Vic, Everything your posts just said against principle is far truer for rule of law, and far less true for libertarian NAP. Just switch the principles, and your post was very well said!
-Mark +++++++++++++++++ [ModeratorNote: Vic is misrepresenting what Cory said by a flat out made up 'quote' Cory did NOT use the word 'violent' -TLP ] Cory Nott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's clear to most people, even those who aren't libertarian, that a minor > child is not capable of making the rational decision (at least not > technically under the law) to give consent and therefore any such activity > between the adult and child is an assualt on the child by the adult. The > teacher seducing the minor is in fact an initiation of force. Our statutory > rape laws are a mess and could use some reworking, but there is a reason > that the term "rape" is used even when there appears to be mutual consent. you are redefining words to suit your principle, lets take another case a man picks up a girl from a nightclub things develop and they have sex. afterwrds he discover she is under the age of consent. how he is supposed to know that he was inflicting "force" on the girl? you are clearly just redefining acts, which in of themselves are clearly not initiation or use of force to suit the principle. the law can define the terms as it suits and that to a degree is my point, the principle then becomes secondary to the special cases. the principle in and of itself is unable to account for the special case. we then use the novel approach of redefining something which is not force to be "violent" to suit the principle. rather then admit that the principle is simply insuficient to deal with all circumstances. Vic
