Research scientist, medical professor and Libertarian activist Mary Ruwart -- a frontrunner for the LP Presidential nomination -- is in hot water over statements she previously wrote in her book Short Answers to the Tough Questions on the issue of child pornography. Ruwart has been a frequent LP candidate for US Senate and other offices in the past, and has been a popular speaker at LP gatherings nationwide for many years. This is what Ruwart wrote In response to the question "How can a libertarian argue against child pornography?":
"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."
One of Ruwart's rival LP candidates -- wealthy sports handicapper Wayne Root -- is calling on her to quit the race. Don't expect Ruwart to exit, however. The bottom line: Ruwart's stumble probably locks-up the LP nomination for former GOP Congressman Bob Barr at next month's nominating convention.
Here's Ruwart's original statement:
Short Answers to Tough Libertarian Questions: Should pornography be illegal?
Here's an audio response by Ruwart to the LP internal squabble:
EveryZing - Abdul - LPIN - Mary Ruwart
In the audio at about 7:00, she says:
"Certainly I am not for child pornography.
Anyone who forces a child into a sexual act needs to be prosecuted, obviously; because there's a violation of rights."
Down below are a few links indicating the scope of the controversy.
The first thing that should be noted is that Ruwart's candidacy was torpedoed by a "fellow libertarian," not a Democrat or Republican. I have agreed with those who have said that "Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all." Marketers say that consumers need to hear about a product seven times before they buy. It might be that the first four or five times they hear about a product they hear something bad about it, but most consumers don't remember what they heard, only that they heard about the product. If they hear good things on the sixth and seventh time, they think, "I've been hearing so much about this product, I think I'll buy it." If they never hear about it, they never buy it. I think this is why Republicans generally do not even mention Ron Paul, even to mention a view of his which might be considered an "aberration." Partisan attacks on Libertarians consist of ridiculing and distorting even the most essential libertarian positions, such as abolishing entire departments of the federal government: "Abolish the [blank] Department? Why, that's ridiculous and impractical!"
This is why Mary Ruwart's "Child Porn Scandal" is really the Libertarian Party's scandal. It shows there isn't enough party unity to prevent libertarians from shooting each other. It shows there are some "practical" Libertarians who do not respect "pure" Libertarians and do not want them running for office.
Or are willing to destroy their candidacy for purely selfish reasons.
I don't even know if Mary Ruwart is as "consistent" or "pure" a libertarian as I claim to be, but she's clearly more consistent than the libertarians who shot her candidacy down.
Here's the talk in the blogosphere:
Mary Ruwart attacked for comments on child porn
Jeff Wartman: The Mary Ruwart Controversy
Jeff Wartman: Libertarians Combat Child Pornography
Telecommunications company Qwest Takes about face on its stance regarding the privacy of its customers. See Readers' comments
Reason Magazine: Suffer the Little Children
Libertarian Intelligence: Why Ruwart Is In Trouble
Libertarian Intelligence: Ruwart on Child Pornography
ThePolitic.com » Libertarian Presidential Front-Runner Defends Child Porn
Free Citizen: Libertarians and Child Pornography
The LP responds to this in a strange way:
Press Release: Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography
LP Abandons Libertarianism, Constitution LewRockwell.com Blog
Here's an outline of my position on this issue.If I had a Staples "Easy" Button and could abolish all laws against possession of child pornography by pushing that button, I would push the button . . . PROVIDED that pushing the button would also eliminate the rest of the federal government, especially the federal Department of Education and the pressure it puts on local schools to legitimize sexual deviancy, and all federal court precedents removing God, the Bible, prayer, and the Ten Commandments from public schools. In other words, I believe the adoption of the complete libertarian program would, on balance, eliminate more child abuse than retaining the present system with its child pornography laws and abusive school system.
And let's face the fact that the Signers of the Constitution would be horrified and angered at the government's atheistic and immoral education system, which pushes homosexuality and fornication on children in its captivity.
I agree with the Bible that all sexual contact outside marriage is sinful and should be socially condemned. I also agree with the Bible that some forms of sexual contact are sinful even if "the government" claims the parties are "legally" "married." I believe most parents want their children to wait until they are married to just the right person in a life-long commitment before they have sexual contacts. The complete libertarian program would give these parents their wishes, or at least remove all government-sponsored undercutting of parental desires.
Government schools are presently the largest and most systematic criminal child abuse ring in America. This is The Harsh Truth About Public Schools. 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." Every single person who signed the Constitution would say the government is a child abuser by teaching children that homosexuality is not sinful.
Homeschool pioneer John Holt was not a Christian, and I'm sure he would be appalled at some of the things I've said in this post; and I don't agree with many things he said, but I am in fundamental agreement with his book Escape from Childhood. No, I don't believe a child should jump into an airplane and start flying -- I admit to the need for "flight instructors" -- but if my 14-year-old daughter, physically, emotionally, and intellectually mature beyond her years, meets the moral and intellectual equivalent of John Hancock or Samuel Adams, and she wants to marry Mr. Hancock, I don't believe the federal government has any rightful (or constitutional) authority to say she cannot. How many 14-year-old girls do you know who would appreciate John Hancock and want to begin a family with him? Not many in the government's school system, I'm sure of that. The government wants all citizens to be perpetual adolescents and dependents. John Holt says children should be encouraged to be mature and treated with at least the same respect we are willing to give to immature and irresponsible adults.
As Mary Ruwart admits, some people will make bad decisions if given the freedom. Does that justify the entire institution of socialist education and coercive violence which is the essence of today's government? I say no.
The federal government is not the friend of children.
No comments:
Post a Comment