This is another little dark niche in libertarianism and NAMBLA and consent laws.
Ruwart wrote. “When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
“”Ruwart’s is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for “child performers”) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind. It’s also political poison. As libertarian blogger Steve Newton put it, Ruwart and her allies run the risk of turning the party into “the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade.”
The party’s executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, “Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography.” Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.””
Do Libertarians then have a moral relativism streak? To me this is why all these behaviors are now deemed normal. I guess we are going to have to go clear to the bottom as a society to figure these things out. So sad and hopeless is our future if this is to be our lot.
Also a statement of fact. The similarity between this argument and the libertarian arguments for the decriminalization of drugs and many other traditionally illegal practices should make libertarians reconsider the limitations of libertarianism as a philosophy.
But it won't.