Athias

When you can convince a tribal warlord not to initiate any form aggression toward any other rival because it appreciates the ethics of its actions, then come back and talk to me.

Not per se. The compelling interest is the protection of a vulnerable group. A 14 year old may take advantage of another 14 year old just as much as a 25 year old may. Though, I'm imagining that the probability is less.

It would simply depend on studies and data,

Age of consent policies arbitrarily divide the capacity for individuals to make value judgements as it concerns sex based on their age alone. In the United States, it varies from state to state usually between the ages of 16 and 18 (where 16 is adopted by a majority of the states.) The reasoning for this framework is identical to that which informs the supervision of an infant by its parent: an infant's naivety to the dangers of its environment subjects it to the prospect of mortal danger; therefore, as the more experienced party, the parent presumes the infant's proxy in all decisions which serve the infant's utility. The government's approximation of this is known as Parens Patriae. At first glance, it's difficult to argue against this rationale. After all, our species has persisted due to the experience and innovation of its predecessors. So then why would I challenge the "wisdom" of a government using its "experience" in its seeking to protect the most naive of its citizens? We must first consider that from which we are attempting to protect them.

It's important to note that age of consent doesn't protect minors from the dangers of sex. Instead these policies seek to regulate those with whom the minor engages in sexual contact and activity. Seldom are sexual interactions among minors condemned and/or punished, and in the cases where court proceedings are conducted, often the liability of each minor party is mitigated by Romeo and Juliet laws. When we speak of age of consent, typically one party is a minor and the other is an adult. Now here's the inconsistency: sexual contact between adult and minor is almost always condemned and punished. Ceteris Paribus, the sexual contact and sensations experienced between minor and minor and adult and minor (and even adult and adult) aren't different. The mechanics are essentially the same. If the government took the position that the participation of any minor in sexual activity is prohibited, that would be one thing. But to condemn it particularly in the cases where an adult is involved as if some non-sexual benefit (which these policies presume to be "predation") manifests makes no sense. After all, the adult is often presumed legally to be the competent and experienced party. The logic in this case is "reversed" in that the adult's experience, competence, and dare I say "wisdom," are presumed to harm the minor. The presumptions made about adulthood which served the adult's benefit is now used to aid in that adult's disadvantage. One would presume that adults would be more competent in dealing with unexpected pregnancies, STI's contractions, financial obligations, etc. Instead, the government treats this capacity as the makings of a predator.

The second inconsistency I'd like to explore is consent. The law deems that minors cannot provide valid consent to sexual interaction with those among the age of majority. It dismisses the value judgements which inform consent. Deciding the capacity to consent on age alone produces a slippery slope argument. If the minor has no capacity to provide valid consent, then operating on that same logic, said minor cannot withhold assent, or provide valid dissent because age of consent policies render value judgements by a minor on his her own sexual desire and capacity null. It's one thing to state that a person who was raped DID NOT CONSENT; it's another to state that said person COULD NOT consent. Extending this premise of incapacity to provide valid consent to its logical conclusion would make it impossible to rape a minor because the minor would have the capacity to know that which is neither in its best interests, nor its worst interests--an undeniably absurd inference. The government, in my estimation, is currently operating on the illogical platitude, as described by Judith Levine in her book, Crimes of Passion: Harming Minors, "statutory rape is not about sex the victim says she did not want. It is about sex she did want but which adults believe she only thought she wanted because she wasn't old enough to know she didn't want it." The government can't have it both ways: either the minor is capable of making value judgements and thereby can provide valid consent and dissent, or the minor can't, and we ultimately render the sexual prospects of that minor to the decisions of an outside party. Furthermore, would rendering these decisions on the sexual prospects of minors to outside parties be moral?

Morals are concepts which establish conditions in which we ought to live, usually separated by notions of right and wrong, or good and evil. For this particular debate, I'm going to subscribe to epicurean moral themes--i.e. happiness is the greatest good, and pain and suffering is the worst. The former is maximized, and the latter is minimized best by individualist philosophy, particularly the axiom of individual sovereignty--i.e. we are of and ought to have exclusive control over ourselves. [I will expand on the reasoning as the debate continues.] From there, other concepts are derived such as liberty, property, association, etc. Now what does any of this have to do with sex? When a minor decides to have sex, said minor either thoughtfully or superficially considers the value(s) in having sex. It could be to attract the attachment of one whom the minor desires, boredom, lust, control, etc. Whatever the reason, one thing always remains constant: the minor is behaving his or her body in sexual contact. When the government can arbitrarily impose policy that dictates how an individual, in this case a minor, can behave his or her body, the government is presuming authority over that minor's body, undermining that minor's individual sovereignty. The government is committing an infraction upon a fundamental right of all individuals, including minors, to behave themselves as they see fit so long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's capacity to the same. The government recognizes, for example, a 14 year old female's right to bodily autonomy when she decides to get an abortion, but doesn't acknowledge said autonomy as it concerns the very act which produced the result that informs her decision to get an abortion? This inconsistency is demonstrative of government whim, which necessarily makes minors government property because their capacity to express values as it concerns themselves are diminished and outright dismissed in favor of government priority. And human beings--individuals--no matter how old, are the property of no one else.

Yes. The presumption is a protective one on the side of caution. There are exceptions to it where, for example, a marriage approved by parents and a court may lift the presumption.

What the fuck are you even trying to say? What makes humans moral agents?

What makes you, a bunch of flesh and bones with a brain any more entitled to be treated with 'moral rights' than a gorilla or even a frog?

you are blocked and a danger to society

I’ve always wondered that. 

A 25+ year old sexually interacting with a 14 year old.

Don't mess around here, this isn't a joke

Answer me, who stops that in anarchy.

Arbitrary. A human is indeed 100% animal, the line we draw between us and them is our own animalistic instinct at play.

You're the one on the backfoot here.

Without age of consent what, in your ideal society, stops someone taking advantage of the young and violating them?

How utterly arbitrary.

In anarchy, there is still law, there is just no order.

"Law and order" are often pooled together because they often coincide but the paradigm of chaos and order is a different one to law vs libertinism

Anarchy that you'd approve of would most likely be mafia-enforced controlled chaos.

According to you, humans don't either. Correct?

In your utopia

there'd still be an age of consent

It would be enforced by the local Mafia.

Society: We think it should be illegal to have sex with animals because we care so much about animal rights and animal lives matter.  Sex where the animal consents is wrong because the animal must be protected.  It doesn't matter that it feels good to some people, we must ban it.

Also society: Refuses to go vegetarian because eating meat feels good even though vegetarian diets have been proven to be healthy for people to eat and vegetarians tend to live longer than meat eaters.

Me: If you care about animal consent, why aren't you vegetarian?

I'm not here to advocate pedophilia, but America's age of consent is higher than the world average (R.a917a681b9943965b214397d34f60216 (1393×628) (bing.com))

I think that to reduce our prison population and to expand freedom in the land of the free,  the US should reduce the age of consent to 13.  This is well within the global normal for the age of consent and it expands freedom in the United States.

It's legalized theft.

Both seem fine. I think the second is more accurate and complete though.

Do you think that, for example, elections count as "a thing that government is involved in"?

Do you think elections count as "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority"?

believing that people should obey authority and rules, even when these are unfair, and even if it means that they lose their personal freedom

favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Underdog did in post 16+17 (he gave the example of outlawing rape. He said that outlawing rape was authoritarian), then in post 22 I said I disagree with post 16+17, then you responded to post 22 in post 25 and that is what started the conversation between us lmao.

So yes somebody did say "anything the government is involved in is authoritarian" and all I have done is ask how that definition was arrived at.

If the government gets involved with anything, it's authoritarian.  Some authoritarianism is necessary, like murder and rape being banned.  However, if the government gets involved with ANYTHING, it's authortarian.

You must be using a different dictionary than your fellow human people.

Anyway it is a good thing the government is not involved with taxes, the military, public infrastructure maintenance, etc. or we may have to get rid of all that too.

All of which are authoritarian. Perhaps you should revisit that dictionary and reflect on the definition of authoritarian.

None of them do to my knowledge, if I am incorrect about that please correct me.

I think you will probably agree that they should not be coerced.

Charity is not CAPITALISTIC.

A capitalist might choose to voluntarily gift items and or fiat as they see fit, but the act of gift giving is not CAPITALISTIC.

What are you talking about ?

Is all human life intrinsically valuable, or are some people worth more than others ?

LOVE is not CAPITALISTIC.

Great question.

They used to collect (gold) tariffs on imported goods.

They also collected (gold) in exchange for leases of natural resources.

Today, they simply print paper and enforce hypothetical "value" with soldiers.

You can’t respond to someone’s post with “exactly” and then claim you were not arguing what they were.

But whatever.

I did not say that. I said that the definition "anything that the government is involved in is authoritarian" is not backed up by any dictionary that I am aware of.

The government should be like a non-profit insurance company.

A capitalist government is like a for-profit insurance company.

In a capitalist framework, you only give things away for free, IFF THERE IS A LONG-TERM PROFIT INCENTIVE.

That's a crucial distinction.

On the one hand, you're teaching your child that they are intrinsically valuable and you love them unconditionally.

On the other hand, you're teaching your child that they are only valuable if they perform labor.

Your own children (citizens) should not be a source of income.

Taxation doesn't "fund" anything.

Taxation is merely a mechanism to control inflation.

A much more efficient way to control inflation would be to raise the mandatory reserve rate for banks.

None of them do to my knowledge, if I am incorrect about that please correct me.

Which dictionary says that authoritarianism is basically just an antonym for anarchy?

Disagree.  The first person to define the terms of the debate almost always wins the debate in my experience. 

Making up your own socio-political or economic reality never wins the day. 

...but morals should always be well-sourced.

That’s not the comment I responded to. This is:

The likelihood that a person has not come into contact of Covid-19 at some time in the past 2 years is outrageously low.

Exactly. And the prospects that one has been exposed to this virus but has yet to develop an immune response in almost two years is also outrageous.

“Exactly” - as in you doubling down on the idea that there’s hardly anyone left who hasn’t came into contact with Covid, and then talking about the prospect of those who have been exposed (which would be just about everyone) developing an immune response. If you add this all up, what you get is contradicted by the reality I laid out.

If that’s not what you meant that’s fine, you are free to correct it.

You claimed the idea that anyone out there has not by now developed an immune response to Covid to be outrageous. So do you not find the facts of what we are seeing right now to be problematic?

The epidimicity of this virus would suggest that everyone has been exposed. That is, if one hasn't succumbed to it, one has already developed a response to it.

If The Underdog would simply open up any dictionary and hold his definition of LIBERTARIAN and SOCIALISM against any standard definition, his argument would dissolve before he could write it out.

We are obviously using different dictionaries if your definition is "anything involving government" like Alec said.

How is this different from giving your children (citizens) a weekly allowance and taking them to the hospital when they require medical attention ?

At what point does a capitalistic government give citizens (children) something for free ?

Taking care of your family members, without regard for their ability to pay you back or return the favor in any way, appears to be a communist model.

Wait, so are you suggesting that UBI and UHC are not "anti-capitalist" ?

At what age do children start "earning their room and board" in your totalitarian capitalist family ?

You must be using a different dictionary than your fellow human people.

Anyway it is a good thing the government is not involved with taxes, the military, public infrastructure maintenance, etc. or we may have to get rid of all that too.

Libertarians: Want the government out of everything, whether it is social or economic.

Socialists: Want the government out of everything the left agrees with and want the government involved in everything the left agrees with.  In other words, an opinionated and politically passioned leftist.

If you believe in left economic policy, quit calling yourself a libertarian because your not. There isn’t anything wrong with being a socialist, but there is something wrong with incorrectly labeling yourself.

o you charge your wife and kids room and board? If they can't pay would you evict them? If you say yes to both of these then you are a family capitalist.

Texas just yesterday ordered two trucks from FEMA to store dead bodies because the morgues are full. The entire state of Alabama has no ICU beds left. And then there’s Florida…

The likelihood that a person has not come into contact of Covid-19 at some time in the past 2 years is outrageously low.

A position such as this one is far beyond what I am prepared to engage with, as it blatantly ignores scientific evidence and insists that vaccines don't do anything.

I wish you all the best.

The point is, if one relied on the government solely for information, they would have no clue what their actual personal risk of death is relative to their weight.

Some people actually care about dying.

Damn ok, you win.

In order to get the greatest result in terms of helping keep us safe from COVID-19, everyone who can be vaccinated must be vaccinated.

Death, taxes, and viruses.

Why should I trust a government that won't publicly say being fat puts you at great risk of dying from Covid?

The issue with this analogy is that seat belts are a choice that help us stay safe regardless of the choices of others, whereas with the vaccine, the only thing that keeps us safe is everyone taking it.

The vaccines work.

People who haven't gotten the vaccine by now have chosen to take the risk, and that's on them. We shouldn't have to abstain from driving simply because some people refuse to wear seat belts.

A question for Atheists and Theists.  

Is the world material or immaterial? 

Is there anything apart from God that is immaterial?

We may be missing each other on a key detail. How would you define a corrupt government? Are all governments corrupt?

But individualism is not necessarily a monolithic ideology with only a single set of beliefs.

From what I understand, it has actually changed over time.

I would agree though that there is not an actual individualism/collectivism spectrum. Rather, individuals may embrace certain values from each -ism. This is what I meant to portray with the imagery of a "spectrum," but I will try to avoid that for clarity.

While it is possible for individuals to hold contradictory beliefs from each -ism, it is also possible that a completely different view which holds certain values from both sides is actually correct. For instance, I would argue that the biblical worldview values both individual liberties and the collective good, and this is in no way contradictory.

The main point is that the Bible does not promote Collectivism or Individualism because those are manmade ideologies. But there are certain values from both ideologies that can be found in the Bible.

Would you say that consistent Individualism only considers a person's freedom valuable, but not the actual person?

Consider the case with the newborn. It seems you only value the newborn's autonomy, but not it's life. Otherwise, it would not be morally acceptable to leave the baby, knowing that it is not physiologically developed enough to survive on it's own.

Have you shifted your position on the appropriateness of a "pre-emptive strike" against a perceived threat ?

At what point is "revolution" justified ?

Well stated.