I never asked about capital accumulation, I asked about "free choice" of children.
What ideology do you hold, and what is the age of consent?
My question wasn't about age of consent. There is a huge difference between having sex for fun and having sex as a job.
Should a 12-year old work in a mine?
I say no, they shouldn't. You say, yes they should.
Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year old for money?
I say no, they shouldn't. What is your answer to that question?Oh if only the world boiled down so nicely. Again, what is the age of consent?
Are you having trouble answering the question? Is perhaps the world not quite as crystal as you're trying to pretend it is?
I am also interested to hear you answer to @turvarya's question, DumbFruit.
Why bother? What if I said the following;
Should a 12-year old work in a mine?
I say that depends. You say, no, they should be taken out of the mine and left to starve to death in the street.
Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money?
I say that depends. You say, no, they should be taken out of the brothel and left to starve to death in the street.
Of course, that kind of misrepresents your positions, but you both seem totally satisfied in misrepresenting mine.
I don't know if you really believe this, or are just merely trying to stay true to your broken philosophy, but just so you know, DumbFruit, you are coming across like a really sick and twisted person.
First of all, only pedophiles and psychopaths think its okay to sleep with 12-year old girls.
Secondly, only a truly evil and degenerate modern society will
intentionally allow sexual commerce involving 12-year-old girls and adult males.
Thirdly, this is why social safety nets which you detest so much are important.
You're misrepresenting me again, and you don't understand the Anarcho-Libertarian position. We have to look at the problem logically, not resort to arguments from emotion, or ad-hominem.
1.) What is the age of consent?
If 12 years old is the age of consent, then it's their choice whether they want to work in a mine, or work in prostitution.
2.) Did the parents decide to put them there?
If 12 years old is not the age of consent, then it was the parents decision to put them there.
3.) Was it the best option for the child?
If 12 years old is not the age of consent and the parent is not doing their best effort make decisions for their child that best promotes their safety and health, then it would be appropriate for anyone to take that child from them and to do a better job.
All options for the child are first crossed off if they violate the non-aggression principle. Since sleeping with someone below the age of consent is rape and violates the NAP, these options are crossed off first.
4.) Is there any chance of charity?
If on the off chance there was literally no better option than sex trafficking, then you've painted a picture that it's either prostitution or death and the last thing they might be able to turn to is charity.
If there is no chance for charity, then what do you want me to say? There's nothing that can be done for these people, and they're certainly not better off by being strong-armed out of jobs that are terrible and immoral, but are at least keeping them alive.
For such a scenario to come about you would have to believe that there is an entire society of people that have no conscience, but are somehow so poor that there are no jobs aside from sex-trafficking, but at the same time are people that can afford and want to hire 12 year old girls for sex, and for some reason are completely resistant to any kind of charity. What exactly would you say to such a scenario? There's no reason to suggest that's what would happen in an Anarcho-Libertarian society.
DumbFruit, how am I misrepresenting you? I am saying your previous post makes you come across like a really sick and twisted person.
Also, you are once again being dishonest.
then you've painted a picture that it's either prostitution or death and the last thing they might be able to turn to is charity.
You created that scenario, then you mischievously assign it to me.
Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money?
I say that depends. You say, no, they should be taken out of the brothel and left to starve to death in the street.
Of course, that kind of misrepresents your positions, but you both seem totally satisfied in misrepresenting mine.
The original question @turvarya asked you was "Should a 12-year old fuck a 40-year for money?"
It's a simple yes or no question.
Yes means you are either a pedophile or a psychopath.
No means you are a normal human being. There is no gray area here.
Your prevarication and pussyfooting around the question gives me great cause for alarm.
If you are someone I know, I would have made a call to the police right now. That is how alarming your evasiveness is.