The Age of Consent & Libertarianism
Some libertarians believe that an arbitrary age of consent is not compatible with libertarian philosophy, because it doesn't respect the clear differences in young people's development, and as such 'punishes' the fast developers in order to protect the slow developers. This is the point at which I usually get Jefferson thrown at me to back up their argument:
"The man who would trade freedom for security deserves neither."
Thomas Jefferson
However, none of my opponents in these arguments seem to believe that children need no protection, they just can't put an arbitrary line on it. We all (I hope) accept that a newborn child is dependant upon those around it to feed it, to clothe it and to make sure it's warm, but where we differ is on our perception of how to protect a child as they are growing up.
Some alternative theories which have been proposed by libertarian friends:
- An adulthood test - whilst this option is probably better than some of the others I'm going to go into, one would have to argue that holding any would-be adult to community standards before they can drink, smoke weed or have sex is not particularly libertarian, the test makes no account for the physicality of the person (laborious work or sex could be harmful to young people, even if they are very intelligent and capable), and would-be predators would find a way to cheat the test if one existed. The test also seems to make no provision for the fact that most children, regardless of cognative ability, are fairly easily led by adults.
- 'After puberty' - not only is this line somewhat arbitrary in itself, it is very difficult to prove whether puberty has started or not in borderline individuals. This would lead to all sorts of court cases being thrown out because it couldn't be proven one way or another (unless we were willing to assume guilt unless innocence could be proven). Even if it could be proven, most scientists wouldn't say a person beginning puberty is ready for sexual intercourse.
- Removing the age of consent altogether - this is the strangest and least practical of the would-be solutions. Some libertarians seem to believe that the best way for children to become adults is to decide for themselves when they become adults. Not only would this allow abusive parents to coerce their children into never doing anything to stop the abuse, it would legitimise their actions in a court.
Whilst I do consider myself to be a libertarian, and even to some degree, an anarcho-capitalist, I would always support an arbitrary age of consent unless something better can be found as a solution.
I'm not sure what the age of consent should be. The world has many opinions on that, and they very rarely meet. From the very low age of consents in the middle east, to the very high ones in some parts of the west, I feel like there's no real consensus. I don't think 16 is too bad, as they go.
This is one of those subjects that tends to get shut down in mainstream conversation by unintelligent people who think anyone who opposes the current age of consent must be a predator, but the fact is that the current age of consent harms young people. A fifteen year old girl having sex with her seventeen year old boyfriend is treated the same as a twelve year old having sex with a fifty year old man.
Enjoy this article?
License
Calendar
Recent Comments
- Luzdeiny on Are Travellers Not Natural Libertarians?
- Mike Hawes on Why an Annual Land Value Tax is an AWFUL Idea
- Henry Law on Why an Annual Land Value Tax is an AWFUL Idea
- Paul Lockett on Why an Annual Land Value Tax is an AWFUL Idea
- Fraggle on Why an Annual Land Value Tax is an AWFUL Idea
February 13th, 2011 - 22:29
I like the valuable information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently. I’m quite certain I’ll learn plenty of new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!
February 20th, 2011 - 12:03
Hello,
thank you for pointing to our article regarding a maturity test (http://blog.cogitatus.info/2010/03/06/adulthood-redefining-maturity/)
I just wanted to point out that some of your objections are discussed in the second part (http://blog.cogitatus.info/2010/03/21/redefining-maturity-part-2/).
Especially in regard to the physicality of a person i quote:
“Safety regulations should be applied differently as well; here too there should be a minimum standard. For example, while a 13-year-old might be legally adult, his body is still in development, so allowing him to do work that might be detrimental to said development would of course be out of the question on purely medical grounds. But such instances should be well clarified and regulated, so as not to be used as excuses to avoid hiring “that snotty brat who thinks he is a man”.
I am not saying that such a system would not have fallacies, after all no system is perfect no matter how you look at it, but the idea beyond the article was just to give an inkling on how it MIGHT work, not how it SHOULD work.
Iki
February 20th, 2011 - 12:24
Ikigami,
I thank you for taking time to reply to me. My focus in this article is on current ideas, whilst I am perfectly willing to accept that modified versions of existing ideas might work, I’m simply saying that no idea as presented at current seems to be more efficient than an arbitrary AoC law.
I am mostly discussing the idea of an age of sexual consent in this thread, not a working age. Nothing in your thread seems to suggest that physical development should be a block to this activity, and indeed, when speaking to your co-author, Azarius, he didn’t seem to believe that was a part of the proposition.
The problem is that when dealing with children, fallacies are incredibly more important than in most other areas of policy, and it is usually considered better to err on the side of security rather than freedom, which in any other area would be anathema to my libertarian thought.
February 20th, 2011 - 12:39
Minus,
thank you for the quick reply.
Please understand that in no way i am criticizing your opinion, in fact i tend to agree that none of the alternatives are completely risk and error free. Regarding the age of sexual consent, it is indeed the hardest part for which to find a golden solution, and the point which led to a loooong debate between me and Az, since our opinions are not 100% compatible (thankfuly we both love looong debates).
I will keep reading your blog and i look forward to your opinions.
Iki
March 21st, 2011 - 12:32
Like your blog, MD!
Did you see this post of mine?
March 21st, 2011 - 13:16
Checked it out, had a chuckle at the typical authoritarian views you encountered and the willingness of Amazon to buckle in to pressure. Not sure that I agree with everything you said, but I definitely agree with parts of it (specifically the theme that says free speech is more important than authoritarian desires for censorship).
November 19th, 2011 - 20:50
You have missed out one important option regarding alternatives to age of consent laws: Persons between two ages, say 13 and 18, could be permitted to consent to sex with anyone provided there is no evidence of harm/coercion etc. This option is in fact implemented in Germany today where the age of consent is 14.
As the justification for laws is that certain acts are harmful should there not be evidence of harm when criminalizing sex?
November 23rd, 2011 - 00:23
Hi Randy,
Actually you make a point about the case in harm, but ideally under a simple-state solution, we would need to have a black and white line between crime and non-crime. It’s never ideal for a person to do an act not sure if they’re doing anything criminal or not, and is in fact one of the greatest weaknesses of the current system.
I’m not sure what the number should be, just sure that the number needs to exist.