[Lnc-business] FYI

[Arvin Vohra]

A bit more information for consideration before the upcoming electronic
meeting. This is taken from my facebook page:


Over the last few days, I've heard from many people about different
Libertarian theories of age of consent, both online and offline. I have
become convinced that a law that I previously considered sort of silly is
far more deeply flawed than I realized.

The issue with current laws is that it tries to set the age of consent as
"the age past which sexual manipulation is impossible, or extremely
unlikely." This is a fools errand. There is no such age.

Biologically, the prefrontal cortex continues developing until around age
25. However, the prefrontal cortex of some 25 year olds will obviously be
inferior to that of other 16 year olds.

But the physical development of the prefrontal cortex doesn't tell the
whole story. 40 year olds, because of their life experience, may have more
impulse control than 25 year olds, as well as more ability to manipulate.
Some people are, through genetics or practice, easily able to manipulate
people their own age or older.

And some people don't. Even the hardcore statists haven't gone so far as to
argue that 100% of sex between teenagers and adults is problematic, that at
no point in history was that beneficial. Some have even discussed the
lasting marriages of their own grandparents (and occasionally parents).

Many supposed anarchists have gone running to statism, like the "brave"
kids who run and hide behind mommy at the first sign of, well, anything.

There are other models worth considering. The first is the German model.
Yes, I know it's still statism, but it can inform anarchist and minarchist
thought. In Germany, the age of consent is set low, at 14. However, if
there is an age gap, and the younger person feels as if he or she has been
exploited, manipulated, etc., that person can press charges. This enables
positive romance, and puts a bar on manipulation. It puts the burden of
responsibility on the older person, which is where it should be. American
law, on the other hand, basically say to a younger person who feels
exploited, but was of age, "Well you said yes, sucks to be you LOL!!!"

Murray Rothbard discussed "homesteading", which has some application. Once
a person at any age has set himself up independent of his parents, has a
job/business, residence, etc., he or she is free to make his own decisions
about everything.

Some objectivists have similarly argued that when a person can take on the
responsibilities of adulthood, they have the right to make their own
decisions. I like that idea. I would extend it by saying that those who
cannot take on those responsibilities don't have those rights. Those who
have kids they cannot afford, and then have 15 more they cannot afford, are
violating that. I don't think the state should be involved. I also don't
think the state should subsidize that behavior through welfare, as it has
been doing for decades (and yes, welfare does include government schools).

I've also learned about the history of those who have spoke out against
these laws, particularly in Europe. I was surprised to see people like
legendary feminist Simone de Beauvoir and philosopher Jean Paul Sartre sign
a petition demanding the release of three men who had been jailed for
violating age of consent laws...way back in the ancient times of 1977.
These were intellectual giants with big ideas, people of incisive thought
and massive reach. Some may have been statists too, but I frankly am more
in awe of statists with big minds and bid ideas than with small minded
libertarians with minor-league ideas. Were those giants loved and hated?
Sure. Were they influential? I'd say so.

Let's not let the fact that we are a smaller movement make us small minded.
Let's not be afraid to challenge the big, sacred ideas. Not just point out
areas where they give absurd results, but challenge their very fundamental
underpinnings.

In a few days, there will be a meeting to consider removing me from the LNC
for bringing this issue up not nicely enough. But as I consider the actions
of the aforementioned great minds, I believe that I have been, perhaps, too
timid.

Respectfully,

Arvin Vohra <https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions>


-- 
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
   A bit more information for consideration before the upcoming electronic
   meeting. This is taken from my facebook page:

   Over the last few days, I've heard from many people about different
   Libertarian theories of age of consent, both online and offline. I have
   become convinced that a law that I previously considered sort of silly
   is far more deeply flawed than I realized.

   The issue with current laws is that it tries to set the age of consent
   as "the age past which sexual manipulation is impossible, or extremely
   unlikely." This is a fools errand. There is no such age.

   Biologically, the prefrontal cortex continues developing until around
   age 25. However, the prefrontal cortex of some 25 year olds will
   obviously be inferior to that of other 16 year olds.

   But the physical development of the prefrontal cortex doesn't tell the
   whole story. 40 year olds, because of their life experience, may have
   more impulse control than 25 year olds, as well as more ability to
   manipulate. Some people are, through genetics or practice, easily able
   to manipulate people their own age or older.

   And some people don't. Even the hardcore statists haven't gone so far
   as to argue that 100% of sex between teenagers and adults is
   problematic, that at no point in history was that beneficial. Some have
   even discussed the lasting marriages of their own grandparents (and
   occasionally parents).

   Many supposed anarchists have gone running to statism, like the "brave"
   kids who run and hide behind mommy at the first sign of, well,
   anything.

   There are other models worth considering. The first is the German
   model. Yes, I know it's still statism, but it can inform anarchist and
   minarchist thought. In Germany, the age of consent is set low, at 14.
   However, if there is an age gap, and the younger person feels as if he
   or she has been exploited, manipulated, etc., that person can press
   charges. This enables positive romance, and puts a bar on manipulation.
   It puts the burden of responsibility on the older person, which is
   where it should be. American law, on the other hand, basically say to a
   younger person who feels exploited, but was of age, "Well you said yes,
   sucks to be you LOL!!!"

   Murray Rothbard discussed "homesteading", which has some application.
   Once a person at any age has set himself up independent of his parents,
   has a job/business, residence, etc., he or she is free to make his own
   decisions about everything.

   Some objectivists have similarly argued that when a person can take on
   the responsibilities of adulthood, they have the right to make their
   own decisions. I like that idea. I would extend it by saying that those
   who cannot take on those responsibilities don't have those rights.
   Those who have kids they cannot afford, and then have 15 more they
   cannot afford, are violating that. I don't think the state should be
   involved. I also don't think the state should subsidize that behavior
   through welfare, as it has been doing for decades (and yes, welfare
   does include government schools).

   I've also learned about the history of those who have spoke out against
   these laws, particularly in Europe. I was surprised to see people like
   legendary feminist Simone de Beauvoir and philosopher Jean Paul Sartre
   sign a petition demanding the release of three men who had been jailed
   for violating age of consent laws...way back in the ancient times of
   1977. These were intellectual giants with big ideas, people of incisive
   thought and massive reach. Some may have been statists too, but I
   frankly am more in awe of statists with big minds and bid ideas than
   with small minded libertarians with minor-league ideas. Were those
   giants loved and hated? Sure. Were they influential? I'd say so.

   Let's not let the fact that we are a smaller movement make us small
   minded. Let's not be afraid to challenge the big, sacred ideas. Not
   just point out areas where they give absurd results, but challenge
   their very fundamental underpinnings.

   In a few days, there will be a meeting to consider removing me from the
   LNC for bringing this issue up not nicely enough. But as I consider the
   actions of the aforementioned great minds, I believe that I have been,
   perhaps, too timid.

   Respectfully,

   [1]Arvin Vohra
   --
   Arvin Vohra
   [2]www.VoteVohra.com
   [3]VoteVohra at gmail.com
   (301) 320-3634

References

   1. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
   2. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
   3. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com