I believe in freedom. Do you?
(This started out one thing and wandered off on a tangent into rant territory.)
I have contradictory opinions regarding children. I loathe and detest infants and toddlers, and other children who have not yet learned how to not scream and make a ruckus. The other day, when I had a migraine on the bus, I was sorely tempted to ask one woman how she resisted the temptation to kill and eat her children.
On the other hand, I don't mind older children, children old enough to behave themselves in public. In fact, I have had friendships with older children on rare occasion because some of them are more interesting, intellectually, than most adults.
Also, as an anarchist, I support freedom. Thus, I am opposed to arbitrary freedom-restricting rules like the voting age, the drinking age, the smoking age, etc. I even oppose the arbitrary "age of consent" laws, because it's like, "Oooh, this number is magical, and everyone this age and older is no longer a child (yet still can't gamble, drink, or - in some places - buy porn until they're 21), but anyone even an HOUR under 18 'is' still a child and having sex with them makes you a pedophile." Um, no. Fuck that noise.
My general rule: IF YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO WANT IT, YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE IT. As often as you want, with whoever you want it with. This goes for drugs, voting, smoking, gambling, sex, everything. If you can say to yourself "Yes, I want that," then you should be allowed to have it.
You know what I think causes the most problems for minors in the world these days? The "cult of innocence" that was started back in the Victorian era. Before this ridiculous concept of "childhood innocence" got started, children were just miniature humans a bit more ignorant than the rest. They weren't "protected" from any of the realities of life, not even sex; most children back then witnessed their parents and other adults engaging in sex and it didn't scar them for life. Granted, I do believe children should play and not have to work... but that really should be their choice. Again, if you're old enough to want it, you're old enough to have it. And if you're old enough to decide you want to take a job to earn some money, then you should be allowed to seek employment.
I am opposed to all laws that restrict freedom without a good excuse. Obviously stealing, assault, and murder are wrong and there should be natural consequences for doing those things. But the prohibition against drugs causes more violent crime than it prevents by driving up the price of the drugs, leaving many people no choice but to resort to crime to pay their dealers. If all drugs were legal, they would be so cheap that even the homeless could afford them, if they "spanged" long and hard enough. The number of people needing to resort to crime to fuel their drug habit would drop like a stone, and crime rates along with them.
And public nudity... who is harmed by that? If you've ever looked objectively at naturists (nudists), you'd find that - despite all the ravings of the Right - nobody at all is harmed by nudism. Rape, child molestation, and other sex offenses PLUMMET in populations without the nudity taboo. THE NUDITY TABOO AND SEX SHAME CAUSE SEX OFFENSES. Without these two things, sex offenses become very, very rare.
The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is absurd. If something is victimless, it should not be a crime. We need to legalize all drugs, legalize gambling, legalize prostitution, abolish the voting age so that anyone who wants to vote can do so, legalize public nudity, and abolish all other arbitrary age restrictions so that we can stop pretending to be the land of the free and actually BECOME the land of the free.
Most arguments against this level of freedom basically boil down to one of these things:
1. "I'm scared of the idea of so much freedom! Winky likes being a slave!"
2. "Abolishing the age of consent would mean child sex abuse cases would have to be decided on a case by cases basis, and that's just too much work! Better 10,000 innocent people go to prison falsely than my being inconvenienced."
3. "I'm one of the slave owners, and I don't want my slaves freed!"
4. Some half-assed moralistic bullshit argument.
This was cross-posted from http://alex-antonin.dreamwidth.org/203443.html
You can comment either here or there.
I have contradictory opinions regarding children. I loathe and detest infants and toddlers, and other children who have not yet learned how to not scream and make a ruckus. The other day, when I had a migraine on the bus, I was sorely tempted to ask one woman how she resisted the temptation to kill and eat her children.
On the other hand, I don't mind older children, children old enough to behave themselves in public. In fact, I have had friendships with older children on rare occasion because some of them are more interesting, intellectually, than most adults.
Also, as an anarchist, I support freedom. Thus, I am opposed to arbitrary freedom-restricting rules like the voting age, the drinking age, the smoking age, etc. I even oppose the arbitrary "age of consent" laws, because it's like, "Oooh, this number is magical, and everyone this age and older is no longer a child (yet still can't gamble, drink, or - in some places - buy porn until they're 21), but anyone even an HOUR under 18 'is' still a child and having sex with them makes you a pedophile." Um, no. Fuck that noise.
My general rule: IF YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO WANT IT, YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE IT. As often as you want, with whoever you want it with. This goes for drugs, voting, smoking, gambling, sex, everything. If you can say to yourself "Yes, I want that," then you should be allowed to have it.
You know what I think causes the most problems for minors in the world these days? The "cult of innocence" that was started back in the Victorian era. Before this ridiculous concept of "childhood innocence" got started, children were just miniature humans a bit more ignorant than the rest. They weren't "protected" from any of the realities of life, not even sex; most children back then witnessed their parents and other adults engaging in sex and it didn't scar them for life. Granted, I do believe children should play and not have to work... but that really should be their choice. Again, if you're old enough to want it, you're old enough to have it. And if you're old enough to decide you want to take a job to earn some money, then you should be allowed to seek employment.
I am opposed to all laws that restrict freedom without a good excuse. Obviously stealing, assault, and murder are wrong and there should be natural consequences for doing those things. But the prohibition against drugs causes more violent crime than it prevents by driving up the price of the drugs, leaving many people no choice but to resort to crime to pay their dealers. If all drugs were legal, they would be so cheap that even the homeless could afford them, if they "spanged" long and hard enough. The number of people needing to resort to crime to fuel their drug habit would drop like a stone, and crime rates along with them.
And public nudity... who is harmed by that? If you've ever looked objectively at naturists (nudists), you'd find that - despite all the ravings of the Right - nobody at all is harmed by nudism. Rape, child molestation, and other sex offenses PLUMMET in populations without the nudity taboo. THE NUDITY TABOO AND SEX SHAME CAUSE SEX OFFENSES. Without these two things, sex offenses become very, very rare.
The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is absurd. If something is victimless, it should not be a crime. We need to legalize all drugs, legalize gambling, legalize prostitution, abolish the voting age so that anyone who wants to vote can do so, legalize public nudity, and abolish all other arbitrary age restrictions so that we can stop pretending to be the land of the free and actually BECOME the land of the free.
Most arguments against this level of freedom basically boil down to one of these things:
1. "I'm scared of the idea of so much freedom! Winky likes being a slave!"
2. "Abolishing the age of consent would mean child sex abuse cases would have to be decided on a case by cases basis, and that's just too much work! Better 10,000 innocent people go to prison falsely than my being inconvenienced."
3. "I'm one of the slave owners, and I don't want my slaves freed!"
4. Some half-assed moralistic bullshit argument.
This was cross-posted from http://alex-antonin.dreamwidth.org/203443.html
You can comment either here or there.