ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Vic, > > Child sex abuse is non-consensual harm/force by nature. Even > though a child might respond sexually/favorably to molestation, > it is not of consenting age. And no matter how the child reacts > or "consents", great harm is inflicted; all such adult-child > interaction is essentially non-consensual force and fraud > (inflicted upon the child AND the parent(s)). Of course there > could be degrees of harm sustained, and they would be determined > on a case-by-case basis. Your example of the young female teacher > seducing a willing teen male might be determined to be less > harmful/non-consensual, compared to the older male teacher > molesting a preteen boy as more harmful. Here you have an example > of a govt principle being similar to a libertarian one; both > regard essentially the same thing as initiated aggression that > needs to be controlled.
my point simply is that its not an act of initiated agression but purely an act of application of morals or lack thereof. as has been pointed out different countries with different ages of consent would have different outcomes. >What it is not is an example of a > libertarian principle that is inconsistent or non-applicable. > Under the non-aggression principle, libertarians would tolerate > child abuse no more than current govt-based society does; > probably less. Hopefully they/we would focus on the > cycle-of-abuse as a cause AND effect of child sex abuse and > determine it to be extremely harmful aggression that requires > extreme control. I am not saying its inconsistent but insuficient. and yes it is control but its a control you cant have without laws to deter and punish. Vic
