Skip to main content

Mary Ruwart, Child Porn, and the Libertarian Presidential nomination

When Dr. Mary Ruwart announced her candidacy for the Libertarian Presidential nomination I was pleased. Granted, Mary's personal views have always been in the radical/anarchist segment of the LP (while mine are decidedly in the pragmatic branch), I thought she would make a good candidate because--

She is articulate enough to explain Libertarian ideas clearly.

She had no discernible negatives like Bob Barr's authorship of the Patriot Act and support of the Defense of Marriage Act or Mike Gravel's plans for universal health care.

The fact that she had no experience in governing or leading a large organization is not really of that much consequence, since this year a win for the LP candidate will be 1-2% in the National election and influencing the Demopublican outcome in key states: she was never going to be President.

So regular readers will know that I have consistently listed her--along with George Phillies and Christine Smith--as two of the more interesting Libertarian candidates.

I'm reluctantly going to have to drop her from my consideration.

The reason? In Dr. Ruwart's Short Answers to Tough Questions this appears:

"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."


I don't believe that this statement was intended as an endorsement of very young children having sex with adults, and other writings by Dr. Ruwart would support that interpretation. I think, as a philosopher and scholar, that she's rejecting one-size-fits-all age-of-consent laws, and thinking about a wide variety of paradoxes in our current society (i.e., two thirteen year olds having sex or a sixteen year old having sex with a five year old--in both cases both participants would be considered children--as opposed to a 17 year old having sex with an 18 year old who might only be a few months or days older). Just as I think there are 14 year olds out there I would trust to vote (and 25 year olds I'd like to have spayed or neutered), Dr. Ruwart takes a stand against that dysfunctional ambiguity in our laws which assign the right to have sex to all eighteen year olds, even though they don't have the right to take a drink for three more years.

And none of that matters, because this is the type of position that, while it may have academic or philosophic merit, reveals that the individual holding it as completely lacking the intellectual and political judgment necessary to hold executive elected office as a five year old lacks the intellectual and moral capacity to consent to sexual intercourse.

I have posted here--in one of my most controversial efforts (that even saw Brian disagreeing with me)--that the possession of child pornography should be decriminalized, because I do not believe that such criminalization either (a) materially protects or reduces the exposure of children at risk of being sexually exploited, and (b) that people's fantasy lives should not be the gist for prosecution, only their actual acts that harm other people. But there's are important distinctions between me making that argument and Dr Ruwart's opinion: (1) I believe in the concept of age of consent (however poorly I think it is being done in our society today); (2) I believe there do exist legitimate, limited societal interests expressed through government, and that among those are reasonable protections of children below the age of consent; (3) I'm not running for President, an office which requires you to take an oath to execute the existing laws of the land even when you're trying to change them.

The fact that Dr Ruwart--should she achieve the nomination--would be thrust (along with any LP chance at actually scoring increases to personal and economic freedom) into a position where Reverend Jeremiah Wright would be able to point over his shoulder and say, "There's somebody even I am to the right of," doesn't actually concern me that much.

What does concern me is the idea that the Libertarian Party, instead of making profound statements on a far less bloody, less costly, non-interventionist foreign policy, or for the right of all consenting adult citizens in America to get married regardless of their gender, will become the poster child for NAMBLA and the aluminum hat brigade.

This is getting tough.

I wrote off John McCain for good on his refusal to renounce preemptive war.

I've rejected Barack Obama as a candidate (even though I still admire many of his stands on issues like gay rights and science education) because (a) Iraq aside, he's just as much of a military interventionist/imperialist as the rest of them, and (b) funding all his attractive plans will require tax increases so massive that they will sink our economy.

Hillary is, well . . . she's Hillary--and I just can't take another Clinton White House.

I've turned my back on Bob Barr and Mike Gravel (Mike's latest oh-so-humble comment about his candidacy: "I don’t know if the Libertarian Party has had, since its foundation—and I say this most modestly—a bigger fish.")

I've also said no to Wayne Allyn Root, who seems more interested in using the Libertarian nomination to promote his reality shows than actually running and espousing thoughtful ideas.

Now Mary Ruwart's gone.

So far (ruling out Alan Keyes and Cynthia McKinney on general good taste), that leaves Ralph Nader (way too much a Statist for me), Christine Smith, and George Phillies.

You've read Christine's interview here today; you'll get a chance to see what George has to say tomorrow.

Maybe there's something there for me to hang my hat on.

Or maybe I'm going to end up sitting this one out.

PS If you want to see Libertarians self-destruct on this issue in an orgy of philosophical tail-chasing and the ability to rationalize virtually anything, go here and here. Or don't, if you've already eaten.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is perhaps one of the most reasonable, well thought out responses to the current controversy. Kudos.
Thanks, Jeff.

Ironically, I find myself drawn more and more to the idea of a George Phillies-Christine Smith ticket if we are to remain a party of principle that is nonetheless capable of winning votes.

I say ironically because it appears that the rush to Gravel, Barr, Root, and Ruwart seems to have overshadowed everybody else.
Jim Fryar said…
I swiped a quote from this for my latest post, excellent article here. Thankyou.
Anonymous said…
Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh authored the patriot act
Anonymous said…
cheap puritanism and hypocrisy.
Anonymous said…
Sadly Ruwart has more skeletons in the closet than just her support for adult/child sex. Some of it is criminal even my libertarian standards, certainly if you think fraud is wrong, it is.
Anonymous said…
Do you know acknowledge when to view best with me movies of [url= http://www.mypornhub.com ] free porn videos[/url]
of very famouse Pornostars Brea Bennett naked in [url= http://www.mypornhub.com/pornstar_listing ] Pornstars [/url] xxx movies
discount viagra said…
hey buddy,this is one of the best posts that I�ve ever seen; you may include some more ideas in the same theme. I�m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post.
Unknown said…
Mary Ruwart is such a joke and has been for the past thirtysome years, Department stores hate her. Mary is great for buying underwear, wearing it once & then trying to return it claiming it was defective. The only thing defective is Ruwart trying to squeeze her body into garments that are three sizes too small. Banks hate her also. Ruwart is a rip off. She will walk into a bank, break a large bill and then complain to management she was "short-changed" and if she doesn't get her money back she'll sue. Once she was caught stealing from "Sam's Club." Lord knows why. Only Mary can tell you why. The goodies don't stop there. Brokerage houses have black listed her, Funeral homes watch her like a hawk - for fear she'll rob the dead. As for Mary Ruwart's intelligence - that is also questionable. Here is a woman who has devoted almost three quarters of her life to going to seances, communicating with the dearly departed, crystals, tea leaves, ouija boards and things that go bump in the night. You name it Mary has done it and is still doing it. Her political belief system is equally as warped. Not long ago she posted on the net that there was nothing wrong with "kiddie porn" or "kiddie prostitution" - that it should be legalized!! What kind of mind would even come up with something so twisted. Only a mind that is deranged. If anyone is in doubt on what is said here it might be to their advantage to do a background check on Mary Ruwart. It would be a religious experience - the eyes of the blind would be opened hopefully.
Unknown said…
Mary Ruwart is a joke. The last time I heard her speak was on a Friday night in Kalamazoo at the old Trophy Room. Back then Mary thought prescription tranquilizers and pain killers should be declassified so you could buy them over the counter without a lot of hassle. Mary also talked in length about a model society based on her astral trips to the planet Venus. There, where there were absolutely no restrictions placed on society whatsoever, where such technicalities like minimum wage, equal opportunity employers and drunk driving laws were non-existent she also got in touch with her inner lesbian side. In Marys own words it was the pleasure to be. Whatever, everyone thought she was crazy; or brain damaged or high out of her gourd on some kind of extra terrestrial weed. After all these years its comforting to know some things never change including Marys multiple personalities coupled with bouts of depression and schizophrenia, Marys lunacy makes the rest of us very normal and ordinary. Thanks loads doll.
Free Fantasy Category Porn Videos in 3gp For Mobile phones! animale futute

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?