You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] JohnGaltApproves 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You might want to read Walter Block on the topic before you start arguing that libertarians are a monolithic block of group think. He argues that under a certain developmental age, such as during pre-pubescence, child prostitution is wrong, but also offers the concession that if it’s a choice between that and “starvation,” child prostitution is, for the child, a viable, albeit undesirable, option.

My point wasn’t about libertarian open endorsement of child prostitution in sum. Instead I was joking that libertarians often lack the couth to know what not to bring up over Thanksgiving Dinner. For example, when Gramma, the Reaganite conservative, talks about Epstein’s Lolita Express, the autist libertarian, rather than just agreeing it’s horrible, turns his attention to discussing theoretical cases where child prostitution may be a last resort for survival, as Block has done from an academic perspective.

[–] MiMx ago 

I don't give a shit about some half-wit I've never heard about ever.

No, child prostituion is wrong and evil, and libertarians DO NOT support this. 18 years old until you get your rights, or age of consent set by the state legislators.

https://www.ageofconsent.net/highest-and-lowest

I have no idea wtf you are talking about, I have never heard of one libertarian support this crazy ass idea of child prostitution that was taken seriously.

Prostitution should be legal, but only with those over the age of 18, or again, set by their state legislator. I think in Missisipi Regulate, tax it on a state level.

This might be a shocker to you, since you like to read about people, but prostitution happens whether or not there is a law against it, just like drugs.

Legalize, regulate, tax. Move these black markets out of the shadows, make it safer, and direct money toward state infrustructure or schools.

Or true libertarians would not even tax it, but that is a story for another time.

[–] JohnGaltApproves ago 

No true Scotsman fallacy.