http://thirdpartywatch.com/…

Her comment?

How can a libertarian argue against child pornography?

Ruwart: Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can and should prosecute their oppressors.

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 for choice is just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life.

What we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.

And some responses from TPW:

Here are a few comments being left in defense of Ruwart:

• I don’t agree with the answer that Dr. Ruwart is quoted as giving to that last one—and I’m far from the only libertarian who would disagree with that answer. However, I think that the major defect in the answer is not that she wants kids to have sex (I doubt that she does), but rather that she’s attempting to apply a “short answers to tough questions” approach to a question that can’t be handled with a short answer.
• First of all, why should child pornography be illegal? Libertarian theory rests upon the concept that for a crime to exist, there must be a victim. While the photos depict an act of aggression, the possession of the photos harms no one. Certainly, the person collecting them could be seen as rather questionable, but so could a person who collects pictures of dead people or watches slasher flicks. There all sick in one way or another. An argument against this could be that the child owns the copyright or some such, but that would be a very different crime with very different penalties.
• Every society of which I’ve read, including those without formal governments, has considered capacity to be a required element in a contract, limiting the ability of children to consent to anything. The notion that any libertarian minarchist or anarchist believes there is no such element should be assumed to be false in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Citations by anonymous people that haven’t been verified are not evidence.

From Ruwart’s opposition:

• All I want to ask is this: why are we giving spin advice to someone who is an anarchist and represents the most radical view possible within the LP? Shouldn’t we consider WHY we would even want someone like this representing the party? Anarchism IS NOT THE SAME as libertarianism.
• Mary Ruwart’s views on child pornography and child sex are beyond the pale. I was thinking she would make a nice VP candidate, but not now… …She may have a Ph.D. in biophysics, but she flunked the basic course on common sense.
• I wonder what Shane Cory has to say about this Bullshit…because if it’s true…then you guys win. I will not associate with this level of trash…

As an AnCap I agree with her. She’s likely not referring to children as in prepubescent but post pubescent. We have criminalized the consentual act of sex between a physically mature young person and someone but a max 4 or 5 years older. Or even more ridiculous: charging 14-16 year olds with child porn creation and distribution for taking photos of themselves nude and sending them to a lover. I like what friend and fellow MLP member Jim Lesczynski said:

I attended a lecture by Dr. Thomas Szasz once, where he addressed this issue. Szasz advocated that in the case of alleged victims over the arbitrary age, the prosecutor should have to prove that the victim was incapable of giving consent (e.g., an adult who is severely mentally retarded). For those below the arbitrary age, the defense would have to prove to a jury’s satisfaction that the alleged victim was capable of giving consent.

Seems pretty good to me. I would make that age 12 or 13. The average age of puberty. Now only if we can start treating young people like mature individuals instead of children up to the age of 25 we could reverse a lot of these problems.