YOU ARE CRIMINALS.

... they are responding to a society that is sick (perhaps mortaly so)?

A society that is mired in a commercial 'sexuality' that is constantly using images of sex to sell cars, that is constantly pushing the boundaries of acceptable representations of childish desire into younger and younger imitations of super models -strung out on heron chich and virtually invisable bikinis. Diet obsessed girls of 8 - 9 years old starving themselves because they are worried that they are too fat to get a boyfriend. Teenage prostitution seen as the ultmate product for a porn industry that outsells even hollywood.

The fact is that children ARE ALREADY exploited and abused in increasing numbers. A humanist and rational response would be to remove commercial imperitives and dodgy politics from the bodies of children. Yes those who have not reached 16 engage in sexual activity. This is not unhealthy as long as they are not being exploited by those who should know better (hardly ever their peers). The piece does not give me the impression that it is suggesting these kinds of unhealthy and illegal activites, just that children should be protected from the consequencesof their own actions and that of the rapacious desire of capitalism to homogenise and oblitorate individual choice.

Just say no did not solve the drug 'problem'.
Enforced abstance due to religious pressure will not solve the teenage pregnancy 'problem'.
Children need access to the same kind of compassionate judgement free medical services as those who have reached their majority. Society needs to wake up and protect its young people from exploitation whether from comercial or inadequate sources.

Burying your head in the sand and screaming that is all wrong has proved to be an utterly useless response.

The text that you highlight is:

"Therefore, we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control, or related medical or biological technologies."

Note that this does NOT say that there should be free trade in sexual goods and services - only that INFORMATION regarding sex etc should be freely available. I would say that this could be problematic in that you would have to define 'information regarding human sexuality' to exclude information or images which could be regarded as harmful to children (i.e. graphic depictions of sex), but in no way could this be interpreted as a call for children to be allowed to sell sex for money.

It's true because it all stems from the Libertarian Party's opposition of the age of consent laws...


Philosophy of Objectivism: Context, Context, Context
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris M. Sciabarra
 sciabrrc@is2.nyu.edu
As to the law and pedophilia

. . . I agree in principle that age (age of consent) is not the only variable to consider, and that the necessity and quality of visibility will vary amongst individuals of different ages, needs, and characters. I also agree with Adam that laws based on a-contextual assumptions are problematic.

So, let's push the envelope a bit further. As an undergraduate, a few moons ago, I was the co-founder of a group called NYU Students for a Libertarian Society. After my undergraduate years, when my tenure ended as President of the organization, the group took controversy to another level entirely. It sponsored a talk by NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association... an event made infamous by Peter Schwartz's discussion of it in his "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty."

The purpose of sponsoring the talk was to bring awareness to the hypocrisy of age of consent laws, a strictly libertarian theme, not to celebrate sex with 6 year olds. Still, the talk made lots of people uncomfortable -- with good reason. It is reasonable to suggest that the rule of law requires some kind of boundary-drawing -- at what point is sex between an adult and a minor informed consent? At what point is it subtle coercion? Can there be objective boundaries? Or is everything arbitrary?

Whether or not one agrees with NAMBLA - - and so that I am not misrepresented yet again, let me say that I am not now nor have I ever been a member of this organization, and I DO prefer and enjoy romantic and sexual ties with those in my own age bracket - - I do think that the issue of age of consent laws is extremely important for both libertarians and Objectivists to consider. Any takers on this?

 http://objectivism.cx/~atlantis/objectivism-l/msg02275.html

About time someone put forward what many are thinking.
I for one am fed up with paying taxes to educate the bastard offspring of single mothers, everywhere i look i see single mothers with no intention of working to support their family, instead they get tax credits, their children are educated at my expense (i pay super tax), the damege these children do to their comunities through crime and vandelism when they become teenagers is a sad indication of the world we are about to have to live in.