Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8915)	12/14/2010 8:12:28 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

slavery is a reality today and has been for centuries. If it didn't make economic sense it wouldn't exist. It makes economic sense if you obtain and keep the slave by force. One, slavery didn't always depend on obtaining slaves by force. They were usually bought. As far as keeping slaves by force, yes, all contracts are enforced by force ultimately via the legal system. One does not pay a fair price for a slave. Isn't a market price a fair price? If a person becomes a slave voluntarily, OTOH, he wouldn't give himself away. There would have to be a fair price. It's questionable whether it would make economic sense to buy someone who was volunteering. Debt slavery is a fact of history and was common in ancient times. People selling themselves into slavery to extinguish their debts. The context in which we have been discussing the choice to be a slave, or so I thought, is an enlightened and civilized environment, at least as enlightened and civilized as the US of today. After all, you don't have libertarians in a culture that's not advanced enough for people to contemplate not being under the thumb of an authority. Enlightenment and civilization is relative. During antebellum times, there were southern slavery advocates who argued slavery in the south was morally superior to northern "wage slavery". No, but those things are happening w/ gay marriage. And thats what liberals are saying about incest now. What these two matters have in common is that they are both about sex that is forbidden in some religious traditions and are considered immoral from that perspective. On this basis, tolerance is opposed by social conservatives in the US. But there are significant differences, too, a critical one being that incest is considered taboo by virtually all but those who manage to rationalize their own engagement in it. Thats not true, there are lots of liberals and even libertarians arguing that incest really isn't that big a deal. One interesting factor is the use of language. There are lots of words for homosexuals. What is the word for "someone who engages in incest"? I could not find one. "Incestor" is not in the dictionary. When a label is applied, it's a generic label like "pervert" or "perpetrator." How are you going to create an advocacy for a class of people don't even have a dedicated label? I can think of at least one common word. Which gets to my earlier point. Gays are a class of people whose sexual attraction is limited to a non-standard class of people. There is no class of people who engage in incest. Sure there is ... its just a smaller class than gays, who themselves are actually a small class. The class containing gays who want to marry one another is even smaller. It occurs on a case by case basis, which makes it about individual behavior, not class orientation. Discrimination is about classes of people, not behaviors. You have race, gender, national orientation, etc. Those aren't behaviors. You will never find "pervert" on that list because behavior is a different construct from class, protected or otherwise. Aren't gays a class based on a sexual behavior? But the defense of gays is not about behavior. It is about discrimination against a class of people. Of course its about behavior. Defense of gays is defense of their behavior. Absent their unique behavior, they wouldn't exist as a "class". If you are a social conservative accustomed to facing opposing political movements that legitimize what you consider to be immoral, it's easy to assume and fear that the same thing would happen with the immorality du jour but I think that reaction is more knee jerk No it isn't and you proved it in an earlier post by advocating marriage laws recognize incestuous unions. You can't argue there's no slippery slope when you have yourself advocated pouring grease on the slope. incest isn't sympathetic from anyone's perspective. The practice of incest, like the practice of homosexuality, isn't attractive to most people. But lots of people are sympathetic to the people who engage in those things. I don't think incest between competent and consenting adults should be illegal. I find it aberrant, and more than a little bit creepy, but none of the business of the government. That's a libertarian perspective. IMO, the status quo is always the default. It's illegal in most places in the US now, although it has been decriminalized in some. Really? What states have decriminalized parent child incest? I don't want to leave you with the perception that I'm advocating an effort to legalize it. I'm not. I'm just responding to your question about a libertarian view on legality. But you have advocated it by posting your preference of legalizing it as well as extending legal recognition of parent-child marriage.