Presumably for reasons of space, George both overstates his case in suggesting that Ruwart is unlibertarian, and understates his case about Ruwart’s views on justice. For more, see http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/05/checkbook-justice-in-ruwarchistan.html

A list of difficulties with Ruwart/Kubby begins with her near-total lack of campaign organization …

Unfortunately, most Libertarians don’t have a large pool of people to ask to help; so one must choose from what is available.

… and goes on to her positions in her book, such as her answer to her own question about child pornography. Her supporters are unable to comprehend that Mr. Cory’s positions on that issue, as repeatedly transmitted to the LNC before and while the press release went out, are shared by a large part of the real libertarians …

Now there’s the catch-phrase. Mr. Phillies should have used “some” in the place of “real”. “Real” libertarians would have understood what Ms. Ruwart was saying. What escapes Cory and Phillies is the fact that under the current command-and-control regime, kids are *still* having consensual sex, despite their parents and the law. The truth, according to the government’s own statistics, is that a majority of Americans have themselves violated the very draconian laws about exploring their sexuality that they wish to impose upon their children.

Generally speaking, government’s idea of protecting children is burning them alive at Waco.

I remember my childhood. I was perfectly able to say “no” at nine or ten, and did so. I also remember the activities of other children around me. Anyone who is in favor of strict (and high) age of consent laws should first state whether they were still virgins at 18. Statistically speaking, a *majority* of Americans have had sex by age 15 or 16; and a substantial cohort has had sex by the age of thirteen. For those who are math challenged, that means the **average** American is by definition an unconvicted criminal, and should be on the Sex Offenders list. Keep in mind that’s just the *average*.

Were we to start discussing the “substantial compliance test” (example — road engineers generally try to set speed limits at a point where 85% or more of drivers will be in compliance), then the age where consent should probably considered valid is about 12 or 13 (viz., the point at which about 15% of American “children” have voluntarily engaged in some form of sex).

The outrage directed at Ruwart over this issue is somewhat vacuous. There’s nothing there to back it up; no will to *really* address what these folks claim is a problem, at its major source. Where are all these people who get so lathered over underage sex, when one more 13 year old girl in the projects joins the millions of pregnant teenagers already in the inner cities? Perhaps these folks should go where most of the statistics come from and start talking to the tough kids on the street. I can see the headline now: “Well-fed middle-aged white suburban male killed while trying to tell gangbanger not to have sex with his 13-year-old girl friend…”

The more young adults are infantilized, the more irresponsibly they will behave. Tell them they can’t have sex until 18, or 21, or 30 (there are nutcases in state legislatures who actually suggest it!), and they’re going to do it anyway. And guess what, Alice — they certainly won’t bother using a condom! The fact that it’s illegal won’t stop them; and the act of committing so enjoyable a crime will convince them to evade other laws in the future.

The Phillies bloviation continues:

Ruwart’s position on being sorry that children agree to perform sexual acts, but only sorry, is one of a piece with the ‘libertarian’ science fiction novel in which the heroes inadvertently break into 3rd grade class birthday party, and find they are looking down the muzzles of the very real guns that the 8-or-so-year-0lds are all carrying. It’s just plain daft.

Child soldiers — including 8-year olds — in various African and S American wars — notwithstanding.

… It’s up there with her position that if someone commits a crime and can pay the financial penalty levied by a jury, they should suffer no other penalty for their deeds. …

Are you saying that would be any worse than the 40% of murders that are never cleared these days?.

… Most people in their right minds do not believe that rich people whose wealth is not widely known should be entitled to commit crimes whenever they want to write a check. …

Hmmmm… Law of unintended consequences: there will spring up a cottage industry of people willing to be beaten, raped, and maimed in exchange for the penalty checks. The mind boggles.

But seriously. Real libertarians don’t believe anyone is entitled to commit crimes against real victims. For that matter, only a fool would think that rich people would willingly trade their fortunes for a few giggles. There aren’t that many billionaires, and for the millionaires, most of them only have a few million. Running over one park bench with three or four people would financially ruin the majority of them; and if it was intentional it is likely even in a libertarian society, they would find themselves confined so they couldn’t attack anyone else. So how many in the good Doctor’s silly little world would really throw caution to the wind?

The implications for the local mob, when it wants to hire hit men, are also obvious, except in Ruwart’s book.

Hmmmm… let’s see… libertarian society… no Prohibition… private cops… insurance… no victimless crimes… I got it!! Mr. Sajak, give me “Will there be fewer mobsters?” for $100! Phillies forgets – what will the local “mob” be protecting in a libertarian society? The only things remaining on the prohibited list will be real crimes like assault and theft. But when the local crackhead can get a job at the local McBurger and still make enough in a few hours to buy insanely cheap drugs out of the vending machine in their crackhouse, for the next week’s bender, what will the mobsters have to do? Besides joining the crackheads and some congressmen for some crack?

And even if there is a local mob, how long do you think it will take them to figure out that it would be better to fess up, say, $10,000 for a small nuisance crime than to murder someone to keep them quiet about that $10,000 nuisance crime — than to get tagged with the $1,000,000 (or more) fine for murder?

Most mobsters aren’t really stupid. But the laws they currently flout sure are.

There is also her claim about global air pollution, which applied to chlorofluorocarbons would prove that the CFC ozone hole is impossible.

Brrzzzzztttt. Wrong answer. I’m as environmentally concerned as the next person. There are way too many theories manufactured from moth-eaten cloth about the environment. Fight pollution for provable damages as trespass, yes. Giving the whiskey and car keys of illegitimate power to the prepubescent children who run the government is just plain stupid.

I’m sorry, Ruwart’s notion of libertarianism is not libertarian, because it is not reality-based, and it would be downright dangerous if brought to practice.

Hmmmm… As dangerous as the current regime? I think not. Libertarianism is about using gentle and voluntary market persuasion to achieve just ends. That is all Ruwart advocates.

During Bob Barr’s very first major interview (on Fox News), I am pretty sure right after winning the nomination, Sean Hannity went right to the issue that might be most closely identified with the LP: drug decriminilization. At that point in time, when many conservatives feared Barr could cost the GOP the election, Hannity wasted zero time in attacking what he thought was a weak point in libertarian philosophy. This is true even though you guys and I would agree that Bob Barr is no warrior in trying to end the drug war.

The point here is obvious: To think the mainstream media would not have found out what Ruwart wrote in her book (a great book, I might add), and gone after her immediately on it (if they paid attention at all), shows a near total ignorance of the mainstream media’s prodigious ability to “blown things out of proportion.” The MSM is, after all, an industry that spent weeks dissecting a stupid comment about lipstick on a pig.

The Catch-22 of the situation would have been that if by some miracle Ruwart started getting any traction at all, it would have only intensified the media’s focus on the “child sex” issue. The entire of libertarian philosophy would have been lost in a media frenzy-stampede regarding a party dumb enough to nominate someone who believes there should be no age of consent laws. Or do you guys not recall how much time the MSM spent on Rev. Wright, William Ayers, and what Obama’s middle name is.

Our best case scenario had Ruwart been nominated is that she would have been totally ignored.

That’s very different. Never mind.

Since Mary Ruwart did not make this a campaign issue (nevermind the fact that this entire thing is being blown out of proportion) I doubt that it would have even been brought up. This was something that people supporting other candidates brought up by digging it out of a book that Mary Ruwart wrote years ago where the entire point of the book was to provide libertarian anwsers to difficult questions (some questions which other candidates would likely run away from).

If the issue did come up then it actually may have been a good thing, because that would mean that more people would read Mary Ruwart’s books.

And “What the hell kind of sick state puts teenages on trial for having concensual sexual relations with other teenagers, and sends them to prison for it?” Our kind. This one. The good ole’ U.S. of A. Disappointing? You bet.

S0 I ask you, in light of what we agree on regarding this sick society, how well do you think Ms. Ruwart’s opinions on children having sex would have gone over with this country’s voters, had she been nominated?

Methinks not too well.

What the hell kind of sick state puts teenages on trial for having concensual sexual relations with other teenagers, and sends them to prison for it? And what kind of “libertarian” can defend this?

And children can’t give consent with regards to sex. But FAR more important to me is the fact that the person who wants to argue about when that age of consent starts is a horrible selection be the LP nominee for president, which was the point of my original post, #22.

I stand by my votes in Denver.

Kubby til he was out, Ruwart afterwards.
Kubby on every ballot for VP.

The only vote I would change would be for LNC.

So do I. What I don’t support is making videos of teens (or anyone) having sex made public without their consent.

In any case, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the difference between Barr’s position on the Wilson case, which involves technical legal issues that some might agree with, and Ruwart’s position on child sex, which would likely get a person hung and possibly permanently damage the image (such as it is), of the party foolish enough to nominate said purist.

Gotcha.

Making videos of underage people having sex made available without their consent = AOK.

With their consent=death penalty offense.

and to repeat something I said at the time of his nomination, I am not a big fan of Barr and many of his positions, including the one in the Wilson case. He is, and campaigned, far too conservatively for my tastes.

ON THE OTHER HAND, he was the best option of the ones available in Denver. By far.

how long will it be before the prosecution claims the same right to keep evidence secret in certain cases? Oh, they are already doing that now, arent they? I support open trials, in any instance.

In any case, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the difference between Barr’s position on the Wilson case, which involves technical legal issues that some might agree with, and Ruwart’s position on child sex, which would likely get a person hung and possibly permanently damage the image (such as it is), of the party foolish enough to nominate said purist.