Holt on April 23, 2011, 03:13:40 pm
So the ten year old would just have the skills you need by magic huh?

sam on April 23, 2011, 04:22:34 pm
Throughout human history, there have been plenty of children and adolescents who have (since the foundation of Ur, in defiance of prevailing law treating them as the property of their parents) simply removed themselves from their families of origin and made their way in society.  Whether they rely on friendly householders ("You can crash on my couch") or do the My Side of the Mountain bit, they leave, and there's damn-all that authoritarian adult family members can practically undertake to prevent them from doing so, or to bring them back and keep them under restraint when these legal infants evince their determination to get away.

For boys, this is not a problem, but for girls, absent a welfare state, the likely outcome is that a low IQ poor impulse control girl eventually returns to her parents with two fatherless children by two different thugs for the grandparents to look after, and that a high IQ high impulse control girl winds up with thirty abortions, thirty cats, and her parents never become grandparents.  Either way, because of the notorious tendency of women, especially younger women, to make poor sexual choices, parents may choose to use forceful means to exert parental authority - and in an anarchic society, no one has obvious authority to prevent them.

This is not only a problem with low impulse control ten year old girls.  Twenty year old women with PhDs in feminism are notorious for making astonishingly incompetent sexual choices, though in their case the likely outcome is lack of children, rather than fatherless children.  Indeed, the more they write essays on the topic and study literature on the topic, the worse their actual choices, though having high impulse control, they generally get abortions and in the end, around thirty five or so, collect cats for company.

I suspect the fifteen year old girl with two children by two different thugs is in the end likely to be better off than the twenty four year old with a dozen abortions from a dozen men, in which case the parents are perhaps even more justified in hauling the eighteen year old home and giving her a good spanking before she becomes that twenty four year old than they are hauling the twelve year old home and giving her a good spanking before she becomes that fifteen year old.

SandySandfort on April 23, 2011, 04:34:24 pm
If a three year-old child decides to pitch a fit and leave home, what's to stop him?

I don't know what others would do, but at age four my mother punished me for something which I thought was unfair. I went to my room, packed a bindle and then told her that I was leaving home. She said, "I'm sorry to hear that. We will miss you. Here, let me fix you some sandwiches to take." I took the sandwiches, went into the woods, ate the sandwiches and was home before dark. So based on personal experience, I think calling the kids bluff is pretty effective. (Holt's problem was that when he tried that, his family moved to a different "estate.")  ;D


Common sense would say that there must be some agreed on age of consent, some ruling authority...

Why do you think that is common sense? Everybody is different. Why must there be some "agreed on age of consent"? As my old printer used to say, "Nothing's 'gotta be.'"


Holt on April 23, 2011, 05:02:31 pm
The religious groups would enforce their opinion of sexual politics on others

Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 06:10:01 pm
I
Quote
don't know what others would do, but at age four my mother punished me for something which I thought was unfair. I went to my room, packed a bindle and then told her that I was leaving home. She said, "I'm sorry to hear that. We will miss you. Here, let me fix you some sandwiches to take." I took the sandwiches, went into the woods, ate the sandwiches and was home before dark. So based on personal experience, I think calling the kids bluff is pretty effective. (Holt's problem was that when he tried that, his family moved to a different "estate.")

Not the same situation. On Ceres, work at all levels is readily available, and there aren't child labor laws (that I know of). A child could conceivably find work by standing in a corridor with a sign on him. And yes, there is something wrong with Holt. I've seen it before: when one is indoctrinated with nonsense, reason cannot penetrate. Or perhaps it's become a custom to shake babies over there to make more socialists. :)

Quote
Quote from: Aardvark on April 22, 2011, 07:59:17 PM
Common sense would say that there must be some agreed on age of consent, some ruling authority...

Quote
Why do you think that is common sense? Everybody is different. Why must there be some "agreed on age of consent"? As my old printer used to say, "Nothing's 'gotta be.'"

Read it as "... some agreed upon age of consent or some ruling authority ..." (and so forth) The comma in this case takes the place of a missing word in a continuing thought.

Why do I think it's common sense? Maybe because it works rather well in other societies? Because it sets a goal that both child and parents can agree upon? Because on Ceres an arbitrator is used to solve conflicts, and so might be able to resolve a conflict of manumission? Because rights and responsibilities sometimes conflict with each other?

Ex: a parent feels responsible for her child and thinks that he is too young and irresponsible to be on his own.  She has a right to raise her child as she wishes, and the responsibility to do it well. He has rights as a person: he owns himself. Obviously there is potential conflict when these rights and responsibilities overlap.

If you don't think that's "common sense," then what's your solution? This is your universe. Instead of me guessing in the dark, why don't you simply state how your universe works?

Holt on April 23, 2011, 06:15:21 pm
Well I'd rather be shaken into an insane socialist than pumped full of steroids to make me an insane capitalist.
Least then I can say I care about my fellow man.

Tucci78 on April 23, 2011, 09:10:58 pm
The religious groups would enforce their opinion of sexual politics on others

Oh? Better be wearing their holy body armor, oughtn't they?

Action taken to "enforce their opinion of sexual politics on others" would likely get 'em kilt deader'n Hamilton.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2011, 10:15:16 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 09:42:42 pm
Quote
Tucci78: At the outset, I'd like to recommend that non-Americans bear in mind the fact that the term "progressive" has over the past century become in these United States yet another synonym for "authoritarian," and really should never be used when the intention is to characterize a political, social, or economic disposition toward maximal individual autonomy in any aspect of human action.

Actually, it's come to mean "socialist." Originally they called themselves "socialists" in the 30's. That became a bad name, so they switched to "progressive." That turned sour after a time, so they switched to "liberal," which has become a synonym for "socialist" again. They're back to "progressive," now. Hillary Clinton describes herself as a "Progressive."

Aardvark on April 23, 2011, 09:46:56 pm
Quote
Holt: Well I'd rather be shaken into an insane socialist than pumped full of steroids to make me an insane capitalist.

Then consider yourself "shaken, not sterred." ;)


Tucci78 on April 23, 2011, 10:11:59 pm
Actually, [the term "progressive" has] come to mean "socialist." Originally they called themselves "socialists" in the 30's. That became a bad name, so they switched to "progressive." That turned sour after a time, so they switched to "liberal," which has become a synonym for "socialist" again. They're back to "progressive," now. Hillary Clinton describes herself as a "Progressive."

All sorts of problems with nomenclature among the nomenklatura, aren't there?

I hold that "authoritarian" subsumes "socialist" satisfactorily, as well as "mercantilist" and "monarchist" and "theocrat" and "conservative." 

Ever since the Blue faction of our great permanently incumbent bipartisan Boot-On-Your-Neck Party enacted Obamacare over the enraged objections of most of their own core constituencies, I've called them the "National Socialist Democrat American Party" (NSDAP) because they've proven that there's precisely nothing "democratic" about them.

And I won't use the word "Liberal" in discussing them without capitalizing the "L" and maintaining the expression between quotation marks.

Conscientious taxonomic precision is so important, don'tcha think?
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

sam on April 23, 2011, 11:05:53 pm
Why do I think it's common sense? Maybe because it works rather well in other societies?

Age of consent, around the world, is generally sixteen to eighteen, even in Muslim cultures, which uniformity is odd, since when I was a kid it was generally twelve to fourteen.  Further, notwithstanding this world wide law, girls usually start having sex at eleven to fourteen, making most of them lawbreakers, so I would not say the law is working well.

sam on April 23, 2011, 11:34:50 pm
Ex: a parent feels responsible for her child and thinks that he is too young and irresponsible to be on his own.  She has a right to raise her child as she wishes, and the responsibility to do it well. He has rights as a person: he owns himself. Obviously there is potential conflict when these rights and responsibilities overlap.

I don't think that conflict can be resolved by having some fixed definite age, partly because in an anarchic society there is no one to fix it, partly because in our society that age is being massively ignored.

GlennWatson on April 23, 2011, 11:38:08 pm
notwithstanding this world wide law, girls usually start having sex at eleven to fourteen,

Do you really believe girls "usually start having sex" between 11 and 14?

Tucci78 on April 24, 2011, 12:27:11 am
Do you really believe girls "usually start having sex" between 11 and 14?

One aggregation of available U.S. information (see http://tinyurl.com/2ylwsl, published 2005) states that the then-prevailing median age at first intercourse was 16.9 years for males and 17.4 years for females with the percentages of adolescents reporting first sexual intercourse below the age of 14 trending downward over the preceding decade.

Whether or not the assessments drawn upon for this review publication sought information on what might be called "sex play" (non-fecundative activities not characterized in the respondents' opinions as "intercourse" and yet still undeniably sexual) I offer no opinion. 

Inasmuch as we had in these United States a chief of government who tried seriously to contend that irrumation - getting a blowjob - was not "sex with that woman," the proclivity of American children and teenagers to consider mutual masturbation, oral stimulation, frottage, and even anal copulation as not being real sexual intercourse is understandable.

Do significant numbers of "legal infants" begin undertaking non-orthosexual stimulatory activities - those not involving immissio penis - with partners (both of the same and the opposite gender) as early as in the first decade of life?

Absolutely.  Get an honest answer out of any pediatrician, gynecologist, family doctor, emergency medicine practitioner, or epidemiologist.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

sam on April 24, 2011, 03:29:51 am
notwithstanding this world wide law, girls usually start having sex at eleven to fourteen,

Do you really believe girls "usually start having sex" between 11 and 14?

Yes.

 

anything