Go argue your point in court until then you will continue to loose the debate. Notice even with your 'proof' the laws haven't changed. They can be changed but haven't due to the facts that most know about teens and their being too young to comprehend all the ramifications of their actions. You still haven't addressed the legal responsibility and the fact that those under 18 can't enter into contracts. That's because their parents are responsible for the actions of the child. Unless the parents are aware of the contract and signing off on the contract, it can be broken with no legal recourse.
You are obviously unaware of the distinction between legal and ethical dimensions of this issue. It matters not if I would "loose" in court; that reveals the fact that the legal system is not on my side, but says nothing to the ethical aspect of infantilizing adolescents. Nor does the fact that such restrictive laws have existed in full force for about 50 years, (and laws prohibiting sexual relations between adolescent males and older females are only about 20 to 30 years old, because there was no conception that females could sexually abuse males in consensual relationships prior to that), do much for your case. Slavery was opposed on moral grounds by many Founding Fathers, yet remained in existence for almost a century after they recognized its brutal and unjust nature. Hence, recognizing the ethical wrongness of a practice or state of affairs does not mean that legal action will be taken to remedy this ethical wrongness.
Now, your assertions regarding legal contracts are false; I have fully addressed this by noting that I am in favor of granting youth the right to economic power, namely through right-to-work laws, in addition to their reception of the rights to make valid legal contracts and own property. I have said that their current legal inability to engage in any of those activities. This essentially constitutes a state of
forced dependency for them.
I get that you are an anarchist. You clearly have shown through you siggy and avatars don't support having laws of any type. What of murderers? What of thieves? What of the rapists? I doubt you can provide a logical and realistic solution to them.
I am unsure as to why that "doubt" exists, though I strongly suspect that it's related to some misconception you may have of anarchists supporting "chaos," "disorder," or a "law of the jungle."
Firstly, the abolition of capitalism will also result in the elimination of poverty, homelessness, and the subsequent crimes that are committed because of an impoverished state. So we can expect to reduce a significant amount of crime by taking that action.
As for specific anti-social actions committed against individuals that continued to exist, there would be several options for handling such a situation. If their victim was still alive, the suspect and the victim would agree on a third party to adjudicate their dispute, and make whatever "court" arrangements they felt they needed to. If they could not agree on this matter, or the victim was dead, a court would be appointed through direct democratic means by a community assembly. The judge would be an elected official, rather than one selected through executive appointment, and the jurors would be picked by lot to ensure impartiality. Whatever forms of justice would be dispensed would then follow from there, and it is important to note that anarchists reject "punitive" theories of "justice," and favor rehabilitative ones.
Reply With Quote
Dissent must trouble you so, mein herr. 
