How is the age of consent not arbitrary? How do ancaps/libertarians square this circle?

How is the age of consent not arbitrary? How do ancaps/libertarians square this circle?

Here's the argument:

Rights are universal, that is, they apply regardless of age or mental state (a retard isn't less human than a fully sentient person, a child isn't less human than an adult)

People have the right to dictate who they do and don't have sex with

Therefore a child could consent to having sex with an adult

Libertarians and ancaps cannot argue with the logic.


Objections:

>A CHILD ISN'T FULLY MATURED

Where do we draw the line? 18? Why not 17? Why not 16? Should it be illegal for a autistic adult to have sex with a non autistic adult?

>MUH UNEQUAL POWER DYNAMIC

Should it be illegal for rich men to have sex with poor women, and vice versa?

Ancaps are pro child slaves

13-15 legal with parental consent
16+ legal with just about anyone

Are parents allowed to take away the rights of the their children?

Yes unless they get a legal separation.

Are children the property of their parents?

They created them.

are people allowed to do whatever they want with their property (assuming children are property)?

>How is the age of consent not arbitrary?
In Europe, it depends on the ethnicity of the aggressor

i fucked a 13 year old was the best sex ever she got wet as hell no drying up she was fun and adventuress no hang ups. god i miss those days

when faced with any sort of 'moral/ethical dilemma', such as this contrived bullshit argument, the only thing that needs to be considered is the following:

>Who is it that is advocating for this?
Well adjusted men who are doing their best to raise a decent family? Or kikes and communists.

If the answer is the latter it is abomination and needs to die as much as those who are advocating it.

You will be exterminated.

This is the kikiest fucking non-point. Of course the children belong to the parents.

Rights are not universal tho

Women and children are property. They lack the mechanical and physical prowess to effectively violate the nap, so they are not self sufficient agents in and of themselves. If you can not actually violate a covenant, you can not be given credit for upholding it. Their rights exist at the pleasure of men capable of violence, so the age of consent must be the consequence of male sentiment.

First, there is a difference between children and adults. But to address your point, you are most certainly correct that the age of consent is completely arbitrary and not a good way to determine when one can reasonably consent to sex. It should be based on puberty. This does raise a question of at what point of puberty - the beginning, the middle, or the end? And that, of course, raises another question - how do we determine any of those stages?

Libertarianism is not able to answer those questions, but neither is any other political ideology, as those questions are not political (and neither is this topic).The important thing is to be consistent with the answers to these questions, and to keep these answers in mind when determining answers to other questions. Just as an example, one question would be when are parents no longer responsible for taking care of their children and can stop providing care?

HERE'S ANOTHER ONE: MENTAL ILLNESS.

IF BEING "DRUNK" IS TOO MUCH IMPAIRMENT TO GIVE CONSENT (U CAN'T GIVE CONSENT WHILE DRUNK!!!) THEN WHY CAN MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE HAVE SEX? CLEARLY THEY ARE IMPAIRED.

#BANMENTALLYILLSEX

Do they have the right to do what they want with their property?
it doesn't matter where the argument comes from, what matters is how it fits into the liberal/libertarian worldview.

child-slavery violates the nap.
anarcho capitalism does not distinct between child and adult, in other words there is no magical 18yo line.
>granted it will never work because it requires a positive morality as a baseline in the populace

I thought rights were inalienable
Do drunk people not have the right to have sex?

children cant consent to having sex but they can consent to sex changes...

>Libertarians and Ancaps can't argue with this logic
Firstly, we know they can't argue, and secondly we know they don't have logic. Of course these political fedora NEETs have no clue what to say or think in this position, they don't have one to begin with.

...

The age of consent is arbitrary. But that doesn't mean that the ideal it represents is too. You gotta draw a line somewhere, and 16 is as as reasonable as any number below 20 and above 14.

if children aren't full moral agents, then they're property.

If they're property than the parents can sell them into slavery.