TheAgitator.com
“Balko is a collectivist, a statist, and a shmuck.”
Wednesday, May 28th, 2008Ah, libertarian-land. Where opposing an LP candidate who writes ambivalently of child rape renders one a sell-out.
I have to say, it’s a nice change of pace to be smeared for not being radical enough for once.
Reminds me of a quip from a friend of mine: “The only problem with living in a libertarian utopia is that you’d have to live with a bunch of libertarians.”
Better yet, you’re a wonk (err, former wonk).
I wish I were a wonk
It’s sad that you actually buy into the myth that ‘child-rape’ (buzzword for child sexuality/pornography) is a pressing social concern, and that any deviation from the ‘common sense’ government approach to dealing with the issue makes someone a dangerous fanatic. It doesn’t say anything about how ‘libertarian’ you are, but it does make me question your judgment and priorities. Funny how you always defend drug users, but you never come to the defense of sexual minorities caught up in the legal system for non-violent and victimless crimes. In such cases, your principles seem to disappear.
I’m curious - you “supported the war”? Judging by your postings I asumed you were always anti-war.
If not, what changed?
#3: I was against the war from the outset, and have pretty aggressively opposed it, including on this site and in several columns for FoxNews.com. It’s a bit of an inconvenient fact for the “Orange Line Mafia” narrative (as is the fact that reason isn’t on the Orange Line), so the nutjob conspiracy theorists just ignore it, and make shit up. Apparently, I’m a neocon because I work in D.C., and work for organizations who also employ people who support the war.
#2: Children are incapable of consenting to sex. Therefore, sex with children is rape. People who have sex with children aren’t “sexual minorities” and sex with children is not a “victimless crime.” Talk to anyone who was sexually molested as a child.
We can talk about the proper way to treat and punish pedophiles. And there’s debate to be had about whether the sex crimes laws we have now are overly punitive and do more harm than good. We should also have some debate over whether we should distinguish between people who have sex with pre-pubescent minors and those who have non-forcible sex with post-pubescent minors (I think we should — the latter should be a misdemeanor or, at worst, a low-level felony). I’m also against sex offender registries, and I’m not sure mere possession of child porn should be a crime (for all sorts of reasons too lengthy to get into here). Willful distribution and production should be felonies, and prosecuted aggressively.
But on the issue of children consenting to sex, there’s no wiggle room. Endorsing child sex is outside the scope of legitimate debate.
If the LP is going to entertain the idea that there’s even a debate to be had there, the LP will continue to forfeit its right to be taken seriously.
“Endorsing child sex is outside the scope of legitimate debate.”
Well, last time I checked (maybe five minutes ago), Radley was not put in charge of deciding what constitutes “legitimate debate.” But since I’m personally not interested in the subject of child sex, I’ll move on…
I’m not sure I’d label Radley a collectivist or a statist. Schmuck is a matter of interpretation. But Radley had it coming after he resorted to cheap name-calling against Mary Ruwart. And I say that as someone who’s engaged in more then a fair share of name-calling himself.
I do think the Lew Rockweller slang “Beltway Libertarian” applies here. Radley seems willing to absolve Barr of his past sins–and sin is an apropos term–for the sake of political expediency. I don’t really see the value in the LP “being taken seriously.” The first question is, taken seriously by who? People who aren’t libertarians? Meh.
On what planet is child rape a victimless crime?
I do think the Lew Rockweller slang “Beltway Libertarian” applies here.
Wait, I thought the criticism of “cosmotarians” was that we were too socially permissive. Isn’t that the Rockwellian line? That we’re too PC when it comes to gay people, black criminals, and drug users?
Does this mean that proper libertarian dogma means condemning gays, drug users, and prostitution, but being open-minded about racism and child porn?
Looks like I’m going to have to look for another label.
“The first question is, taken seriously by who? People who aren’t libertarians? Meh.”
Mr. Oliva, I’d say that having non-libertarians take the LP seriously is what the LP should be trying to do–so they’ll listen to what libertarianism has to say.
Did anyone else notice the irony in Mr. Balko being excoriated on a blog whose masthead proclaims that it’s for all types of libertarians?
Every libertarian in the world needs to read–right now–Loren Lomasky’s wonderfully reasonable article, “Libertarianism As If (The Other 99 Percent Of) People Mattered.”
“I don’t really see the value in the LP “being taken seriously.” The first question is, taken seriously by who? People who aren’t libertarians? Meh.”
If a political party doesn’t care about being taken seriously, then it isn’t a party. It’s just a social club.
As for all the child rape issue, either perpetrators are a “sexual minority” (I should hope so) that needs protecting per comment 2, or child rape should at least be up for debate, per comment 5? I guess you’re right after all, the LP shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Keep up what you’re doing Radley, you’re still a force for good on the balance, but….
A Digg comment I posted to http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Death_of_the_Libertarian_Party :
IMHO this is more than just a temporary “mistake”, it is the culmination of a takeover of institutional libertarianism in America that’s been conducted over the course of years by the likes of Cato, Reason and others. The “Party of Principle” is no more. This will be very clear both to those of us who know Barr’s legislative record and to those only yawning themselves into consciousness of this man today.
The Republican spin-o-sphere these days has their “Republican in Name Only” RINOs, the LP now has its LINOs. The only possible move for those who looked to “The Party of Principle” to live up to its slogan is to desert, and do so immediately.
Sure, Barr has “atoned” on some matters. Real principle, though, does not allow forgiveness of the crimes this man has advocated for and supported.
Christ, that first paragraph is hard to read;
Radley Balko, a former [LINK: policy wonk] at the [LINK: CATO Institute], currently a [HEY, READ THIS LINK TOO: columnist] for [LINK, HERE"S A LINK: FoxNews.com], and a [ANOTHER LINK, JUST IN CASE YOU NEED ANOTHER ONE: blogger and Senior Editor] for [LINK: Reason Magazine], [MANY PEOPLE ARE INTRESTED IN "PRAISE": praises] [LINK: Bob Barr's]
Balko is libertarian to the core. Unlike some so-called libertarians he is not a nutjob.
We need to support Bob Barr. He is a moderate Libertarian and also not a nutjob.
Okay, Randy, I’ll bite: how old are “the children” in your mind ?
Count me as a Ruwart supporter - in context, her statements are an attempt to discuss a complicated SET of issues, among which is sex with or between minor children (who could be anywhere from 11 to 17). Other, better writers than I have defended her strongly, so I tend to think that those who don’t are consciously choosing to be vague about that age range.
What about sex offender registries, and the blurring of the criterion by which you are put on one? peeing in public is but one example. What about the young man in Nebraska (Matthew Koso) who married his pregnant minor girlfriend and was STILL thrown in jail and had to register as a sex offender? He did the right thing and got punished and lost his job. Why was that any of the state’s business?
This attack on Balko is over the top, but deep skepticism of Barr is certainly warranted. The guy is *still* defending the terribly unlibertarian Defense of Marriage Act he co-authored. Whether Barr is good for LP — or more importantly, for the libertarian cause broadly speaking — very much depends on what kind of campaign he chooses to run. If he runs on libertarian ideas and can spark attention those ideas in a close election, that’s good. But if he tries to dredge up votes by running to McCain’s right on gays and immigration, well that won’t teach Republicans anything about heeding the libertarian vote will it?
Radley, I find it funny you criticize Ruwart but you give Bob Barr a free pass on a case you blogged a lot about Genarlow Wilson. Did you know that Barr said that Wilson DESERVED what he got? This is FAR worse than anything that “nutjob” Ruwart said. Barr even claimed that Wilson didn’t deserve his “celebrity status.”
Please tell me what you think of this.
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=864
Sorry - I meant “Radley”, not “Randy”.
And most of the time I agree with you, Radley.
Just not on this one.
Good lord I feel bad for you Radley. First, you make a few comments about Bob Barr that, god forbid, fall short of condemning the man. Then, after you’re attacked, you make a brief statement about how it’s wrong to have sex with young children and you’re attacked again for that.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with some of you people?
And as to Barr- can any of you really say he’s as bad as Obama or McCain? You’d be lying to yourself and everyone else. Sure, Barr has some political baggage, but for God’s sake, wouldn’t it be nice if a real voice for limited government could make it’s way into the mainstream debate? For better or for worse, Barr gives the Libertarian party (and libertarians in general) that chance. That’s all Radley was saying. Not everything is so damn personally political. I don’t know if I’m gonna support Barr or even vote for him, but that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate his candidacy.
[...] « “Balko is a collectivist, a statist, and a shmuck.” [...]
Radley,
Congratulations on being outed as a pragmatic libertarian. And Ruwart is a nutjob for reasons other than her child rape comments…she signed that b.s. statement for the “truthers” as well. That alone should have earned her scorn and derision from every L.P. member who doesn’t wear a tinfoil hat. So kudos on telling it like it is.
Garrett,
You sound like you haven’t had a chance to cut your teeth in this libertarian racket. Among libertarians, if you don’t actively stand up for child pornography, polygamy, and heroin in supermarkets, or if you fail to defend pimps, slumlords, blackmailers, and sex with minors, or if, for whatever reason, you don’t want to move to a gigantic floating pod out in the ocean, then YOU’RE the wacko.
Strange group, them libertarians.
Sometimes I wish I had never cracked open that first copy of “The Freeman.”
RedtailQuack,
People who rationalize child rape are the ones without principles. While many libertarians may oppose sexual predator laws that arbitrarily punish offenders after they’ve done their sentences, any responsible libertarian will tell you that any practicing pedophile still belongs in prison or a mental institution. What they’re doing isn’t a lifestyle choice…it’s a crime, same as any other form of rape where the victimized party doesn’t or can’t give consent.
Greg N.,
Careful about using that broad brush to paint libertarians…we don’t all fit your description, thanks.
sex sex sex
nutjob nutjob nutjob?
hope! hope for change! hope in our leaders, our pplx!
sex sex sex
compromise, compromise, compromise
sold! to the most electable winner!
http://www.nostate.com/28/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-obama-overlords/
This post is charming, Mike. http://www.nostate.com/77/fuck-the-troops/
“So, I will not support the troops. In fact, fuck the troops! Each and every US serviceperson today who is not deserting, refusing to follow orders or turning their weapons on their commanders in, in fact, a criminal, and one for whom we should feel neither sympathy nor pity, let alone the specious solidarity of “support the troops” when it’s those same “troops” who are carrying out slaughter, destruction and torture in our name.”
That’s exactly the kind of thing that attracts voters. And I noticed you tagged that post under your “mind control” category. Nothing crazy about that; thanks for helping spread liberty.
[quote]People who rationalize child rape are the ones without principles. While many libertarians may oppose sexual predator laws that arbitrarily punish offenders after they’ve done their sentences, any responsible libertarian will tell you that any practicing pedophile still belongs in prison or a mental institution. What they’re doing isn’t a lifestyle choice…it’s a crime, same as any other form of rape where the victimized party doesn’t or can’t give consent.[/quote]
I am going to wager you have very little idea what a ‘practicing pedophile’ (or any sort of pedophile) truly is, and have likely received little information on the subject outside of a highly irresponsible and hysterical media. Your model for understanding the ways in which involved children and adults behave and feel is heavily skewed towards a few very disturbing metaphors and models of predation, pathology and perversion, which you wield indiscriminately and ideologically in much the same way that conservatives did against homosexuals in the 50s. In reality, most pedophiles do not fit into the model of the stealthy, sociopathic, compulsive abuser, and most children do not all fit into the model of confused, frightened, and guilt-ridden victims. Criminology will of course over-represent these types, and the media will feast upon them because they are profitable, but they do not reflect reality in a way that should satisfy inquisitive and rational people.
I’m not trying to idealize or rationalize any particular acts between any people. I’m not suggesting that children shouldn’t have legal recourse in cases of abuse. I’m proposing that people stand back, tell the rabid judicial machinery to back the fuck down to a position of sobriety (much as is required in the drug war), and stop being so damn ideological in how they explain the experiences of other people.
Dear Greg,
You’ll notice from my “Mock teh Vote” icon that I’m really not interesting in “attracting voters”. In fact, voters should be repelled, as they are accomplices to the crime.
Much obliged for the support, though. Can we get back to bashing Radley now?
Ladies and gentlemen:
Mike Gogulski, libertarian.
Good luck.
#26 — I don’t know what age child you’re talking about. 15 or 16? I’ll entertain the notion that it shouldn’t be a felony sex crime, though it still certainly seems manipulative, and gets more manipulative with the age of the adult.
Under 10? No way. No rationalization whatsoever. Really. I sincerely hope you aren’t talking about sex with pre-pubescent children. Children that young aren’t physically or mentally prepared for sex. It’s a crime. And it should be a crime.
If you’re having urges in that direction, get help. Seriously.
I’m going to guess it closely resembled that Air Force tech sergeant I knew who it turned out had been fucking his stepdaughter since she was 10. He tried to claim that it was consensual too, you know…the stepdaughter disagreed, since she was the one who turned him in once she wasn’t scared of the threat of him beating the crap out of or killing her anymore. Care to explain how the mainstream media spun that story to me? Or how about my seventh grade science teacher who used to take female students into his office for “one-on-one” instruction in the middle of class so he could feel them up? None of them particularly enjoyed it.
Actually, my model stems from the fact that I’ve never encountered or heard about anyone who advocated adult-child sex who wasn’t a pedophile looking to ply his trade. Care to enlighten me on where you fall on the spectrum, sport?
They do…it’s called an age of consent law. It varies from state to state and it’s a redline for adults to know when to keep their hands the fuck to themselves when it comes to kids.
Dear Greg,
/bow
Thanks for your support. But seriously, when the philosophy carries so little weight with the lumpenproletariat, is it worthwhile to split hairs to try and and win over the deluded masses? Of course not. The reasons that the bulk of “teh voters” don’t support libertarian ideals today are not that they don’t care, or that they are not informed or that they are not intelligent. The reason is that statism is their religion, and American exceptionalism is their sacrament.
I only had to say “Hiroshima” and “murder” to my mother on the phone a few weeks ago to make her cry.
The Saint of Slack is said to have once said: You don’t use your MIND to think about your RELIGION.
The question for you and Radley seems to be: How deep does your religion go? Do you, or do you not stand upon the earth?
…and Radley I see is still parsing age of consent arguments. I *want* you to get it, man, I really do.
Like many hot-button issues, this is one that is debated using different definitions.
Radley is on the side that says “children cannot consent to sex”, therefore all sexual contact involving a child is “child rape”, and debates with the mental image of a creepy middle-aged man forcibly raping a 7 year old.
That side is right that a 50 year old having sex with a 7 year old is always wrong.
The other side, the side that tries to overcome emotion in favor of logic, recognizes that there is no bright line defining “child rape”, no matter how convoluted the law. Genarlow Wilson is legally indistinguishable from a middle-aged “sex tourist” traveling to the Philippines to repeatedly rape a three-year old.
Legally, both John Geoghan and Debra Lafave are “child rapists”. This is the logical disconnect that Ruwart, and many others, are trying to address.
Speaking of Lafave, in many states it wouldn’t matter if the student was of the legal age of consent; a 20 year old student teacher and 18 year old high school senior would be in exactly the same legal status, because of the teacher/student relationship.
Witness the ridiculousness of two teenage girls being prosecuted as adults for producing child pornography, for having made sexual videos of themselves. They were both child victims, and adult victimizers.
The law, Sir, is an ass.
I forgot to add the most obvious example of children consenting to “sex”: the untold number of kids ages 5-8 every year who “play doctor” with their fully consenting age peers.
Kids are curious, and remain so even as their awareness and bodies mature. Pretending that their sexual awareness is magically flipped on upon attaining statutory age of consent is just plain silly.
UCrawford, by spinning my argument for a more sensitive and less knee-jerk reaction to this issue into a personal endorsement of sex between adults and children, and suggesting that my point of view evidences criminality, you have lost the argument by virtue of something approximating Godwin’s law. I have been calm and rational and you have not, and I don’t want to talk to you or anyone else if you cannot afford me even the slightest respect by not assuming that I am a criminal because I take an unpopular position.
You’ve also used another metaphor, the pedophile ‘plying his trade’, that you could not possibly have arrived at without reference to the media discourse on pedophilia and sexual abuse that seeks to turn the minor attracted adult into a compulsive, calculating monster. There is no evidence that this type of person exists outside of a relatively small number of highly publicized criminal cases.
.
Isn’t the problem mainly one of communication? Has Ruwart stated clearly that sex between adults and prepubescent children is always wrong? Certainly, if she had been clearer in the first place, I think a lot of this arguing would be moot.
[...] The Agitator » Blog Archive » “Balko is a collectivist, a statist, and a shmuck.” (tags: Balko Libertarians) [...]
[...] Seen at Radley’s: The only problem with living in a libertarian utopia is that you
RedtailQuack,
I don’t consider advocacy of rape to be a subject for civilized discourse. And you’re right on one thing…I don’t respect anyone who takes that position, I’m not interested in hearing you rationalize child rape by blaming the press, so it’s pointless discussing it with you.
I’ve personally known enough sexual abuse victims to see the lie in that statement. And “lie” sums up the basis for your entire argument…although I suspect that “self-serving lie” would be even more accurate.
Redtail: you’re my new hero
Ucrawford: You’re one of the most to the point and intelligently capable posters I’ve seen recently. You have some valid points pleasepleaseplease stop the knee jerk (it’s beneath you), step back…”breathe”…and look at quack’s underlying reasoning.
Even if he’s planning on moving on to arguing that sex with donkeys and infants is ok, the current statements AREN’T about that. The definition of “child” has been overbroad a long time and terribly inconsistent. The angry rhetoric prevents us from actually trying to define the point at which someone is both capable of conscious reasoning and legally allowed to define direction for themselves as an adult. I’ve been trying to point out the deficiencies in our social approach of defining that point as an arbitrary age since I was about 12. Seriously, I’ve spent twenty years trying to point out that the reasoning I was using as a prepubescent was essentially the same as what I use now. But that’s a slightly different debate and I acknowledge that I’m a minority there.
so:
1) Being a child doesn’t make you a victim
2) It does make you vulnerable to those in power over you
3) Everyone is vulnerable to those in power over them
4) Taking advantage of those you control is morally wrong no matter what their age
5) Sex is not inherently taking advantage of someone unless you’re a feminazi
6) Sex IS, however, not understood by something we refer to as a “child” and should be witheld from them until they do understand it.
7) Biology doesn’t match our definition of “child”…physical maturation (puberty) has been pushed back to as low as 8yrs of age…mental maturity is what we’re looking for.
final result:
could we please have a method of defining mental maturity that isn’t based solely on your age?
yeah, we all do dumb things when we’re young. But we all do dumb things when we’re adults, and I would suggest there are a lot of adults lacking “mental maturity” as well. Whether you achieve a degree of mental and physical sophistication allowing you to remove yourself from the control of your parents at 12 or 22 the deciding point shouldn’t be the age but the degree of sophistication.
Yes, that includes sex. No, I don’t think many (or perhaps any) individuals in the teen years are capable of the sophistication I’m talking about. That should not prevent us from recognizing them, any more than we should fail to punish abusive dictators be they in the white house or the house down the street.
Sam,
I understand where you’re coming from but let’s highlight a distinction between two arguments you’ve lumped together. If he were arguing about bestiality, I wouldn’t be bothered, because we’re not talking about human rights, we’re discussing an issue of dealing with property (which is what animals basically are).
Children, however, are not property…they’re humans with a limited capacity for judgment, but who will eventually develop a full capacity for judgment as they mature (except in a relatively few cases). Therefore their rights as individuals, not just in regards to sex but in all other areas, are necessarily abridged and occasionally exercised for them until such time as they’re deemed capable of exercising those rights for themselves.
Now there’s plenty of room to discuss what constitutes a legitimate age of consent, the merits of particular states’ age of consent laws or under what circumstances criminal prosecution should be pursued against people engaging in sex that involves a minor where the age discrepancy is relatively small. That’s not what RedtailQuack was doing, however…he was attempting to rationalize pedophiles as a “sexual minority” to validate their actions in regards to actions where they do victimize children. I can understand why you might find my responses to him overly hostile, but you need to go read through all of his comments, because I think he made his point quite clearly. And the argument I (and several others here) derived from that is one I won’t give any credibility to.
#7
paleolibertarian
Yeah, Radley, I’m sure Ruwart completely disagrees with you there.
Sigh. This antagonistic attitude towards radical libertarians is so unnecessary.
From that idiots masthead,
Guess not. Wonder when it will change to,
To all of RedTailQuack’s supporters, I’d like to call your attention to his opening line of his second post.
He does seem to be taking up the task of defending pedophiles. Not a case like Genarlow Wilson where you have an 18 year old with a 16, almost, 17 year old. A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children. Technically it includes the case of an 18 year old with the 16 year old girlfriend, but it also includes the 35 year old attracted to the 10 year old as well. So dragging in issues of age of consent really are not what RedTailQuack is talking about. He is covering the entire range here, not just age of consent.
Again note that RedTailQuack is talking about MOST pedophile. Hence this age of consent thing is just really a side issue.
Frankly, I find RedTail’s posts rather icky. I have known people who have been abused by sexual predators and I have yet to find one who says, “It was a great and liberating experience, I plan on having my kids go through the same thing!” In fact, most of them are still dealing with the trauma of it years after the fact.
Steve,
And don’t overlook this comment from Redtail’s first post…
That’s not about age of consent laws either…that’s about as tacit an endorsement of pedophilia as you’re ever going to find outside of a NAMBLA mailer.
What’s often forgotten in this debate is how many pedophiles get that way. In a preponderance of cases, pedophiles were sexually abused as children. Therefore, I have sympathy for these folks, not a knee-jerk reaction, because a knee-jerk reaction makes you a…well, *you* know.
Part of the problem is defining the range of childhood: 0-7? 0-12? 0-18? While the Feds come down on the side of the latter, we all know that state age of consent laws vary significantly from that standard, as does the maturity level of adolescents.
12 or 14, I think, would be good bench marks. If an adult has sex with a girl/boy 12 or younger puts it in the category of childhood and, thus, abuse.
As Harlan Ellison once said–I’m quoting from memory here so I apologize if I don’t get the words exactly right–”12 year olds, OK; I could see that. But *9* year olds? *Chickens?*”
And yes, if any of my junior high female teachers had seduced me–esp. the very fit gym teacher with the visible panty line and pubic hair–I would have said what the kid said in *Animal House* when the cheerleader flew through his bedroom window and landed on his bed: “Thank you, God!”
Andrew,
I know that a lot of pedophiles were originally victims of sexual abuse themselves. That doesn’t, however, excuse their actions…particularly since a pedophile’s victim isn’t in any way responsible for whatever made that person a pedophile. My sympathy for any criminal’s circumstances stops at the criminal act…to practice otherwise is simply to perpetuate the cycle of abuse that created the criminals in the first place. Now if you want to talk rehabilitation, that’s another topic, but criminal activity itself can simply not be condoned or minimized.
I personally believe that the state age of consent laws are probably the best approach for now, since states are in a far better position to judge the cultural and moral tolerances of their residents than the feds. Even more localized would probably be better, but in our system of government I think that should be left to the states to determine. As for the age of consent at the federal level, I think 18’s probably fine…to my knowledge that’s the highest age of any state’s laws. But in crimes involving age of consent, the feds should defer to the states where the criminal activity took place, I think. When you’re talking about this kind of thing it’s largely about moral beliefs and the feds are the worst level of government to deal with issues of morality.
From what I could find, the lowest age of consent in the U.S. is Hawaii’s (14), so I’d hesitate at considering laws below that. And, like I said, that should probably be left up to the individual states to choose, since there are a lot of cultural and demographic differences between a state like Hawaii and a state like mine (Kansas, age of consent 16). The people of Kansas may not appreciate being told that their children are fair game at the same age as Hawaii’s children…and their concerns are not really irrational or baseless.
Imperfect, I know, but you see what I’m getting at?
UCrawford:
“I know that a lot of pedophiles were originally victims of sexual abuse themselves. That doesn’t, however, excuse their actions…particularly since a pedophile’s victim isn’t in any way responsible for whatever made that person a pedophile.”
I wasn’t excusing their actions. I was expressing sympathy. In legal terms, that would translate best IMO as extenuating circumstances which *must* be taken into consideration upon sentencing.
If you were brought up in a community/family where molestation was OK–or at least not punished–how long do you think it would take you to shake off that early imprinting? Some do, after years or decades of hard work. Some don’t. Some can’t.
My benchmark for this issue is the movie “M.” People in the movie come to sympathize with and understand M. That doesn’t stop them from making appropriate sentencing recommendations.
Andrew,
Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to accuse you of excusing their actions and my response to you wasn’t meant to attack you personally…I was just arguing the point that prior abuse to a criminal does not in any way justify their criminal activities. I can see where you’re coming from about sentencing, as extenuating circumstances do factor in regarding severity of punishment, but a pedophile who attacks a child should always be held accountable, regardless of how crappy their upbringing was. Like I said, it wasn’t the victim’s fault that his attacker was molested as a child…the victim doesn’t deserve to bear the consequences of it. Sometimes that point gets missed as well in the debate, and that should never happen.
I agree with you on this…sexual abuse is usually a cycle, which is why I believe in disrupting the cycle by holding offenders accountable. Will that get rid of all sexual abuse? Of course not. But it will limit the number of victims an offender can reach…and that’s a start.
I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I sympathize with people who’ve suffered from sexual abuse themselves. I just don’t accept it as any sort of justification for them to commit sexual abuse on others in the future.
Andrew,
One last point on this remark…
Assuming you’re not talking about a situation where somebody is a paranoid schizophrenic or in a mental state where they’re having some sort of psychotic break from reality people always have final say over their own sexual behavior (assuming they’re not the victim, of course). When a pedophile is attracted to children, that’s not something he necessarily has control over…how he chooses to act on it is. It’s like being married and tempted to cheat, or being attracted to someone at work when it’s a bad idea to get involved…you usually don’t have a lot of control over what tempts you, but you do have control over how you choose to handle those temptations. And when it comes to a temptation to take liberties with someone who won’t or can’t consent, that’s when you should seek help because choosing to act on those particular temptations is not acceptable or excusable and should rightfully carry harsh penalties.
I do think the Lew Rockweller slang “Beltway Libertarian” applies here. Radley seems willing to absolve Barr of his past sins–and sin is an apropos term–for the sake of political expediency. I don’t really see the value in the LP “being taken seriously.” The first question is, taken seriously by who? People who aren’t libertarians? Meh.
Skip, I guess the question is whether the LP is a social organization, a cult, or a political party. Assuming it’s the last of those (I think that’s what the “P” is supposed to signify), then “Meh” is a pretty strange response. The purpose of a political party is to advance an agenda, no?
“Wait, I thought the criticism of “cosmotarians” was that we were too socially permissive. Isn’t that the Rockwellian line? That we’re too PC when it comes to gay people, black criminals, and drug users?”
Radley, are you too dense to realize why some “beltway libertarians” are really criticized? Rockwell is a down the line libertarian anarchist. The criticism of some “beltway libertarians” is that some think libertarianism means that one has to actively support drug use, gay sex, porn movies, and abortion and condemn racism, and that opposing the initiation of force is a minor side issue. There is no libertarian position on gay sex other than it should be legal and there is no libertarian position on racism either. Neither is there a libertarian position on whether God exists or whether one should eat meat. Libertarianism is a political philosophy.
UCrawford:
Well put. I was aware that you weren’t suggesting that I was excusing their actions. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t. No matter how horrible one’s childhood, you have to make the best adjustment you can in adulthood to live in society. I’ve seen too many people–including myself, unfortunately–use their crappy childhoods as excuses for crappy behavior.
Andrew,
I completely agree.
RedTailQuack said: You’ve also used another metaphor, the pedophile ‘plying his trade’, that you could not possibly have arrived at without reference to the media discourse on pedophilia and sexual abuse that seeks to turn the minor attracted adult into a compulsive, calculating monster.
That’s quite an assumption. I tend to have the same metaphor in my head. Perhaps it’s because, within the last year, I learned that my step-father had abused his second wife’s teenage daughter. He claimed consent. The daughter said that yes, there had been “consent” of the “Let me do this or I’m going to tell your mother what a little slut you are and if you ever talk about this I’m going to do something truly nasty to you AND your mother.” The mother divorced him when she found out. Shortly after the divorce, he began dating another woman with a young teenage daughter. That relationship lasted for about two years, until the daughter had a breakdown and the truth came out. He then married my mother who had…you guessed it, a 14 year old daughter. Within 3 months of the marriage, this “minor attracted adult” began abusing my sister, offering the same kind of threats in order to gain “consent”.
Until my sister grasped her bravery by the balls, this “minor attracted adult” had never been arrested, nor even officially investigated. He STILL hasn’t been charged with anything, despite the fact that my sister did report the assaults to the police. He may very well have ruined, or at the very least severely damaged, 3 lives (perhaps 6, if you count the mothers, who have to deal with the fact that this was going on right under their noses and they didn’t know).
Does this sound like metaphor or media spin? Or does this “minor attracted adult” sound more like a cold, calculating monster? Who, by the way, justified all of these attacks with “It’s was OK because they weren’t related to me by blood, so it’s not incest”.
“Minor attracted adult”…*puke*…
“Skip, I guess the question is whether the LP is a social organization, a cult, or a political party. Assuming it’s the last of those (I think that’s what the ‘P’ is supposed to signify), then ‘Meh’ is a pretty strange response. The purpose of a political party is to advance an agenda, no?”
A fair point, David. I personally don’t care about the LP as such, since I’m a non-voter. But to your point, what agenda is the LP really advancing if it’s running a fairly prominent ex-Republican who has done little to atone for his past anti-libertarian stances aside from simply saying, “I’m a libertarian.”
It seems to me that Barr ‘08 is just a repeat of Paul ‘88: A Republican out of favor with the party establishment using the LP to rebuild his own personal political base. That’s not to say Ruwart would be a better nominee–or even that she’s not a “nutjob”–but I don’t see how to advance even a quasi-libertarian agenda with Bob Barr.
Perhaps your argument should be, “the purpose of a political party is to win votes and elections.” Barr probably will get more votes then any other LP candidate available. Whether that translates into an advance for libertarianism remains to be seen, though I’m skeptical.
You know, nothing turned me off from Libertarianism as quickly and as completely as Libertarian fundamentalists.
Jet,
Stories like what happened to your family are exactly why I have so little respect for anyone who pushes pedophilia and coerced as legitimate lifestyle choices.
I’m sorry to hear that the cops haven’t prosecuted him, but I’m glad to hear that your sister had the courage to turn him in and I hope it helps her with her recovery.
I spat on the grave of my grandfather - I didn’t have the opportunity to spit on him while he still lived - for what he did to my mother beginning when she was 10. There is no excuse, no justification, no rational explanation or room for forgiveness.
Redtail’s comments make me sick and I want to thank UCrawford and Andrew and Jet for expressing what I haven’t the words for.
UCrawford: Thank you for your kind words. I know that a large part of my sister’s recovery has to do with making sure that this particular perp never has the opportunity to groom another victim and we continue to hold out hope that we can convince the county prosecutor to change his mind.
Jet,
Best of luck with the county prosecutor. Is his failure to prosecute based primarily on a lack of physical evidence?
UCrawford: That’s my understanding, yes. The situation is futher complicated by the fact that the abuse started when my sister was 14, but continued until she was 28. She lived at home for most of that time due to a hearing impairment and difficulty finding a job that would allow her to live independently. The hearing impairment also resulted in a significant delay in emotional maturity. This makes the situation even more of a “he said/she said” than usual. Combine that with the fact that the only “actionable” abuse took case some 14 years ago and the difficulty of constructing a timeline, allegations that she’s claiming it was abuse because she doesn’t want to admit to “having an affair” with her mother’s husband, and a county prosecutor who is notoriously reluctant to address charges of sexual abuse … Well…it doesn’t look good. But we’re still trying!
Jet,
That’s always a rough deal. Even under the best of circumstances a rape case is tough to prosecute…when you get into acquaintances, family and past events like this, it can be almost impossible to get a conviction, so I can kind of see why the county prosecutor is reluctant. That’s the biggest reason that I don’t think the contractual solutions that someone proposed on the other thread would ever work…pedophiles are very skilled at covering their tracks and hiding evidence with the people they abuse. They usually have to be in order to get close to their victims to begin with, particularly in family situations, so putting together some kind of complex contract system where somebody could “consent” to sex as a minor but can reverse themselves down the road seems like an open invitation for abuse because it would be just about impossible to prosecute if an actual victim of sexual abuse whose consent wasn’t real did come forward. That’s why I think the state age of consent laws, imperfect as they are, are probably the best tool to dealing with pedophiles…somebody outside of the pedophile and his victims has to set a limit, even if the laws that set those limits aren’t going to be perfectly suited to every conceivable situation.
Like I said on the other thread, no easy answers, I guess.
Again, best of luck to you and your family with this.
[...] with living in a libertarian utopia is that you’d have to live with a bunch of libertarians. The Agitator » Blog Archive » “Balko is a collectivist, a statist, and a shmuck.” « I’d just like to say that the next time the Stooges get booked for their [...]
And to whoever it is in the pro-child rapist crowd that’s been stalking my karma points…I’m glad that what I said bothered you so much you feel a need to hunt down every comment I make on every subject and anonymously deduct me. There’s nothing that signals victory in an argument like an opponent who’s so thoroughly beaten that the only thing he can do is click his mouse