On Saturday, 27 August 2016 1:13:22 AM AEST Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
I normally do not keep track of Libertarian Party wack jobs. As I mentioned, that and numerous other minor parties have basically zero role in either national politics or in local politics in the USA with extremely few exceptions.
OK you win. I should have just said "Libertarians" instead of "Libertarian party" when referring to the legalising of child porn. Libertarianism aims to be a logical consistent way of running society. If you compell people to feed their children then it logically ends up with providing medical treatment for kids, using tax money to pay for hospitals for poor people, and a decent standard of living for everyone. It's not consistent to argue for banning all child porn (where "child" is defined as 17yo) but provide no social security so that 18yos are forced into sex work. The Rothbardian approach would be to legalise all child porn. Note that decriminalising (*) the non-commercial act of a child sending pictures of themself to another child the same age would be a reasonable thing to do, there is a big difference between a teenager sending a rude pic to their BF or GF and commercial child exploitation. Also clarifying the statutory rape laws such that 2 kids the same age can't be accused of jointly raping each other would also make sense. But in the US political discussion introducing the same laws as we have in Australia is apparently regarded as "THAT crazy" (to use your term). (*) Decriminalise doesn't mean legalise. I have to note this because there are stupid people in Australian political discussions too. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/