Because the citizens have given the authority to them by way of paying taxes to the government and using services and infrastructure provided by the government.
Taxation is theft. A slave who accepts food from his master doesn't accept his slavery.
"The citizens" is a meaningless concept, first because there are no citizens by definition and two because so-called group consent (abstractions) do not equal consent for the individual.
I know you want to turn this into a debate about the morality of government authority, but that's not going to happen.
Then stop talking about the courts. You're the one who brought government into this discussion, not me. I simply asked what was criminal about looking at something (to which none of you have been able to answer...)
Most parents of children strongly support this authority
Irrelevant because according to your rationale, parents cannot provide consent for their children and so don't have a say in what the courts decide about kids. Right?
perhaps since you don't have children you have not gained enough incite into how children think in order to speak on the matter intelligently.
This is a logical fallacy.
However, the majority of people agree that children do not have the mental capacity to consent
The majority of people once believed the earth was flat. If we're to believe post-war history, the majority of Germans believed that the Jews were an inferior species. Most Americans believed that blacks were only useful as slaves and not free men. Most people believed that women did not have a right to own property.
Do I need to go on?
Logical fallacy again. Appeal to popularity.
that is the law of the land.
Appeal to authority.
You seem to disagree, although you have declined to provide an age at which you think children should have the ability to consent.
I don't think there is an arbitrary age that can be applied to all children at which we have determined they all can and will consent effectively, which is why your argument, on it's face, is a farce.
Since we already have an accepted legal standard that is supported by the vast majority of the populace
Appeal to popularity again, more logical fallacy...
the onus to provide an alternate system of determining consent is on YOU, not me.
No, the burden of proof is still on you. You're the one making positive claims.
You can't hide behind, "Everyone thinks like me" as a justification for your argument.
As a father, I'm quite happy with the definition of consent.
The funny thing about you, despite the fact that you obviously reason so illogically (as above) is that you've been screwed over by the courts and legal system, and yet in some bizarre case of stockholm syndrome, you're actually their defender.
It's amazing how much strength residual tyranny (horizontal social pressure) has on the victims.
