[Lnc-business] FYI
Arvin Vohra
votevohra at gmail.com
Thu Jan 18 12:27:42 EST 2018
Daniel, I think you may have misread what I wrote here. I was pointing out
that De Beauvoir and Sartre stood up for actual people, not just ideas.
Hence the "too timid". Anyway, sorry to have lost your support on this.
-Arvin
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
Daniel, I think you may have misread what I wrote here. I was pointing
out that De Beauvoir and Sartre stood up for actual people, not just
ideas. Hence the "too timid". Anyway, sorry to have lost your support
on this. -Arvin
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Arvin Vohra <[1]votevohra at gmail.com>
wrote:
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,
[2]Arvin Vohra
--
Arvin Vohra
[3]www.VoteVohra.com
[4]VoteVohra at gmail.com
[5](301) 320-3634
--
Arvin Vohra
[6]www.VoteVohra.com
[7]VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
References
1. mailto:votevohra at gmail.com
2. https://www.facebook.com/VohraEducation/?fref=mentions
3. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
4. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
5. tel:(301) 320-3634
6. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
7. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list