About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The North American Man-Boy Love Association.
Is there any official objectivist position on this organization? If not, what's your personal position? For those who don't know, NAMBLA seeks to legalize sexual relationships between men and boys. Personally, I am very conflicted over this issue. On one hand these boys are not yet fully capable of making rational decisions for themselves, and adults can be very influential on their young minds. On the other hand, the government has no business dictating personal relationships.

Post 1

Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 10:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tommy you forgot to add "between consenting adults". The government has a legitimate role in preventing the initiation of force or fraud and this includes sexual relations between adults and minors because a minor is deemed by virtue of his immaturity to be incapable of giving informed consent.

Post 2

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 2:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't think there's an "official" Objectivist position on NAMBLA, and there's no SOLO one, simply because there doesn't need to be. Leaving aside arguments as to what precisely the age of consent should be, or whether "age of consent" is the right way to deal with such matters, man-boy - or man-girl - is out of bounds, in the sense that consensually competent/consensually incompetent must always be out of bounds. It has recently been my misfortune to encounter a one-time promoter - under a libertarian guise - of NAMBLA propaganda. I'm sure it's no coincidence that he's about the most odious "person" I've ever met.

Post 3

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 5:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"person"...! ha!

Post 4

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 5:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So then, Mark, would you say that *anyone* incapable to rational judgement would be in need of the government's protection?

Post 5

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 12:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No Tommy, not Government protection. What I mean is that people incapable of rational judgement are legally incompetent, i.e. incompetent in the legal sense. For example it is rape if a person has sex with someone without that person's consent, and if someone who is legaly incompetent gives consent then that consent is deemed in law not to have been given, so it is still rape.

There is no need to place someone under Government protection, in fact given what often happens to children under government protection, it is quite undesirable to do so. The law is sufficient.

Post 6

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 3:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The attack by Perigo is on me. He knows the truth but prefers his version since it goes with his feelings and hatred for me. Fifteen years ago I bought a bookstore that sold one NAMBLA publication. I never was a member, never endorsed them, etc. I did think, and still do, that the age of consent issue needs debate. I don't know where I'd set it but probably at puberty. And the reason I kept the publication was because it debated those issues. The publication was legal in all senses of the word. But the way a "big lie" campaign works is to tell the lie enough times, usually in whispers behind a person's back, until people think it must be true. It's really a vile thing to do. It is not my intention to debate the accuser who has been spreading this story, and one's far worse far and wide. It's a slander campaign for which he has zero evidence. LP believes that anyone who says anything unpleasant about him, usually true, is horrendous. But he should be free to spread any story, no matter how vile, he wants.

As a bookstore owner I sell all sorts of books. I even sold the biography of Perigo. We sell Rand, Marx, Kant, Machan, Hayek, Mises and so on. Sale of a book does not make one a promoter of the ideas in the book except in the most lose definition of the word. Bookstore owners are usually not considered to be endorsing every book they stock except in this case.

Post 7

Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 3:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark: "and if someone who is legaly incompetent gives consent then that consent is deemed in law not to have been given"

I agree with you, but is there a clear place where you can draw the line? It's quite obvious in a rape case, but what about in situations where someone tries to help an incompetent or a child? Since the incompetent/child can't legally give consent, any action taken involving the incompetent/child could be looked at as an initiation of force, seeing as no consent was legally given.

Post 8

Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 3:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tommy: " ...what about in situations where someone tries to help an incompetent or a child?"

Are you trying to suggest that it's acceptable for an adult to "help" an incompetent by engaging in sexual activity? The last thing that a needy child or incompetent needs is to be exploited. As a teen-ager I would have loved to have exploited a particular female adult, but for her to exploit me would have been unconscionable.

Male children often look to a male adult as a father figure when one is missing in their life. If they are exploited sexually I think they should be put away for a long time.

Post 9

Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tommy, the granting of consent is used to justify an initiation of force. If a person is accused of initiating force against another his defence could be that the other consented. If the other was incapable of consenting then that defence fails.

Sam Erica, I think your last sentence could be better worded. I agree with what I think you were trying to say that the exploiter should be put away for a long time.

Post 10

Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sexual exploitation is categorically wrong. The problem I have is that there are cases where someone's helping an incompetent may be viewed as hurtful in the eyes of another. There are many things out there that are vague. Food, for instance. What if someone feeds an incompetent/child certain types of food that are unhealthy? Is that a form of exploitation, as the incompetent/child isn't capable of making a rational choice on his own?

Post 11

Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 4:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tommy parents do on occaision do things for their children that may not be wise or appropriate. For example feeding them a diet consisting mainly of fast food. If the child is harmed as a consequence the parent is responsible and must accept the consequences, e.g. paying the resultant medical bills.

I don't agree that is exploitation. To exploit someone is to take advantage of someone, unethically or unjustly, to your own advantage. Simply helping a child is not taking advantage of the child, unethicaly or unjustly, to your own advantage so it is not exploitation.

If you do benefit and the child suffers and you would not have been able to do so if the child were an adult then it is exploitation.

Post 12

Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark: "If the child is harmed as a consequence the parent is responsible and must accept the consequences, e.g. paying the resultant medical bills."

What about a parent who brings up their child with religious indoctrination or some other form of inconsistent philosophy, consequently damaging the child's ability to function in reality. Does this child have a case against his parents for being brought up non-Objectivist?

Post 13

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 1:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tommy to be consistent I would have to agree that the child does have a case against his parents, however in this present society it would be impossible to implement such a policy. In an Objectivist society however to do so may well be a crime akin to physical molestation of a child.

Post 14

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 3:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But Mark, even Objectivists disagree on things. For instance, taxes for military and police as opposed to voluntary donations. Even in a society based on Objectivism, there would be several differing views. What I'm trying to say is, I think parents should be given a LARGE benefit of the doubt concerning what they believe is right for their child.

Post 15

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tommy, parents can teach their children whatever they like. A government's proper role in society does not include silencing and imprisoning the "comprachicos of the mind." That would blur the line between harmful ideas and plain brute force, which is something fascists and the politically correct love to do.

It is up to that child to discover for themselves, through whatever ~volitional~ means, a rational sense of life...a government that forces that sense down their throats and suppresses all others, while being demonstrably preferable to a collectivist one, is not one I would support.

A proper government leaves free the Ayn Rands, George Smiths, Ludwig von Mises, Adam Smiths, Thomas Jeffersons, etc. etc., to voice their beliefs and influence minds. This, more than any method of restricting or censoring the teachings of parents, is how children and young people can be given a chance at a rational, productive, emotionally and intellectually fulfilling life.

J

Post 16

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 10:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy, your comment should be directed towards Mark. I just said that parents should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their own style of parenting.

Post 17

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 11:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK. I can include Mark in that. I read his posts, but since you asked the question I directed my answer to you. Unless that was one of those deceptive :) Leading Queries?

J

Post 18

Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 7:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, it was. :)

Post 19

Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 7:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah ha!

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.