Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

i'm curious as to how he is going to argue that child pornography does no harm to the child featured in said child pornography... i have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.

sure, then snuff movie is fine too then i guess since it's "just" media... we're talking real human here, not cartoon, let's be clear about that, nobody gives a fuck about a cartoon.

it's the intent that matter, not the watching per say, people who gets of watching beheading videos, child porn, snuff movie are as guilty as the one producing it, they are a menace to any civilized society, a bomb waiting to go off.

again, morbid curiosity is not "getting off"... i'm talking X you respond by talking Y. that's twice already, good luck to you.

Inherently, the issue is that in order to possess the material, it must be made and then sought out. Such seeking creates a market demand. I can't believe a self-professed "Libertarian" would have such a poor understanding of market forces.

I consider those who generate demand for such 'morbid curiousities' are at some fault in this instance. Demand drives supply, and in this case where the supply involves human suffering, especially at this level, both ends of the transaction have fault.

Why is this guy considered a spokesman for Libertarianism? He's not. And full Libertarian when it is logically supported is best. Its not a hypocritical lie like the 2 parties tend to be most of the time.

Taken out of context.

Those statements are not libertarian, btw. Heroin use, the alleged victim is society=no crime. Child porn, actually victims=crime.

Possession is not what created the victim. Creating the image/video is what did. The argument is that possession is currently a worse crime than making it, protecting the offenders, not the victims.