Unlicensed, underage tattoos

[J’raxis 270145]

I'm sorry but tolerance to pain is not what I would consider a good judge of mental maturity.

I agree. But one doesn't need to be mentally mature to be responsible for their own decisions. Case in point... There are SOME adults who believe that sex with the woman on top means she can't get pregnant. She's a moron, but she's still capable of making her own decisions.

The idea of an age of majority is flawed, but if we add in the idea of "mental maturity" being a requirement it's even worse. How do you determine "mental maturity" without infringing liberty?

I've often suggested this—the idea of some sort of competency/maturity test, administered to, say, anyone from 10–18 who requests it, as an improvement over the current "age of majority" system. It's certainly not something I'd hope to see in the long run, considering I don't want to see a State in the long run, but it would be an improvement over the current system because it actually tries to satisfy the fear that the age of majority purportedly does: That "minors" are "too immature" to consent to adult activities.

It is amusing, however, to see people who support the status quo on such grounds suddenly change their rationale when you provide a solution that actually satisfies their arguments, and does it better.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

At one point I had that same solution. It's so weird, I held that system in my mind for YEARS, and kind of forgot about it. Now when it was brought up again it took all of 10 seconds to see that it would SUCK.

Someone who's 18 can argue that they're legally permitted to do something because of their age. But with the AMOG we've got, the conservatives could argue anyone not mature enough to levitate and transmute matter into gold isn't mature enough to drink alcohol or something...

No state is the solution.

[J’raxis 270145]

At one point I had that same solution. It's so weird, I held that system in my mind for YEARS, and kind of forgot about it. Now when it was brought up again it took all of 10 seconds to see that it would SUCK.

Someone who's 18 can argue that they're legally permitted to do something because of their age. But with the AMOG we've got, the conservatives could argue anyone not mature enough to levitate and transmute matter into gold isn't mature enough to drink alcohol or something...

That's why I said the test would be administered, when requested by the child, up to some maximum age at which, for purposes of expediency and to prevent the scenario you mentioned, people would simply be considered adults. (Some people may support the status quo for "reasons of expediency" but the difference is that that sort of expedition infringes upon some people's freedoms. Mine doesn't.)

I used both an upper and lower boundary in my example—ten is a traditional "age of consent" from the common law, and eighteen is the age of majority used by a majority of modern States for a majority of purposes—but the lower bound wouldn't really be necessary. I just throw that in there to prevent shrill cries about advocating for pedophilia or somesuch.

No state is the solution.

Long term. But I'm interested in coming up with solutions that help us get there more smoothly, and dispels the "anarchy=chaos" myth that causes so many people to resist that.

[Beth221]

what about mothers/parents who get their baby's ears pierced at a very early age, i mean under 6 years old, like a year old?  (that always grosses me out, ever seen a baby get pierced?  they scream..)  the child has NO choice in it, the baby doesnt ask to be pierced by metal in the ears, its the parents doing.  Do parents have the right to tattoo their babies?  Or is just an ear piercing ok?  What if someone wanted to pierce a belly of a small child? 

WHen i got my ears pierced, i was about in first grade, and I begged my mother, and annoyed the hell out of her, so she took me, it hurt, and then i didnt want  her to touch them to clean them out, and they got infected, and I had to be held down to have them taken out, because i broke the contract between me and my mother, if i got them done, i had to clean them out, and not be a wimp about it.  I later pierced them again myself, when I was 11, mother did not care.

My point being, a baby or a very small child (toddler) can not consent to a piercing, or tattoo, a more independent thinking child can personally consent, like when i begged for my ears to be pierced. 

I dont think there is a right or a wrong age, as long as it is the minors personal choice.  But then again, I guess a parents has the choice of piercing their toddlers ears.

(bare with me, i am trying to sort this out)

If there is a toddler, and mother gets baby's ears pierced, years later, that baby, now 15 years old says I want my belly pierced, and a tattoo, mother says NO.  Child gets a fake ID and gets a tattoo and a belly ring.  Child rebells, whose fault is that?  I dont think it matters that the kid hates the tattoo 15 years later, or still loves it.

anyone get what i am trying to say or figure out?  I think I lost myself somewhere! 

[K. Darien Freeheart]

what about mothers/parents who get their baby's ears pierced at a very early age, i mean under 6 years old, like a year old?

As much as the idea makes me squirm, everytime someone uses a slippery-slope arguement, I tend to take the position that would do the LEAST damage to liberty if taken to the extreme. If a 6 year old is capable of making the piercing decisions on their own, why not a 5 year, 364 day old? If them, why not a 5 year, 363 day old and so on ad infinitum.

Piercing is very much an opt-in thing in my opinion (having no artificial holes in my body) and any parent who did it WITHOUT direct consent of the child is, in my opinion, guilty of some form of violence against their child. That said, who the hell am I to tell a parent how they can raise their kid? The problem is, I think, that children don't really fit any existing role in a free market society. The current system essentially holds the view that children are property. A child not going to school is criminal for the PARENT because the child is property of the parent. If a child breaks something of value, it is the parent (both socially and legally) who is responsible for making reparations (though a reasonable parent would involve the child in this process). Similarly, to get a tattoo a child must have his parent's permission - only the owner of property is allowed to alter it!

We also hold that forced ownership of people is wrong and by this very logic would have to agree that children as property is a mistaken concept. Yet most people are disgusted by the idea of what this implies - that a 6 month old is the person ultimately responsible for it's own survival (i.e. the parent has no obligation to provide food or shelter). Most people feel that parents DO have a responsibility to provide for the survival and well being of their children which inherently means that children aren't capable of full responsibility. This arguement, however, sets the precedent that there are some people incapable of responsibility and therefore should not have control of their own lives. This is a slippery slope that is quite dangerous because self-control is, at it's very core, liberty itself. If children can't control their lives because they can't make rational, informed and responsible decisions, wouldn't the same criteria means insane people bear no burden of self? As with the slippery slope thing mentioned above, I tend to take the position that ALL people are responsible for themselves and ONLY themselves - including in the parent/child relationship. It's a gruesome cycle.

Perhaps this issue should be a few topics itself. Age of Consent in ancap socieities and "Impetus for action" in ancap socieities...

[K. Darien Freeheart]

If there is a toddler, and mother gets baby's ears pierced, years later, that baby, now 15 years old says I want my belly pierced, and a tattoo, mother says NO.  Child gets a fake ID and gets a tattoo and a belly ring.  Child rebells, whose fault is that?

My take on it is that since the person has the capacity to get a fake ID and rebel, that person is CLEARLY capable of making their own decisions. Weither or not the decision is "the best decision" is irrelevant to "others" because "best" is a value judgement and value itself differs person to person. I'm inclined to respect the person's decisions and allow that "child" to get her tattoo.

[J’raxis 270145]

what about mothers/parents who get their baby's ears pierced at a very early age, i mean under 6 years old, like a year old?

As much as the idea makes me squirm, everytime someone uses a slippery-slope arguement, I tend to take the position that would do the LEAST damage to liberty if taken to the extreme. If a 6 year old is capable of making the piercing decisions on their own, why not a 5 year, 364 day old? If them, why not a 5 year, 363 day old and so on ad infinitum.

Piercing is very much an opt-in thing in my opinion (having no artificial holes in my body) and any parent who did it WITHOUT direct consent of the child is, in my opinion, guilty of some form of violence against their child. That said, who the hell am I to tell a parent how they can raise their kid? The problem is, I think, that children don't really fit any existing role in a free market society. The current system essentially holds the view that children are property. A child not going to school is criminal for the PARENT because the child is property of the parent. If a child breaks something of value, it is the parent (both socially and legally) who is responsible for making reparations (though a reasonable parent would involve the child in this process). Similarly, to get a tattoo a child must have his parent's permission - only the owner of property is allowed to alter it!

We also hold that forced ownership of people is wrong and by this very logic would have to agree that children as property is a mistaken concept. Yet most people are disgusted by the idea of what this implies - that a 6 month old is the person ultimately responsible for it's own survival (i.e. the parent has no obligation to provide food or shelter). Most people feel that parents DO have a responsibility to provide for the survival and well being of their children which inherently means that children aren't capable of full responsibility. This arguement, however, sets the precedent that there are some people incapable of responsibility and therefore should not have control of their own lives. This is a slippery slope that is quite dangerous because self-control is, at it's very core, liberty itself. If children can't control their lives because they can't make rational, informed and responsible decisions, wouldn't the same criteria means insane people bear no burden of self? As with the slippery slope thing mentioned above, I tend to take the position that ALL people are responsible for themselves and ONLY themselves - including in the parent/child relationship. It's a gruesome cycle.

Perhaps this issue should be a few topics itself. Age of Consent in ancap socieities and "Impetus for action" in ancap socieities...

A lot of that debate's been had already.

There was an elaborate debate about the Non-Aggression Principle on the FSP forum between myself and a few other NAP supporters, and Jason Sorens, in these threads, that used children, consent, parent–child relationships, &c., as an example:—

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=14942.0
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15005.0

(The first one is the big debate. The second one are a couple of far-fetched examples Jason came up with in to continue the debate in a new direction, but it's closely related to the first, and pieces of it kept being brought up again.)

[Luke S]

are you kidding me? Not even with parental consent?  The tattoo artist wants to give the tatto, the person wants to receive it, the parental units are okay with it, but ...

What's so unusual about that? Take a look at most of the laws covering "minors" and they work this way.

"It's for their own good!"

it still can't be done in NH? Home of the free, eh? 

It's been said before, and bears repeating: This is the freest State in the U.S., but by no means free yet.

Agreed. A lot of the laws about "minors" are just plain ridiculous.

I remember when my dad told me that a long long time ago, people went directly from being children to being adults. There was none of this government "protect the teenagers!" "protect the minors!"  bullshit.

[Raineyrocks]

what about mothers/parents who get their baby's ears pierced at a very early age, i mean under 6 years old, like a year old?  (that always grosses me out, ever seen a baby get pierced?  they scream..)  the child has NO choice in it, the baby doesnt ask to be pierced by metal in the ears, its the parents doing.  Do parents have the right to tattoo their babies?  Or is just an ear piercing ok?  What if someone wanted to pierce a belly of a small child? 

WHen i got my ears pierced, i was about in first grade, and I begged my mother, and annoyed the hell out of her, so she took me, it hurt, and then i didnt want  her to touch them to clean them out, and they got infected, and I had to be held down to have them taken out, because i broke the contract between me and my mother, if i got them done, i had to clean them out, and not be a wimp about it.  I later pierced them again myself, when I was 11, mother did not care.

My point being, a baby or a very small child (toddler) can not consent to a piercing, or tattoo, a more independent thinking child can personally consent, like when i begged for my ears to be pierced. 

I dont think there is a right or a wrong age, as long as it is the minors personal choice.  But then again, I guess a parents has the choice of piercing their toddlers ears.

(bare with me, i am trying to sort this out)

If there is a toddler, and mother gets baby's ears pierced, years later, that baby, now 15 years old says I want my belly pierced, and a tattoo, mother says NO.  Child gets a fake ID and gets a tattoo and a belly ring.  Child rebells, whose fault is that?  I dont think it matters that the kid hates the tattoo 15 years later, or still loves it.

anyone get what i am trying to say or figure out?  I think I lost myself somewhere! 

Good question!  I think piercing baby's ears is stupid too, shoot, changing their diapers are bad enough and then you'd have to clean their ear/s too plus it probably hurts them and they could tug on it and hurt themselves!  It's some kind of "in" thing to do and I'm glad I don't go for that "in" stuff.

I pierced one of my daughter's ears when she was around 10, (she wanted me to), and we kept it clean but she has thick lobes and I forgot to loosen the post so it went into her earlobe and I couldn't get it out.  The poor kid, we took her to the hospital and they took it out.

I'd like to believe if the kid got a fake id it would be their fault but I bet parents would get fined or blamed, I don't know.   I do know my nephew in Florida got caught a couple of years ago playing hooky from school.  The cops stopped him on the street and asked to see his id which was fake, well he was the one that got in big trouble not his parents.  I guess it's according to the state.  Plus his parents paid for a lawyer I think, because the cops made such a big deal about having a fake id.  Now a days people can get in a shit load of trouble for stuff like that.

I'm so glad I'm not a teenager now.  I just know they would take me to G. Bay with all of the bad stuff I did or I'd be in prison.

[J’raxis 270145]

are you kidding me? Not even with parental consent?  The tattoo artist wants to give the tatto, the person wants to receive it, the parental units are okay with it, but ...

What's so unusual about that? Take a look at most of the laws covering "minors" and they work this way.

"It's for their own good!"

it still can't be done in NH? Home of the free, eh? 

It's been said before, and bears repeating: This is the freest State in the U.S., but by no means free yet.

Agreed. A lot of the laws about "minors" are just plain ridiculous.

I remember when my dad told me that a long long time ago, people went directly from being children to being adults. There was none of this government "protect the teenagers!" "protect the minors!"  bullshit.

Ever read any of John Taylor Gatto's book on the public school systems? He talks about how "adolescence" was invented in order to justify the treatment of such-called people as still being children.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

There was an elaborate debate about the Non-Aggression Principle on the FSP forum between myself and a few other NAP supporters, and Jason Sorens, in these threads, that used children, consent, parent–child relationships, &c., as an example:

Thanks for the link. Having read that over I'm now a little bit more aware of the range of viewpoints encompassed within the FSP and up until the end of the thread, I was actually a bit disappointed.

I'm pretty sure I'm in-line with you ideologically, but a LOT of that thread was hindered by the lack of definition. I understood the point you raised, specifically about the term "child" including (in the definition) inability to consent, therefore all children are incapable of consent (like a triangle is incapable of having 4 sides).

That whole exchange still didn't answer the question that's bugging me though, it seemed to dance around it. The problem is that I'm not sure it's one question... I suppose it has to do with how to resolve situations where interpretations of the NAP differ. If everyone in an ancap society agreed that initiation of force is wrong, and some people recognize that the NAP creates an imperitive to act to prevent initiated force against others (i.e. Interevening if you wandered onto a rape-in-progress), how would differences in the definition of initiation actually be resolved? I'm a fan of the idea "There are no conflicts, when you find one your premises are flawed." so I AM willing to accept that there may not actually be an imperitive to act (the face-down-baby anecdote) but to deny that OTHER people will insist (and potentially kill someone because of) it does....

I dunno. Thanks for the links, I'll ponder some more.

[Jack Zeller]

You are right on the money!

[ReverendRyan]

Anyone find it funny that a Keene police captain posts here?

[Beth221]

Who, Det. Sergeant Jack Zeller? 

Funny ha-ha, or funny strange?

[ReverendRyan]

both?