Libertarians get upset when one user suggests that defending child porn doesn't help their image. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
123 ups - 58 downs = 65 votes
92 comments submitted at 21:21:34 on Apr 23, 2014 by IAmSupernova
Libertarians get upset when one user suggests that defending child porn doesn't help their image. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
123 ups - 58 downs = 65 votes
92 comments submitted at 21:21:34 on Apr 23, 2014 by IAmSupernova
>Why should people stop talking about arbitrary rules the government imposes?
"arbitrary" is misused too often. even if libertarians disagree with the necessity of criminalizing this stuff (thank god they'll never have any significant influence on society), the laws aren't arbitrary.
Different countries can have vastly different legal drinking age laws, not all of which are strong enforcers of their statutes according to the cultures residing in a given country, some of which serve alcohol to young teenagers in a family setting where those individuals can discover their tolerances without necessitating a taboo to use leading to the sort of substance abuse seen in substances that are given illegal status. The very fact that there are different standards demonstrates that there is no single ethical standard and therefore it is an arbitrary choice to set one age over another. No two individuals are going to necessarily mature at the same age, nor are they necessarily going to share the same preferences towards a substance, or quantities of use/imbibement.
Laws are by their nature arbitrary. That doesn't mean you can't argue that a statute is trying to approximate a moral standard. All law is intended to, in spirit, enforce a principle of justice by setting standards but for the purpose of practicality it is written with a specific definition. Even then case law can change how laws are interpreted, but it doesn't avoid the matter that laws on paper make arbitrary statements that aren't relevant to all individuals or their culture, or their society.
>even if libertarians disagree with the necessity of criminalizing this stuff
If people want it, a law won't stop them from getting it. It exposes people to more risk of violence and the emergence of black markets because of the law, not in spite of it.
If you want to stir up drama, you're fine right here. If you want to actually have a discussion about the issue then don't hide behind this subreddit to make your criticisms.
> Laws are by their nature arbitrary.
That's...not true. At all. I shouldn't even have to explain this.
There are certainly some laws that are pretty arbitrary, but many (if not most) have a very good reason for existing. Even in a theoretical libertarian utopia, I imagine there'd still be some kind of community standards against murder, rape, theft, &c...making rules so people don't hurt each other is really the basis of human society, not just the state.
Is the drinking age kind of arbitrary? Yeah, I'd agree. Is the age of consent a bit too high? Well, that's a bit harder of a question, but I'd agree that strengthening Romeo-and-Juliet laws and modifying them to cover same-sex couples (Romeo and Julio?) would be a decent step in making those more realistic. Laws against child porn? Even if you don't agree with the particular implementation (say, whether 16-year-olds should be treated the same as a prepubescent child), you've got to recognize that child porn laws have a very reasonable basis. If you can't see that, you really need to think less about abstract "liberty" and more about why raping an eight-year-old on camera is bad.
You are cherry-picking that sentence. The rest of that paragraph makes sense. Laws provide a balance between justice, and legal certainty. For example, the age of consent is fixed so that people know whether an act of sex is illegal, but there are still extra laws about having sex with people who are too drunk to consent or having sex with the mentally disabled.
The speeding law is set so that you know what speed to drive at, rather than having a vague "don't go unreasonably fast" law. And, it's also safest when everybody is travelling at around the same speed, whether it's 60 or 70. Whether the law says 60 or 70 isn't that important, as long as it sets a number.
The rest of PeppermintPig's post is nonsense though.
I'll agree that it made sense in the context of his paragraph (I'd read it a bit too quickly), but I'd still argue that, within the context of the discussion as a whole, my criticism still stands.
The whole "arbitrary" thing was introduced by someone in the original thread asking why he couldn't criticize "arbitrary rules that the government imposes". In that context, it seems pretty clear that he means "arbitrary" to mean unfounded or baseless (and he appears to include child porn laws in this category). Here, however, PeppermintPig is arguing that laws are by their nature arbitrary because they include arbitrary elements; I'd say he wants a word closer to "imprecise", but he's correct for a very weak definition of "arbitrary".
However, taking the rest of the discussion into account, the point of arguing that laws are arbitrary is to justify opposition to child porn laws. What I was trying to say (and, I admit, I didn't say it very well) is that, just because laws have arbitrary aspects to them doesn't mean they're not there for a good reason. Child pornography laws have some arbitrary aspects to them, sure, but opposing them as a whole is obviously immoral because you're essentially advocating the legalization of child rape.
Arbitrary means random.
Lol, this comment killed me. I love it when lolbertarians try and use "big" words and lengthy exposition to muddle and hide their absolutely idiotic beliefs, and then someone comes along and is like, "Yeah, you know that one word you used that's key to your argument. You didn't use it right."
Then again, who are you to lecture people on sexual morality?
I've always used it less "random" and more "off the cuff" and on a whim.
Are you sure? My dictionary says that arbitrary is "subject to individual whims and judgment" which I believe describes laws quite well.
yep, i'm sure. "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." but even by your dictionary's definition, laws arent based on individual judgement, they're an ever-evolving product of legislative committee, lobbying, and oversight from executive and judicial officials.
They seem to be arguing that because the elements of laws are letters typed on paper, laws are arbitrary.
What they are ignoring is the machine that creates & enforces the laws, and that society agrees to it for it's survival.
While there are going to be statistical outliers in any normalized society, that agreement is far from being "arbitary", even in some insulated fantasy/utopia.
i don't know, i think they're on another wavelength altogether...which i don't really mind, but they're skipping several steps in trying to convince me of their system. one of them said that torts are the same thing as a crime, which is just completely, 100% wrong unless they're arguing something like my definition of crime (the normal one) is wrong because the state has no authority to prosecute crimes, and that the REAL crimes are the ones that are resolved when private individuals sue each other. i have no idea.
You're dead on. One of them apparently thinks you have a different belief system because you're able to put letters together and end up with words that are recognized to mean specific things. That's some sovereign citizen crazy-ass shit.
i was thinking of the sovereign citizens too.
>Or personal whim
So I'm right, then.
>Legislative committee, lobbying, and oversight from executive and judicial officials
So... They're based on what? What are laws based upon if not individuals whim? Are gov't officials not individuals?
ok, let's look up the definition of "whim."
>a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained.
ITT Libertarians become acquainted with the English language.
They're only "whims" if they're not tied to a reason or a system, per the second half of the definition or arbitrary:
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
If they are capable of articulating a reason for the law (which they are, hence the debates over them), then they cease to be arbitrary. Considering they require a majority vote to pass, I would assume the odds of the majority of them having the exact same personal whim to be profoundly unlikely.
We clearly have different belief systems. I don't believe any law that has ever been made has any true "reason" behind it, because any reasonable man would realize that writing on paper and threats of consequence do not stop wrongdoing.
Politicians are selfish, reward-driven people, just like anyone else. Nothing they do is for any reason besides bettering their own situation.
I'm not even commenting on their motives. Even if the reason they stated is "the following law is the law because it is for the betterment of myself and my fellow politicians and elite ruling class, haha, man fuck those peasants" the law is not arbitrary. This is not a political discussion, this is the definition of the word which you are misusing.
Arbitrary would be "today we are outlawing pants. Why? meh!" There is no reason behind it.
I won't even comment on the rest because I've been on the internet long enough to recognize warning signs.
Yeah, all those companies still putting lead paint on products. Some silly law wasn't going to stop them.
It's not merely the outcome, but the belief that there must be a specific outcome. It's not as simple as suggesting a vast gamut of possible outcomes. For example, why is 21 valid but not 20, or why not 20.5, or 20.25? Each of those suggested standards is unique. Even if you have a million different possible choices between two numbers, it's still arbitrary to the issue of ethical outcomes.
If there is a legal age for being a minor, and a Judge chooses to ignore the law to charge that individual as an adult, then they are defying the view that the standard is necessary to pursue justice. Why, in cases of torts, is it more important to sit on the fence of determining maturity than with statutory crimes that involve no victims?
The difference between 20 and 21 is that lawmakers believe there should be age limits on alcohol consumption. Some think 20 is a good mark by which people are mature enough, others decided on 21. These are compromises, not arbitrary decisions. Subjective intent isn't relevant for strict liability crimes because it makes regulation easier. There are reasons behind these decisions. Arbitrary means that there is no reason.
I thought the difference between 20 and 21 was actually 1. That they believe there should be a limit doesn't change the math, or the point that it is arbitrary relative to the ethical question of mandating access indifferent to individual responsibility or preference.
>These are compromises, not arbitrary decisions.
They're both. Nation A has a value of 20, Nation B has a value of 21. THey are compromises and they are arbitrary to one another, and to the ethical concern.
>Subjective intent isn't relevant for strict liability crimes because it makes regulation easier.
It makes prosecution easier, not regulation. If you choose to have a statute about age and then choose to ignore the statute then your statute isn't that useful and suggests the regulation is not capable of furthering justice to some degree. If instead of a standard you used approximation as the guideline then why is underage drinking by a year or two not given the same grace of approximation compared to the flexibility of assigning charges to minors as adults for actual offenses where victims exist? Yeah, that's why vices are not actually crimes and trying to enforce them like they are is why there are so many non-violent offenders sitting in jail. It's come to the point where the US has a larger prison population than China, and mainly because the US has a larger lobbying system in favor of the prison industry than China.
>Arbitrary means that there is no reason.
The application of reason can demonstrate something like a moral standard or preference to be subjective, but it doesn't presume that an outcome is arbitrary, only that a statute is arbitrary relative to outcomes. Whether or not one chooses to drink alcohol at age 20 and is capable of handling the substance while residing in a location that implements a statute of 21 is an issue of perspective. Presuming all individuals should be subject to a statute is demonstrating the arbitrary quality of assigning an absolute legal value via statute.
There can be a social value to conventional observances and I do not argue against that. I am however arguing predominantly against the irrationality of statutory crime over torts and not trying to deny a purpose behind the establishment of a standard.
[7] pretty high
> [Drinking ages]'re both [arbitrary and compromise]. Nation A has a value of 20, Nation B has a value of 21. THey are compromises and they are arbitrary to one another, and to the ethical concern.
Drinking age laws happen for reasons. Different jurisdictions have different contexts, and so they have different laws. The drinking age is determined as a compromise, resulting from the impact of many different reasons. Some of these are moral, some of these are pragmatic, some of these are philosophical.
Where I live, the government lowered the age of purchase because convincing arguments were made that if 18 year-olds were subject to laws and taxes as adults, they should have democratic rights as an adult. (That’s a summary of the reasons.) When lowering the age of purchase was shown to have caused problems, and the prospect of raising it again came up, this argument (pushed by the liquor industry) remained persuasive for politicians.
In the US there has been no traction for a dropping of the drinking age. I could speculate as to the reasons (the strong influence of churches, or whatever) but those reasons are very real.
It would be simplistic to see these decisions as arbitrary. They may seem arbitrary, but that ignores the process and context.
So there shouldn't be child pornography or age of consent laws?
why, we should just outlaw children, that makes the most sense
you know as far as small government goes
it would save the taxpayers millions
Agreed, I don't have children. Why do other people feel the need to have them? If they still feel the need to bring unnecessary dependents into the world, the free market will provide them with a reasonably priced foster/adoption alternative.
thank god there are brilliant capitalists who have the foresight to offset the costs of childhood by generously allowing kids employment at shoe factories
There's also the added bonus of pride in workmanship they'll gain, in the case they ever need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps they'll know those straps are Made in America and of only the highest quality.
> No two individuals are going to necessarily mature at the same age,
From a legal standpoint... don't you have to pick a number so everyone knows what it is?
>From a legal standpoint... don't you have to pick a number so everyone knows what it is?
Conventions are useful, but so is distinguishing voluntary acts from crimes. Do you believe that age statutes should always take priority over tort claims?
For victimless "crimes", I don't see how applying a number is furthering justice. In the case of torts modified by statutes of maturity, you also need to ask yourself why it is that the courts are not strict about age laws and sometimes choose to try minors as adults for murder. Not even within the legal system can you find a consistent hard-lined application of the use of a static number as a means of pursuing justice.
The legal system has a completely rational division between civil and criminal. Laws of maturity differ because society views torts to have lesser consequences, and be cause intent has different relevance. A hard line age of maturity wouldn't be just.
>The legal system has a completely rational division between civil and criminal.
The system is not in a position to justify itself. The government has its laws, and it claims they are just, and whether that is true or valuable is borne through the application, outcome, and perspective.
>Laws of maturity differ because society views torts to have lesser consequences
Torts have lesser consequences?? What does that even mean? Torts are criminal acts perpetrated by one person onto another. They are clearly discernible as having greater consequences because they register as ethical violations and actual demonstrations of harm as opposed to opinions of a moralizing nature.
Collective action has no unique moral authority. Arguments about what 'society views' are not valid arguments.
>A hard line age of maturity wouldn't be just.
When then is a hard line response by the state more important on a victimless crime vs a murder then? Why is the application of the double standard any more just?
I'm arguing over the definition of arbitrary, not the wisdom of the legal system or of anarchism capitalism. Please try to avoid this ideological jargon. I'm an attorney who focuses on section 1983 liability (which is tort law) and I can't tell what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I don't get what you're trying to tell me.
> I don't get what you're trying to tell me.
I'm going with copypasta.
Is that copypata... that sounds like copypasta.
So what's your alternative? That we have absolutely no regulation or cut off age? Do you honestly not see a problem with an adult having sex with a 7 year old and filming it? I hear a lot of anarcho-capitolists / libertarians talk about how stupid laws and regulation are, but I've never heard a viable alternative. No one is saying there aren't individual exceptions, but to argue that a few exceptions means we should get rid of any standard whatsoever is a massive leap in logic. Of course it's not perfect. Of course there are holes, but the alternative is hell.
So please, fill me in: what's the best way to handle this?