The child or the child’s parents can bring charges if they believe the minor was coerced into sex.” Of course we’ve all heard about all the terrible child abuse horror stories coming out of the Netherlands. .
Seriously, the LP is in pretty bad shape if we can’t even do better than a government parliament when it comes to reducing the role of government!
May 4th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
to be sadly clear
Mr. LaBianaca states above.
“Ruwart has come out already that she is against children who are coerced against their will. What is not libertarian about that? Why should we “pray that our candidate gets no coverage?”
The committee says this misses the point the other side is upset with. Ruwart also says that she is ok with children having sex with adults as long as they are not forced. She offeres no consent conditions implied or stated. It’s ok with her period.
Ruwart speaks for all libertarians in her books, she’s been called the darling of the LP. She’s not just another cook candidate wanting to legalize ferrets. This is a very serious situation for the LP.
Ask yourself this. Would you tell your parents that you are ok with children having sex with adults as long as the children are willing? If yes, call them up right now and read them Ruwarts short answer and that you support it without further qualification. Take their response and magnify it 300million fold and you will see how disasterous this will be for all of us. Because that’s exactly what will happen with the media. It just ain’t worth it. She says the culture sets the norms and then denies our own cultural norms, since she doesn’t believe in laws of any kind. Not libertarian at all.
Coercion is easy to be against ; the problem with Ruwarts claim is that she accepts child adult sexual relations as long as the child says ok. She doesn’t allow for any leeway. Its not up to the adult to be responsible. She puts all the responsiblity on a child who does not have the emotional maturity to understand the impact of their decisions. ....it stresses that a child (without any age or other conditions), has the capacity to let the adult off the hook legally speaking by consenting. Force or coercion is just not required to take advantage of a child. This is repulsive to all American’s.
Ruwart tried to spin it later by saying prepubescients lack desire. that doesn’t work either. Most kids untill puberty have a total lack of modesty. Consent by the child to a little photographing or foundling is just not an acceptable justification to American’s. This is very wrong.
If you support Ruwart our beautiful philosophy will die.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:52 am
It might just be me but when ever I read what Eric Dondero writes I get a headache and am stricken with a bout of uncontrollable cursing. Ruwart is a unflinching Libertarian who goes out of her way to stand up for the theoretical base of the party even when it is damaging politically. She did nothing wrong.
I would disagree with Committee for Clarity. It is a basic tenet of the party that voluntary agreements are not coercive. If exploitation can take place with out coercion then credence is not only given to pedophilia laws but to Communist critiques of Capitalism as exploitive. Contracts are not exploitive and if the court can prove their was no desire, therefore no consent, then the older person is still guilty of rape. Removing pedophilia laws remove arbitrary age restrictions in favor of case to case evaluation of the facts. That is how our justice system is supposed to work.