Libertarian Presidential Front-Runner Defends Child Porn

April 25, 2008 · By

Mary Ruwart, research scientist, perrenial Libertarian Senatorial candidate and front runner for this year’s Libertarian Presidential ticket is being taken to task for comments she made in her book, Short Answers to Tough Questions.

When discussing self choice in relation to child porn, she had this to say: “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

So, following this logic, we should also decriminalize murder, seeing as when it is outlawed the cost of a hitman rises, increasing the incentive for someone to kill for money?

I cannot see how anyone can argue that a child is ready to make the kind of choice that would subject them to child pornography, and in almost every case they will be influenced by either their parents, or the pornographer. Granted, perhaps if she was talking about people who are legally children but widely considered old enough to make sexual decisions, (14-17 years old), her position might be slightly more defencible, but still.

I am all for freedom for two consenting adults to do whatever they want behind closed doors. Children aren’t adults, and I doubt they’re consenting.

It doesn’t look like Ruwart will quit the race, despite the increased scrutiny, but it still looks like the Libertarian nominee is going to be ex-Republican representative Bob Barr after this quotation has been brought to light.

Of course, it’s all a moot point, as the LP Candidate has no reasonable shot at the Presidency, but it’s a start. Now if only someone would read “The Audacity of Hope”.

Comments

7 Responses to “Libertarian Presidential Front-Runner Defends Child Porn”

  1. Charles Anthony on April 26th, 2008 4:46 pm [#]

    It does not sound to me that Mary Ruward defends child pornography. Rather, it just sounds like she is explaining the market incentives.

    So, following this logic, we should also decriminalize murder, seeing as when it is outlawed the cost of a hitman rises, increasing the incentive for someone to kill for money?

    Technically, yes, if you want.
    However, the markets are completely different. We do not go around comparing the behaviors of agents in the for cigarettes to those in the market for shoe repairs, do we?

    I cannot see how anyone can argue that a child is ready to make the kind of choice that would subject them to child pornography, and in almost every case they will be influenced by either their parents, or the pornographer.

    Again, Mary Ruwart is NOT making that argument either. In the passage you quoted, she clearly says “against their will” — that being the will of the children.

    You are right: the candidate for the Libertarian Party has no chance of winning the presidency. Then again, they are not real libertarians anyway. They are just advocates for selectively smaller government.

  2. Charles Anthony on April 26th, 2008 4:47 pm [#]

    ERRATA: We do not go around comparing the behaviors of agents in the market for cigarettes to those in the market for shoe repairs, do we?

  3. Jeff Wartman on April 26th, 2008 6:33 pm [#]

    Jeff Wartman: The Mary Ruwart Controversy…

    […] Much has been made the last week about the controversy surrounding Mary Ruwart, who is seeking the Libertarian nomination for President, and a portion of her book Short Answers to the Tough Questions. The offending passage is: […]…

  4. Charles Anthony on April 29th, 2008 5:06 am [#]

    AdD,
    You might find inspiration in Kevin Craig’s words:

    Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea than to offend a little child (Luke 17:2). Child pornographers are clearly an example of the scum Jesus was talking about. But so are public school educrats who encourage children to experiment sexually before marriage (as long as the children use condoms, of course). It is a form of child abuse not to teach children “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

    A true libertarian position certainly abolishes child pornography laws but that position is not held in a vacuum. The libertarian would abolish a lot more things which insidiously facilitate the child pornography too thus leaving more control back into the hands of parents.

  5. anon on May 22nd, 2008 5:58 am [#]

    No where in the bible does it say that sex “offends” children, or damages them. So that quote is rediculous.

  6. Nucleic Acids on January 27th, 2009 1:16 pm [#]

    And this is why Libertarians will never be elected to any office ever.

  7. What's the Libertarian view on ? - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum on January 15th, 2013 4:48 pm [#]

    […] […]