Sex

How the Legal System (and Media) Deals with Teen Prostitution

|

Interesting account from CNN about how the justice system deals with teen prostitution.

Her ankles and wrists are shackled. She's wearing used sweats in the bright colors of the jailhouse, orange, blue and yellow. She shuffles to the courtroom to face the judge, her mother, and an uncertain future.

Selena is a 13-year-old who was sold for sex.

She wants to go home to her house in the suburbs and the baby sister she hardly knows. And now, facing a sympathetic judge and a loving mother who wants to make sure she's safe, Selena is being told she can't go home.

"I want to go home and I want to be with my family, that's all I want," she tells Juvenile Court Judge William Voy, her face bathed in tears. "This isn't making me any better in here."

Selena was arrested by undercover police on the Vegas strip on prostitution charges. But although she exchanged sex for money, in the eyes of the law, she's a victim, by virtue of her age and the circumstances under which she was sold: by a pimp on the website backpage.com, a pimp who used drugs to entice her, and took everything she earned….

She may be a victim, but she can't go home, because no one trusts that she won't run again, back into the arms of a pimp….

Selena desperately wants to return home, but the judge and her mother fear she will run away again and fall into the hands of another pimp.

So they came up with a short-term solution: to send her to a facility in Salt Lake City that can at least deal with her drug problems.

Story via the sex worker blog "Bound Not Gagged," where the author notes:

The rescue industry has an actual case of a 13 year old, what they call the average age of entry into prostitution, that they have "rescued" from a pimp.  As part of her "rescue" they bring her into court shackled at both the wrists and ankles.  Because a 13 year old female prisoner is such a threat to the officers and courtroom members.  They article states the system views her as the victim.  The legal system admits she received no money from being a prostitute.  It was all taken by the pimp.  Thus she has committed no crime.  Yet the court determines that she can't go home, she must remain a prisoner because she might runaway again.

This is rescue?  Brought into court in full shackles.  This is what the rescue industry is calling a solution?  She was treated as a slave by the pimp now she is a slave in the justice system.

From 2005, Kerry Howley interviewed Tracy Quan about her life as a prostitute.

NEXT: Reason.tv: What Teachers Need Most - Q&A with Rhode Island Education Commissioner Deborah Gist

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You see gentlemen, the government’s love is very different from that of a square

  2. Honey, your a victim, that is why we have to keep you locked up in a cage with people who might beat you up or worse. That is why you don’t get to do what you want for a very long time, it is because you are a victim, and we care about you. Do you understand?

    1. Where she will, in turn, be sold for sex, as the new piece of ass in C-block.

  3. The appropriate thing to do is go after backpage.com and hound them out of business.

    1. No, it isn’t.

      1. Why, pray tell, not?

        1. Because backpage didn’t get her hooked on drugs and them pimp her?

          1. Idiot! NEVER let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

    2. The appropriate thing to do is go after backpage.com and hound them out of business.

      We’re working on it.

    3. Because the way to fight child sex abuse isn’t to burn the First Amendment.Why the hell do people insist on blaming freedom for every bad thing that happens?

      1. Congress hates us for our freedoms.

      2. Because the First Amendment burns low, slow, and leaves your ribs with a smoky, maple flavor when you burn it at about 500 degrees.

  4. “She was treated as a slave by the pimp now she is a slave in the justice system.”

    She was treated in the exact same way the government would like to treat all of us.

    1. It’s not slavery if the government owns you.

      1. I forgot that, sorry. That is why The Draft? is not slavery.

        1. Exactly.

        2. Slavery is still constitutional, provided that it is a punishment handed down by the justice system.

  5. Clearly the shackles were asshole overkill, but the fact of the matter is that kids who have a history of running away, tend to continue running away.

    There is nothing wrong with sending her to a drug treatment facility to address her addiction. But after that (or during, really), they need to determine the underlying reasons that she runs away. They can range from hyper-religious parents to rapist stepdads. And until that issue is cleared up, she can’t legally be on her own until (at least in my state) she is sixteen.

    1. There is nothing wrong with sending her to a drug treatment facility to address her addiction.

      Other than the whole drug treatment industry is a scam that will allow no organization to objectively gauge their “treatment” effectiveness.

      1. J sub D, what is your view of the concept of 12 Step programs? I have no opinion of them myself, never attended one – just asking?

        1. I’ve seen no credible, independently derived evidence that they work any better than people just quitting on their own. The very nature of the programs, Whatever Anonymous, makes gathering such evidence impossible.

          While there is plenty of anecdotal testimony for both 12 step programs, I remain unconvinced.

          1. From my observations they are both a help and a hindrance. I’ve seen that a group of like-minded people can clearly help someone in need get started on the path to sobriety. Unfortunately that strength is also a weakness. 12-steppers form a self-contained society largely populated by broken people – people who needed to self-medicate for some reason. So as time goes by you find yourself hanging out with people who are former drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. – on average these people are more screwed up than normal, so various sources of chaos tend to come with that association. Like one of your inner circle having a relapse and stealing your TV. Or maybe they need money… or a place to stay. Added up the additional chaos tends to pull downward rather than upward.

            At least that’s my stereotypical, unscientific, anecdotal view.

            1. The blessed website rational*.org agrees.

              *[You don’t have to] Drink!

            2. The worst thing that can happen is if a cult replaces drugs as the thing that seperates a broken person from a non broken family.

          2. I’ve seen no credible, independently derived evidence that they work any better than people just quitting on their own. The very nature of the programs, Whatever Anonymous, makes gathering such evidence impossible.

            The problem is it’s kind of a self-selecting problem. People who can quit on their own probably do, people who can’t, don’t. Meaning everyone successful in a 12 step program were successful because of its twelve-stepness, whereas everyone who quit on their own just did so.

            Or, kind of what Cyto said.

          3. Penn and Teller did an episode of ‘Bullshit’ on AA.

          4. IIRC, a California man successfully sued that attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as mandated by a judge, more specifically their 12-step program, violated his first amendment rights on the grounds that they required him to submit to God.
            I believe he won.

      2. Then what remedy do you proffer, because 13-year-olds should not be using drugs.

        1. “I’ve seen no credible, independently derived evidence that they work any better than people just quitting on their own.”

          You really expect a 13-year-old to just quit on her own?

          1. You really expect a 13-year-old to just quit on her own?

            Do you expect some government program to do it for her? She’s probably already graduated from D.A.R.E.

            Assuming her parents are not abusive, send her home and hope for the best.

        2. This may prove difficult for you to comprehend but I’m going to try anyway.

          Some problems can not be fixed. Not by the family, not by the church, not by the government. Kinda sucks, don’t it?

          1. Do you also find it pointless for reason to advocate for school choice? Because one could just as easily say that “Some problems can not be fixed. Not by the family, not by the church, not by the government. Kinda sucks, don’t it?”

            ———–

            You’ll find your ignorance is blissful every goddamn time.

            – Tom Waits.

          2. I had a trouble teenaged girl living in my home for several years. I eventually came to the conclusion you cannot save someone that does not want to be saved. Compulsion does not change that.

              1. ^^^Double this^^^

    2. There is nothing wrong with sending her to a drug treatment facility to address her addiction

      How about what she wants? Jesus, you are quite the authoritarian, aren’t you. You’ve decided what’s best for a total stranger in one second.

      I hope you never get the power to decide anything for anyone else, because you clearly would abuse it.

      1. I base it on having worked for several years at this place:

        Last year, more than 1,000 homeless young people ages 16-21 turned to YouthLink as a safe and supportive refuge from life on the street. They might be here to find a meal and some clean clothes, take a shower or use the laundry facilities, or drop into the medical clinic. They might be here just because it’s a safe place to “be.”

        There are many reasons that young people find themselves homeless. Some “age out” of institutional (foster) care or federally funded family housing. Others may be driven out of their homes due to parental drug or alcohol use, abuse, or mental health issues. Some young people find they cannot function in crowded households that lack the space and resources for older children. Others are homeless due to their own mental health issues or problems with drugs or alcohol.

        The net result is a perfect storm of hyper-vulnerable young people who are ill-prepared for adulthood facing a system they may not trust and do not understand. Many of these young people lack the preparation, skills, resources and support they need to live independently. They need support and guidance from a trustworthy and reliable source to meet their basic daily needs and to become self-sufficient.

        YouthLink responds to the basic needs these youth have and offers a responsive community of excellence where they can choose to take positive steps in their lives toward empowerment and self-sufficiency. Youth find here the opportunity to work toward the End of Homelessness and the services and support they need on this journey.

        http://www.youthlinkmn.org/about/our-story/

        And again, you have yet to provide a remedy, only contrarianism.

        1. There is no remedy to certain things, so you aren’t providing a remedy either, just wishful thinking.

          I see nothing in your little descriptive blurb there regarding compulsion. You seem to favor compulsion. I pointed that out. Was I wrong?

          1. Bull. Fucking. Shit. I have seen with my own god damn eyes scores of young people surmounting more outlandish travesties than you ever will.

            Ever read the book PUSH? I have worked with kids exactly like Precious. 15, HIV positive, sexually abused and pregnant. That kid, with the help of others, had her baby and graduated highschool. I have run into her a few times over the last couple of yeras and she continues to thrive.

            1. Are you going to answer my question about compulsion or not? You seem infected with the “I’ve done X so I get to decide shit for other people” disease.

              1. Sorry, I am at work.

                And yes, if the parents agree, I see no problem with compelling a minor child to go into treatment, which is better than your solution to simply maintain the status quo and say fuck it.

                1. Well, you see, I have this problem compelling someone to do something they don’t want to do “in their best interests”. Your attempt to use “fuck it” to imply that I don’t give a shit as opposed to being against compulsion just shows how weak your argument is, and how, fundamentally at the end of the day, you have no interest in liberty, because you will discard it as soon as you think you’re right.

                  I sincerely hope you don’t call yourself a libertarian.

                  1. Well, you see, I have this problem compelling someone to do something they don’t want to do “in their best interests”.

                    I really hope you don’t have kids, becaues that’s what good parenting is all about. You seem deeply confused if you think that the complete emancipation of all 13 year olds from parental authority is a libertarian position.

                  2. She is a minor child. She has not achieved the age of liberty (16 in my state), so she is the responsibility of the parents.

                    To reiterate, I find it horrid that they shackled her, but to infer as some here are that the “facility in Salt Lake City that can at least deal with her drug problems” is a super-max prison is completely disingenuous..

                    1. BTW: Hey reason. Fix your servers. It’s been at least two days.

                    2. If someone wants to run away, and will keep trying to do so, you have two choices: let them go or imprison them. I find imprisoning someone for what you feel is a bad choice is abhorrent.

                      You obviously feel differently.

                    3. So you’re cool with six year olds running away and living on the streets?

      2. She’s 13 years old. What she wants is irrelevant if her parents disagree. You guys all seem to be missing this part of the original story:

        Selena desperately wants to return home, but the judge and her mother fear she will run away again and fall into the hands of another pimp.

        1. ^^THIS

        2. I also missed the point where we all agreed that parents own their children. I fear that one day this girl will fall back into the hands of a mother who thinks it’s better to be shackled and imprisoned than on drugs.

          1. Of course parents own their children, silly. Otherwise, children would own themselves, and we can’t have that.

            1. the life on the street is a good life full of freedom for 13 year olds. A kid is not ready for that and can’t handle that life. Why are you confused about that? Parents do own them until they can live on their own. 13 and hookin on drugs should provide clues to those who wish to see.

          2. I recall a story a few years back about a similar situation, wherein the father chained his daughter so she could only roam in her bedroom and to the bathroom.

            She was a minor IIRC, but he got in a shitstorm of trouble for it.

            See, only the state possesses the wisdom to lock your kid up.

          3. I also missed the part where they went after the pimp with the same zealotry.

    3. Or maybe she’s just a bad seed.

    4. Just imagine if she’d been wearing a hat, Epi. Edwin and his ilk would come down even harder on the “throw her criminal ass in prison” side.

      1. Only if she refused to remove it in court.

        PICK YOUR BATTLES, MR. FIFY!!!!!11!!

        1. I be a goooood tool, Massa!

  6. This whole thing must be fiction. We have a War on Drugs, so 13 year-olds can’t get drugs and become prostitutes.

    1. What happens in Vegas…

  7. I certainly hope this means that Reason and the rest of us libertarians will stop calling prostitution a victimless and non-violent crime. There are just too many stories of sex slavery like this – it’s violent to the women it ensnares.

    1. Now we are back to the “it should be legal” argument. Well, not for 13 year olds, obviously.

      If it was legal (for an adult), then they would be employees and/or independent contractors, and have all the legal protection that such entails.

    2. j00bz, the problem is that prostitution is illegal. If it were legal (for consenting adults) the market for forced underage girls would (largely) dry up. My problem with what happened to her (before court) is two-fold : 1. She was nowhere near adulthood. and 2. She was (apparently) forced into this. Coercion is the problem here.

      1. ” If it were legal (for consenting adults) the market for forced underage girls would (largely) dry up”

        citation needed

        Do you really think men buy 13-year-old hooker because the supply of adult hookers is so low?

        1. What we have here is a variant of the Catholic Priest Problem, when legitimate sources of solving a need are off limits other sources will become more atractive. There will always be die-hard pedophiles, sure, but they are by far in the minority. It would also be easier to crack down harder on those bastards if the police were not taking up valuable resources on prostitution with consenting adults.

          1. The guys buying under age girls are into underage girls.

            I’ve delved deep into the seemy side of life. There is a big market for young girls.

            1. If, by underage you mean before they are – physically developed – we should ask ourselves ‘WHY?’. This is not normal human behaviour.

              In any case, as I state above, we would be better able to crack down on true pedophiles if the police were not wasting time and money going after consenting adults involved in prostitution.

              1. So in your world a 13-year-old girl is a legal fuck if she happens to have sprouted tits and pubic hair?

                1. If she fucks a 14-year old boy should either one of them be punished?

                  Holy shit, you are a complete control freak. No wonder you like working with kids.

                  1. That’s a nice strawman you’ve got there, it would be a shame if it burned down one night.

                    1. My 5:13 comment is in response to Mr. Episiarch.

                    2. Thank you Tulpa. If she fucks a 14-year-old boy, I don’t think she should be “punished” by anything more severe than a period of grounding. That is a very common and acceptable parenting technique.

                    3. If she fucks a 14-year-old boy, I don’t think she should be “punished” by anything more severe than a period of grounding. That is a very common and acceptable parenting technique.

                      Why should children be punished for doing one of the kindest, friendliest, sweetest things one person can do for & with another?

                  2. If she fucks a 14-year old boy should either one of them be punished?

                    When they have no clue what they are doing, the sex is punishment enough.

                2. “So in your world a 13-year-old girl is a legal fuck if she happens to have sprouted tits and pubic hair?”

                  No, on what basis do you make this assumption?

                  1. “If, by underage you mean before they are – physically developed – we should ask ourselves ‘WHY?’. This is not normal human behaviour.”

                    I guess I seek some clarification. I took this to mean that if she has developed, she can have sex.

                    1. “I guess I seek some clarification. I took this to mean that if she has developed, she can have sex.”

                      No, not what I meant at all. Human beings are hardwired to be physically attracted to people who have certain adult physical characteristics. The more of those characteristics a person has the more likely it is for someone who is not a pedophile to be attracted to that person.

                    2. Human beings are hardwired to be physically attracted to people who have certain adult physical characteristics.

                      True of many living things, but what evidence of this “hard wiring” is there in humans? If it were so, why would there be homosexuality, for instance?

                    3. Also, is there evidence that blind people are less attracted to such people?

                    4. Let’s solve the problem once and for all: Legalize prostitution for adults (over 18), and treat underage prostitutes like the criminals they are. We treat underage drivers as criminals, the same with underage drinkers. So why not underage prostitutes.

                      Obviously, we’d treat the john as a criminal as well.

                    5. Yeah, take their drivers’ licenses away. That will teach them!

                    6. “If it were so, why would there be homosexuality, for instance?”

                      There is homosexuality among animals as well. Also brain scans have shown that gay men and straigt women have similer brains. Read this article :
                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01038.html

                      To me, that is strong evidence of hard wiring.

          2. What we have here is a variant of the Catholic Priest Problem, when legitimate sources of solving a need are off limits other sources will become more atractive.

            So the solution to the Catholic Priest Problemm is to legalize same-sex marriage and reduce the age of consent to 13?

            1. The solution to the Catholic priest problem is to allow them to get married. Sure, if they are gay I let them get married to someone of the same sex. Do that and they can vent their sexual frustrations with consenting adults.

              I do not expect that anytime in my lifetime the RCC will allow openly gay priests but they are already allowing *some* married strait priests in very limited circumstances. If they know what is good for them they will expand this.

              1. The solution to the Catholic priest problem is to allow them to get married. Sure, if they are gay I let them get married to someone of the same sex. Do that and they can vent their sexual frustrations with consenting adults.

                That does not explain why the lack of the ability to marry a consenting adult would lead one to rape children .

                You would think they would at least rape adolescents instrad of little kids, assuming that they engage in rape due to sexual frustration.

                And of course, we know that married men never commit rape, right?

                1. “That does not explain why the lack of the ability to marry a consenting adult would lead one to rape children .”

                  For the same reason that people who rob cars prefer cars without security systems. It is easier. It is easier to control kids than adults or even adolescents. They are also more naive – at first.

      2. Uh, overweight 40 year old women aren’t going to have a noticable impact on the market for drugged out teenage ass. There are limits to substitutability.

        I’m generally for legalizing pretty much everything, but this kid needs an intervention of some sort. I think you still need to bust the pimp and the johns that took advantage of her. Anyway you look at it, it’s a situation with no good outcomes.

        1. “Uh, overweight 40 year old women aren’t going to have a noticeable impact on the market for drugged out teenage ass. There are limits to substitutability.”

          This depends on WHY the John wanted sex with her. Some guys just want sex, age, and sometimes even looks don’t matter to some.

          “but this kid needs an intervention of some sort.”

          I think most of us here would agree with that, I certainly do. The question here is how. If the above story is accurate she was treated more like a criminal than a victim.

          “I think you still need to bust the pimp and the johns that took advantage of her.”

          On that we agree.

      3. If it were legal (for consenting adults) the market for forced underage girls would (largely) dry up.

        Right, like the market for kiddie porn automatically dried up when regular porn was legalized.

        1. …when regular porn was legalized.

          I dunno, maybe we should ask Stagliano?

        2. I remain skeptical that the market for kiddie porn is greater than a few hundred people world-wide. Law enforcement inflates the figures to grotesque extremes.

          1. “I remain skeptical that the market for kiddie porn is greater than a few hundred people world-wide. Law enforcement inflates the figures to grotesque extremes.”

            I agree with you on that.

    3. 13 year olds drive cars and crash them, injuring themselves and innocent bystanders. It’s quite common. We should outlaw the automobile industry as a result?

      13 year olds get ahold of demon rum and drink themselves dead. It’s quite common. We should bring back prohibition?

      13 year olds shoot themselves or others with guns. It’s quite common. We should outlaw firearms?

      1. Yes on all three of those.

      2. Cartels:

        Ditto

    4. I certainly hope this means that Reason and the rest of us libertarians will stop calling prostitution a victimless and non-violent crime.

      You do understand the meaning of “consenting adults,” right?

      1. Why are we so overrun by fucking social conservatives lately?

        1. Because liberals are in power. Conservatives suddenly remember their libertarian impulses once they’re out of power.

          1. Can’t they go crawling over to some other site, like Free Republic? Or do a massive 4chan style bum rush at Daily Kos or something.

            1. Social conservatives can never be completely eliminated, only managed. Ideally with raspberries and up-turned middle fingers.

        2. Social conservatives fuck?

          1. I doubt if Rick Santorum has ever seen his own wife naked.

    5. The crime in fucking a 13 y/o for money isn’t the fact that you paid for it. The crime is that you fucked a 13 y/o.

      If prostitution (the ability to use your body as a commodity) were made legal in all 50 states today, it would still be fucking illegal to do a 13 y/o!

      1. What if I just peed on her?

  8. She’s still being screwed without pay.

  9. She’s still being screwed without pay.

  10. She’s still being screwed without pay.

    1. NoStar for the hat trick!

  11. Damn those reason server squirrels.

  12. I can understand that this presents questions about how to deal with these kinds of situations. The issues raised by EAP at 4:12PM cannot be dismissed lightly.

    But, why does a thirteen year old girl need to be handcuffed and shackled? Do these people think that further humiliation and degradation is going to help someone in this situation?

    1. Who said anything about help?

  13. ….as opposed to how libertarians deal with teen prostitution?

    “What, a business deal?”

    As a progressive i detest both the republican (status quo) and libertarian (quasi status quo – teens still get fuct, but no chance anyone helps) solution…

    1. You’re also an idiot who knows nothing about libertarianism, but I’m sure that won’t stop you from saying something else stupid.

      And calling the status quo “Republican” instead of “many people including Democrats as well” is hilarious.

      TEAM RED TEAM BLUE RAH RAH RAH

      1. I’m fairly confident i understand more about libertarianism that 98% of the people commenting on this blog…

        …if you’d like to question my knowledge, be my guest. Disagreement is not “misunderstanding”…hate to break it to you.

        The status quo is absolutely not progressive – i guess conservative would be a better word than republican – and yes, that includes both conservative democrats as well as conservative republicans.

        And where exactly was your defense of the libertarian position there? I’m pretty sure the only thing worse than the status quo is what you have proposed…”do nothing.”

        1. It amuses me you think you know so much about libertarians but you also want to lump us in with the status quo. Cause libertarian is totally mainstream.

          1. Its solutions are becoming main stream…tax cuts. That’s your one big solution. Cut its money, get rid of it, less government is always better.

            I understand what libertarianism is…i just want to know why you don’t fully embrace the obvious results? We all make fun of the drug war because its clear that it has no intention of reducing drug use. Why can’t you be upfront about libertarianism? It has no intention of reducing teenage prostitution. I get it. I also get that it is hard to sell when you have to tell the truth.

            Keep talking about “liberty” and “theft” instead…you people are starting to sound like conservatives…

            1. “libertarianism has no intention of reducing teenage prostitution”

              Did I miss this meeting? I don’t remember this talking point.

              Wow the stupid is strong today.

              1. This was my point – this blog post is the same as going on a KKK site and listening to them whine about the police treating black people poorly.

                I understand you not wanting her locked up – but your libertarian solution is “let teen prostitution just continue.”

                I have a progressive solution…you on board?

                1. this blog post is the same as going on a KKK site and listening to them whine about the police treating black people poorly.

                  Boy you sure know how to win friends and influence people huh. “LIBERTARIANS=RACIST. Discuss.”

                  “I understand you not wanting her locked up”.
                  I actually haven’t commented on that part yet, but yeah-locking her up in jail in shackles is ridiculous. I understand that there are no easy solutions in this circumstance so I’m not pretending I have the answers.

                  your libertarian solution is “let teen prostitution just continue.”

                  That’s why people think you’re an asshole. NO ONE SAYS THIS. It’s only in your fevered mind that this has been said.

                  When you’re ready to put down the strawmen maybe you can add something useful, but until then you are just an annoying troll.

                  1. “NO ONE SAYS THIS.”

                    So you’re a statist? Or you personally don’t want it to exist, but aren’t going to recommend we do anything as a society to stop it?

                    1. So you’re a statist?

                      HA HA! no.

                      you personally don’t want it to exist,

                      Yes. I wish child prostitution did not exist.

                      but aren’t going to recommend we do anything as a society to stop it?

                      We have been recommending throughout this thread what libertarians believe might help, and that is to make prostitution legal BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS (capitalized so you won’t strawman it) so as to minimize the effects and negative consequences of illegal activity within the business of prostitution.

                      The point being that law enforcement would then have more time to go after child prostitution since they wouldn’t be arresting the adults. The laws on the books against this as it is are sufficient to prosecute people who break the law, but the resources of law enforcement are limited.

                      What’s your magic solution?

                    2. Progressives also want to legal prostitution. That is separate – and you see, we also want to legalize drugs. We could, instead, just get more cops if you think that’s the issue…or we could cut military spending and pay more cops…i mean, there are millions of ways to get more cops…which is your only answer. More government police going after child prostitution. Interesting…

                      Those do nothing to stop children from engaging in prostitution. You ask for cops – FROM THE STATE, YOU STATIST – to stop prostitution. This will not work – see, drugs: war on. It is more complicated than that.

                      This girl is whoring herself out to get drugs. Prevention, poverty reduction and education, and rehab, all paid for by the public, is the best chance we have at reducing HER desire to whore herself out. There will always be a demand for this – your best chance is to teach people to think rationally and not supply themselves…which is what happens in other countries around the world…

                      …funny how you realize “more cops” isn’t the answer to adult prostitution or drugs…but do think its the answer to this…consistent much?

                      …again, do you have an actual answer?

                    3. Or you personally don’t want it to exist, but aren’t going to recommend we do anything as a society to stop it?

                      Free clue: government is not society, and vice versa. For any perceived problem, it is entirely possible (and preferable) to Do Something without involving the government.

                    4. Preferable to YOU, but not to solving the actual problem. I too wish i lived in a perfect society where teens didn’t whore themselves out and no one else bought them, and people were willing to stop this all on their free time…and ponies, we all need ponies.

                      Let’s look at what works worldwide…get back to me when you’ve educated yourself…

                    5. I certainly recommend that teenagers not be prostitutes.

              2. Of course libertarianism has no intention of reducing teenage prostitution. Nor does Rastafarianism, alcoholism, or vegetarianism, for that matter. Libertarianism also has no intention of producing a good 5 cent cigar, or getting the Chi. Cubs to be world champions of baseball. Nor do Rastafarianism, alcoholism, or vegetarianism.

                1. Thank you.

                  Now, good luck selling your philosophy to the masses.

            2. SM|1.26.11 @ 5:05PM|#
              “…I understand what libertarianism is…i just want to know why you don’t fully embrace the obvious results?”

              ^ Someone please flush the toilet. This piece of shit stinks.

        2. So you continue to prove your ignorance about libertarianism and continue to pretend that “progressives” would…do something positive? I don’t even know what you think positive is. Positive to a libertarian is “legalize it, thereby making it much safer and removing arrest as a danger”.

          Can you understand that, or do you need me to draw you a picture with crayons, big guy?

          1. We agree on parts of that – progressives want to legalize drugs, but they also believe in prevention and treatment programs paid for by the public. Do you need me to draw you a picture with crayons?

            Tell me again how just ignoring teenage prostitution will do anything…but make it worse?

            This is what your unbridled capitalism does…it makes 13 year olds sell their bodies for profit…this is what you want – or at least, its the obvious outcome, and you’re either lying to yourself, or you’re lying to us if you say otherwise.

            1. Ok, so you’re a complete idiot. Got it. You’re too stupid even to play with.

              Why are we infested with fucking morons today, and not even fun ones?

              1. Check and mate…

                1. Right, buddy. You keep telling yourself that.

            2. It wasn’t unbridled capitalism you statist fuck. The kid got turned into a prostitute by a pimp she met on backpage while looking for DRUGS.

              Please enlighten us as to how, in your infinite wisdom and grace, you would solve the problem of 13 y/o prostitutes.

              1. She traded one good (her body) for another (drugs)…sounds like free trade to me…so your point is, she learned capitalism from a pimp? Imagine that.

                Don’t mess with capitalism buddy…its great, no matter what, at all times…

            3. progressives want to legalize drugs

              cite?
              Wait, that’s a silly question because there isn’t one.

                  1. That’s “legalize marijuana” MNG
                    There’s a whole lot more drugs than ganja.

                    Do Progressives want to legalize therapeutic drugs ruled “unsafe and ineffective” by the FDA?

                    1. Its complicated, but we don’t have an ideological dogma that would prevent it.

                      For example, we’ll probably still decide its not worth letting people build nuclear weapons…but that doesn’t mean we “hate freedom” or any of that crap.

                      But its pretty clear to all of us that legalizing AT LEAST marijuana would be a good idea – and using the proceeds of the tax to invest in prevention, education, and treatment…we can all agree that countries around the world that did this are better off than our “war on drugs”…

                      If you’d like to have a discussion on these other drugs, ok, let’s do it…

            4. We agree on parts of that – progressives want to legalize drugs,

              [citation needed]

              Tell me again how just ignoring teenage prostitution will do anything

              Legalizing prostitution will take it out of the black market, and will do largely eliminate the whole sexual servitude thing for adult prostitutes. I posit that reducing the criminal element in prostitution will have spillover benefits for underage prostitutes as well.

              Screwing a 13 year old will still be illegal, of course. As will kidnapping 13 year old girls, forcing them into servitude, etc. etc.

              How this is “ignoring” teenage prostitution, I’m not sure.

              1. Besides libertarians, progressives are the second most likely group to conlude that drugs should be legalized. We also hate the patriot act. We have a lot in common – except we want to balance the means and the ends, and not have a rigid ideology tied to one or the other, as much as we are accused of this.

                Glad to see there is role for the state in your world. Now if we can just have a discussion as to how you plan to enforce the law that teenage prostitution is illegal…where will you get funding for police and courts? Thank you.

                1. Glad to see there is role for the state in your world.

                  RC said nothing about a state enforcing laws. For an expert on libertarianism like yourself, this is a pretty rudimentary mistake.

                  Now if we can just have a discussion as to how you plan to enforce the law that teenage prostitution is illegal…where will you get funding for police and courts? Thank you.

                  Go read this and this and thank me later.

                  1. Wow…as i expected….i am dumber for having read that…

                    …i don’t have time to describe all the problems with “market laws”…but that was very entertaining…i needed a good laugh.

                    My only mistake was assuming he was in the first group of libertarians, not the anarchists. Duly noted.

                    PS. Anarchists care even less about laws…so good luck with that. I love how coercion is bad…unless its done in a market…cause they can’t be coerced, right?

                2. >We also hate the patriot act.

                  Yeah, we can tell because you withdrew your support for the teleprompter-in-chief when he signed the bill to extend it, right?

                  Oh, wait.

                  -jcr

                  1. I think you mistake our pragmatic support for the least worst option at the moment over “support” for all of his policies…

                    …not one of us supports ANY SINGLE POLITICIAN 100% of the time, because none of us think alike…i disagree with a lot that obama does, as do other progressives, but don’t think tearing him down and having mitt romney fuck us in the ass is a better idea…

                    …again, we’re pragmatic…

            5. What sort of prevention and treatment programs do you recommend? No fair writing “ones that work”. I mean how, i.e. why do they work?

              1. And if they do work, what makes you think gov’t agencies would be particularly suited to provide them?

                1. Portugal, etc, for prevention and treatment, plenty of other countries too. Denmark and Finland if you want to see what education and poverty reduction can look like…

            6. your lying. “progressives want to legalize drugs, but they also believe in prevention and treatment programs paid for by the public.” Oh funny stuff. As you said on a thread today Fuck Off Slaver.

            7. This is what your unbridled capitalism does…it makes 13 year olds sell their bodies for profit…

              Teenage prostitution is illegal, shithead. Explain to me how that’s unbridled capitalism. The only way you get around this issue is by banning the exchange of items of value, which necessitates banning the ownership of such items. Derp.

              Also, age of consent, which the vast majority of libertarians do support. FWIW, it should be lower in most cases, most especially for alcohol.

              Also, prostitution should be legal between consenting parties. Deal with it.

              progressives want to legalize drugs, but they also believe in prevention and treatment programs paid for by the public

              I don’t think you know what legalization means if you believe in forced drug rehab.

        3. Progressives would handle things differently. They’d lock her up and brainwash her into adopting the viewpoint that all sex is rape.

          1. No, we’d encourage her to get 11 year olds to work for her to start a capitalist business and earn more profit…”pimp” is just another word for “manager.”

            Get it right, libertarian.

            1. Stupid server. Let’s try that again:

              You really have no concept of libertarianism, do you?

              1. No, again, i realize there are 2 types…anarchists, or the rest. Hell, even Rand fell off the wagon at some point…

                “The rest” are those who realize following the ideology to the end is a bad idea – they’re just confused about where to get off the bus.

                Which are you? Do you believe in anarchy, or are you a “libertarian” (in quotes for a reason) who has their pet projects for the state? You people can’t agree on the military, IPR’s, abortion, and dozens of other issues. Hint: there are no ideologically rigid guidelines to follow, that’s why you can’t agree.

                At least progessives are willing to admit there is a balance to be achieved between the two and want rational discussion as to where it is. When you can admit that, we can have a rational discussion.

                1. Are under some impression that even liberals (I hate that word progressives) agree on the military, abortion, IPR, etc?

                  1. No, progressives realize that determining the outcomes of these things relies on trying to imperfectly evaluate a range of alternatives, and making adjustments as necessary, to achieve as closely as possible the desired goals. They have no rigid ideology they adhere to.

                    For example: teen prostitution. Locking them up isn’t best. Ignoring it isn’t best. Find the middle ground – and when its not working perfectly, try to develop alternatives that would work better. There is a balance somewhere between prevention and rehab, poverty reduction and education – and humans are not all the same, and you will never fully solve any problem.

                    I know it would be so much easier if life were simple – but its not. No two people think alike. So, let’s design policies that work on a range of problems, a range of people…

                    I see other countries have less teen prostitution and better outcomes for their citizens…what are they doing? Let’s study their policies and see if we can’t come up with something similar…

                    …see how this works?

                    1. ” that determining the outcomes of these things relies on trying to imperfectly evaluate a range of alternatives, and making adjustments as necessary, to achieve as closely as possible the desired goals.”

                      Nice passive voice. Avoiding naming the actor. The actor is a group of politicians.

                      Libertarians want the INDIVIDUAL to determine these same things for himself or herself. It is none of your damn business how I run my life unless it infringes upon your equal rights.

                    2. No, we believe in specialization – most of us don’t have all day (or expertise) to sit around and determine the best way to prevent teenage prostitution and diminish its deleterious effects on society. So, we elect people who are supposed to listen to experts who can determine this…and when things are going right, we adjust the course. Obviously, its not perfect, but its the necessary process.

                      Of course we’d prefer if people “just didn’t do things” and we could all live in your libertarian world…but the world doesn’t work that way. And how you run your life NECESSARILY effects how i live my life. What you pollute, what you force me to pay for in one way or another – either schools or police, prevention or cleanup…the world is complicated and interrelated…and you should probably get used to it.

                      You should probably get a say in whether or not i open a bomb range next to your house, even if it infringes on my right to blow shit up…but then again, i’m pragmatic about these things…

                    3. “Of course we’d prefer if people “just didn’t do things””

                      I don’t prefer that people don’t do things that harm nobody but themselves. They should be free to do them.

                    4. “And how you run your life NECESSARILY effects how i live my life. What you pollute, what you force me to pay for in one way or another – either schools or police, prevention or cleanup…the world is complicated and interrelated…and you should probably get used to it.”

                      Polution that effects you is what libertarians call tresspass. We oppose tresspass. As for police and schools those things can and should be dealt with in the free market like any other services.

                    5. They have no rigid ideology they adhere to.

                      Oh, I think they have an ideology, all right:

                      Evertyhing for the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

                    6. Then why are we against things like the patriot act?

                      Try again buddy….

                    7. and humans are not all the same, and you will never fully solve any problem. – SM 5:37pm

                      There is no remedy to certain things, so you aren’t providing a remedy either, just wishful thinking. – Episiarch 4:48pm

                      Yeah, I see how it works.

                      Talk in vague platitudes that are completely devoid of specifics, all while essentially repeating the points of the people you pretend to be ‘schooling’.

                      “We (meaning the government) can do a bunch of stuff” is not some grand solution.

                    8. You want me to point to countries doing a better job with poverty reduction and education and overall happiness? Denmark, Finland, etc? Look at some of their policies, that’d be a good place to start…

                      …what other area would you like to discuss? I told you what to do about teenage prostitution all over this thread…

                      …the problem is that you have to get you people to first admit that you actually believe there is a role for government, then we can have a logical discussion…

                    9. …the problem is that you have to get you people to first admit that you actually believe there is a role for government, then we can have a logical discussion…

                      No, the problem is your inability to grasp that there is more than one role to play. You’re a narcissistic actor who can’t imagine that all scenes aren’t simply a monologue with a rapt audience.

                      You try to bait for the admission of a ‘role’ for government, because you assume that it’s an admission that the government must play a role in every scene. Until you disabuse yourself of that notion, you will continue to miss the point.

                      Your assumptions are illogical, therefore you cannot have a logical discussion because, to you, there isn’t room for more than one voice. Yours.

                      Quit projecting your weaknesses onto others.

                    10. I do not believe the government has a role to play in every scene…but nice try….

                      …however, i also do not believe there is no role for government in any scene…until you disabuse yourself of this notion…

                    11. Oh – want to get religified? Martin Luther (not King) was one of the first to use the expression “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

                      I realize democratic government has not been, nor will ever be perfect, but it is our best hope for now…and its better than the alternative…as most of you concede at some point…

                    12. > They have no rigid ideology they adhere to.

                      In other words, not a shred of a moral foundation.

                      -jcr

                    13. …because this is the same thing…obviously.

                2. So there are either anarchists or “confused” liberals.

                  Ok, I’ll accept your definition, call myself a “confused” liberal and still vote against your sides candidates.

          2. Progressives would handle things differently. They’d lock her up and brainwash her into adopting the viewpoint that all sex is rape.

            If she’s doin’ it “Carbon Neutral”, we’re ok with it.

        4. You really have no concept of libertarianism, do you?

        5. I’m pretty sure the only thing worse than the status quo is what you have proposed…”do nothing.”

          Thew only thing worse than the status quo is… the status quo.

        6. If you understand it so well, SM… why are you a progressive?

  14. Wow, this is rich.

    My question is…why do posts like this (teen prostitution, the environment, education in finland!) keep ending up on this blog, when all it does is draw attention to the fact that libertarianism will do nothing to fix, and instead will exacerbate, the problem?

    I feel like i’m on one of your conservative member’s KKK sites reading about how poorly the police treat black people…

    1. I’d drink but last night was hard enough on my liver already.

      The key here is you’ve already decided on a solution to (insert problem here) and its to force someone to do something.

      Libertarianism stems from the idea that force should be used as sparingly as possible and solutions should be rethought of in a different light. Maybe if you’re solution didn’t involve imprisoning/stealing/or otherwise coercing people into doing what you want, you’d find a wide range of solutions libertarianism has to offer.

      1. As a progressive i’ve rethought everything in a different light – but unlike you, i actually believe in nuance like “force should be used as sparingly as possible” – while balancing all the different factors that go into making life worth living.

        Instead of just letting teens hook on the street, we’d prefer publicly funded poverty reduction, education, prevention and rehab – which, in the long run, will be better off for liberty for ALL, pursuit of happiness for ALL, etc.

        Again, as far as i can tell there are 2 types of libertarians – anarchists, or those who realize rigid ideology fails – and get off the bus at some point.

        Now, if you want to have a logical discussion on where this level of “force” is that will achieve the desired results, we can do that. Welcome to progressivism. Or you can can instead be the confused, irrational libertarian – ie, a pissed off conservative.

        Your choice.

        1. Just a guess, but on a football field of control, I’d probably stop trying to add controls about 50-60 yards before progressives would and be more satisfied with the results overall.

          Just remember, force is a tool, not a net positive and it can be wielded equally against you as for you. Minimizing the reach of the tool gives you alot more opportunity to avoid it.

          1. As long as you admit we’re just having policy disagreements, we can talk.

            Now, for teen prostitutes – i think that not having them is a good thing. I think that kids born into this world to parents who do not have control over this should get a little help from the state to prevent this from happening. I think that selling a 13 year old for sex should be illegal. I think that these kids should be cared for by the state and rehabilitated, educated, and given a second shot in life. I think this would be good for society as a whole – because although us or our children may never use the benefits personally of this program, maybe there is another program we will use the benefits of – either directly or indirectly. I think it would be good for the overall happiness of this country to do something about teen prostitution – instead of just hoping it goes away, or hoping someone in the private world maybe does something about it.

            What do you think? What policies should we agree to as a society to reduce this harm and its effects?

            1. Now, for teen prostitutes – i think that not having them is a good thing.

              Agreed

              I think that kids born into this world to parents who do not have control over this should get a little help from the state to prevent this from happening.

              Agreed, with the caveat that help is not in the form of imprisonment of either parent or child if no crime is committed. Maybe a nanny a parent agrees to that has the force of parenting if the parents lack the means to monitor their children along with psychological help.

              I think that selling a 13 year old for sex should be illegal.

              Of course

              I think that these kids should be cared for by the state and rehabilitated, educated, and given a second shot in life.

              The state is not a person and certain requirements should be met before the state can change the dependancy of the child (proof of unfit parents)

              I think this would be good for society as a whole – because although us or our children may never use the benefits personally of this program, maybe there is another program we will use the benefits of – either directly or indirectly. I think it would be good for the overall happiness of this country to do something about teen prostitution – instead of just hoping it goes away, or hoping someone in the private world maybe does something about it.

              There is great risk in allowing a wide leeway to the state to merely assume dependancy of children and I hesitate to give in to a means test of whether parents or bureaucrats raise children better.

              I don’t have policies off hand that would fix this particular issue, but I am concerned of the potential for these “one-offs” to accumulate through precedent and lead to “whenever a judge feels its appropriate” rather than meeting some strict legal hurdle.

        2. “Now, if you want to have a logical discussion on where this level of “force” is that will achieve the desired results, we can do that.”

          Before I go further let me ask you this question. Do you believe that politicians are a separate “class” or “species” of human that is fundamentally different from the rest of us? I am asking this question for a very good reason.

          1. Obviously not, but make your non sequitur so i can disprove it and we can get on with a real discussion.

            1. SM, good to here it. So, You have one group of people making rules to control those who are not in power.

              They also make rules for themselves do they not? Therefore one could effectively say they are not “ruled” in the same sense that the rest of us are. Do you disagree?

        3. As a progressive i’ve rethought everything in a different light

          It’s pretty clear from your words that you do not think at all.

          force should be used as sparingly as possible” – while balancing all the different factors that go into making life worth living.

          So everyone is free to live their life as you see fit. Otherwise they will be forced into reeducation camps paid for by your looting of the people’s money. Yep, you’re an idiot.

          1. Right…”the looting of other people’s money”…

            …you people aren’t much for irony are you? Who paid for the creation of the technology you use, that has extended your life? Who paid for those roads? Who kept this country free? You kick in your share yet?

            Just another intergenerational welfare queen…

            1. You forgot to mention Somalia. Not to worry, you’ll nail it next time.

            2. You’re an abolitionist? What? Who do you think picked that cotton for the shirt you’re wearing?

              1. He lived in Germany…but anyways…

                1. “He lived in Germany…but anyways…”

                  Cotton does not grow in Germany. If he wore a cotton shirt in Germany there is a good chance that cotton came from the Americas.

        4. Again, as far as i can tell…

          There’s your problem.

        5. Again, as far as i can tell there are 2 types of libertarians – anarchists

          FAIL. Your inability to recognize that anarchism is separate and distinct from libertarianism is fatal to any claim you make about wanting to have a logical discussion.

    2. How are libertarian’s exacerbating the problem? We don’t want teenagers (or any person for that matter) that have committed no crime to be locked in chains and put in prison. What you think the girl is that much safer “off the streets?” Sexual abuse is pretty common in correctional facilities.

      1. Moreso its a terrible precedent to set, allowing the government to hold someone who is not charged with a crime and not considered a threat to society.

      2. No, i think putting them in rehab, poverty reduction, education, prevention, etc, are going to reduce teen prostitution more than “doing nothing” – the libertarian solution.

        That is how you’re going to exacerbate the problem.

        1. “doing nothing” – the libertarian solution

          You’re the only one making that un-provable assertion.

          1. Still waiting for the “libertarian” solution…

            1. Still waiting for the “libertarian” solution…SM 7:32pm

              …and humans are not all the same, and you will never fully solve any problem. – SM 5:37pm

              So libertarianism is a failure because there isn’t some ‘solution’, while you admit that society “will never fully solve any problem?”

              1. Libertarianism is a failure if you take results into consideration while making social policy…compared to other policies we could implement…

                I am more concerned about teenagers whoring themselves out than i am your egoist desire for “liberty” at all costs…

                I think we should have a rational debate how to balance these things…considering most of you balance them, but refuse to engage in the “rational” part…

                1. Wrong again, we simply want both the decisions and the results of those decisions to be made on an individual level.

  15. She is not a slave to the government. The government is not asing her to do anything, its just holding her captive in a Orwellian big brother bit of logic because it has an unsolvable problem (in the minds of those who run it). There is a solution to this however. Let her decide. For better or worse, the government is not her parent nor can they adversely possess her. If she goes back to the pimp…well…people make bad decisions every day. Its not society’s job to protect them from themselves. Offer them options for non-self destruction, but stop trying to pretend you can fix people.

    1. Whoa…a thirteen year old girl? Seriously? Is that even remotely close to the age of consent?

      My five year old hates shots. Should he get to refuse his immunizations?

      1. Do you believe in a difference between a bureaucracy and a parent?

        If the government ordered your son to never have contact with you again, would you cede that they have that authority. In this case, the government can either declare her parents unfit and find substitute foster care or remit her back to her parents. Holding her in trust because they cannot prove the first assertion goes against all legal and moral arguments I’ve ever heard.

        1. You fail reading comprehension forever…

          Selena desperately wants to return home, but the judge and her mother fear she will run away again and fall into the hands of another pimp.

          1. I’ve never heard of a case where a mother has ceded parentalship of a child to the state. If this is the case, I don’t have a good answer other than to say maybe the parent should be working with the judge to have the girl adopted away from this situation.

            1. Some children are abandoned. It’s not direct cession of parenthood to the state, but it’s about as close as it gets.

            2. I’ve never heard of a case where a mother has ceded parentalship of a child to the state.

              When I was 16, my parents did just that. They were somewhat brainwashed by the DARE folks into believing it only a matter of time until they would be held liable for some terrible crime that I would commit.

  16. Not directly relevant to the topic, but I still have to ask: What’s going on at home that would make prostitution attractive to a 13-year-old?

    1. Likely unwanted sex.

      1. It’s an awful situation, especially if the girl has a learned helplessness after all these years, but god its an even more awful precedent to allow the government to do what they’re doing for the girl’s own good.

      2. ^^THIS^^

        I worked with a teen from Nigeria (he was 17) whose uncle began passing him around a sex parties when he was only three. But I guess that’s just as JsubD says, “Some problems can not be fixed. Not by the family, not by the church, not by the government. Kinda sucks, don’t it?”

        1. @ Pro Lib, BTW.

        2. How are those people (Nigerian uncle) not locked up?

          And dear god, how fucked up can some people be.

          1. Helo kind sir! I am most pleased to meet you. I have recently been declared the inheritance of a small boy for the sex and much more! I only need you helping to get him out of the country. If you can making the help I will be most grateful and would happily share 10% of small boy for the sex with you!

      3. That’s a pretty strong accusation with a pretty weak weasel word attached, for someone who knows nothing about this case’s particulars.

        1. Actually, I wasn’t talking about this specific case. I just meant generally. Something profoundly unright has to happen for a kid to be doing such things.

        2. Maybe things wouldn’t have turned out that way if the only three words that girl ever heard were “Mama be back”.

    2. Prostitution?

    3. Either “lesser of two evils”

      Or pursuit of the means to support an addiction.

    4. There is something called “skin hunger”. Someone who is not physically touched enough will seek out ways to be touched by others:

      http://alumni.imsa.edu/~kraut/skinhunger.html

      1. PIRS, we are here to talk about prostitution laws not your personal issues 😉

      2. Here we go with the Freudian bullshit.

        1. Tulpa, rather than toss out ad hominems, how about you state your actual disagreements with the argument?

          1. It’s a borderline unfalsifiable claim pulled out of someone’s ass with no evidence offered to support it. AKA, Freudian bullshit.

      3. I too have this “skin hunger”.

        1. And you probably have more acceptable means to satisfy that hunger, correct?

          She may not have.

      4. Uh, that might be true (then again Tulpa could be right) but either way, a 13 year old would hardly have to go into prostitution in order to satisfy her “skin hunger” urges.

        1. “a 13 year old would hardly have to go into prostitution in order to satisfy her “skin hunger” urges.”

          This depends upon how she interprets these urges. 13 year olds are not famous for being emotionally mature.

    5. The mother claims it’s because the kid has a drug addiction that is not allowed to be indulged in when she’s at home. That’s a plausible explanation…let’s hold off on the lurid accusations of parental sexual abuse for now, Pro Lib.

      1. Tulpa,

        If this were obvious to the government, they should support the parents even more, not hold the child from them.

        1. Are you guys unable to read?

          Selena desperately wants to return home, but the judge and her mother fear she will run away again and fall into the hands of another pimp.

          1. Tulpa,

            Tell me about your mother.

            1. Let me tell you about Tulpa’s mother….

              *ducks*

          2. Yes, I missed that, ainly because I couldn’t believe a parent would act so helpless.

          3. Tulpa was born to ducks? Maybe that yellow one from the DEA. Certainly not Quackel.

      2. The mother claims it’s because the kid has a drug addiction that is not allowed to be indulged in when she’s at home. That’s a plausible explanation…let’s hold off on the lurid accusations of parental sexual abuse for now

        I noticed that claim too. “Not allowed to be indulged in when she’s at home”.

        My daughter’s eight right now. If when she’s 13 and she has a drug addiction, the first thing is figure out what I did wrong, the next thing is I leave her with monks in Cambodia until she straightens out. That’s just how much I love her.

    6. It says in the article that she met a pimp on backpage while looking for someone who was selling drugs.

      1. We pressured Craigslist into changing its ways, Backpage is next.

  17. Loco parentis anyone?

    1. More like parens patriae. But as Tulpa has pointed out, this woman has consented to this, so this is a grey area.

  18. Seriously, most libertarians I talk with will often add the caveat about consenting adults, so that leaves children out. In what ways can government restrict the liberty of children “for their own good?”

    1. Unless the parents are criminally negligent, abusive or unfit to the point of being a serious danger, it is the parents who should be making decisions for the child’s own good.

  19. I’m surprised by the shackles. I thought shackling minor prisoners was illegal.

    1. That can’t be correct. There are violent juvinile offenders who weigh 280 and bench press as much, I can’t imagine they’re unshackled during a court proceeding.

      1. *Juvenile*

        I will use the preview button.
        I will use the preview button.
        I will use the preview button.

        1. Not if we have anything to say about it….

  20. There is a big difference between a 13 yr. old and a 16 or 17 yr. old in such a situation. The judge doesn’t seem to understand how traumatic it is for her to not have a home to go to. Same with the Mother, it seems odd, her position.

    1. That could be construed as some kind of comment on the father.

        1. As a general rule,13 year olds don’t get into prostitution without unusually messed-up circumstances at home. Rape at home isn’t unlikely. I was using “father” as a stand-in for any penis-equipped individual in her household who might make being in jail more comfortable than being at home with a tracking device.

          1. I noted the lack of father in the story. Of course, a single-parent home isn’t enough to drive a 13-yo girl into prostitution, but her mother’s boyfriend might be.

  21. Are there proceedings to see if this girl is mentally sound or send her home with a monitoring device? None of this sounds great from a libertarian point of view, but its better than locking her up.

    Did her mother ask for her to go to rehab?

  22. You libertarians are hilarious…

    …turning yourselves into pretzels…

    DOES NOT COMPUTE. HOW COULD THIS BE? MUST FIT IN BOX. MUST FIT IN BOX.

    Life is complicated, simpletons.

    Can we get to grownup discussions now?

    Its apparent to us all now that the state has some role to play in life/society. Can we please engage in logical and rational discussions of where this falls (and how we’ll pay for it collectively) – instead of “less is more” or other trite slogans?

    1. SM, you did not answer my last post :

      SM, good to hear it. So, You have one group of people making rules to control those who are not in power.

      They also make rules for themselves do they not? Therefore one could effectively say they are not “ruled” in the same sense that the rest of us are. Do you disagree?

      1. No, the rules apply equally to all. One does not make rules and then avoid subjecting themselves to them – and as people, if someone does this, we can then vote for those who will hold them accountable.

        There is actually a higher correlation of “rules makers” and “who avoids rules” to the rich…but that is another discussion altogether.

        …what point are you trying to make? You’re just rambling on…

        1. “No, the rules apply equally to all.”

          Really, this is why Congress exmpted itself from Obamacare? This is why Bill Clinton was not punished for perjury? This is why Congress keeps raising the debt cieling every time it spends too much? Don’t make me laugh.

          “There is actually a higher correlation of “rules makers” and “who avoids rules” to the rich…but that is another discussion altogether.”

          Actually, this is NOT another discussion altogether. One of the mistakes some people make is they assume that being “anti-government” and “pro-big-business” are pretty much the same thing. No, they are not. The fact is a large number of “the rich” are politically connected in one way or another. Google “Iron Triange” sometime and you will understand why this is the case. There are a few exceptions to this of course, but very often those who are rich are there precisely BECAUSE of the sorts of regulations that we libertarians oppose.

          1. make that “Iron Triangle”

          2. Listen buddy, the powerful are going to hit you with a stick occasionally no matter what. Ask the black people throughout history.

            Now ask them if they prefer their voice in the local KKK meeting or their voice in the government of the 1800s…my guess is the latter. You know why? Because at least they had a chance of getting their voice heard and making a change. They convinced enough people that what was wrong, was wrong – and we voted in people who changed what was wrong. I’ve never met a black person who chaired a KKK meeting, but i’ve met one who chaired a government that used to rubberstamp slavery.

            You think the rich won’t have any power when the government is gone? You going to get your voice heard in their meetings? You’re gonna have a vote? That’s rich.

            Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others. Deal with it.

            And if you want to equate your “dollars” with a “vote” – i just need to point out the fact that you have one vote to their one vote, but you have pennies compared to their trillions. Why do you think there is an epic fight over our democracy now? Because money is power – until we vote to change that. The top 10% may have 90% of the wealth, but the bottom 90% have 90% of the vote.

            We may not be there yet, but hey, at least we have a chance. “I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!”

            1. “Ask the black people throughout history.”

              Sure, I will. I will ask them about how there were actual LAWS against teaching black people to read in the South during the time of slavery. I will ask them about how The Fugitive Slave Law meant that merely traveling to a Free State was not enough to escape the possibility of governmental kidnap, they actually had to leave the country if they escaped their “master”. This was the whole point of the Underground Railroad. I will ask them about how the war on drugs has disproportionately impacted black males. I will also ask them about how a PROGRESSIVE president, Woodrow Wilson, re-segregated the federal workforce.

              “You think the rich won’t have any power when the government is gone?”

              Do you know why most of them are rich in the first place? Google Iron Triangle.

              “You going to get your voice heard in their meetings? You’re gonna have a vote?”

              Perhaps not, but I don’t need a vote. I just can avoid purchasing their products if I do not like their policies.

              “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others. Deal with it.”

              Do you have any more lines from an elementary school Civics textbook?

              “And if you want to equate your “dollars” with a “vote””

              See above. I don’t NEED a vote. If I do not like what they have to offer, I will not purchase their products or services. Period. I don’t like reality TV shows. Fine, I don’t watch them. I have no desire to take away any one else’s viewing choices.

              1. I’ll have more lines from an elementary civics textbook when you’ve demonstrated you can understand them.

                You can take your $2 and go home, buddy. See how your voice is heard. Bet you’ll shut down walmart tomorrow.

                Like i said above, the powerful will beat you with a stick. One of the sticks was the government – as i pointed out, but thanks for reiterating.

                Again, tell me which KKK meeting has been chaired by a black person EVER, and i’ll tell you which slavery enabling, jim crow enforcing piece of shit government was chaired by a black person. Guess what? Votes can change things. We can progress as a people, and correct our errors…as long as we have a say in it.

                You think slaves would have had it any better under your libertarianism? The south would still have slaves. Oh, that’s right, its not allowed, but not that you’d have a government that would enforce that…or are you a statist too?

                Again, refer to the elementary lessons on democracy. Come back when you understand.

                We may not be there yet, but we will get there…progessivism is the only thing that has advanced this country since its inception…we’re working on gays right now, we’ll get those who think they’re above the law because of wealth next…

                1. we’ll get those who think they’re above the law because of wealth next…

                  …right after the biggest “progressive” hope in the last 40 years places them all in his administration.

                  It’s amusing to watch your smug level peg the meter as you attempt to distract yourself from the utter duping to which your ‘progressive’ team have subjected themselves.

                  1. I didn’t know Kucinich got elected…cause that was the most progressive guy i saw up there…

                    …i think you’re once again missing the part about “pragmatism”…its why we have obama instead of mccain, and ron paul is a nobody.

                    I’d rather have someone closer to where i want to be in a seat then throw away my vote on someone who cannot make it…yet…

                    …and in the meantime, we’ll work on it…try to educate people, teach them how to think rationally, reason, the whole deal…someday we’ll get there…i mean, holy shit, we just got black guy elected…

                    “today we’ll conquer the difficult, the impossible will take a little longer…”

                    1. I didn’t know Kucinich got elected…cause that was the most progressive guy i saw up there…

                      …i think you’re once again missing the part about “pragmatism”…its why we have obama instead of mccain, and ron paul is a nobody.

                      From WikiP:
                      On Thursday, January 24, 2008, Kucinich dropped his bid for the Democratic nomination after failing to draw more than 2% of the vote in a single contest.

                      On June 12, 2008 Paul announced that he was ending the presidential campaign, investing the more than $4.7 million of remaining campaign contributions to build up the new advocacy group Campaign for Liberty.

                      Although Ron Paul suspended his campaign, he appeared on the ballot in Montana and Louisiana in the 2008 general election. He was also listed in some states as a write-in candidate. He received nearly 20,000 votes, giving him the eighth highest popular vote total in the election.

                      Who’s the ‘nobody’ again?

                      You’ll “get” the wealthy, all while “pragmatically” cheering on Obama, who is putting them in charge of his administration?

                      You might want to tone down the smug.

                2. They wear hoods, how do you know who’s what race in the KKK? Seriously, wasn’t there a chapter that turned out to be chaired by a black guy?

                3. “Again, tell me which KKK meeting has been chaired by a black person EVER,”

                  The KKK is an organization which has historically initiated force against others. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force, period, always, whether from the KKK or the government. Tell me this, when has the Democratic Party ever been chaired by a Republican, ever. See how silly your question is? The problem is violence. Government cannot act without violence.

                  “Guess what? Votes can change things. We can progress as a people, and correct our errors…as long as we have a say in it.”

                  And how many people have to die along the way till you get your “corrected” society? Mao and Hitler had to kill quite a few.

                  “You think slaves would have had it any better under your libertarianism? The south would still have slaves.”

                  Not for long. Slavery was, in effect subsidized by the government. Imagine trying to keep people on the plantation who slave opponets are teaching to read and hading weapons.

                  “Again, refer to the elementary lessons on democracy. Come back when you understand.”

                  Oh, I went to elementry school. I understand the arguments from the other side. Then I grew up and saw the reality of what government is. When I was a child I wanted to be President one day. Then I grew up.

        2. There is actually a higher correlation of “rules makers” and “who avoids rules” to the rich…but that is another discussion altogether.

          You’re reading this the wrong way. It’s the rulemakers who make and keep themselves rich. This is another reason not to trust the rulemakers to make rules and decide what’s best for everyone else.

          1. Well, i’m ready to vote for the progressives…are you? Tell me when you wake up…how bad does it have to get?

            1. North Korea is

              1. shit

                over thatway, SM. I’ll chip in a twenty-spot to help fund a one-way ticket.

    2. How about I’m not responsible for your fucking brat getting into drugs and sex?

      And if you want to have a grownup discussion with someone, you don’t start it off by insulting their intelligence.

      1. How about you’ll pay for my brat one way or another…you just don’t realize it.

        I guess you’re just another intergenerational welfare queen…because those before you sure felt responsible for you…that’s why they built the foundation you stand on and laid down their lives to protect it…just another freeloader cloaked in ideology and righteousness…

        1. Wow! I point out that it’s hard to have an adult conversation when you insult someone and you go and insult me even more. I’d be shocked if it wasn’t for the fact that you are a progressive and that’s your m.o.

          Since you are unable to have a conversation without name calling and insulting people’s intelligence, I will treat you like Max and ignore you from now on.

          1. Coming from the guy who called my kid a “fuckin brat”?

            Its strange how you people have some sort of disease that prevents you from understanding the definition of “irony”…

            1. Don’t worry, scrote. There are plenty of ‘tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was ‘tarded. She’s a pilot now.

              1. Welcome to Costco, I love you…

    3. Jesus Christ, you’re worse than shriek. At least he writes quick posts instead of your turgid, pompous, completely uninformed sludge.

      1. You see, tweens? You can insult people here! Call them trolls! Be a libertarian – when logic fails you, you always have free speech!

        SLAVER!

    4. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

    5. Its apparent to us all now that the state has some role to play in life/society

      No

      1. Read above…and i’m not talking about my posts…

        …so you’re the lone anarchist? Nice to meet you. At least you’re consistent – who cares what the outcome is, as long as its anarchy that gets us there.

        This i can respect. It may end humanity, cause great suffereing, etc, but at least you’re consistent. You just don’t give a shit.

        …unlike all these other statists…

        1. SM, it seems that you are the one who is seemingly unable to think out of a box. I am also an anarcho-capitalist (FYI some people who oppose the state altogether prefer the term voluntaryist). You assume, that because we disagree with you on what the outcome of a stateless society would be that we, “just don’t give a shit”. In fact we do. I oppose the state precisely BECUASE I care so deeply about humanity. If I didn’t “give a shit” I would go be a government worker bee and sponge off the system like so many others.

          1. Don’t waste your time, PIRS. It’s just trolling, and if it’s not, it doesn’t even understand what our anarchism is, let alone libertarianism.

            1. What amuses me is when people tell me that libertarianism doesn’t solve the enigma and frequent stupidity that is humanity. “Yes, that’s right, I respond. Neither does anything else, other than divine or alien supermind intervention. But freer markets and limited government sure beat the alternatives.”

              1. Does it? By what criteria? How do we judge? Happiness? Health? Well being?

                Need to know the criteria – then we can determine…

              2. What amuses me is when people tell me that libertarianism doesn’t solve the enigma and frequent stupidity that is humanity.

                Hell, it embraces it!

            2. No, i clearly understand what “libertarianism” is – even though you guys can’t agree on one definition. I understand the wide variety of libertarians, and their views. I also realize they can be grouped into 2 pretty distinct groups based on whether they abandon the ideology at some point, or are anarchists.

              …seems i have a better grasp of it than most of your commentors…who seem to be pissed off conservatives more than libertarians.

              1. SM, the only definitions of libertarianism I have seen you refer to are straw-men. When actual libertarians define their political philosophy it is almost always refers to some variation of the Non-Agression principle.

            3. Given your position towards EAP, it would be nice if you reminded yourself that anarchy and libertarianism can be distinct things. Because if I’m not mistaken, the Vice-Presidential LP candidate in 2008 had to issue a statement about ages of majority last time, and explicitly repudiated your anarchist position about compulsion and consent.

          2. No, you will follow an ideology EVEN IF the outcome is the destruction of humanity. Its all right there.

            It MAY turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread – but you’ve already told us you’re more worried about form than substance. And if the two come into conflict? You willing to abandon your ideology?

            I await your reply.

            PS. Its not hard to predict what will happen in anarchy if started from the state we’re in…of course, you’ll then sound like a conservative, “this wasn’t supposed to happen…”

            1. “Its all right there.”

              Where?

              I am off to supper, it may not be till tomorow when I return to this thread. But I will be back.

              1. “But freer markets and limited government sure beat the alternatives.”

                This is the path you will follow, regardless of where it takes you.

                I know, your next argument is, “but i think it’ll take us to libertopia.”

                My question, again, but what if it doesn’t? What if huge corporations gain control, and pollute the earth until we all die? Then what? I know, you hope that people will “sensibly” decide to only purchase goods from corporations that don’t pollute…and you’ll “assume” that these will exist…you know, “just because”…

                …right now people choose irrationally, because of a lack of education that would show them how to think rationally, and do things that are destructive to themselves and to each other…i see no reason why this would end under libertarianism – instead, it would most likely multiply.

                So, if faced with the end of humanity, would you be willing to abandon your ideology and instead choose pragmatic policies that would lead to functional solutions, and correct the policy as necessary?

                Tell me again why a plant that spews off chemicals wouldn’t just dump them into the environment if that was the best way to earn profits? And if their product was cheaper, why would people not buy that instead of the product that costs twice as much from the company that doesn’t do this? I mean, these alternatives already exist – and society has chosen to pick the worse answer for all of us.

                If i was a nuclear plant, why wouldn’t i just truck the radioactive material far away from me and dump it on some guys lawn who said it was fine because he just bought that land to make a dump on – earning them both profit? Right above a river that leads into a water source? And so on?

                Do you understand what a Nash Equilibrium is?

                1. “…right now people choose irrationally,”

                  This is why I asked you the question above if you consider politicians a separate class or species of human. You said that you did not. So, why do you seem to think that politicians are incapable of irrationality?

                  Also, I would like to point something else out. We already KNOW the kinds of death and destruction that big government policies bring. All I have to do is point to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and many others. By the way, Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini was LOVED by American progressives at the time.

                  So before we get into “what ifs” regarding to libertarianism, you first have to deal with the fact that we don’t NEED any “what ifs” with regard to progressivism. We already know the kinds of death and destruction that it can lead to.

    6. Actually, troll, we get that a lot of problems cannot be solved. We get it a lot better than progressive jerkoffs like yourself or the ones you’re imitating to troll us.

      What’s your magical government solution? Joe Biden will come and wave his magic pixie wand with unicorn dust, and the girl will magically lose her addiction, never run away from home, and live happily ever after?

      Let her mom stick her in a program like EAP worked at. Or, let her mom try to work out their problem through some other method. Your DC fairy dust will probably put her in some DARE! bullshit program that won’t solve her drug problem, then put her in a foster home, which has an odds-on chance of being abusive.

      1. You mean, besides the fact that exist plenty of cost effective ways to prevent this from happening in the first place (poverty reduction, education, etc), that would save money in the long run?

        Start with that…then get back to me…

        You realize that we’re not as advanced as a nation as we are because we followed somalias lead, right? Instead we had socialized education, safety nets, innovation, etc…

        …you intergenerational welfare queens need to stop with the historic revisionism to start with…there’d be even more teen prostitutes than these if we had followed your “somalia” model from inception….

        1. intergenerational welfare queens…poverty reduction…lack of education…which KKK meeting has been chaired by a black person

          You need to take a break and get more talking points.

          These are stale.

        2. How’s that War on Poverty going these days? Making progress?

        3. “You realize that we’re not as advanced as a nation as we are because we followed somalias lead, right?”

          DRINK!

          Honestly though, you clearly know very little about Somalia and its socialist history.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia

        4. If she fucks a 14-year old boy should either one of them be punished?

          Define poverty.

          Here is a definition

          For those without knowledge of basic economics, poverty is not defined in terms of absolutes. It has nothing to do with absolute measures of subsistence, or health, or quality of clothing or standards of living. It is simply based on income percentiles; if you rank financially in the bottom third of the population, then you are below the poverty line (the exact placement of the poverty line may vary from country to country).

          To put this concept in stark relief, consider this: if everybody in North America experiences a tenfold increase in wealth over the next 30 days, the number of people living below the poverty line won’t change one iota. The “poor” grocery store clerks might have 6000 square foot homes and Porsches, but the “rich” people would have 30,000 square foot homes and McLarens (insert whatever ostentatious displays of wealth you prefer, if you’re not into cars).

          In other words, a general increase in the standard of living cannot possibly eliminate poverty, no matter how high that increase is. It’s all relative, so even the most comfortable country in the world must have poverty … unless the government forces everyone’s standard of living to be the same.

    7. Yes, life is complicated… and between you fucking progressives and those fucking social conservatives, you’re all bound and determined to make life MORE complicated than it needs to be.

  23. This is a really tiresome aspect of H&R, this kneejerk calling of people who come here and disagree with Libertarian Othodoxy 101 “trolls” (or worse this pussy attitude about banning or incifing people). I’ve always thought of a troll as someone like Max who just breaks in to tell people to “suck c*&%” and such. Those kind of people should be derided for what they are. But just because someone comes on and disagrees with the positions, or worse the fundamental assumptions, of libertarianism why does that provoke so much hostility and dismissal? I respect a lot of libertarian thought and I hate people that dismiss it by pointing to low vote totals LP candidates get, but you guys do realize you are a small minority in a democracy, don’t you? Most people in this world disagree with your positions and your fundamental assumptions. Hiding from and abusing them when they express that is not going to make that fact change any time soon. I mean shit, it’s a wonder some of you even go out of your house lest you come across someone who will disagree with you…

    1. There is no point in discussing something with someone who–either purposefully or inadvertently–completely fails to understand your philosophy, or intentionally mischaracterizes it. Why should we waste our time, especially when it’s clear the person is in fact intentionally mischaracterizing, or is such a leftist partisan robot that they believe only the definitions of the philosophy as described on their echo-chamber web sites?

      Throw in some laughable condescension, and that person can go fuck themselves. Like joe, this guy isn’t here to learn; he’s here to argue and get people riled up. That’s a troll.

      1. “There is no point in discussing something with someone who–either purposefully or inadvertently–completely fails to understand your philosophy, or intentionally mischaracterizes it.”

        When i do that, point it out.

        As far as i can tell, you disagree with my philosophy, not the characterization of yours. I understand what you guys mean when you say, and i quote,

        “But freer markets and limited government sure beat the alternatives.”

        …but i don’t see how that means i’m insulting or distorting your ideology when i disagree with that in a logical, rational basis.

        But i get it, anyone who disagrees, even after providing actual concerns, logical thinking, ANYTHING, is a troll, SLAVER, and all that.

        When you people distort progressivism (STATISM! STATE FIRST, STATE ONLY!) i simply point out where that is not true, and give examples – ie, the patriot act, the rejection of the entire conservative dogma, desire for legalization of drugs, etc. Is this so hard for you to do?

        I am still waiting for a comprehensive solution to this problem. You’re complaining about the state treating TEEN PROSTITUTES poorly, but are not giving ANY ALTERNATIVES THAT REDUCE TEEN PROSTITUTION….i get that we could “just not lock them up” – but what happens to them? How does that help? Most would argue that is even worse – at least they’re not getting raped (as often, yes) in jail – which is almost as abhorrent…and the reason progressives would do away with that too.

        …any time you want…go right ahead and tell me what you’d do to fix this problem, or minimize it as much as possible…

        But if you can’t, then you people need to stop posting about teen prostitution, the environment, education in finland (“i don’t get why it succeeds!” was my favorite post so far on this blog) and anything similar…its doing nothing to attract more people to your ideology…

        …stick to your “taxes is theft” dogma, you’ll do better in attracting pissed off conservatives…

        …or be a bunch of basement dwellers…what do i care…

        1. When you people describe progressivism (STATISM! STATE FIRST, STATE ONLY!)

          No charge for the fixin’, SM.

          1. I’ll leave the “you people” part of your comment alone, SM, other than I will say “tsk tsk” for you having used it.

      2. I dunno Epi. It doesn’t strike me as any more condescending as many of the posters here and if he mischaracterizes libertarianism and anarchism the same can be said of many here regarding liberalism…I mean, you don’t want this site to become its own echo chamber. I’d save the troll thing for folks like Max or Suki/John T., but hey, that’s just me.

        1. MNG, if this guy wasn’t purposefully dense, you might have a point. But as I said, how–in fact, why–do you have a discussion with someone who absolutely clearly has no intention of changing their views, is obnoxious, and misrepresents many aspects of libertarian philosophy?

          It’s completely a waste of time. This douche isn’t going to change his/her mind no matter what is said. So why should we bother?

          1. you know you talking to minge don’t you?

    2. The problem that I have with you, MNG, is your advocacy that children should be raped and then set on fire.

      I, and my compatriots, however, would prefer that children receive a safe and nurturing environment, with healthy food choices and access to education.

      I think I can pretty well describe your cannibalistic, psychopathological, murderous ideology as an abysmal attempt to destroy not only planet earth, but the entire fabric of the universe.

      Are you ready, MNG, to see what is obvious from our positions? Or are you still inclined to dwell on the brutalization of children and fluffy domestic animals for your own twisted pleasure?

      Please respond to this when you can address me like an adult.

      1. Sigh.

        It seems to me that what the guy is saying (and yes, he could say it with a lot less of the cutesy insults and sloganeering) is that libertarianism and anarchism has no answer for this type of thing and, to the extent one is offered, it evidences a departure from stated libertarian principles (and if you can chuck that here why not here and here and here).

        I’m not saying his point is correct or compelling, but it strikes me as a fair point, worthy of better than dismissal as a “troll.”

        1. MNG,

          Maybe you’re just skimming. In this thread, it claimed that:

          1) Libertarians cannot agree on their ideology. “i clearly understand what “libertarianism” is – even though you guys can’t agree on one definition.” and “You people can’t agree on the military, IPR’s, abortion, and dozens of other issues. Hint: there are no ideologically rigid guidelines to follow, that’s why you can’t agree.”

          2) Progressives “realize that determining the outcomes of these things relies on trying to imperfectly evaluate a range of alternatives…They have no rigid ideology they adhere to.”

          3) your libertarian solution is “let teen prostitution just continue.”

          4) Still waiting for the “libertarian” solution…

          I could go on, but can you at least recognize the difference between trolling, which is what this character is doing, and reasonable argumentation?

          Trolling isn’t just profane outbursts. It’s also characterized by demands (“Start with that…then get back to me…”), condescension (“Is this so hard for you to do?”), and, as pointed out above contradictory and evasive argumentation, that, when answered, is immediately ignored.

          Sorry, MNG, but Episiarch is right about this one.

          Oh, and stop advocating child rape-immolation.

        2. Thank you for understanding MNG…do you think we’ll ever get a rational, consistent response?

      2. You can tell apart people who are not intellectually serious by their refusal to admit that their deeply held principles are morally bankrupt and evil.

  24. Why the fuck do you libtards give a shit about this? You WANT people to pay for sex with kids!

    Besides, she’s better off behind bars.

    1. Come post on our site, Edwin. With your law and order attitude, you can help us convince people that we are the only ones who have all the answers.

    2. Don’t worry, scrote. There are plenty of ‘tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was ‘tarded. She’s a pilot now.

  25. The south would still have slaves.

    Dumbest thing I’ve read in a while. The historical slavery doesn’t exist anywhere in the world today, but it would persist in the warmer half of the most prosperous nation on Earth. Derp.

    10/10

    1. Also, I’ll be disappointed if you just meant “would have had.”

      In any case, my extended family had a similar issue with a cousin of mine. Her siblings are all doing fine, but she fell in with the wrong crowd, start doing drugs and selling herself. She was ordered to a drug treatment program, and within a week of leaving she was back on the streets. Rinse and repeat. Absolutely immune to reason or guilt.

      Sometimes problems don’t have solutions. I suppose that makes me some cold, heartless libertard, but the reality is that everyone’s energies are best directed elsewhere. That doesn’t solve the issue of teen prostitution because nothing will. You can certainly mitigate its extent by providing a family who cares, the opportunity to go to school, etc., but if someone has that there’s not much more you can do. And you can punish the pimps and johns. But as some point you have to cut your losses, and IMO that point should be before the often-chronic imprisonment episodes in juvenile institutions and drug treatment centers.

      1. Right, because it couldn’t possibly be she hasn’t found the right program yet…if one fails…give up.

        I’m pretty sure that’s how it works for all addicts…

        1. Ah, I can see how you’re a progressive. Failed therapy demonstrates the need for more therapy.

          Maybe you missed the “rinse and repeat.” She’s been through two programs, one 12-step-based (most are) and the other behavioral. If anything, the former just surrounded her with fucked-up people and accusations of addiction and powerlessness, which made her depressed and exacerbated the drug use. The second was just pointless as she never had any intention of quitting, just getting out of treatment. There are drug addicts that want help, and then there are drug users, some of them addicts, who do not.

          In any case, recidivism rates for forced drug treatment programs are very high, often with little difference versus no treatment at all. And then there’s the issue that she doesn’t actually want to change.

          So, society could indeed employ all these resources to force her to stop, which would most likely be fruitless, or find some better use for its time and money. (Those, by the way, are scarce resources.) After years of trying to help her, her parents told her never to come by the house again as she was having a negative impact on the other three children. Yes, sometimes life means you have to make tough choices, and not all “addicts” can be “cured.”

          We’re right in saying that forced drug treatment is preferable to prison. It is, but that’s only because prison for drug use is ridiculously wasteful and downright evil. That doesn’t make forced treatment a great idea, though. Drug reform activists cling to treatment programs because they need some alternative to prison to offer the unconvinced (and need to convince themselves, too), and that’s fair enough.

    2. So you think…i have no reason to believe it would have ended on its own short of progressives across the world working to remove it from earth.

      …but you can also believe in unicorns too…or better yet, that capitalism is responsible for the standard of living in this country…that’s another good one…

      1. So you think…i have no reason to believe it would have ended on its own short of progressives across the world working to remove it from earth.

        Right, because that’s retarded. Plenty of nations completed untouched by “progressivism” — by which we really mean abolitionism — did away with slavery. And for those countries where abolition, itself a coalition of various social activists linked by a common opposition to slavery, was a social movement, it was long before the advent of progressive politics.

        The history of progressivism has fuck-all to do with slavery. In the US, it has to do with trust-busting, labor laws, anti-graft, etc., and early on, prohibition.

        The issue might be, of course, that you’re defining “progressive” as “ideas that I agree with,” and thus those who disagree with slavery are progressives, and thus they endorse your views on the role of government. But anti-slavery activism was a product of belief in equality, and that takes many, many stripes.

        or better yet, that capitalism is responsible for the standard of living in this country…that’s another good one…

        Okay, I see you’re trying hard to outdo the South-would-still-hold-slaves comment. Name one prosperous non-capitalist nation. One. Capitalism, that is, the private, for-profit ownership of the means of production, is a prerequisite for prosperity.

  26. [P]rogressives … also hate the patriot act.

    Bullshit, you only “hate the patriot act” when the “wrong people” are in power.

    As evidence, note the fact that absolutely no action was taken to repeal any portion of the patriot act during the time that Democrats controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government.

    Also note the fact that drug prosecutions continued apace and absolutely no reform of drug policy was attempted in that time.

    Of course, every so often we have to put up with the freshman soc-psych major who has found this site right after starting his first class with a marxist prof that he has developed a man-crush on. You’re the one for this week.

    1. Wrong again…i detested it under both presidents…why is this so hard to believe? And the fact that we think drugs should be legalized? Its this really impossible for you to understand?

    2. Wrong again…i detested it under both presidents…why is this so hard to believe? And the fact that we think drugs should be legalized? Its this really impossible for you to understand?

      1. Hard to believe because when in power none of this was executed. just like we don’t believe the pubs care about spending. Pretty easy to understand. Also everything you say above is because you cannot separate libretarianism from anarchism. pretty simply to see that also.

    3. And btw – what makes you think that all democrats are progressives? You think we want lincoln (either), lieberman, etc? At least i acknowledge there are various libertarians…

      …the president has only been progressive in some areas, and terrible in others. You know what would be worse? A president who is terrible in all. I’m not an ideologue…sorry…

  27. …or be a bunch of basement dwellers…what do i care…

    Hey feel free to leave , as they say, don’t let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    1. Good posts, Kreel.

  28. SM|1.26.11 @ 6:46PM|#
    No, i clearly understand what “libertarianism” is – even though you guys can’t agree on one definition.

    I like that it doesn’t see the irony in this. Tee hee! Thanks for ruining what might otherwise have been an interesting thread, SM! Now run back to school for more talking points from the echo chamber!

    The rest of you – I hope you’re ashamed that you didn’t “solve” 13 year old prostitution, as SM had hoped. If you want, we could start to not solve world hunger now…who wants to go first?

    1. If SM doesn’t cure death in the next fifteen minutes, he’s as full of shit as we thought.

  29. I am still waiting for a comprehensive solution to this problem. You’re complaining about the state treating TEEN PROSTITUTES poorly, but are not giving ANY ALTERNATIVES THAT REDUCE TEEN PROSTITUTION

    It’s almost like it ignored alllll the posts and (apparently wasted) bytes in this blog. Back to class, SM – more talking points for tomorrow! Bonus points for paying attention to what others say/write!

    kthxbai

  30. Shackling a 13 year old girl. I’m amazed at the cowardice this displays.

    -jcr

    1. Cowardice? Have you ever tried to chain up one of those things?

  31. In conclusion, i think this blog would be best served in spreading its message if it avoided the following topics:

    Teen Prostitution
    Education (especially Finland…)
    Environment (especially BP…)

    …or any other topic libertarianism has no rational solution for which people of this nation (and world) may actually give a shit about…

    Good night.

    1. That would certainly make you more comfortable becuase it would not shatter the little bubble in which you live.

  32. What is the algorithm that determines the intervals between introducing sex topics on this blog?

  33. The shackles are probably standard procedure. A few years ago Vermont passed a law *not* requiring the use of shackles when dealing with minors in certain situations.

    http://pn.psychiatryonline.org…../12/2.full

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.