Suppose that there is a starvation situation...

Suppose that there is a starvation situation, and the parent of the four year old child (who is not an adult) does not have enough money to keep him alive. A wealthy NAMBLA man offers this parent enough money to keep him and his family alive – if he will consent to his having sex with the child. We assume, further, that this is the only way to preserve the life of this four year old boy. Would it be criminal child abuse for the parent to accept this offer?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/QZcSrCoS72I
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Having sex with kids is wrong, Muhammad.

Not on libertarian grounds.

>an argument
The free market will fix it plebs

You don't own the child after it becomes an individual. The laws protect him and put the parents the responsibility of feeding, educating, and protecting the child from physical and psychological harm. The ancap people aren't against laws as some people believe. They just think that the government should just put laws to have a peaceful country and we need an armed force in order to protect that peace. Letting a child have sex is detrimental for his mental health, not saying that if it is a little girl it could cause her a lot of pain. You guys are just using a strawman so fuck off.

his children are not a property which he can deal with

if he does, he's doing a crime, and the guy who forces the children too

>charities dont exist

these situations you memers come up with are so ridiculous and unrealistic

plus if these are the only arguments against AnCap then it truly is the GOAT system

>The laws protect him and put the parents the responsibility of feeding, educating, and protecting the child
Then surely the parent must agree to the NAMBLA man demands if the alternative is the child's death.

"then he should do a crime against his children to save his children life"

implying
NO

if he's powerless he's powerless
deal with reality and do something with it for yourself

and if you're powerless too, fuck off cuck

to be generous first you must have produced something to sare

When you come across a burning car with a child trapped under it the law requires you to try to get the child out of there as long as you don't endanger yourself. Even if this means hurting the child in the process. Saving the child's life is considered the priority.

Hence, if a wealthy NAMBLA man offered you to help the child, you'd have but one choice.

not really, it's a choice and not an obligation, it doesn't matter he tries and fails or even not even try because of the risk.

If his child starves to death it's not only the father's fault. The family/close people/local comunity/society in general must be really fucked up to not handle that issue by will.

The father would be responsible of a crime if he was actually blocking that outside intervention from the rest of society.

There are no weak points to fkin universals m8

If you aren't able to give your child food and protection yourself then you shouldn't have a child in first place. And if instead of being a NEET that only can eat if he receives money from charity, he/she tried to find a job, the child wouldn't have to be harmed in order to feed him.

Also you can't break a law in order to fulfill other; that is still breaking the law.

>It's a muslim thread

sure, i dont see why not

1. Kill NAMBLA faggot
2. Cut him up in pieces
3. Cook meat
4. Eat

>the best argument against libertarianism is "what if shitty things that happen now kept happening"
every time

Op is a degenrate faggot?

>german flag

Makes sense

because he's not dealing with the kid, he's dealing with the parent, using the kid as a resource of explotation

it's not an equal relation, A is trading with B using C's work, without C having a word on it

it's a crime only because of this

Your assumptions are bad and the very scenario you've presented breaks its own rules.

>Trade money to buy food for starving kid
>Child sex is the only way to acquire food

No it's not. If you can purchase food you can steal it or find a different way. Blow a baker or something.

This question is fucking dumb because there's no scenario you can actually present where this choice matters.

Of course, jew see why not even without starvation situation.

In Talmud it is clearly written:

"Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

Sanhedrin 54b"

So yeah, you can rape little kids but only if they are below 9 years old, then it's ok.

children labour isn't unethical if it does not involve: fraud, kindnapping and coercion, threats, etc.

those who are against child labour don't actually care too much about these children situations anyway, as they ignore what they would do otherwise

It would be worse.

Are you, by any chance, a wealthy NAMBLA man?

do you care more about your feelings toward children or children themselves

Yes it is. It violates the non aggression principle as well as the concept of free and mutual exchange.

you're a kid, alone and on your own
nobody is giving you a hand
hungry
retards point guns at people who offer kids a job

gotta go to bed with a white old man secretly to pass to the next day

let's all blame that disgusting pedo
>pol

>7 posts by this ID

>Extreme stupid circumstance to show Capitalism doesnt work
>Blind trust that government is the only solution ever... and never applies stupid circumstance to show government fails - because government fails with no stupid circumstance

If you have to dig this hard to prove a point... maybe your digging in the wrong direction son.

There's a starvation situation and your 4 year old doesnt have acces to food and could very well die within the hour. You leave on the only road from your home to head for the food bank to acquire something to feed your child and pic related rears its ugly head

How does a libertarian respond?

Yes. Call me a statist, I'm just a bad guy.
>4you

Use the competing street right next to it.

>You leave on the only road from your home

4:04

youtu.be/QZcSrCoS72I

move somewhere else

> How does a libertarian respond

We don't need roads where we're going sonny.

In a libertarian utopia this situation would not happen because other street companies would enter the market early on.

>attempt to move
>child dies because you didnt go get food
>pothole prevents you from leaving to new home anyway

...

That was VERY common practice inWW2 Europe parents would bring their daughters (of any age) to service American GI in exchange of food rations

>intentionally live somewhere with infrastructure so bad it's unusable and no access to any type of services
>how could something bad have happened to me
think of better strawmen, jesus

The father can rightfully kill the wealthy pedo, since the pedo is intends to violate the child (which is an act of aggression).

Wow in this one super weird scenario that will probably never happen the state might be the better option

wtf i hate freedom now

Is it not a solid argument?

There's no point changing society if the exact same stupid shit happens anyway.

Libertarianism is not somehow immune to the pitfalls other systems have.

if its be raped or die id chose to be raped desu.

There is always an alternative to these false dichotomies (which are in themselves illegal) that is as illegal, but much more satisfying, and that is an application of force.

Charities are illegal in libertarian society

It was a great place to live until the sudden economic trouble and the pothole appeared

what the fuck are you talking about?

Free stuff is banned

It would be a crime to let someone have stuff for no charge

>Sex slavery
>Libertarian

Wew

assuming libertarians are correct, anyone outside of the ridiculous fringe cases like would have a better life. Saying "well in a libertarian society how do you stop rich pedophiles from fucking poor kids?" is silly because rich pedophiles are already fucking poor kids and no one cares now. It's not a problem inherent to libertarianism that a different system would solve

Not An Argument

>wage slavery
>libertarian