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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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?

“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?

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.