These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Monday, May 12, 2008

Ruwart doesn't quite believe that, but rather something worse

Bruce Cohen wrote:

BC) two grandmothers who support legalizing child pornography, as well as adults having sex with 'consenting' children, regardless of their age. (BC

Not quite.  Ruwart "explained to delegates that courts were likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred."

However, Ruwart is obviously mistaken to suggest that "desire" can be the only reason for a child to competently (but of course unwisely) want to engage in sexual activity.  For example, how would courts in Ruwarchotopia decide that a child was not competent to decide to earn some money, or to satisfy her curiosity?

Even more shocking is the fact that Ruwart apparently recognizes no right of the parent to positively constrain her child's choices in these matters, and instead may only influence the child by denying her household privileges.  (No dessert for you if I hear you've been turning tricks again!)

Even more shocking than that: the available evidence suggests that Ruwart agrees with Rothbard that parents do not have any positive obligation to feed or otherwise care for their children -- though she may agree with neo-Rothbardians who say parents are obligated to post notice that they have relinquished their guardianship rights (whatever those may be), so that others may homestead those rights by rescuing the starving child.

Welcome to Ruwarchotopia.