Sex with little kids, Tech 9s for Murderers

[BonerJoe]

That said, we would have a minimum of laws to ensure people are not taken advantage of.

So you don't believe in personal responsibility?

[BobRobertson]

Read the post.

I personally think that government is inevitable, so we should have a small one, and not none.

Please forgive me if I never stop working for X => 0 (one of the few useful things I remember from calculus)

That said, we would have a minimum of laws to ensure people are not taken advantage of.

No need. Demonstrate harm, collect damages. Private arbitration or government court, it doesn't matter. There's no need for statute laws that will only expand over time until we're right back here where we are now, with Leviathan.

It also avoids the problem of lawyers who know how to twist the law to let off on a statute law technicality those who are obviously guilty.

[Terror Australis]

While there would be consequences in a world where there is no state the alternative is the current situation.No one is saying a voluntary society wouldnt have problems,or would be utopia.

It is just better than the system we are suffering from now.Why throw the baby out with the bath water because you assume that the worst possible outcome will happen?This leads into paralysing fear if you let it.

There are no guarantees in life except that you will die and I would much prefer to live the little time we are allotted to making certain my kids don't get their lives destroyed if they make a personal choice that the state disproves of.

[Frost]

The actions you describe would harm the child. You will not get away with that in a stateless society.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

That said, we would have a minimum of laws to ensure people are not taken advantage of.

So you don't believe in personal responsibility?

Thats a false dilemma.

[Evil Muppet]

What kind of sick deranged pervert goes into such graphic detail just to make a point? 

I think you need therapy. 

[The Champ]

For you half-wits with no patience, this is actually worth reading. I realize that you went to public school, so the closest you came to actually reading a book was the Cliff's Notes, but this isn't even an article, it's barely an essay. Gird your loins and actually read something for once. Besides, your life is far more TL;DR than this guy's post is. He's thought provoking, and I'd actually like to see people take him on. Besides me, though I may well respond.

C'mon, isn't it a little unfair to brand anyone who TL;DR a half-wit?  Anyone who has spent a little time on forums has probably read enough page-long brainfarts to know that in 99% of cases, a long post isn't worth reading.  It's too bad for the 1% like the OP, but I believe a good post should be only as long as necessary, and if you're a new poster without an established reputation on the forum, it's something you need to consider.

[Rillion]

What kind of sick deranged pervert goes into such graphic detail just to make a point?  

You mean besides Libman?

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

To the OP, much of your argument in terms of a hypothetical child willingly being an object of sex and pornography is the fact of the willingness is what you're ignoring. It's true that such acceptance of reality is hard to do, but the fact is my sister was quite literally a whore at that age. And quite manipulative too (and still is today). Does this mean that one should give up on instilling good sense to one's children (as to support prudence and temperance in all things)? No, it means that one should continue to instill those values that lead to a good life. And not whoring around is a good value to instill, bar none.

Furthermore, the concern that a wouldbe Charlie Manson would get firearms is one that is easily solved without top-down laws: insurance. You sell to Charlie Manson your guns, you get an insurance increase that could be exponential as you are a risk to the other insurance holders. Equally, others that buy from you may get wind of this and not approve, so they stop buying from you. So now you're out of a good steady income and you have insurance that's too high, so you either stop selling to old Charlie boy or you pack it up. There's no way a piece of paper without consequence (aka a law) is going to insure Charlie boy won't get a gun. But putting social and economic pressures on gun sellers *will ensure some measure of caution* in dealing with such men.

So, stop being an ass and oversimplifying the arguments into emotivist gruel.

[Cowcidile]

I wouldn't sell a gun to charlie manson, I don't think most people would, I also don't plan on doing silly background checks on every person that walks into my joint to buy a gun. I guess it all comes down to being a judge of character, I would feel pretty guilty if I sold a gun to someone who went on a kindergarten massacre shortly afterwords.

When I saw the name of this topic I couldn't help but start singing "Money for nothing chicks for free".