Stallman Eh?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-09-14 14:45 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 151 references Ignore this thread
Stallman Eh?
[Comments enabled]

Hoh boy....

Famed Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) computer scientist Richard Stallman is under fire after a leaked email thread showed him defending an associate of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, claiming that his alleged victims were “entirely willing.”

And you don't think this was the first creepy thing he's had to say about such stuff, do you?  Oh no, apparently not.

A deep dive into his writings shows this isn’t the first time Stallman has expressed such questionable views, however. He has written dozens of posts on his personal website in favor of legalizing pedophilia and child pornography for more than 15 years.

“This ‘child pornography’ might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. It might be an image of a sexually mature teenager that any normal adult would find attractive. What’s heinous about having such a photo?” Stallman wrote in 2011 on his personal site,, in an argument in favor of Congress limiting laptop searches at the U.S. border.

Ah my, here we go.

Now there is clearly a difference between pedophilia (sexual attraction to children, with incomplete or undeveloped secondary sexual characteristics) and statutory rape, along with child pornography which, legally, encompasses both pre-pubescent and underage people who have developed secondary sexual characteristics.  In addition it's quite clear that our views as a society have changed; it was not at all uncommon for 16 year olds in the not so distant past in America to go off on their own, get married and, well, you know what married people do, right?

The law may be a blunt instrument but today, if anything, we're moving the line the other way.  That is, you're not actually an adult at 18 any more.  You can't drink, you can't buy a gun in many states (including Florida, I might add), you aren't expected to have your own health insurance, etc.  Indeed while at 16 when I came of that age my driver license was an ordinary adult license today it is not -- it is a "restricted" license and is not valid at certain times; for example, late at night.

It's flat-out insane to on the one hand claim that this is all ok -- you have no right to smoke, to drink, to be expected to be responsible for discharging your own health care obligations and costs, to drive when and where you want and to acquire, keep and bear the means of self-defense even at the age of 18 while at the same time "oh, it's perfectly ok if someone likes to **** girls and peddle around nude images of same -- you know, 15 year olds."

Stallman, incidentally, is the "GPL" guru -- you know, Free Software Foundation.  Yeah, those guys.  Linux, etc.

I personally believe there is a valid debate to be had when it comes to age of consent laws in all respects.  Of course Stallman's commentary seems to be all one direction which is pretty much the definition of I don't really believe in the concept of consent as I describe.

Why not?

Because with consent comes responsibility.

That's the thing about "adulting"; it's not a graduated thing.  Sex is unique in the heterosexual context at least in that it is an exercise of the most-powerful thing that an animal can do.  Specifically heterosexual sex is at its core about the creation of new life irrespective of the fact that we have developed technology to tamper with that.

I don't care if you believe in this within a religious context or not -- religion really doesn't enter into this at a philosophical and practical level, whether your particular view of religion is that it's hokum, a dude with white hair on a big throne or a flying spaghetti monster.  The physical facts are what they are; the entire premise of male and female sexes is the reassortment of genetic material through the act of sex which creates new life.  As humans we have the ability to understand this as the most-awesome power that there is, standing above only one other power we posses yet in most cases cannot legally use: To extinguish existing human life.

So you can lecture all you want about being able to boff 14 year olds, which Stallman apparently believes is a "civil right", if and when said 14 year old is fully responsible for the consequences of that decision, including whether or not to have and raise a child that results (or not) entirely by their own hands without the obligation of any other person including their now-former parents, to acquire, keep and bear the means of effective self defense, to hold any job, hazardous or not, to choose what educational opportunities to pursue or not and to fund them entirely out of their own economic surplus, to choose when and where to be and use the means common in the modern era (a car) on their own, as they wish, to be responsible under criminal law entirely as an adult, to be fully, 100% responsible for their own personal health decisions and their costs, to acquire and consume whatever substances they wish (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc), to own personal property in their own name and to be fully responsible for same and when any continuing relationship (e.g. between their parents and themselves) is entirely voluntary at and beyond that age.

In other words when, and only when, you are willing to declare that act of "voluntary" sex an act that results in immediate and irrevocable emancipation with all of the rights and responsibilities that adhere with adulthood do I agree with you.  Until that debate is held and resolved nope, nope and nope.

And again, I note that as a society and legal system the United States is inexorably moving in the exact opposite direction and in fact young people are celebrating and demanding exactly that.

View with responses (opens new window)