Jeanine Ring, Prostitution etc

In that case, Perigo, I plead that my invocation of the Perigo Paradigm was also misplaced.

Pukszta

Post 101

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:13am

When I first read the message from Jeanine which I posted, I assumed that by "minors" she meant (relatively) mature teenagers not far below the state's arbitrary age of majority. However, I can see why some have interpreted it as referring to even very young children and have asked Jeanine if she wishes to clarify further.

MH

Post 102

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:03am

Linz wrote: "I note that two of Jeanine's attackers subscribe to the view that SOLO is a perversion of Objectivism, since they offer succour to the site of the Catholic, the phascist & the homofobe (the site where the homofobe wrote a phive hundred-part series on *why* SOLO is a perversion of Objectivism!), even as they pretend to have SOLO's interests at heart in chasing away the likes of Jeanine."

I am one of those "phascists" Linz is referring to, except I do not have SOLO's interests at heart. I only have my interests at heart. Who is the other "phascist"? He or she did not let me in on our little conspiracy.

Post 103

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:09am

MH wrote:

However, I can see why some have interpreted it as referring to even very young children and have asked Jeanine if she wishes to clarify further.

Clarify? Heh...I very much doubt clarification on anything, ever has been JR's goal. I've never seen so much random, brain-cell destroying ramblings in my life that weren't on some wiccan tree-worshipping blog. I don't ask for clarification from her, because it would come wrapped in sixteen layers of gilded dog-poop. I quote Voltaire, from LP's latest article:

"Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid."

(That's right, I used "dog-poop" and "Voltaire" in the same post. Wannafightaboutit?? : P)

*back into the abyss*

Post 104

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:10am

For what it is worth, Jeanine has responded to me and stated that she does not wish to write a further formal post of her own, but that my initial interpretation of her message was correct, i.e. she meant mature teens not far below the age of majority, and not significantly younger and less mature children.

Speaking for myself, I'm sympathetic to Jeanine's view that state age limits are ultimately arbitrary. Surely in such situations it is the maturity of the individual that ought to matter, rather than their age. Of course the law as it stands is clear, and the above should not be interpreted as approval on my part for all those who break it.

On a lighter note, Jeremy, why do you keep going into an abyss??

MH

Post 105

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:41am

Well, blow me down! That does clear it up some. And I can understand questioning restrictions by the State, certainly some of the more arbitrary ones, including prostitution and age restrictions on, say, 16-17 year olds. (though combining youth with prostitution is not, in my opinion, moral...bleh bleh bleh)

That's just my yufamism phor being less active, MH. Nothing life-threatening. : P

Post 106

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 11:11am

Thanks, MH.

Jeanine and I both live in California, where the legal age of consent is 18, years after most people are fully, objectively capable of informed, uncoerced consent on their own. Some US States have even higher legislated ages, up to 21. Relative to repressive parents, "child" can mean any offspring, regardless of age, and to at least some of us it was clear that Jeanine, but not her detractors, was using the term in that sense. Jeanine has her differences from Objectivism, but I know of nothing in Objectivism by which to fault her personal guidelines for dealing with young people. But the assumptions some people jump to - they are enough to bare the souls of the people doing the jumping. Caveat lector.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 12/28, 11:13am)

Post 107

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 11:43am

As you were, then. But Jeanine can't complain about being misinterpreted when she begins, "It has been recently claimed that, in offering my help to children
forbidden to pursue romantic love by their parents ... "

It's also quite right that she not post here via an intermediary. If she's got something to say to us she should damn well get on *this* board & post!

Linz

Post 108

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:03pm

Adam,

You wrote: "Jeanine and I both live in California, where the legal age of consent is 18, years after most people are fully, objectively capable of informed, uncoerced consent on their own."

Since you appear to have given this issue more thought than I probably have, I am curious about your take on the "age of consent". Specifically, what do you think are the objective standards that should be taken into consideration when judging if an individual is capable of informed consent? Also, do you think the law should a place in it, i.e. when enforcing legally binding contracts?

I myself have no hard answers to these questions, other than disagreement with arbitrarily defining the age of consent as 18 for all individuals. You did not like my proposal of defining the objective standard as financial independence. What is your alternative?

Post 109

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:06pm

Byron,

Ideally, I think there should be a "maturity exam", like the Jewish Bat/Bar mitzvah, as one of the available alternatives. Another alternative could be becoming financially independent, as you propose. Another alternative could be some maximum age, like 18 or 21. I don't think that there is a one-size-fits-all solution; multiple alternatives ought to be available.

Post 110

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 5:58am

Byron & Adam,

There is one clear advantage to a set age of majority. It is objective. If someone is eighteen or older I don't have to guess whether or not the person is mature enough for me to make our contract valid. The same with sex and marriage. No test substituting for a set age can be as objective. Objectivity has the virtue of clarity which I believe is important in relationships subject to the scrutiny of the law, like contractual ones.

Pukszta

Post 111

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 6:57am

There is one clear advantage to a set age of majority. It is objective. If someone is eighteen or older I don't have to guess whether or not the person is mature enough for me to make our contract valid. The same with sex and marriage. No test substituting for a set age can be as objective. Objectivity has the virtue of clarity which I believe is important in relationships subject to the scrutiny of the law, like contractual ones.

The problem is that this only works if your �objective� standard is actually accurate. Applying an �age of majority� may make it perfectly clear whether the law treats an individual as a full person, but it says absolutely nothing about whether that individual actually is sufficiently mature. If you choose to honor contracts solely on the basis of an �age of majority,� you'll get plenty of immature 18-year-olds who have no clue what they're signing, and miss the opportunity to work with plenty of wise-beyond-their-years 17-year-olds.

Useful as an absolute standard like the �age of majority� may be in making laws easy to write, there is no substitute for the rational judgment of individuals, as individuals.
(Edited by Nature Leseul on 12/29, 6:58am)

Post 112

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:18am

Rooster,

I think that you are misusing "objective" in the sense of intrinsic. I agree with Rand about distinguishing the two. Passing a test is not an intrinsic criterion, but it is an objective criterion, just like financial independence, or age. The process by which one would check whether a person has or has not met the given criterion, or any of them, is exactly the same.

Ultimately, the individual's ability to give valid consent is an objective (but not intrinsic) fact, and the law should do its best to evaluate it as reliably as possible. Age is less well correlated with mental ability than cognitive tests are. Therefore age alone will estimate the actual ability to consent less well than multiple measures which include the other criteria.

Post 113

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:33am

Leseul,

I'm not arguing that a set age of majority is not arbitrary. You're right, it is. The question is whether the value of objectivity outweighs its arbitrariness.

If we are going to recognize that a concept like maturity has validity in our laws, then a line between minority and majority needs to be drawn. Do we draw that line on a case by case basis, or do we have a general rule? I think the latter is more rational. The former simply mucks up forming contracts without any real benefit.

After all, if you think a minor really is mature enough to honor a contract, nothing stops you from making a contract with him. You face the possibility that he can renege without consequences because of his age, but if he truly is mature (and you trust your judgment on that score) then that won't happen. Conversely, how many 20-year-olds will you contract with whom you judge are too immature to trust? You're not going to contract with them, even though the law will not let them off the hook because of age.

So a set age of majority isn't much of burden upon honorable dealings, while at the same time providing genuine protection to minors. As for sex and marriage, I think that point is even clearer.

Pukszta

Post 114

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:39am

Adam,

Interesting idea. The concept of a government "maturity test", or whatever such a test may appropriately be called, is not unheard of. The government tests us all the time for legitimate reasons. We take driving tests (I am all for privatizing roads but if I owned a road I would want the drivers driving on it to pass an objective test too) and civil service employees take examinations to apply for or be promoted in government positions. Various non-profit organizations such as the AMA, NASD, and the State Bar Assocations have professional licesing examinations (they're government mandated but that doesn't necessarily take away their value). Going back even further, rites of passages are common practice in many societies and cultures, and for good reason I think.

The only problem with such a test is that it can be tricky in implementation. I am not comfortable with the idea of a written "maturity test", or at least a "maturity test" that is exclusively a written examination. An interview by a psychologist may be more appropriate, I think, but even that has some problems. I know probably no solution is going to please everyone, but do you have suggestions for what criteria would be assessed in a "maturity test" and how to go about assessing it?

Post 115

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:42am

Adam,

As I said to Leseul, a set age of majority IS arbitrary. I am not making an intrinsicist argument that the common age of majority in this country, eighteen, is particularly informative of a person's capacity for genuine consent. I am saying that it is objective in that all parties can recognize the simple fact that a person is eighteen.

As for testing to determine majority, I have no confidence that they cannot be gamed just like the SAT's are these days. At least with age that cannot be manipulated except through fraud.

Pukszta

Post 116

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 8:33pm

I haven't been posting in a long while (but I have been lurking!), I think since the "phuck off" incident. I stopped partly because of that conflict, and this one (and for other reasons), but I have to resume now. It is only I who have been lurking in the abyss.

From the first time I read Adam's article, and Jeanine's repudiation of bourgeouis mentality, I have sympathized with her, and her passion for passion. I understood that capable, responsible youths are being oppressed by a misplaced and needless authority.

Granted, this authority is only misplaced in the tragically rare cases of the young and nearly fully self-realized (like me; I like to think that I am capable and responsible. I will be seventeen in 70 days), and that for the rest of humanity, an arbitrary age limit is proper. However, to sanction this arbitrary age limit is to allow the infringement of the rights of a few (and the few who probably deserve those rights most) for the sake of the incompetence of the many. Last time I checked, this unforgivably betrays a prime tenet of Objectivism (and incidentally, the very first one introduced to me, and subsequently responsible for my passion for it).

I think Jeanine wrote for herself and those with a passion as full as hers. Her dissenters have written for the mediocre majority. I cannot speak for the dissenters, but as a thinking, rational teenager (try to judge the validity of this statement via my posts, please) I have experienced the injustice of a monstrous and aribtrary authority; hence, my enthusiasm for freedom

So here we reach sort of a dilemma, one that I think the morality/maturity testing would resolve. Who will the laws endorse?

The testing would be extensive, like a psychologist would spend a few weeks with the testee in his/her daily life, and judge from the testee's actions whether or not he/she is objectively capable of independence. Or something very thorough like that; suggestions are very welcome. These psychologists would (hopefully) be only the most respected, insightful, objective, and (I need a word for the ability to judge someone's character) judgemental (?), but most of all the embodiment of the morals and maturity we'd look for in a testee.

The tests would occur in rare cases, be paid for by the testee, and if the testee passes (by criteria probably set by the government), he or she would be able to consent and enter into contracts, and be recognized by the government as capable and be granted some rights of adults, probably (this sounds like the graduated driver's licenses!). The age of 18 would still stand as an age of responsibility, or whatever.

I've actually thought of this extensively since as long as a year ago, I think. It especially applies here.

Moral yardstick anyone? Might this work? Suggestions are welcome.

-Michael

Post 117

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 5:36am