Why is every Ancap an Ian Watkins tier pedophile...

based breakdown of ayngapizm :D:D:D
most succinct I've seen yet

It hides the referral data. So the site linked doesn't know you came from here.

Sorry it's a force of habit

Oh thank you based trips. You learn something new every day

Go back to Tumblr.

I really ought to devote more time to learning tech stuff like this.

There is literally nothing wrong with pedophilia.

...

Pretty much this, but having sex with a child is such a risky thing. If I could be 100% that it would be consensual and safe, then why not, but the potential for harm is to great for it to be allowed. Pedo's gotta stick to loli or ethically produced CP*.

*ethically produced I mean taken and distributed by the kid, like a 12 year old's dickpic or other stupid shit kids do that ultimately doesn't harm anyone

the fuck is wrong with you?

I'm not a fan of ancap thought but every ideology has these wackos.

There has never been a pedophile communist, ever.

I think he's got a point. AoC laws have always been about preventing coercion of the powerless. I'm theoretically in agreement about allowing "ethical" CP but I think the main concern was if we still lived in a capitalist system you could easily abuse that to use economic power to coerce children into producing pornography that would technically be considered "ethical" i.e. self taken, self distributed, involving no other persons. There's significant issues surrounding consent and privacy there that I do not think it would be ethically permissible under a capitalist system where you still have the pressure of needing to sell something to survive.

Why do all these alt right people believe this?

youtube.com/watch?v=XE8a_PMx0z0

This is the only real issue. The "degeneracy" spook is poison.

Physical and emotional coercion may certainly be at work, so the question becomes one of theory - how far do these two ultimately derive from the economic coercion of others? Can all coercion be made "obsolete" in just rearranging the material factors of production?

Obviously not. With children, the elderly and the infirm, you still have a degree of physical dependence there and an inability to engage in self-defense. When people require a good degree of external care in order to survive, the specific caregivers definitely have significant power over their charges, in that if they withhold care, their wards are put at significant risk of harm or death.

In that sense, sexual relations between caregivers of any sort and their charges are on very shaky ground from an ethical perspective.

And of course, as long as violence is possible and it also remains possible to get away with it, people will be able to use the threat of violence in order to coerce others. Rearranging the material factors of production thus only goes so far, so if you had any unseemly ideas ancapism might still be the best ideology for you.

That's very close to my own position on the matter.
I'd imagine kids around the onset of puberty should have sufficient physical agency and self-concept to get themselves out of abusive homes, and not before, provided the economic considerations are taken care of. That's simply the "running away" ordeal being subsidized and protected by society.
The matter of emotional coercion, manipulation and attachment to abusers is a far finer and highly nontrivial question, though. It's best to see that through analogy with adult-adult or child-child emotional abuse and judge that analogy's appropriateness in various contexts, I think.
But I'm certainly all for erring on the side of caution here.

All coercion can be made obsolete with better technology. Once we can take an adult mind and transfer it to an artificially grown child body, then pedophilia is solved. At that point there will really be no reason for anything to ever involve real children.

Also, I believe a sufficiently sophisticated AI could be trusted to determine whether a person was making a decision of their own free will or due to coercion. Of course that would raise serious philosophical questions about what it actually means to have "free will" if an AI can predict all your choices, but it would remove coercion.

Do you have any evidence informing this belief, or are you pulling space magic out your ass?
Lay off the Kurzweil, comrade

The human mind is a deterministic function of the structure of the human brain. A sufficiently fast computer with sufficiently accurate information about the structure of a person's brain could simulate that person's mind. A sufficiently intelligent computer could perform analysis on that simulation and extract meaningful information about why it made particular decisions, just like a human can analyze computer code and figure out why a simple program made particular decisions.
It's undoubtedly a difficult problem, but there are no laws of physics which prevent it from being solved.

The same goes for mind transferring. It's hard - certainly not as easy as just scooping out the brain and swapping it to a new body - but not currently known to be impossible. In time we will get there. To be honest it would probably be easier to make a VR simulation or hook an AI up the same child body, but we won't know until we're a bit more advanced. These technologies are still a few hundred years away.

Individualism needs to be rescued from libertarians and ancaps, by the Left.