portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article united states

gender & sexuality | government | human & civil rights | labor | political theory | youth

Why Libertarians support the prostitution of children

"we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality..."
National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, July 2002, Indianapolis, Indiana

III. Domestic Ills - Population

Recognizing that the American people are not a collective national resource, we oppose all coercive measures for population control.

We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization, or any other forms of birth control. Specifically, we condemn the vicious practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individuals.

We regard the tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies to be aggravated, if not created, by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation, and prohibition. Therefore, we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control, or related medical or biological technologies.

We equally oppose government laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.

We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing built into our present laws, including welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children. We urge the elimination of special tax burdens on single people and couples with few or no children.

homepage: homepage: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/populati.html

Hmmmm 04.May.2003 20:14


Somebody took that statement a bit to the extreme. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who reads the article that libertarians support educating children about sex and protection and a womans right to choose. Instead of sheltering our children creating an ignorant mass of teenagers that don't know what a condom is or a form of birth control - which leads to unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STD's and HIV- they want to have educated disease-free children.

So if you call healthy educated children prostitution, then something went wrong when the right-wing wired your brain.

Where's the misinterpretation? 04.May.2003 20:39


"we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality..."

Where is the misunderstanding? Remove the word "<b>information</b>" and it says: "we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or regarding human sexuality..." Where does it state that the "<b> goods and services</b> part does not apply to children? Explain.
It does not say "we call for the repeal of all laws that restrict <i>adults</i>, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality, <i>with the exception of situations involving children</i>"

Face it. Libertarians=NAMBLA.

..... 04.May.2003 21:33


I was under the impression that "goods and services" meant an outlet to recieve condoms and contraceptives, and free STD testing or healthcare concerning sex. I honestly don't believe it meant prostituting children which is the most absurd misinterpretation of the Libertarian party.

Philosophy of Objectivism: Context, Context, Context 04.May.2003 21:51

Chris M. Sciabarra sciabrrc@is2.nyu.edu

As to the law and pedophilia

. . . I agree in principle that age (age of consent) is not the only variable to consider, and that the necessity and quality of visibility will vary amongst individuals of different ages, needs, and characters. I also agree with Adam that laws based on a-contextual assumptions are problematic.

So, let's push the envelope a bit further. As an undergraduate, a few moons ago, I was the co-founder of a group called NYU Students for a Libertarian Society. After my undergraduate years, when my tenure ended as President of the organization, the group took controversy to another level entirely. It sponsored a talk by NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association... an event made infamous by Peter Schwartz's discussion of it in his "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty."

The purpose of sponsoring the talk was to bring awareness to the hypocrisy of age of consent laws, a strictly libertarian theme, not to celebrate sex with 6 year olds. Still, the talk made lots of people uncomfortable -- with good reason. It is reasonable to suggest that the rule of law requires some kind of boundary-drawing -- at what point is sex between an adult and a minor informed consent? At what point is it subtle coercion? Can there be objective boundaries? Or is everything arbitrary?

Whether or not one agrees with NAMBLA - - and so that I am not misrepresented yet again, let me say that I am not now nor have I ever been a member of this organization, and I DO prefer and enjoy romantic and sexual ties with those in my own age bracket - - I do think that the issue of age of consent laws is extremely important for both libertarians and Objectivists to consider. Any takers on this?

Reality of Child Prostitution 04.May.2003 21:52


It isn't the Libertarians, folks, it's the fringes of human nature that results in child prostitution. Libertarians have never polled more than 5% in any election, so we can't say that they have influence, but we CAN say that child prostitution exists, and is not controlled dispite our efforts.

Forget the Libertarians. If you want to end child prostitution and pornography, locate and execute your local pimps and pornographers. Since this remedy is probably not going to appeal to many, I suggest learning to live with with the fringe sex nuts in society.

WatchMan, with tolerance for all

You are so naive Libertarian niavity regarding "personal freedoms" 04.May.2003 22:03


1. And I quote:

"We regard the tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies to be aggravated, if not created, BY GOVERNMENT POLICIES of censorship, RESTRICTION, REGULATION, and prohibition. Therefore, we call for the REPEAL OF ALL LAWS THAT RESTRICT ANYONE, INCLUDING CHILDREN, including children, from ENGAGING in voluntary EXCHANGES of goods, SERVICES, or information REGARDING HUMAN SEXUALITY, reproduction, birth control, or related medical or biological technologies."

2. The Free Staters have readily admitted they wish to repeal the laws against prostitution in whichever state they target as host to their Libertarian society -- meaning no governmental regulations regarding prostitution.

3. Libertarians have never official settled on a policy regarding "the age of consent "-- some can't decide on what they age limit should be (but the younger the better) , while others want NO age of consent what-so-ever.

That's the sad, sick truth of "Freedom" taken to the extreme.

this is all a matter of morals.... 04.May.2003 22:18


"Therefore, we call for the repeal of all laws that resrict anyone, including children, from engaging in VOLUNTARY exchanges of goods"

Yeah, I can capitalize words too to make a point.

Do you even have Morals? 04.May.2003 22:34


Oh I see, so if a 13 year-old VOLUNTARILY sells sex then its OK.
Gee, thanks for clearing that up -- I feel SO much better about the Libertarian agenda.

Seems to sidestep the issue of liberty for adults 05.May.2003 08:06

jest thinkin'

I don't, of course, agree with a position that endorses child prostitution or rape as somehow representing liberty. And though I share some libertarian sentiments, this position statement is one of the reasons I don't support the current "libertarian" party. Blanket statements, strongly worded, often contain logical fallacies, as this one does.

However, this attack on libertarianism sidesteps the important issues that the libertarian statement is reacting to. Current US law restricts the ways adults (by anyone's definition) are legally allowed to interact sexually. Driven by a right-wing administration, these laws are becoming more, not less restrictive. We can argue about where age-of-consent should be drawn, (16, or 18, or 21), but that is a very different issue than restricting the freedom of consenting adults to interact with each other however they want. Laws against gay marriage, for example, are to me obvious examples of tyranny, and should be cast aside. I see consenting prostitution between adults in the same way. Not my thing but if it's what someone else chooses, more power to them. Legislated morality has no logical basis, violates the constitutional separation of church and state, and imposes the will of the state onto free people.

Protection of children, though, is important, and if that is the real goal of the poster of this article, then I support the effort. But if the goal is to attack liberty by attacking the most extreme positions of the so-called "libertarian" party, then I object to the effort. Maybe gotcha would like to take a postition on sexual liberty between adults.

Ya see... 05.May.2003 15:27


Yer too quick to judge... never even asked my morals before... but if you MUST know...

I'm under the age of 18. I have had a boyfriend in the past that was 3 years older than me, 19 in fact, and this is illegal. It is ilegal, according to right-wingers with jesus-friendly morals and it is wrong for me to love this person and engage in consented sex because I am a 'child' according to their standards. Well my morals aren't even considered in this law, now are they? Yes, I DO have morals, they aren't accept ones, obviously, since it is a punishable act for me to love anyone over the age of 18.

And I really don't believe there is a child out there mentally or physically capable of engaging in consented sex before puberty in the first place. RAPE and forced PROSTITUTION are compltely different from teenagers fucking each other in the back of their parents pick-up truck.