[Durus]

First you argue that the government can, without fail, tell me and everyone else what is and is not good for us to read, view, and listen to and then you tell me that they can't even accuratly determine the age of majority?

18 was the number chosen for various logical and illogical reason. Unless you plan on proposing some sort of required test to determine majority I suggest that 18 is as good a age as any.

[Antoninus]

First you argue that the government can, without fail, tell me and everyone else what is and is not good for us to read, view, and listen to and then you tell me that they can't even accuratly determine the age of majority?

I didn't tell you that. I agree with age of consent laws and favor them. I consider them a last line of defense against the pro-license crowd--who incidentally have been working successfully to lower ages of consent in European countries.

It's usually the pro-porn libertarian types that have the biggest problems with age of consent laws, for the same reason that they problems with anti-porn laws generally. It's the government setting a moral standard which constrains individuals. I've had several libertarians tell me that they were more comfortable with the idea of parents or even the children themselves setting their own age of majority. That position is at least logically consistent for the "government shall make know law enforcing private morality" purists.

You claimed that "knowledgeable consent" is what somehow separated child porn from all the rest. My point was to demonstrate how utterly absurd the notion that an action which is considered God-awful and wrong on 11:59 PM on the night before a child's 18th birthday, is somehow perfectly acceptable one minute later. Such a position is not logically consistent, though it may be legally accepted.

My position is that the action is God-awful on both sides of midnight.