In a truly free society, how could age of consent logically exist?

In a truly free society, how could age of consent logically exist?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Uvv5IBo7dpQ
wreg.com/2016/12/28/police-say-pennsylvania-parents-locked-children-in-room-starved-them/
desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/12/28/numerous-abuse-reports-made-starved-child-case-lawmaker-says/95935520/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collingswood_Boys
wgntv.com/2016/08/04/3-charged-after-body-of-4-year-old-found-in-burning-chicago-building/
denverpost.com/2016/10/03/jefferson-county-couple-guilty-starving-daughter-child-abuse/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

what if the air doesn't consent to being breathed tho better stop breathing it

Consent defined as being 18 or more
Aptitude ability
Children discussing with family
Maturity test regarding finance and decision making
Autonomy measure based on salary
Biological maturity measured
etc

There are a ton of possibility. Each of them has drawbacks and advantages.

There'll all statist government programs

Define "truly free society".

>Children discussing with family
>statist government programs
???

Lolbertarians should be gassed

>being triggered by a formal argument for responsible parenthood and adoption
Gas yourself.

How is that a bad thing? Your "free society" would just consist of worshiping each others buttholes and masturbating to children all day

>Your "free society" would just consist of worshiping each others buttholes and masturbating to children all day
sounds p good to me

>be me
>in debate hall
>the opposition is arguing for a more authoritarian approach to sex, the government should control it
>those fucking statists want the government to control your private life
>in their eyes you shouldnt be able to have sex with a consenting child
>i bet those fucking statists haven't even read ayn rand
>i bet those fucking statists dont even know about free market economics
>not having legal child prostitution is literally communism, like, check atlas shrugged, page 133, ayn rand clearly states it.

what are you, a fucking statist? of course that's good. anything other than that is literal communism

>In a truly free society, how could age of consent logically exist?
In a truly non-existing brain, how would a consensus form?

Freedom was a mistake

...

>ITT: brainlets misrepresenting capitalism
what a surprise

A truly free society wouldn't be truly free because I would have the freedom to take away other people's freedom.

Which would make it move towards servitude which will eventually stabilize in monarchy.

Until the merchant class demands lower taxes and representation which will turn it into a liberal democracy with a social contract.

it doesn't. you're not free.

we need monarchies ruled by Bogdanov esque elites

lesser humans don't understand argumental points

youtu.be/Uvv5IBo7dpQ

Nu-uh, that would violate the NAP

These are the same people that say the U.S. is to blame for World War II because it imposed trade blocks on Japan before Pearl Harbor and that constitutes aggression so clearly it was our fault.

So, in lolbertarian world...

Countries not feeding other countries= aggression

Parents not feeding their own children= perfectly okay, nothing to see here

Anarcho-capitalism is cancer.

Children are a protected class in most civilized countries.

Then why are they still getting the shit beat out of them by their clueless parents in America?

...

Isn't that pretty much what's happening already though

You aren't very bright...

Zero.
There's no such thing as age of consent. It's created by evil government to keep you do anything you want.

it wouldn't, parents would look out for their children instead of the ever-encroaching state apparatus

>not being forced to feed children != not feeding their own children
The distinction here is that feeding a child should never be regulated by the law. That does not mean that it is a good idea no to feed a child.

Let's say your child don't want to eat something. What do you do? Force food inside his mouth because the State said so? Or find a better solution that would suit you and the child simultaneously, like eating later or something else.

America has a system call CPS (child protective services). In cases of any suspicious child abuse CPS can take the children away from the parents.

So you guys are telling me you'd be so lazy as parents that you couldnt keep your kids away from pedophiles?

Or that without government control you couldnt control your pedophile urges?

What the fuck do you think abusive parents would do with that, medpac?

"Oh, I don't LEGALLY have to feed my kid, that's why you can see her skeleton under her skin."

Inb4 "that doesn't happen"

Yes, it fucking does. All of the goddamn time.
wreg.com/2016/12/28/police-say-pennsylvania-parents-locked-children-in-room-starved-them/
desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/12/28/numerous-abuse-reports-made-starved-child-case-lawmaker-says/95935520/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collingswood_Boys
wgntv.com/2016/08/04/3-charged-after-body-of-4-year-old-found-in-burning-chicago-building/
denverpost.com/2016/10/03/jefferson-county-couple-guilty-starving-daughter-child-abuse/

If it makes me an evil statist to say "You should be legally required to feed your child" (or rather "You should be legally required to NOT STARVE your child" to counter your retarded "hurr durr force feed them" argument) then so fucking be it you spoiled, self-absorbed snot.

>this thread again

It's like you people have to keep coming up with strawmen.

Also, I should add that even in prison child molesters and rapists usually get beat up, shanked or killed. Even criminals recognize that children are sacred. Stop thinking under Anarcho-capitalism everyone would turn into a pedophile.

>inb4 Rothbard quote about children
That was done in the context of adoption and making sure every child can find a home where he won't be neglected. Fuck off statists.

How is the law working in those cases, dumbass? It did not protect the children either.

Maltreatment is a violation of the NAP. Not feeding children as regulated by the State is also a violation by the NAP. There is some middle ground here that you are not able to conceptualize.

That's where ancap stands: don't violate the NAP either way.

Family is the smallest form of government

Depending on how you define government.

There is a clear power structure and redistribution of goods

In a traditional society there is no need for an age of consent, because a young girl is legally treated as the property of her father. After the girl is married away to a man, with the fathers consent, the girl is then treated as the property of her new husband. Therefore the only "consent" required is that of her father or husband.
>inb4 triggered betas who think this constitutes "oppression".

It would make sense to have a minimum age for entering contracts, as it is now. Just use that age as an age of consent.

Look what happened after, medpac. Parents caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law, something that doesn't exist in NAP-land.

Who punishes a parent abusing their kids, huh? The kid? You can't just ride in vigilante style and kill them, then YOU'RE violating the NAP against THEM.

Maltreatment may be a violation of the NAP but your NAP is worth jack shit without a viable means of enforcing it. If only I just... just had a way to have some other people do it on my behalf... and on behalf of my town... hmmm...

Ostracism is a thing. You can separate children from violent families just as you can today.

So what? Power and redistribution is not evil as long as it is voluntary.

The child can't consent, I know that.
There are violent parents, I know that.
However there is no stronger force in the universe than biological parents caring about their offspring. Any other substitute has less incentives to care about the child.

So... kidnapping is okay now too?

You're a moron, America was selling military supplies to Japan's enemies. That's an act of war.

Better version

Stop strawmanning.

Even though I still have that little libertarian devil figure over my shoulder whispering degenerate ideas, this is one of the many things where we need to step back a little from our instincts and act civilised. Age of consent should naturaly rise with expected human lifespan, to ensure that people are mentally and socially reade to participate in an act used to give offspring. It's the values like these that really distinguish us from animals.

...

You're welcome you ungrateful little shit.

Easy. The age of consent will depend on the culture and laws of the free society in question. Wow, just like today.

kys pedo

>itt low test freedom hating faggots

consent doesn't exist in a free society, if you dont want sex its up to you to defend yourself