How would an AnCap society deal with child pornography? (self.Anarcho_Capitalism)

61 ups - 54 downs = 7 votes

How would an AnCap society deal with the distribution of child pornography? Child prostitution? Also, here's some extra credit for you buddies: Would public nudity be tolerated in AnCap land?

317 comments submitted at 12:52:11 on Dec 16, 2012 by EuroSoc

  • [-]
  • desertstorm28
  • 18 Points
  • 13:10:51, 16 December

"Would public nudity be tolerated in AnCap land?" There is no public property so it depends on who's property you are on.

  • [-]
  • ReasonThusLiberty
  • 19 Points
  • 15:36:38, 16 December

> There is no public property

There is no government property. Public property as property accessible to the public would probably exist.

  • [-]
  • nickik
  • 5 Points
  • 16:40:21, 16 December

then the owner (s) of that public land can decide that.

  • [-]
  • ReasonThusLiberty
  • 2 Points
  • 16:46:27, 16 December

Right.

  • [-]
  • G0VERNMENT
  • 1 Points
  • 21:42:30, 29 December

So who decides who gets unused land? I don't think homesteading can apply in every situation. Couldn't some land in communities like parks be considered the joint property of all members of the community? Couldn't there be some kind of cooperative which collects donations for the maintenance of this property?

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -4 Points
  • 13:27:44, 16 December

Okay. What if you own a piece of private property right next to someone and you decide to stand right next to that person on your property butt naked and start jerking off? What then?

  • [-]
  • ErasmusMRA
  • 10 Points
  • 13:38:24, 16 December

You enjoy the view.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -2 Points
  • 13:40:21, 16 December

If that said person came on his neighbor's face would that be a violation of the NAP? Would private defense agents be forced to tie up the person who jerked off and cum in his face in return? What if the neighbor can't afford private defense?

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 6 Points
  • 13:43:51, 16 December

>If that said person came on his neighbor's face would that be a violation of the NAP?

Yes

>Would private defense agents be forced to tie up the person who jerked off and cum in his face in return?

No, I expect they'd force the person to compensate his neighbor.

>What if the neighbor can't afford private defense?

A question of welfare which there are many ancap solutions to. Remember that Wall Mart has become huge by serving those with almost no money to spend.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -4 Points
  • 13:47:23, 16 December

Okay. What if consumers enjoy a private defense agency that rapes and enslaves anyone who commits a crime? Who would prevent this?

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 4 Points
  • 13:59:06, 16 December

Who would prevent it today?

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -3 Points
  • 14:01:49, 16 December

Public law isn't subverted by perverted populist demands.

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 10 Points
  • 14:07:15, 16 December

Marijuana is illegal, prostitution is illegal, driving without a seat belt is illegal, the purchase of alcohol is illegal even when you're over 18 in many countries.

Populist demands exist today and always will, but in ancapistan they will have less impact since, as I said, you need a much bigger part of the population to do it. All you need to ask yourself is "Today, would the people who wants to ban child pornography outpay those who don't want to ban child pornography?"

Then just continue down that road.

"Today, would the people who wants to ban cannabis outpay those who don't want to ban cannabis?"

No, because let's say that 70% want to pay for cannabis to illegal, they still can't outpay those who want it legal. Because today the price of cannabis is much higher than it would be in a free society, since it's illegal, but people buy it anyway. Let's say on average, the 70% is willing to pay 100 dollars a year to ban cannabis, which is a very high number. Those who today smoke cannabis pay more than 100 dollars a year extra because it's illegal.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -8 Points
  • 14:10:24, 16 December

Gee, with all that extra government money given unfairly to the people it actually seems it would be possible to allow the prohibition of marijuana and other things. You might be surprised. Also, cannabis would cost more if it was legal due to state regulation and weeding out of some sellers.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 18 Points
  • 13:32:26, 16 December

Then the neighbor should build a fence or buy curtains.

I think the theme of all of your recent submissions is "when do we start throwing each other into cages and threatening each other". the answer is we don't...ever.

  • [-]
  • nomothetique
  • 1 Points
  • 15:28:27, 16 December

Prisons could exist in Ancapistan, though I would expect far fewer. There is nothing wrong with making threats of violence to a criminal if there is a valid case for retaliation.

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 0 Points
  • 18:23:11, 16 December

but what is a valid case for retaliation? You might think of it as one thing and I would consider it something totally different. If we are to have a true anarchy, as the name suggests, then it's impossible to have any law and order without a central authority. What you're suggesting is the system we currently have, where a judge will decide what is a fair set of circumstances for retaliation.

  • [-]
  • nomothetique
  • 3 Points
  • 19:24:13, 16 December

>but what is a valid case for retaliation? You might think of it as one thing and I would consider it something totally different.

What is a valid case against retaliation? Retaliation is just basically doing in kind what a criminal did to a victim. Some aspects of this, like the felt uneasiness from a threat to one's life may be more arbitrary than others, like a known amount of a homogeneous good being stolen. Unless you advocate some sort of system where special rules apply to one group and different rules to others, I don't see how you can deny the human right to retaliation, technical problems with arbitrariness aside.

>If we are to have a true anarchy, as the name suggests, then it's impossible to have any law and order without a central authority.

I don't know what the name of anarchy is suggesting to you, but to me it just means a lack of rulers, not the lack of the rule of law. I have no clue how a central authority is required. History contradicts your assertion.

>What you're suggesting is the system we currently have...

Certainly not.

>where a judge will decide what is a fair set of circumstances for retaliation.

Needing a human to put law into action is unavoidable and humans are fallible. Jurisprudence is different than praxeological legal theory, an exact science.

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 0 Points
  • 20:38:19, 16 December

> , I don't see how you can deny the human right to retaliation, technical problems with arbitrariness aside.

Just so we're clear, you're offending me now in this conversation and I feel I now have the right to retaliate against you. Am I allowed to use deadly force against your criminal behavior or do I just take some money from you to compensate for my emotional pain?

> I don't know what the name of anarchy is suggesting to you, but to me it just means a lack of rulers, not the lack of the rule of law.

I think we agree that nobody rules over us, so we make our own rules. The rule is that I'm always right, so as I just explained, you're acting in a criminal fashion and I deserve to retaliate.

> Needing a human to put law into action is unavoidable and humans are fallible.

I accept this and in fact I might be wrong with my rules, but you would still support my right to retaliate against you wouldn't you?

  • [-]
  • nomothetique
  • 2 Points
  • 20:51:19, 16 December

>Just so we're clear, you're offending me now in this conversation and I feel I now have the right to retaliate against you. Am I allowed to use deadly force against your criminal behavior or do I just take some money from you to compensate for my emotional pain?

Get back to me when you are dead perhaps. I know you know better than this, that the punishment must meet the crime, so please don't waste my time with horrible responses like this.

Libertarianism is not pacifism so please stop misrepresenting it.

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 0 Points
  • 21:09:43, 16 December

OK, so your idea of retaliation is limited. So if I steal something from you in a non-violent fashion (e.g. stealing something from your house when you're not home), you can only steal something back from me in a non-violent fashion? For if you claim that you can violently retaliate, then I still think I can escalate to physical violence over your non-physical comment.

  • [-]
  • nomothetique
  • 2 Points
  • 21:48:09, 16 December

Theft is violence by definition, so I don't understand what you are trying to say.

You mean that if you steal from me, but I wasn't around, so no physical violence occurred, then I can only "return the taking" from you if I can do it in a "nonviolent" way?

Well, no it doesn't work that way. Not only can the victim take back what was theirs by any means necessary, the victim can then take doubly from the thief or enact proportional violence back on him.

If "Bill Gates" stole $100 from me and that was literally every possession I had, the theoretical maximum punishment would include everything Billy owns.

It goes further than that too. There are transaction costs. I have to take time to go track down Bill and get him to pay up, whatever that entails. Probably I have to hire a security firm, so teh associated costs are put on the criminal.

On top of that, there was a threat to my life by his theft. Taking everything I own might have led to my death. In a society with plenty of charity available to me, perhaps this isn't that serious. In the Wild West, taking a man's horse could result in his death by exposure, so it depends on the circumstances. The thief went on this adventure to steal possibly not knowing anyone was home, even if nobody was actually home, who knows what a thief may have done to the homeowner if he were. This invasion proper is a threat.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -3 Points
  • 13:36:24, 16 December

What if they can't afford to build a fence or buy curtains? What if the person who is naked builds a platform that is taller than the fence/curtains and therefore can still be in visible sight jerking off naked?

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 9 Points
  • 13:40:53, 16 December

Then you better start enjoying his performance. His actions aren't hurting anyone, therefore you have no business hurting him.

  • [-]
  • Sir_Marcus
  • 3 Points
  • 04:45:28, 17 December

I don't think you can just dismiss this problem. Once the neighbor is taking steps to force you to watch him masturbate isn't he harassing you? You certainly can't arrest him or beat him up but he is clearly in the wrong.

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 0 Points
  • 11:10:42, 17 December

IMO there has to be a certain level of live and let live for us to co-exist together in a society. I might hate baggy pants and you might hate when people chew with their mouth open. To start to call the behavior that bothers us as criminal is just looking for an excuse to use violence against them. I think the solution is that we have to protect ourselves to a certain degree. We either move away or build a fence.

Besides this, if he is truly harassing, then we tell our DRO to resolve it for us. Maybe a community announcement about his behavior will be enough or maybe a few other people will ostracize him.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -4 Points
  • 13:42:01, 16 December

Wow...what if I'm personally disgusted? AnCaps condone public nudity and public masturbation it seems.

  • [-]
  • 0xstev3
  • 8 Points
  • 14:10:36, 16 December

> Wow...what if I'm personally disgusted?

Well, what if you are personally disgusted? What's your solution? I'm 'personally disgusted' over lots of things, so I'd love to know what you have in mind.

> AnCaps condone public nudity and public masturbation it seems.

No, we don't condone violence against peaceful people. The idea is to use your brain to come up with a solution that doesn't require beating people up. Is masturbating to your next door's family barbecue generally accepted? No? Well, then name and shame him, ostracise him, have him put on a sexual offenders list and so forth... Look what happened to violentacrez.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -5 Points
  • 14:11:25, 16 December

I guess a peaceful person is a naked masturbator right in front of you.

  • [-]
  • 0xstev3
  • 6 Points
  • 14:37:23, 16 December

peace·ful
/ˈpēsfəl/ Adjective Not involving war or violence.

Yep... as far as I can see.

Also, you didn't answer my question. What's your solution to deal with people who you are 'personally disgusted' over? I'm a little disgusted over you and I'd love to know what you condone as acceptable for me to have done to you.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -11 Points
  • 14:39:15, 16 December

Alright, I guess Ancap is a "peaceful" ideology full of naked masturbating child porn/rape condoning private rape employers.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 13 Points
  • 13:49:24, 16 December

> AnCaps condone public nudity and public masturbation it seems.

as already (nicely) stated, there is no "public". Ancaps therefore support private nudity.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 1 Points
  • 13:56:40, 16 December

At least you're clear with your statement.

  • [-]
  • IMJGalt
  • 7 Points
  • 14:37:27, 16 December

>what if I'm personally disgusted?

You have a personal problem

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -5 Points
  • 14:39:24, 16 December

Dodge the question!

  • [-]
  • IMJGalt
  • 2 Points
  • 15:28:03, 16 December

Your personal problems are yours to deal with. You have no right to use force because you are disgusted. You have not right to have others use force on your behalf because you are disgusted. Deal with it.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -2 Points
  • 15:29:33, 16 December

No. It's not even a personal problem. If someone is masturbating naked right in front of me it creates a negative externality for children and even me too. It's bad to see and it should be stopped. I can't believe you condone this garbage. You're fucking sick and I hope you following my advice on what I said on AskReddit a day or two ago.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • SuperNinKenDo
  • 8 Points
  • 14:46:28, 16 December

Nope, he pretty much answered it.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -2 Points
  • 14:49:11, 16 December

Not really, by your arbitrary reality he did.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • skeeto
  • 2 Points
  • 17:43:11, 16 December

This is a variation of the tank in the garden scenario: how do ensure your neighbors aren't doing things you strongly object to? It could be a tank in the garden or naked performance art.

> If people are afraid of the “tank in the garden,” all they have to do is ensure that their DRO contract contains protections against well-armed neighbors. How can this be achieved? Well, when my wife and I bought our house, we signed a contract stipulating that we were not to repaint the outside of our house for a period of five years. I am sure that we would not have hesitated to sign the contract if it also included a ban on building tanks, nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers.

With this, an ancap society could potentially have strict gun control, bans on child pornography, and even copyright laws! Of course, these laws would only apply in areas where they were widely popular and the penalty for breaking them wouldn't involve going to jail.

  • [-]
  • crookers
  • 0 Points
  • 02:48:57, 17 December

hehehhehehe

  • [-]
  • properal
  • 7 Points
  • 16:45:46, 16 December

>How would an AnCap society deal with the distribution of child pornography? Child prostitution? Also, here's some extra credit for you buddies: Would public nudity be tolerated in AnCap land?

None of that would be allowed on my property.

Protection firms would have an incentive to stop abuse that would likely lead to crimes against their customers. Since child abuse increases the victims risks to become abusers and cost protection firms money in the long run, they would have incentive to stop it.

  • [-]
  • notandanafn7
  • 11 Points
  • 16:50:12, 16 December

This actually could have been an interesting question, if it weren't actually a fishing expedition for statements you can take out of context and post elsewhere saying "Look, all anarcho-capitalists are child pornographers." Pathetic.

  • [-]
  • OnlyCreatingToUpvote
  • 6 Points
  • 06:50:09, 17 December

The only pathetic thing about it, is that the only answer you seem to have for him is some pathetic ad-hominem attack.

  • [-]
  • notandanafn7
  • 6 Points
  • 07:52:05, 17 December

I have responded to the OP's points elsewhere in the thread, but he or she has absolutely no interest in engaging in a debate, only in tarring the people in this subreddit as supporters of despicable things. If you're going to be tossing around accusations you should at least check to make sure they hold water.

  • [-]
  • OnlyCreatingToUpvote
  • 1 Points
  • 08:03:43, 17 December

>I have responded to the OP's points elsewhere in the thread, but he or she has absolutely no interest in engaging in a debate, only in tarring the people in this subreddit as supporters of despicable things.

No you didn't. The only thing you offer up to counter the point is:

>If you were actually interested in having a debate and had any familiarity at all with the NAP you could easily answer the first two of your questions yourself.

"answer the question yourself" certainly is no response to a point. You're inferring the NAP is some mystical solution to the problem... but it's not. Owning child pornography is not an aggressive act. The creation of child pornography can be construed as an aggressive act but it's certainly not aggressive towards you. The family might have a right to a 'retaliatory' aggressive act towards the perpetrator... but what happens when it's the mother or father that is exploiting the child?

>If you're going to be tossing around accusations you should at least check to make sure they hold water.

I would suggest the same... It would make you look less foolish in the future.

  • [-]
  • notandanafn7
  • 2 Points
  • 08:34:17, 17 December

If you want to take only a part of my post and respond to that, sure, or to take it out of the context of the subthread that it was in, sure. That's your problem I guess. Here is what I was responding to, since you don't seem to understand how the context button works:

>Great. Now how would defense companies react to someone having a natural attraction to children? Would they storm their door and decide to beat the everliving shit out of them? What if someone is duped into downloading CP? Would they beat the shit out of them too?

Like I said, I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone who is interested in talking to us because they're interested in talking to us and not trying to look cool for their SRS buddies that experiencing an attraction is not in itself a crime under the NAP. I can't think of any other word to describe that but obvious.

I think my ultimate point, that we don't need to have an answer for every specific little scenario that some troll can come up with in order to demonstrate the superiority of our system, is a legitimate one in the context of the discussion here. It is clear from the phrasing of their questions and from their subsequent replies that their implicit assumption is that an anarcho-capitalist system would be worse than the current statist one. So, where others provided specific hypothetical constructions to deal with the troll's increasingly vulgar questions, I pointed to the fact that A. current systems already allow all of these types of things to happen, because whether something can happen is not a function of whether or not it is legal and B. the features of an anarchocapitalist system make it uniquely suited to coming up with better and better solutions to deal with these problems, even if it's not immediately clear what those solutions are. It's one of the few points that hadn't been made yet. I don't think it's really all that possible to say what an anarcho-capitalist solution in particular would look like, because one of the basic problems in human society that we're aware of is that information is diffuse - only when markets are allowed to work does private information become public through prices. This is pretty basic Hayek, whom you don't even have to be an anarchocapitalist to like. I want to apply this mechanism to everything, so of course I can't say for sure what sort of child-abuse prevention method would work best in a given scenario, because we can't possibly know all of the information.

You do realize the irony of your username, correct?

  • [-]
  • OnlyCreatingToUpvote
  • 3 Points
  • 08:54:54, 17 December

>If you want to take only a part of my post and respond to that, sure, or to take it out of the context of the subthread that it was in, sure. That's your problem I guess. Here is what I was responding to, since you don't seem to understand how the context button works:

... That was literally the only thing I could come up from with your post history when you stated "I have responded to the OP's points elsewhere in the thread, but he or she has absolutely no interest in engaging in a debate" as some sort of response to OP.

So I'm at a loss here... You claim to of responded to OP's points and have no response to point to. I'm left to conclude my original post here was correct and you've simply ad-hominem attacked OP rather then respond to his question.

That abomination of a paragraph could of been summed up in just a few sweet sentences and saved your time from typing it and saved my time from reading it by stating these things: A) We feel too good/pure/whathaveyou/ to answer a pressing question regarding our system of thought we're constantly preaching to adopt. B) The way OP worded his question was in a way he doesn't believe in our system of though, ergo he's a troll! (which isn't bullshit and totally not an ad-hominem attack) C) We have no answer to what we would do. If there is a market for exploitation, then it's ok.

>You do realize the irony of your username, correct?

Define: Irony. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

I only created my account to upvote a post I felt deserved it. Hence... OnlyCreatingToUpvote. Nothing ironic about that.

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 2 Points
  • 13:19:49, 16 December

>How would an AnCap society deal with the distribution of child pornography?

Defense companies would be hired to look out for and deal with people dealing with child pornography. It all comes down to what you're ready to pay for. Are you ready to pay slightly higher costs for your defense agency to protect children? Most likely yes. At least the majority of people are, because they pay slightly higher taxes for the police to deal with child pornography today.

As far as your second question goes I have nothing to add to desertstorm28's comment.

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 6 Points
  • 13:37:15, 16 December

So if a defense agency finds someone that not only possesses child pornography, but but is selling to a bunch of willing customers. Would you intervene if the defense agency breaks the NAP in attacking the child porn dealer?

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 1 Points
  • 13:45:43, 16 December

>Would you intervene if the defense agency breaks the NAP in attacking the child porn dealer?

I don't hold the NAP as an absolute. I wouldn't intervene. I would gladly pay defense agencies to be on guard against child pornography.

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 5 Points
  • 13:52:59, 16 December

So do you believe that might makes right? If more people pay to keep pornography legal, then would you continue to fight it? Does the fight never end?

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 0 Points
  • 14:01:07, 16 December

>So do you believe that might makes right?

Might makes right whether you like it or not.

> If more people pay to keep [child] pornography legal, then would you continue to fight it?

Yep

>Does the fight never end?

Never

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 3 Points
  • 14:11:07, 16 December

Do you feel there is anything wrong with the current society and system of government we have today? It seems that we already have your ideal society.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -3 Points
  • 13:41:16, 16 December

Geez, if that agency broke it up it would prove how anti-business AnCaps are.

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 4 Points
  • 13:48:01, 16 December

It's more an issue of authoritarianism. If we simply get to decide morality by auctioning it to the highest bidder, then it's all built on a foundation of how has the strongest army. We should be able to look at one man versus an army to determine that sometimes the single man has the moral high ground.

When christians were persecuted by Rome, that didn't mean that the Romans throwing people to the lions was the morally superior act. Might does not make right.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -1 Points
  • 13:57:49, 16 December

Yeah and if Roman times were ancap, we'd have people who would have a demand for private law agencies to send christians to the lions or even worse.

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 7 Points
  • 14:09:41, 16 December

Very true. anarchy was not appropriate in these past times, not with the type of civilization we were growing into. Anarchy (i.e. individualism) is our future, not our past.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -6 Points
  • 14:10:44, 16 December

Are you a cult member?

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 4 Points
  • 14:13:08, 16 December

Depends on what you mean, but since I believe in individualism, then I feel confident to say no. A cult would require at least two members and chances of someone thinking exactly like I do is highly unlikely.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -3 Points
  • 14:18:55, 16 December

Do you like Stefan Molyneux? Are you going to deFOO your family?

"Honey, I'm worried that aletoledo is trying to abandon us."

"Oh don't worry it's just his autism."

  • [-]
  • aletoledo
  • 3 Points
  • 14:28:23, 16 December

> Do you like Stefan Molyneux?

I agree on a few things, but disagree on a lot of others.

Not sure what your quotes are for. It appears you're suggesting I'm a child and those are my parents speaking?

More Comments - Not Stored
More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 0 Points
  • 13:25:02, 16 December

Great. Now how would defense companies react to someone having a natural attraction to children? Would they storm their door and decide to beat the everliving shit out of them? What if someone is duped into downloading CP? Would they beat the shit out of them too?

Now, here's an even tangier hypothetical scenario. Let's say that a child rapist loves ancapism and homesteading. He has a child under his control and gets a boat and decides to go out onto the ocean. He then starts filming child porn with his child slave from his computer. Defense industries decide to not pursue him because it's not profitable and not within their jurisdiction. However now people have child porn they can look at. How do you fix this?

  • [-]
  • notandanafn7
  • 3 Points
  • 13:54:18, 16 December

If you were actually interested in having a debate and had any familiarity at all with the NAP you could easily answer the first two of your questions yourself. As for your hypothetical scenario, it seems like you're making the assumption that child slavery is somehow okay in an anarcho-capitalist scenario. Again, that's pretty obviously incorrect. I also don't think it is incumbent on us to demonstrate that crime will not exist in an ancap society, or that there is a contingency for every scenario you can possibly think up. It's already the case in a statist society that someone can kidnap a child and keep him or her pretty much indefinitely. The worst you can say really is that it would be as bad as it is now. At best, the fact that an ancap society would be far more dynamic and competition-driven means it would be much more likely to produce a solution.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -4 Points
  • 13:58:59, 16 December

Not really. Competition-driven law could give us some really horrible punishments for criminals. We already enslave them for profit in private prisons right now.

  • [-]
  • notandanafn7
  • 3 Points
  • 14:04:18, 16 December

Who runs the legal system? The state. Who choses which private prison companies get contracts? The state. There is no competitive mechanism in the current prison system. Competition/capitalism/free markets != state corporatism. I'm sick of people trying to make that equivalence. It's dishonest and you know it's dishonest.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -2 Points
  • 14:05:56, 16 December

Yeah but why don't public prisons use slave labor?

  • [-]
  • notandanafn7
  • 4 Points
  • 14:15:27, 16 December

I'm pretty sure these were public. Also these. Also these and these and these. So tell me again how an ancap system would do worse?

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 0 Points
  • 14:19:43, 16 December

They'd bring them back.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • ErasmusMRA
  • 4 Points
  • 13:33:44, 16 December

The best way to ensure children are not abused is to have them raised by two loving parents. Currently our statist society rewards women for having babies out of wedlock and kicking men out of the house. And it incentivizes married women to divorce their husbands.

In AnCap the incentives which destabilize families would not be there. A more cohesive family unit would emerge, based on the voluntary consent of both parents.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -14 Points
  • 13:35:25, 16 December

Oh shut up about your bullshit MRA agenda. You're a wimp, a retard and men cannot be raped by women. Also, that's not a legitimate solution to the problem. There will always be bad parents and there are people who are naturally attracted to children and will do things to justify their sexual urges.

  • [-]
  • BashyLaw
  • 8 Points
  • 14:12:35, 16 December

Did you just say that men can't be raped by women?

Are you fucking serious?

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -9 Points
  • 14:17:51, 16 December

Yep. The "men are raped by women" argument is an idea fueled by a misogynist narrative.

  • [-]
  • TheAlphaGareBear
  • 1 Points
  • 14:27:08, 16 December

>Oh shut up about your bullshit MRA agenda. You're a wimp, a retard and men cannot be raped by women. Also, that's not a legitimate solution to the problem. There will always be bad parents and there are people who are naturally attracted to children and will do things to justify their sexual urges.

Just gonna go ahead and quote these.

>Yep. The "men are raped by women" argument is an idea fueled by a misogynist narrative.

Just in case you want to delete them later.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -4 Points
  • 14:28:48, 16 December

Yeah, like I'd delete something for being true.

  • [-]
  • TheAlphaGareBear
  • 1 Points
  • 14:33:30, 16 December

It's some pretty solid evidence that you are nothing more than a troll. Come to think of it, I should probably quote most of the things that you say. They'd be great fuel in case you ever try and pretend to be a concerned party.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -1 Points
  • 14:34:21, 16 December

Sorry I don't care for your bullshit right-wing crocodile tear movements.

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 0 Points
  • 13:40:28, 16 December

>Would they storm their door and decide to beat the everliving shit out of them?

That depends on what people pay for. They could do that, most likely not since excessive violence is looked down on. Defense companies have many things to attract customers, one of them is how they deal with criminals.

>Defense industries decide to not pursue him because it's not profitable

Defense agencies could pursue him for PR-purposes. If not even that is profitable, start a fundraiser.

> not within their jurisdiction

I can't imagine there would be jurisdictions in ancapistan.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 2 Points
  • 13:46:26, 16 December

Let's summarise your post Mr. WickedArmadillo.

>That depends on what irrational consumers pay for. They could use arbitrary law to potentially kill a person with a natural attraction to children, most likely not since my arbitrary morals are probably good. Defense companies could attract demand by potentially raping and enslaving criminals.

>Defense agencies could do something that corporations almost never do in real life anyways. If not, start a fundraiser that would most likely not happen because people would probably not know except for those sexually benefitting.

>Oh so now property doesn't exist in AnCap land?

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 0 Points
  • 13:58:25, 16 December

I didn't offer opinions on the matter, I offered predictions.

>That depends on what irrational consumers pay for.

In our current society in depends on who irrational voters vote for. And in our current world people are more disconnected from all these things. The tyranny of the majority in our present day society comes about when 51% of voters want something. In ancapistan you'd need like... 95%.

The time of newspapers, journalists and staying informed won't end with the state.

>They could use arbitrary law to potentially kill a person with a natural attraction to children

People could arbitrarily elect a person who wanted to kill child molesters. And once again, only 51% of the population would have to want it. In ancapistan you'd need a much, much larger majority.

>Most likely not since my arbitrary morals are probably good

I don't think you understand polycentric law. Polycentric law is arbitrary but with a heavy leaning towards not banning things. David Friedman speaks about it a lot in Machinery of Freedom, a highly recommended read.

>Defense companies could attract demand by potentially raping and enslaving criminals.

They could also attract customers by dealing with criminals peacefully, being professional, effective, having low prices, being fair and consistent. Which one do you think is more likely? Which one would you buy services from?

>people would probably not know except for those sexually benefitting.

Newspapers, hand out flyers, start a kickstarter, submit a reddit post.

>Oh so now property doesn't exist in AnCap land?

I'm sorry if we had a misunderstanding. I meant that there wouldn't be lines set up to limit agencies just for the sake of it. You said that the person went on a boat trip to unclaimed property. Why would that limit the agency?

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -4 Points
  • 14:05:25, 16 December

First off, I'm reacting a bit early but you're a retard. One person getting elected guarantees no legislation. You don't understand the legislative branch at all. David Friedman is a whiny, idiotic, overly-theoretical Jew. People would like one that provides "protection". Know how corporations even lie about their services today, imaging it unregulated would be even worse. I guess pedophiles would want to out themselves. Because it wouldn't be in the agency's interests. Now they're all-encompassing world governments? Shit!

  • [-]
  • notandanafn7
  • 1 Points
  • 16:47:35, 16 December

Wow, insulting someone for being Jewish. You're just a paragon of left-wing intellectualism, aren't you?

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 1 Points
  • 14:11:43, 16 December

>I'm reacting a bit early but you're a retard.

Okay

> One person getting elected guarantees no legislation.

You're right. But if a person gets elected because he/she wants to rape child molesters, it certainly raises the chances that that will be the case.

>You don't understand the legislative branch at all. David Friedman is a whiny, idiotic, overly-theoretical Jew.

Writing that brings nothing to our conversation. I thought we together were on a path to become wiser people, why are you insulting me?

>Know how corporations even lie about their services today, imaging it unregulated would be even worse.

Transparency and trust is another way to attract customers.

>I guess pedophiles would want to out themselves. Because it wouldn't be in the agency's interests. Now they're all-encompassing world governments?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Could you please clarify?

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -1 Points
  • 14:16:52, 16 December

Okay, legitimate statements are from the last two things you said. Do you really think Bank of America has transparency and trust? They act like it but they do whatever the hell they want. On the last statement, I was saying that if some person posted CP only pedos would know and it wouldn't spread to the populace.

  • [-]
  • wickedarmadillo
  • 0 Points
  • 14:23:28, 16 December

>Do you really think Bank of America has transparency and trust?

I'm not American so I don't know that much about the Bank of America. How much do you think the government has to do with them?

>if some person posted CP only pedos would know and it wouldn't spread to the populace.

Yes, that happens no matter what kind of society you live in. If someone today makes CP and only posts it to other pedos, no one else will know about it.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -3 Points
  • 14:25:25, 16 December

I've heard from Americans that BoA lies a ton and imposes horrible authoritarian fees but they can always use some of their profits to fund commercials to make them look good.

More Comments - Not Stored
More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • MurrayLancaster
  • 3 Points
  • 17:36:53, 16 December

Public nudity is irrelevant, there is no public land. If the landowner is okay with you being nude on their property (or if its your property), then okay. If not, then no.

  • [-]
  • Gabenisafatasshole
  • 3 Points
  • 19:44:16, 17 December

I've come here from r/bestof and would just like to say all you people are absolutely retarded. You have to inability to answer any of euroocs questions.

He has made you all look like children hoping for an imaginary society that you can't even articulate in the slightest, on how it would work.

  • [-]
  • MyGogglesDoNothing
  • 5 Points
  • 14:53:03, 16 December

Is there a point you'd like to make to us?

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -32 Points
  • 14:55:19, 16 December

AnCap is a crazy theoretical ideology that would lead to exploitation, people masturbating naked right on the border of each other's private property and increased corporate tyranny.

  • [-]
  • MyGogglesDoNothing
  • 24 Points
  • 15:02:06, 16 December

> people masturbating naked right on the border of each other's private property

You say it like it's a bad thing.

> lead to exploitation

> increased corporate tyranny

Would you say that these things are possible without violence?

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • scared2mosh
  • 17 Points
  • 19:55:14, 16 December

Shit... He's onto us guys! We have to silence him or we'll never have the freedom to stand on our lawns jerkin the gherkin!

  • [-]
  • CPearson
  • 17 Points
  • 15:00:28, 16 December

lol.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -20 Points
  • 15:05:31, 16 December

Give me a high five you bad ass motherfucker.

  • [-]
  • HoundDogs
  • 8 Points
  • 02:18:32, 17 December

Why are you even here? It's obvious by your comment history that your mind is made up. I've been through two pages of that garbage and the only thing you have ever done with this account is attempt to shame people out of anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism by personal attack after personal attack. You have never posted a single statistic or made any factual statements outside of pure, unbridled, conjecture.

I guess my question is, what's your motive?

You're not going to take down all of anarcho capitalism with a bunch of hate filled rants. So why do you feel it is a good use of your time to come here and attempt to shame and belittle people.

Really. Look inside yourself.

This behavior suggests that you have a serious self esteem problem, and possibly need to seek psychological assistance. I'll leave that up to you though.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -4 Points
  • 03:57:12, 17 December

I do use reasonable arguments. If I have to use more statistics I will, but whenever I link something libertarians get all butthurt for me not making my own argument. What am I supposed to do about that? I'm sorry that I'm interested in libertarian reactions to key issues and getting a good answer.

  • [-]
  • HoundDogs
  • 6 Points
  • 04:15:24, 17 December

>I'm sorry that I'm interested in libertarian reactions to key issues and getting a good answer.

No, you're being extremely disingenuous to either me, or yourself here. Your post history does not represent, in the slightest, the actions of a person interested in anything ANYONE else has to say.

>100/100 A+ answer, the extra money/free market/my ideology is never wrong will fix it.

Speaking of Misis.org forums closing:

>Yes! Another forum of crazy loons has been shut down!

>Alright I'm off to bed you crazy loons. EuroSoc out!

>Wow, it shows you how mentally ill ancaps are.

>You're retarded and you probably dodge questions like the holocaust in the same mannerisms too.

Forgive me, but this doesn't seem like the words of someone who is "Interested" in anything except talking down to people and insisting upon their own intellectual superiority. If you truly feel you are here to lean something then I would encourage learning how to ask questions in a way that might get you more enlightening responses.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -3 Points
  • 04:20:08, 17 December

Sorry you get so mad if your little libertarian henchmen say something stupid and I get a kick out of it.

  • [-]
  • HoundDogs
  • 1 Points
  • 04:34:00, 17 December

You're still doing it. Do you not see anything wrong with being called to the carpet and immediately responding with an attack? It's a defense mechanism. You seem to be unwilling to examine your behavior and you have found an outlet to project the anger (likely caused by some type of denial) on people you disagree with.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -4 Points
  • 04:39:29, 17 December

Sorry that libertarianism is a lesser political ideology.

  • [-]
  • HoundDogs
  • 5 Points
  • 04:41:26, 17 December

...and again with the conjecture.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -3 Points
  • 04:46:35, 17 December

Even when libertarianism has been disproven many times and is dubious for its major corporate support?

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • prof_doxin
  • 1 Points
  • 16:21:32, 18 December

I know you're joking, but as a guy with a powerful Type-A personality prone to exploiting people, a long time enjoyer of masturbation (both watching and doing), and a corporate officer with significant stock options, I ~~like~~ love the world you describe.

If only it were true, and not the ramblings of a 15-year old mind hopped up on Mountain Dew.

  • [-]
  • sour_bourbon
  • 2 Points
  • 21:53:05, 17 December

How do you define children? how do you define pornography? or prostitution?

My answer depends on how you define these terms.

If a 17 y.o. girl sends a naked photo of herself to her 18 y.o. boyfriend, I don't consider this child porn. Our current government does (USA), however.

  • [-]
  • Constitutional_lefts
  • 1 Points
  • 09:33:32, 19 December

Is your girlfriend 17?

  • [-]
  • sour_bourbon
  • 1 Points
  • 22:13:02, 19 December

So now that you've made the obvious joke, are you going to try to engage in some kind of constructive debate on the topic? Are you even going to try to define the terms I mentioned? Or was your sole purpose to troll someone who was actually willing to discuss this issue thoughtfully?

  • [-]
  • Constitutional_lefts
  • 1 Points
  • 09:08:59, 20 December

*Jesus, some people have no time for fun in their lives. *

Well, I do agree with that the example given shouldn't be considered child porn but this is such a grey area as to where the line should be drawn; what happens when a 14 year old send naked photos of herself to a 15 year old, what happens when an 11 year old sends naked pictures of themselves to a 19 year old? What happens when a 41 year old asks a 9 year old for naked pictures of themselves?

There is a point where you we know that even "consenting" children are still only that, children. They lack the experience, cognitive development and rational to make certain decisions without being coerced to do them.

I am rambling but the point is this isn't a simple answer that me and you can come too over a SubReddit.

  • [-]
  • seltaeb4
  • 1 Points
  • 19:06:24, 17 December

>How would an AnCap society deal with child pornography?

In gold.

  • [-]
  • NonViolentWar
  • 2 Points
  • 07:04:55, 17 December

What the fuck happened to this thread? 250 comments and only 2 upvotes?

  • [-]
  • logicalutilizor
  • 1 Points
  • 11:43:40, 17 December

Actually 37 uppers and 35 downers. Still.

  • [-]
  • fuckthisindustry
  • 2 Points
  • 07:10:56, 17 December

CP is against the NAP for the same reason raping a child is against the NAP,children have to be compulsed into doing something so disgusting/horrible. More people would be willing to sign up for rights-enforcement agencies that outlaw CP than those that would be willing to sign up for it, so the market outcome in this case = the moral outcome.

  • [-]
  • HoundDogs
  • -5 Points
  • 02:02:57, 17 December

So, if most of you have not already gathered, this thread has been infested by the irrational, communistic, radical wing of feminism called Shitredditsays.

For those of you who have not had much experience with this particular cult,they are not interested in science, logic, evidence, or reason, but only in down voting and yelling at things they FEEL are offensive.

I would encourage you to simply downvote them and leave them to their circlejerk of insanity. They do go away.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -1 Points
  • 03:58:11, 17 December

Lol, okay then buddy.

  • [-]
  • E7ernal
  • -4 Points
  • 18:22:38, 16 December

Why anyone is responding to this blatant trolling is beyond me.

  • [-]
  • CPearson
  • 2 Points
  • 22:29:48, 16 December

It's kinda fun.

  • [-]
  • CPearson
  • -268 Points
  • 14:19:20, 16 December

How cute. You must be very concerned. The Majority of child Porn doesn't violate anyone's rights (see link), and even if it did, there's no difference between people jacking off to videos of it on the internet, and jerking off to videos of murder or even gory workplace accidents. Weird and creepy, but hardly criminal. Implicit in the idea that such a thing is criminal even though it violates no one's rights, is the idea that a sexual orientation on its own can be criminal, which, given your righteous concern over transsexual toilets (The greatest injustice in modern society no less) it would make you look ery stupid to accept. If someone is abducting children(an actual crime), people will obviously want to pay for agencies to investigate the case and rescue them, as people tend care about the welfare and safety of their kids and children in general. Busting such a case open would be a massive win for any defence agency. Economically, the availability of child porn reduces incidence of actual child abuse, given the substitution affect. A company that makes money by having less crime befall its customers, and is self interested (a given), is unlikely to bite the hand that feeds, as it were (by decreasing availability of child porn and thus increasing child abuse).

Some pertinent reading on the issue, outside of ancap: http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Aninsightintochildporn/index.html http://garthzietsman.blogspot.ie/2012/03/pornography-intelligent-view.html

In conclusion: given a polycentric legal order, simple economic incentives, competing DROs/defense agencies, and self interested consumers, it's likely that rights-violating production of such pornography would be sought out for prosecution, and mere watching/distribution of such material would not. i.e. the economic incentives of ancap society approximate deontological libertarian rules. neat isn't it?

That should all read fairly reasonably, but I anticipate your response to be childish and full of fake concern and righteous condemnation.

Also, "Would public nudity be tolerated in AnCap land?" Is a pretty simple fucking question. If I don't want your naked body on my property I'll expel you, or pay someone else to do it. ditto for more "public" private property.

  • [-]
  • HerrZeleid
  • 93 Points
  • 07:18:10, 17 December

I'm officially embarrassed to be a subscriber to this community.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 30 Points
  • 10:34:32, 17 December

Sometimes they make it too easy.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • TheRaven7
  • 81 Points
  • 05:45:39, 17 December

children being raped to make child porn is a violation of those children's rights, hth

  • [-]
  • NefariousBanana
  • 97 Points
  • 00:59:50, 17 December

Child porn violates rights because the children are being forced into something they don't want to do.

So force is okay in this situation? Are you familiar with the Non-Aggression Principle at all?

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • cheekyjunkaccount
  • 165 Points
  • 20:46:09, 16 December

> How cute. You must be very concerned.

One of the biggest image problems AnCaps and libertarians have is that they come across as condescending cunts. From the beginning, you're setting the tone of your post as talking down and for no particular reason.

Are you doing this on purpose or do you not really not realize how much of a smug asshole this makes you come off as?

  • [-]
  • CPearson
  • -70 Points
  • 20:57:33, 16 December

Eurosoc has been asking "provocative" questions in bad faith a couple times in a row, I answer like a cunt because they post like a cunt. I think it's fair. They're not here to engage in honest argumentation.

>"How cute. You must be very concerned."

I say this specifically because I have every reason to believe they don't actually care. Are you familiar with the term "concern troll"?

  • [-]
  • HoundDogs
  • -58 Points
  • 03:44:27, 17 December

>One of the biggest image problems AnCaps and libertarians have is that they come across as condescending cunts.

The irony of this statement is palpable. I'm assuming your here with the massive SRS downvote brigade, so I will treat you as such.

Let me give you an example of what your fellow SRSers call debate:

> i just wanna pat you on the head

I see this shit all the time. Personal attack after personal attack. All SRS does is invade threads and put in comments like this. They never contribute any refutations, evidence, or facts....ALWAYS CONJECTURE AND CONDESCENSION. ALWAYS.

  • [-]
  • Guilombre
  • 33 Points
  • 15:08:00, 17 December

> I'm assuming your here with the massive SRS downvote brigade, so I will treat you as such.

cheekyjunkyaccount's reply is 18 hours old at the time of this post. SRS link is 15 hours old.

  • [-]
  • Haaranovor
  • 9 Points
  • 18:02:49, 17 December

For this one moment. The rest of Reddit is on SRS side.

Fuck ancaps.

  • [-]
  • HoundDogs
  • -2 Points
  • 21:27:50, 17 December

No one actually read the post or the links. It was actually pretty interesting. They just came with the SRS brigade and downvoted. Hivemind at work.

I'm sure ancaps give two shits about what Reddit thinks.

  • [-]
  • Spaghettihouse
  • 32 Points
  • 09:17:35, 17 December

I know you think you're hot shit, but please read what you just wrote. Because it's pretty fucking disgusting.

  • [-]
  • evildead4075
  • 30 Points
  • 09:44:23, 17 December

So child porn doesn't violate the rights of the child?

  • [-]
  • hoarygorie
  • 50 Points
  • 00:25:12, 17 December

im not going to read "Aninsightintochildporn" on wikileaks.com, fwiw

  • [-]
  • gazatin
  • -57 Points
  • 02:34:36, 17 December

Nice try, SRS scum.

For everyone else: CPearson's post was being upvoted and on top before the SRS downvoting brigade arrived.

  • [-]
  • NefariousBanana
  • 63 Points
  • 03:13:02, 17 December

And that's a good thing?

I've been on /r/Anarcho_Capitalism much longer than I've even known SRS existed, and I thought CPearson's post was a joke. Maybe we should get an outsiders perspective. This us vs. them rhetoric is bullshit and you know it.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • kwykwy
  • 38 Points
  • 03:58:16, 17 December

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1331126

Somehow you're ignoring the harm done to the subject of the porn, which is an ongoing process that begins with production and continues as long as the images are distributed.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 131 Points
  • 14:20:47, 16 December

Well then. Over here in liberty land child porn is A-OKAY! How about child prostitution? What if they decide to make that choice?

Oh yeah, no wonder why your name is "CP"earson.

One more thing: Child porn DOES violate children's rights. Obviously you don't understand this because you think child labor doesn't violate their rights either. You're a fucking idiot.

  • [-]
  • ReasonThusLiberty
  • 38 Points
  • 15:45:33, 16 December

> "CP"earson.

That was pretty good. You've gotta give it to him/her/other-type.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 16 Points
  • 15:48:10, 16 December

Way to not be cissexist.

  • [-]
  • ReasonThusLiberty
  • 32 Points
  • 16:46:07, 16 December

What? I made sure to include all possible varieties of self-identification.

  • [-]
  • Akimbros
  • 40 Points
  • 07:22:45, 17 December

EuroSoc is actually saying it without irony.

  • [-]
  • TheAlphaGareBear
  • 6 Points
  • 14:37:34, 16 December

>Well then. Over here in liberty land child porn is A-OKAY! How about child prostitution? What if they decide to make that choice? Oh yeah, no wonder why your name is "CP"earson. One more thing: Child porn DOES violate children's rights. Obviously you don't understand this because you think child labor doesn't violate their rights either. You're a fucking idiot.

  • [-]
  • Knorssman
  • -30 Points
  • 17:00:04, 16 December

>but I anticipate your response to be childish and full of fake concern and righteous condemnation.

wow, didn't even try to prove him wrong did you?

  • [-]
  • SaraSays
  • 65 Points
  • 00:19:05, 17 December

Child porn is its own reductio ad absurdum.

When you've followed the logic of your ideology to the bitter end and concluded child porn is ok, you haven't proven child porn is ok, you've proven your ideology is bankrupt.

Edit: typo

  • [-]
  • Knorssman
  • -28 Points
  • 01:08:57, 17 December

why are you saying this to me? i haven't explicitly taken one side or argument over another, i'm just commenting on OP's manners

  • [-]
  • Knorssman
  • -33 Points
  • 01:23:09, 17 December

oh i see, you are from /r/S***redditsays

welcome to /r/anarcho_capitalism

  • [-]
  • CPearson
  • -48 Points
  • 14:43:38, 16 December

>Well then. Over here in liberty land child porn is A-OKAY!

Did you even read or attempt to understand my post and the links?

>How about child prostitution?

people will clearly want to pay to protect their children from abduction and force prostitution. >What if they decide to make that choice?

Depends on how old and mentally capable the child is. How many children do go into voluntary prostitution? It's distasteful, sure, but arbitrary to enforce against, if there's no coercion involved.

>Oh yeah, no wonder why your name is "CP"earson.

Cute.

>Child porn DOES violate children's rights. Obviously you don't understand this because you think child labor doesn't violate their rights either. You're a fucking idiot.

Children are incapable of consenting to anything? You didn't read the link. And it doesn't, if kids 10-18 are working somewhere in the third world, it isn't a violation of their rights, on the contrary, it would be a violation of their rights to force them not to, incidentally, such policy tends to lead to children into prostitution as an alternative. What's the difference between voluntary labour of persons aged 10-18 and voluntary adult labour? Moreover, families in situations of poverty such that children need to work to sustain the family are not going to benefit in anyway by having the kids not work, child labour is only not an option when the parents can produce sufficient capital for it to be unnecessary. All throughout history child labour has been a fact of life, it only became unnecessary because of economic growth.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 19 Points
  • 14:47:33, 16 December

"Did you even read or attempt to understand my post and the links?" No because I don't want to be indoctrinated by corporate-funded drivel.

"people will clearly want to pay to protect their children from abduction and force prostitution." "In my theoretical political philosophy, everything good happens!"

"Depends on how old and mentally capable the child is. How many children do go into voluntary prostitution? It's distasteful, sure, but arbitrary to enforce against, if there's no coercion involved. Arbitrary age standards of consent." Ancapism can't fix this.

"Children are incapable of consenting to anything? You didn't read the link. And it doesn't, if kids 10-18 are working somewhere in the third world, it isn't a violation of their rights, on the contrary, it would be a violation of their rights to force them not to, incidentally, such policy tends to lead to children into prostitution as an alternative. What's the difference between voluntary labour of persons aged 10-18 and voluntary adult labour? Moreover, families in situations of poverty such that children need to work to sustain the family are not going to benefit in anyway by having the kids not work, child labour is only not an option when the parents can produce sufficient capital for it to be unnecessary. All throughout history child labour has been a fact of life, it only became unnecessary because of economic growth."

It's better that the state overrides parent decisions sometimes because they might be profit-driven.

  • [-]
  • MUTILATOR
  • -1 Points
  • 13:50:53, 17 December

>No because I don't want to be indoctrinated by corporate-funded drivel.

I agree with you elsewhere in this argument, but when you're not a complete retard you can actually read whatever you want without fear of being "indoctrinated" by it. Hope this helps.

  • [-]
  • truguy
  • -12 Points
  • 15:55:26, 16 December

Buddy, you're obviously already indoctrinated... evidenced by your desire not to actually listen to another person's POV.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 6 Points
  • 15:56:41, 16 December

I'm so indoctrinated that I need to join the loony AnCap cult! Better deFOO and alienate my entire family! Heil Rothbard!

  • [-]
  • Thanquee
  • 8 Points
  • 17:57:41, 16 December

Please try to remain civil, no matter how uncivil your interlocutors are. It's really frustrating, I know, but given that they have lowered the tone, stooping even lower is unnecessary. Many of us here are rational, civil non-Molynoids (term, I believe, stolen from jon the mutualist). If you're going to engage another ideology, try to refute the strongest form thereof with the strongest arguments for it rather than attacking the more vulgar elements.

  • [-]
  • blazingtruth
  • 1 Points
  • 17:11:56, 17 December

I'll claim credit for coining the term "Molynoid", inspired of course by the term "Randroid". I've also coined "contract fetishism", a more technical term made with reference to Rothbard by way of Marx's theory of fetishism.

I believe also that Rothbard and Spooner are 100% incompatible. Spooner makes an argument based on consent, but Rothbard can not define the term otherwise his whole framework falls apart.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • CPearson
  • -21 Points
  • 14:50:33, 16 December

And the state is only ever capable of having pure intentions? Negating these profit driven decisions means starvation. Educating a child is profit driven too, I guess voluntary education needs to be outlawed by le glorious state?

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 12 Points
  • 14:52:31, 16 December

It's not a matter of profit but also if parents are profiting for themselves by deciding to make their child work. Sorry for being unclear, I'm tired.

  • [-]
  • CPearson
  • -13 Points
  • 14:55:14, 16 December

Parents that are well enough off not to require the extra money tend not to do that to their kids, parents that do need the extra money need it to feed their kids to keep them healthy.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 13 Points
  • 14:56:14, 16 December

What if the parents want to make their child work to buy more alcohol?

  • [-]
  • CPearson
  • -14 Points
  • 15:04:52, 16 December

I suppose the child could ask someone to help them out? What are you trying to get at? The parent is abusive, the child not working isn't going to affect that positively.

  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 16 Points
  • 15:06:46, 16 December

Guess we need more VAWLENTERRY child protection services then, hooray.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • Hoelt
  • 36 Points
  • 05:34:12, 17 December

>given the substitution affect.

Oh, you were in Microeconomics 101 last semester, too? How cute.

Oh except you're fucking wrong.

  • [-]
  • urnbabyurn
  • 1 Points
  • 19:04:41, 17 December

What? No income effect?

  • [-]
  • ReasonThusLiberty
  • 31 Points
  • 15:47:12, 16 December

> Economically, the availability of child porn reduces incidence of actual child abuse, given the substitution affect.

This is an odd idea to wrap your head around. Ugh.

  • [-]
  • owlet_monologue
  • 55 Points
  • 03:42:15, 17 December

And it's not true. The viewing of child porn is a part of the process of escalating.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oneangrygirl.net%2Fresearch%2FFrom%2520Fantasy%2520to%2520Reality.doc&ei=xZPOUOHPFae30gGa5YHgCQ&usg=AFQjCNGFx0hJziLouKx0EypFbUYJEsQIBg&sig2=zkjJFvpi4DNrqJ4wzgMHEQ&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.dmQ

  • [-]
  • Hoelt
  • 18 Points
  • 05:33:07, 17 December

Sounds like this kid took one principles of microeconomics class.

  • [-]
  • CPearson
  • -26 Points
  • 17:28:25, 16 December

>as prices rise consumers will replace more expensive items with less costly alternatives.

It's not that out of left-field, if a paedophile can satisfy his urges easily without harming any child, he's more likely to do so than do so the more difficulty way, that would harm a child. Given more affective rights enforcement agencies, committing that kind of crime would be more "costly" anyway, and likely distribution of digital content wouldn't be a huge priority (making this option less "costly"), multiplying the affect.

Someone better at econ might be able to give a better explanation.

  • [-]
  • male_as_a_slur
  • 20 Points
  • 06:34:06, 17 December

You just made this shit up. It's not like you actually know anything about psychology or the way pedophiles, in practice, behave.

Hint: child porn doesn't help.

You're as dumb as a male.

  • [-]
  • gazatin
  • -21 Points
  • 21:52:47, 16 December

Your reasoning is correct. Numerous scientific studies have shown that availability of child pornography prevents child sexual abuse.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

  • [-]
  • NefariousBanana
  • 28 Points
  • 01:32:23, 17 December

But just the increased availability alone would mean that more children are being exploited.

  • [-]
  • gazatin
  • -21 Points
  • 01:55:13, 17 December

Production of child porn has always been illegal. You can make an infinite number of copies of porn, so the increased availability caused decrease in child abuse. You can't argue against the facts.

  • [-]
  • NefariousBanana
  • 25 Points
  • 02:02:15, 17 December

Even with making copies, would there be incentive for those who make CP to distribute the same material over and over again? We don't see that with the porn market as it is. Do people still want to watch the same old 70s VHS over and over again? The only time that this incentive would occur is in a black market where CP is highly criminalized and enforcement is strict.

  • [-]
  • gazatin
  • -12 Points
  • 02:26:40, 17 December

Who says the same material is distributed again and again? People produce new porn despite the ban and will continue to do so. And when the child porn is made available, the overall incidence of child abuse declines.

  • [-]
  • OMFGrhombus
  • 36 Points
  • 06:56:13, 17 December

paedophile confirmed.

  • [-]
  • Relevant_Definition
  • 28 Points
  • 04:28:35, 17 December

Asshat (Noun)

/as-hat/

  1. An insult referring to an individual with their head inserted into their rectum, thus wearing their buttocks as a hat
  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • 12 Points
  • 13:03:16, 17 December

II. A libertarian.

  • [-]
  • nazzeth
  • 12 Points
  • 06:04:44, 17 December

Your argument contains many interesting points.

I think that the priority of law enforcement agencies should be to stop child abuse, the creation of child porn and the distribution of child porn. Prosecuting consumers of the child porn is only addressing a symptom, not the issue itself.

However, your argument regarding the availability of child porn decreasing actual child abuse is pretty flimsy. It is documented somewhere that pedophiles who view child pornography are more likely to escalate from fantasy to action then those who do not.

I cannot remember the actual source of this information, I read it a few years ago, but a quick Google lead me to the following information: >Studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child.

Src: http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

I would there for argue that the consumption of Child pornography should be at the VERY LEAST strictly monitored. Legalized and monitored, Child Porn Distributions could be used to track and prevent potential Child Abuse Incidents.

That being said, I still believe that this would be an exploitation of minors, and therefore my personal stance will remain Anti-Child Porn.

Edit: Slight grammar fix.

  • [-]
  • midnitebr
  • 7 Points
  • 18:06:25, 17 December

You're tripping on that one, man. How about the children that were abused to create the child porn? They were obviously violated and, you know, children have rights too.

  • [-]
  • BigDaddy_Delta
  • 2 Points
  • 19:39:42, 17 December

Nice try, dirty pedo

  • [-]
  • skeeto
  • 0 Points
  • 06:08:01, 18 December

+tip $1

An excellent response unfortunately bured by a kneejerk-reaction downvote brigade. I'd bet all my bitcoins that nearly every single person who downvoted you didn't read further than the first three sentences, let alone comprehended anything you said. Here's a tip for your trouble.

  • [-]
  • bitcointip
  • 0 Points
  • 06:09:55, 18 December

^[] ^(Verified: skeeto ---> ฿0.07401925 BTC [$1 USD] ---> CPearson) ^[help]

  • [-]
  • HurricaneHomo
  • -4 Points
  • 05:07:14, 17 December

kill yourself

  • [-]
  • ThaneOfFifeHadAWife
  • 0 Points
  • 02:45:19, 18 December

....

This is why I unsubbed. And part of the reason why I abandoned the AnCap ship and became a real anarchist.

  • [-]
  • Broeman
  • -1 Points
  • 07:21:44, 18 December

Nice troll

  • [-]
  • ThaneOfFifeHadAWife
  • 3 Points
  • 14:43:17, 18 December

Oh, so I'm the troll. And the guy who says that raping children and filming it doesn't violate anyone's rights isn't a troll? I'm just saying why you fucking ancaps piss me off. You seem to think anarchy means anything goes, and there are no rules. Also, that capitalism is in any way anti authoritarian (lawl) and that communism/socialism ARE authoritarian. NEWSFLASH. Literally every other type of anarchist thinks ancaps are full of shit.

  • [-]
  • deluks917
  • -27 Points
  • 18:31:19, 16 December

I love this sub-reddit. I was getting ready to post about why child porn (not actual child abuse) does not violate anyone's rights. And basically preparing to get downvoted to oblivion (This happens on all other sub-reddits). But it turns out the top rated post is what I was going to say but put more clearly.

edit: wow an actual downvote brigade.

  • [-]
  • yuhkih
  • 38 Points
  • 08:10:08, 17 December

Making children perform sex acts on camera and then distributing it is not "actual" child abuse? What the fuck actually qualifies as actual child abuse then, huh?

  • [-]
  • redblackheart
  • 57 Points
  • 22:51:09, 16 December

yeah i love how this subreddit has literally no self awareness and sends its intellectual bankruptcy straight to the top. "anarcho" capitalism will never be popular among working people and it's great to see these posts right out the gate instead of having some hapless visitor be pulled in longer than they must with some more subtle sophistry.

  • [-]
  • SaraSays
  • 13 Points
  • 00:15:56, 17 December

Hahahahaha.

  • [-]
  • HoundDogs
  • -24 Points
  • 01:11:22, 17 December

Why are you even here? You're not even going to attempt to understand the concepts, just go away. Save yourself the trouble.

  • [-]
  • redblackheart
  • 31 Points
  • 02:55:24, 17 December

there's that lack of self-awareness i was goin on about. i just wanna pat you on the head

  • [-]
  • HoundDogs
  • -23 Points
  • 03:32:40, 17 December

Are you actually going to make any sort of argument besides being an asshole and feigning moral superiority? Seriously, you haven't said anything productive or interesting worth reading this entire thread.

When are you people going to lean that invading threads, insulting people, and injecting conjecture does not make you superior or right in any context whatsoever.

Who the fuck are you trying to win over? What are you hoping to accomplish? You speak for extremists....that's all, and you're not even very good at it.

If you are going to contribute actual debate and not personal attacks you might find people more welcoming, but that's not the point is it? Just admit it, you're here to put other people down to feel better about yourself.

  • [-]
  • redblackheart
  • 15 Points
  • 05:00:46, 17 December

fucking lmbo

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • HurricaneHomo
  • 11 Points
  • 05:09:48, 17 December

lol jesus dude. you are like completely unaware arent you

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • ibowls
  • 27 Points
  • 09:34:52, 17 December

Oh look, an MRA advocating child porn.

Shocking.

  • [-]
  • HurricaneHomo
  • -11 Points
  • 05:08:52, 17 December

kill yourself you piece of shit

  • [-]
  • evenmoreHITLARIOUS
  • -24 Points
  • 23:56:46, 16 December

this post was linked to by r/ShitRedditSays

  • [-]
  • MoltenMustafa
  • 34 Points
  • 00:44:51, 17 December

Good.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • EuroSoc
  • -9 Points
  • 15:58:57, 16 December

Alright I'm off to bed you crazy loons. EuroSoc out!

  • [-]
  • Thanquee
  • 7 Points
  • 18:07:01, 16 December

Mission accomplished! DAE feel thoroughly and comprehensively refuted?