Any Atheists Here Opposed to Abortion?

[Whitney]

First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

Yes for two reasons:
Laws allow us to protect children from abusive parents by taking them away
Laws prevent child labor, another form of abuse

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

You underestimate the ability of parents to manipulate their children into staying even if they are legally free to leave.  Abused children already are free to run away as long as they go straight to the police (or other protective service) to report their abuse.
While I was joking about adoption being buying a child before (and no one get on me for hurting the feelings of adopted kids, I'm one of them)...we do have real cases of kids being sold; straight into the sex slave trade.

Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

[AnimatedDirt]

Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

Lord of the Flies... anyone?

[Whitney]

Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

Lord of the Flies... anyone?

Yes, that's exactly what we want in a society  

(I actually still need to read that one some time...I, erm, cliff noted it in school)

[elliebean]

Don't mean to be offensive, but I think you've gone off the tracks.  You sound like an anarchist, a zealot, a true believer not so different from fundamentalist religious nuts, except for the dogma.

I can't speak for a-train or a-train's positions in this discussion, but as an anarchist, I resent being lumped in with religious zealots. IMO, true-believing, dogmatic capitalists and statists are, at best, no less different from fundamentalist religious nuts in that regard.

[a-train]

Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

The United States rose to the highest standard of living on earth before child labor and abuse laws were enacted.  It was not the emergence of child labor laws that brought children out of the workforce but the emergence of wealth.  Still, the United States did not protect the freedom of those children either before nor now after those laws have come into being.

It is certainly a tragedy that a child would be compelled against his/her will to work.  More evil still is the event of the product of that labor being withheld from him/her.  This, of course, is slavery.  This, of course, is wrong.  And who was it that caught those that ran from those farms and factories and brought them back?  The Police.  No different from those black slaves that ran.  Government and society enforced this tyranny.

Today children are prevented from working, prevented from entering into legal contracts (getting a bank account, renting a place to live), prevented from going to other households, their ability to leave the abuse is drastically hampered.  Certainly the very young are unable to do anything on all accounts.  Anything less than constant supervision would not enable society to prevent the abuse of children of that age, regardless of our laws.

It should not be necessary that a state law be enacted specifically on the behalf of persons under a given age to offer legal protection against physical or sexual violence, kidnapping, and/or slavery.  Any victim of such aggression should be able to get legal redress without any stipulation of his/her age.

Also, much of the reason for the existence of the black market for sex is the prohibition of the legal one.  The clientele necessary for the profitability of the illegal sex market would largely evaporate in the presence of legal competition.  Like the illicit drug market, legalization would end much of the violence involved in these industries.


-a-train

[Tank]

No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train

I think there's an obvious question that needs to be asked here: what will stop children from being abused? I mean, I know that current laws don't stop it completely, but I'd think that it would get worse without laws.

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

Yes we do have evidence. We do know that there are serial child abusers behind bars because the laws we accept allow us to put them there. I would guess that there are paedophiles that do not become child abusers because they don't want to go to prison. If the threat of prison were not there then they could turn their fantasies into reality with impunity and as often as they could. Now what is good for the goose id good for the gander so if you take away one set of laws then you might as well take them all away. At which point child abusers will only need to get caught once as in the average community they would be castrated and/or lynched.

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom.  It is the individual that I am concerned with.  Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train

What if I wanted to kill people with ideas like yours because it made me feel happy? I think your ideas are very naive and ill considered.

[The Magic Pudding]

No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.
-a-train

Physical violence (sexual or otherwise), should be a crime regardless of the identities and relations of the perpetrators and victims.

First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed. But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom. It is the individual that I am concerned with. Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit. I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train

No I don't think children would be better off with the friendly raincoat man offering his bag of candy.
A child may well realise they are in a bad environment but be made to feel it is their only choice.
A child could easily be tricked by an abuser to enter into an abusive relationship.
I'm pretty shore paedophiles exchange ideas on the best techniques.
Who are the parents going to sell their children to? The friendly raincoat man?

obtain their subsistence however they can

It's hard to believe this is serious, I suppose some carbon emissions may be saved by the airlines on the Bangkok route.

[Whitney]

Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

The United States rose to the highest standard of living on earth before child labor and abuse laws were enacted.  It was not the emergence of child labor laws that brought children out of the workforce but the emergence of wealth.  Still, the United States did not protect the freedom of those children either before nor now after those laws have come into being.

It is certainly a tragedy that a child would be compelled against his/her will to work.  More evil still is the event of the product of that labor being withheld from him/her.  This, of course, is slavery.  This, of course, is wrong.  And who was it that caught those that ran from those farms and factories and brought them back?  The Police.  No different from those black slaves that ran.  Government and society enforced this tyranny.

Today children are prevented from working, prevented from entering into legal contracts (getting a bank account, renting a place to live), prevented from going to other households, their ability to leave the abuse is drastically hampered.  Certainly the very young are unable to do anything on all accounts.  Anything less than constant supervision would not enable society to prevent the abuse of children of that age, regardless of our laws.

It should not be necessary that a state law be enacted specifically on the behalf of persons under a given age to offer legal protection against physical or sexual violence, kidnapping, and/or slavery.  Any victim of such aggression should be able to get legal redress without any stipulation of his/her age.

Also, much of the reason for the existence of the black market for sex is the prohibition of the legal one.  The clientele necessary for the profitability of the illegal sex market would largely evaporate in the presence of legal competition.  Like the illicit drug market, legalization would end much of the violence involved in these industries.


-a-train

You didn't answer my question.

[a-train]

What if I wanted to kill people with ideas like yours because it made me feel happy? I think your ideas are very naive and ill considered.

What if you read my post and got a clue about what my position is before you make another non sequitur?

[a-train]

You didn't answer my question.

If your question is whether or not a country with a liberal policy for all its inhabitants regardless of age has risen above the economic development of the third world, the answer is that no state has ever endorsed such a policy whether in the first, second or third world.  Much of the third world does not offer the protection of the law for adolescents.

[AnimatedDirt]

You didn't answer my question.

If your question is whether or not a country with a liberal policy for all its inhabitants regardless of age has risen above the economic development of the third world, the answer is that no state has ever endorsed such a policy whether in the first, second or third world.  Much of the third world does not offer the protection of the law for adolescents.

Hmm...that couldn't be a reason the third world is third world...  [/sarcasm]

[a-train]

You didn't answer my question.

If your question is whether or not a country with a liberal policy for all its inhabitants regardless of age has risen above the economic development of the third world, the answer is that no state has ever endorsed such a policy whether in the first, second or third world.  Much of the third world does not offer the protection of the law for adolescents.

Hmm...that couldn't be a reason the third world is third world...  [/sarcasm]

Duh

[AnimatedDirt]

Hmm...that couldn't be a reason the third world is third world...  [/sarcasm]

Duh

...and so you support the abolishing of protection under the law for adolescents, therefore prefer third world living conditions and rule?

[LegendarySandwich]

Hmm...that couldn't be a reason the third world is third world...  [/sarcasm]

Duh

...and so you support the abolishing of protection under the law for adolescents, therefore prefer third world living conditions and rule?

He said that adolescents should have the same protections as everyone else, not that all protections should be removed from them.

[a-train]

...and so you support the abolishing of protection under the law for adolescents, therefore prefer third world living conditions and rule?

He said that adolescents should have the same protections as everyone else, not that all protections should be removed from them.

Thanks, LegendarySandwich, for trying to understand my position before saying something that makes no sense.  AnimatedDirt, I believe the law should apply to everyone, regardless of age or relationship.  Whether I physically assault my 35 year old neighbor, my 75 year old aunt, or my two year old son, the same law against physical assault should apply.  This application of the law should begin at birth.  It is the negating of the rights of children and parents that I am against, and much of our current law does just that.

-a-train