What if the child consents?

What if the child consents?

Of what honey? Please tell me Muhammad.

Anything. Just wondering where a Libertarian/AnCap would stand on this.

Then you don't have to take a seat over there.

What if the child is my property and you're violating the NAP?

This is actually fine. Right now the law is faulty because it assumes no one under the age of 18 is capable of consenting but obviously a 16 year old who has gotten a 36 on her ACT and has already been accepted to Yale is more than capable of voluntarily entering into a contract. Minors should be able to get sex licenses that will show that they are capable of consenting by taking a test similar to a driver's license test.

This is the only rational position. Everyone who disagrees with me does so completely because of their emotions and feelings.

A child cannot be your property as a child cannot consent to being your property

In a truly anarchocapitalistic world the child's consent doesn't matter. Since the child is a product of its parents' labor, and everyone is entitled to 100% of the fruits of their labor, you only need the parents' consent to do whatever you like with the child. In case you are the parent, go knock yourself out. Nobody can tell you what to do with your property after all.

No one can consent to being property. Liberty is an unalienable right. You cannot become a slave even if you want to.

Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should "in terms" renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."

>What if the child consents?

Who cares as long as you are physically stronger and can keep your erection while beating the shit out of the cunt?

I mean you are talking about ancap, not some civilized society... so?

Wrong. Natural law theory considers reproduction as only continuing the processes of life of which no individual has sovereignty over. It holds that a God, or creator, or nature, or universe, created the processes of life thus only that creator has rights over that of life.

I always knew snarchists were degenerates

It should come as no surprise that, being an american """philosophy""", natural law theory's axioms resolve themselves into thundering paradoxes, many amounting to downright contradictions in terms.
If life is merely a process that no individual has sovereignity over, how do you have a right to life in the first place?

What about artificial fertilization?

Children are parents property, or otherwise their charge under the law

How is it an American philosophy? Englishman John Locke, Italian Thomas Aquinas and Frenchman Frederic Bastiat are the three most instrumental in developing natural law theory.

"§. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

§. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has [199] done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do." t. John Locke

Man does not understand how to create the processes of life. No man has ever accomplished this. We have only continued the processes after they already exist.

Children cannot consent

God dammit Ahmed leave the damn kids alone

Some can.

what age are we talking about here?

Age is too rigid, depends on them. As they say: old enough to bleed, old enough to breed.

>the child is mature enough to change their sexuality
>the child is not mature enough to have sex

makes u think huh

Using age as a metric for consent is arbitrary. Some individuals are capable of entering into voluntary contracts at young ages, some aren't. It depends on the individual.

i have a imouto who has her friends over nearly everyday and from what i could gather 12 year old are horny all the time so maybe you're right.
i agree but you have to draw the line somewhere.

My alternative to an age of consent is a cummy license. Every kid can apply for a cummy license whenever they'd like and they take a test like a driver's license test and if they pass then they are deemed capable of consenting.

I like that license idea. Who would be given the responsibility of testing all these young children?

>i agree but you have to draw the line somewhere.

You really don't. Rape is rape, regardless of age. You don't have to put an age to it, what you can do though is once there is even one case where it's successfully argued that age can be a factor to determine lack of consent it can be used in a court without being set into law therefore punishing everyone.

U-uhh m-me

what if the rest of society consents to your death for it?
HoppeInAHelicopter.jpg

they put out an ad
and defend against all appplicants with helicopter rides

The circle is restarting.
The kikes push anarchism on rebellious kids to divide the goyim - muhhh individualism instead of collaboration. Once the kids start working, they are shifted towards libertarianism, to keep the goyim divided. Now they have realized that lolbertarianism isn't working anymore, so they try to indoctrinate a new generation with anarchism.
It's always divide and conquer, nothing promoted by (((them))) is healthy.

>when you waste all your money buying ecstasy and drinks for a slutty college girl and only got a sloppy blowjob out of it, but it's okay because your EBT cash is coming in soon.

>when you are too lazy to make an image macro and still claim green square is the best square

mmm those are some tasty boots

Look at this picture of these darn kikes pushing their subversive liberty to try to divide and conquer the people. We have to stop them! This will never work! Monarchy is so much better!

but what if a 8 year old wants that license becaus her touchy touchy uncle asked her to get one. don't you think the parents have the right to stop that?

what if the parents give consent? If they are too young to give consent, then it means they don't know any better, so it is up to an adult to make the decision.

You can't own people because then they would be property and they aren't property since you can't own them