"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
> >>And what you can't seem to grasp is that that prohibition does not have
> >>to be enforced by State force, and does not have to be defined on the
> >>basis of age _per se_. It can be defined on a case-by-case basis on the
> >>basis of demonstrable HARM.
>
> > And what you can't seem to grasp is that by that time it's too late.
After a
> > person kills an innocent pedestrian it's too late to prohibit them from
> > driving while drunk.
>
> And did the law prevent them from driving drunk? No.

You aren't seriously arguing that laws have no effect?

> The law doesn't prevent anyone from killing pedestrians while drunk --
> or while sober.

You *are* serious.. how can you take such a ridiculous position?

>The people who violate the law are the same people who
> would violate responsible behavior if there were no law.

What about the people who don't do the behaviour *because* there is a law?
What about the potential victims of harm that are spared?

> The law won't
> bring the dead person back.

Strawman, I didn't suggest anything could revive dead bodies. What I am
TELLING you is that making something *illegal* SIGNIFICANTLY reduces that
behaviour, in ALL cases. In increases voluntary compliance, it increases
social stigma, and enforcement is a deterrence.

> Nor did Prohibition end drunk driving.
> Prohibition merely punished responsible drinkers and made money for
> bootleggers.

Prohibition is not the issue, taking drugs per se is a victimless crime.
*Driving* while drunk is the issue.

> Drunk driving laws merely punish after the harm is done.

False, they deter people from driving while drunk, and they punish/deter
people who do *before* they do any harm. Waiting for harm to occur as you
suggest is signing a death warrant for millions of innocent people.

> Age of consent laws do the same.

Age of consent laws deter pedophiles from engaging in sexual predatory
behaviour and punish those who do. Perverts can't get at innocent children
while they are behind bars.

<snip>
Why do you keep snipping relevant arguments?

<unsnip analogy that illustrates the folly of your position>

Shooting off
a gun on a public street or driving while drunk doesn't *always* result in
harm to innocents either, but it occurs often enough that those freedoms are
best curtailed. I may *love* getting hammered and driving my Camaro fast
down Main Street, I may be quite confident that *I* can do so safely, but
society makes it illegal for everyone, to protect innocent citizens.

> >>>>Freedom is always capable of abuse, but freedom is the central value
> >>>>on which all others are based, and without it, nothing else is
> >>>>of real value.
>
> >>>Freedom is the easy part. Democratic rights are all about accepting
> >>>limitations on one's own freedom on behalf of a greater good.
>
> >>Accepting limitations, and having stupid, ill-conceived, and unjust
> >>limitations on one's freedom thrust upon one by the State are two
> >>different things.
>
> > Thrust by "the State" eh? Who do you suggest do the thrusting?
>
> I don't suggest anyone do "the thrusting." I suggest people be
> educated, and those who demonstrate no ability to live responsibly
> in society be shunned.

If "shunning" isn't a "thrust" then what is it? If the rest of society isn't
represented by the state then what does?

> > And why must
> > we wait until we discover damaged children?
>
> Education begins at birth. We do not wait for any damage. The
> point is that the law does not kick in UNTIL after the victim is
> damaged.

You just contradicted yourself in the previous two sentences. You don't wait
for damage, and the law kicks in *after* the damage is done. Can't you see
the tenuous position you are in?

> It is pointless as a means to to avoid damaging anyone.
> It is only institutionalized revenge.

Laws and legal penalities are a deterrent, not revenge. It's also not
entirely a bad thing for the victims and family to obtain some revenge
against child abusers.

> > The freedom you are asking for is to risk aggregious harm to children
before
> > action is taken, and for what, to satisfy the lusts of a few perverts.
>
> No, to allow _responsible_ freedom for all.

We have that already. It's not responsible behaviour for adults to engage in
sex with children, it's selfish and almost universally damaging to the
child. The freedom you advocate is _irresponsible_freedom for all to cause
harm until they get caught.

If you aren't a pedophile then I can only conclude that you were a victim of
a pedophile and you are desperately trying to convince yourself that the
experience was not responsible for your neurotic life.