Echoing Rick Falkvinge, Vitalik Buterin claims that legalising possession of child pornography is a natural step in a libertarian society. He claimed in his later deleted tweet, that the legalisation of drugs like heroin caused more harm to more people than the possession of child pornography.
I have taken a full 48 hours to digest this shocking claim so that I can formulate a proper and balanced response.
Whilst analysing his statement, I can only come to two possible conclusions.
Firstly Vitalik Buterin enjoys looking at children getting abused, and he is trying to use his influence to normalise the viewing of vile and disgusting images.
Or what I feel is probably more likely, that he has taken his libertarian/anarchistic beliefs way too far. Which got me thinking again about how the subscribing to one political belief or another is damaging to your mental health and ability to look at things objectively.
I really don't think the first scenario is likely, mainly because people who abuse children, don't tend to broadcast it to the world.
So what on earth could have caused Vitalik to attempt to defend the indefensible? Well I noticed that he mentioned Rick F in the tweet timeline, so I did a bit of digging and found that 
Political Confirmation Bias Gone Mad
Imagine you have been put on an island as part of a reality show whereby you can win ten million dollars.
You have been told that in order to win the money and ultimately leave the island. You must cooperate with varying groups of people.
Most of the people you're playing with are also playing the same game. You are told that there is more than just one prize and some people have already won the ten million and are back at home living it up.
This makes you very happy, you are determined to win and you say to yourself that you will not rest until you do.
So now you go out onto the vast island and start to search for clues and people who can help you get the prize money.
After spending a few weeks there, you sit down one day and assess who you've met and how they can help you become rich.
You have met the Purple team, you like them, they seem to say things you like and you feel a kind of affinity for them.
Then you met the Green team, they seem OK, but they don't really resonate with you and are quite a boring bunch of people, so you don't hang out with them so much.
Lastly, you have met the Aquamarine team, you absolutely cannot stand those Aqua scum. Who do they think they are? why can't they just be blue?! On top of all that, the views they hold are just abhorrent, you cannot bear to be within 100 feet of them.
So as far as playing the game is concerned, you voluntarily restrict yourself and decide to throw your lot in with the Purple team.
As far as you're concerned, you'll be able to get all the clues you need by just listening to and hanging out with them.
Unfortunately you forget that the Games Master has told you that there are vital clues in all of the zones, and that everybody, no matter what team they're on may have vital clues for you.
Instead you decide to play the game the Purple way, you cut yourself off from any non-Purple thinking and laugh and scoff at the thought of the Greens or the Aquamarines being able to help you in any way, shape, or form. As a result you are stuck on the island for years and you never ever win the money.
Neither Left Wing Nor Right Wing Be The Whole Damn Bird
Clearly my analogy above, is referring to how we as human beings, tend to affiliate ourselves with one political belief or another, and then stick to it, no matter what.
By doing this we often completely disregard any other political viewpoint, and by doing this we also tend to reject people who subscribe to a different viewpoint than ourselves.
If you think about it, that situation is just as ridiculous as not wanting to accept help while trying to win ten million dollars, just because somebody is wearing a different colour T-shirt from you.
However that is what we do on a daily basis, our news feeds are full of content created by people that we feel that we fundamentally agree with.
If we vote, we only vote for people who are in the same party that believe in the same kind of things that we believe in. Simply because they belong to that party, not necessarily because they are good people.
Ridiculous ! ! !
The nature of human beings is such that unless you are an extreme individual. You will hold a variety of beliefs, those beliefs when politically analysed will fall on both sides of the line.
As the comedian Chris Rock once said; There are somethings I'm really conservative about; like rape or murder. Others I'm pretty liberal about, like drugs and prostitution!
So if we have this internal kaleidoscope of belief. Why then in reality do we publicly subscribe to one way of thinking or another?
Just like the contestants on our imaginary game show, only listening to people who wear a particular colour T-shirt is not only shortsighted, but can be dangerous as well.
Natural Progression Does Not Mean Correct Progression
Back to Vitalik:
I can easily argue that (i) doing heroin imposes risks on others, or (ii) simple possession of child porn does not.
Establishing a general norm that "a person's laptop is >an extension of their mind, and is inviolate" can IMO >have social benefits.
That's where I see Rick F coming from.
The quotes above are taken from Vitalik Buterin's Twitter feed, and appear to be answering a comment made by Rick F; which I'm assuming is Rick Falkvinge, though I may be wrong.
After reading the conversation a few times, I have come to the conclusion that Vitalik, like so many others on planet earth, is only listening to purple T-shirt wearers.
He is a libertarian/anarchist, and therefore feels that he has to apply the philosophies of libertarianism to every single part of life.
I don't see Vitalik as unique in this; there are many people who do this whatever their political beliefs are. He certainly isn't the first anarchist to say something stupid, the difference of course is that he has a huge following and his words will be taken heed of.
Let's clear this up before we go any further. The possessing and distributing of child pornography is wrong. The reason it is wrong, is because it is promoting and endorsing the abuse, rape, and sometimes murder of little children.
There can be absolutely no defence of anybody who helps or endorses the abuse of any human being, especially when it is a child.
However if you apply libertarian thinking to the issue; which is what Vitalik was trying to do. Then things like child pornography on your computer are completely fine, as long as you didn't actually abuse anybody.
It is the same type of thinking that says we can do without government. Whilst we may need to restrict certain powers from certain governments, to think that we don't need some kind of formal administration, is as shortsighted as believing that it's OK to have whatever you want on your laptop.
This statement tells me a lot about Vitalik, it tells me that he has become a slave to his own thinking. Because on this subject, he should have rationalised that the abuse of children is outside the arena of political correctness.
As we progress as a society, certain things that were OK yesterday, are not OK today. This happens as we become more civilised.
For instance the word paedophilia is fairly new; in medieval times it was perfectly acceptable to marry and impregnate a 12 year old girl. As was slavery, child labour, spousal rape, imprisonment, torture, and/or murder for homosexuality, torture and murder via religious bigotry, along with a whole host of other horrors that we now deem to be unacceptable.
Whether it is the subject of breast feeding a baby in public, wearing flared jeans, or how we treat a particular group of people, everything is subject to change.
One thing can be sure though; when changes are made for the better, we tend not to go back to the old way of thinking.
Ergo it is safe to assume, that the wide-spread acceptance of sexual abuse of children is something that we can safely consign to the dustbin of history.
With that, I urge Vitalik and anyone who believes that the political beliefs they subscribe to, are the only answer, to think again. Speak to the Green shirts, and even on occasion the Aquamarine shirts.
Because just because somebody doesn't wear purple, doesn't mean they're all bad.
Disclaimer:
I am not claiming that Vitalik Buterin, or Rick Falkvinge carry out, or endorse any kind of sexual abuse of children. I am merely extrapolating from a (now deleted) Twitter conversation between Vitalik and some of his followers.
Vitalik's deleted child abuse tweets[archive]
WHAT DO YOU THINK; SHOULD LIBERTARIANISM BE SPREAD TO ALL CORNERS OF SOCIETY? OR IS SUGGESTING LENIENCY FOR POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY A STEP TO FAR? AS EVER, LET ME KNOW BELOW.
Seeing as this is a serious subject, requiring serious debate ALL spam comments (Wow! Great post. You have taught me so much! etc.) will be flagged.