Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 22:36:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Senator Santorum Message-ID: <3EB9ECC9.CAD7B631@mindspring.com> References: <ADAEB726-7FD9-11D7-8EA4-000393A335A2@mac.com> <20030506121650.K51947@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> <3EB8A4AF.B6B02E5B@mindspring.com> <20030507110515.GH11502@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Robinson wrote: > On f, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> wrote: > > Actually, the slippery slope, in the limit, is consensual > > crimes include crimes where the victim voluntarily ceded > > rights which are held to be inalienable, e.g. selling > > themselves into slavery willingly in response to a fetish, > > and then being resold unwillingly. > > I'm sorry, I was keeping quiet on this one, but can you give me an example > of a real case of somebody selling themselves into slavery and then being > resold unwillingly? No. Because it would be alienating a right which is inalienable. There are people who pretend at it, though... > A better description of consensual crimes is, in my opinion, one that states > a crime that whilst clearly illegal, the "victim" or participants are > completely at ease with the crime - e.g. drug consumption and possession. Airline pilots. Bus drivers. Surgeons. It's easy to come up with scenarios where such crimes are a matter of public safety. In a consensual crime, all participants must be consenting (hence "consensual"). Probably we should take our definitin from: Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country Peter McWilliams, Jean Sedillos Mary Book / Prelude Pr ISBN: 0931580587 i.e.: "As an adult, you should be allowed to do with your own person and property whatever you choose, as long as you don't harm the person or property of another". > > I think the senator used the inflamatory examples he used > > merely to gain support for his side of the argument by > > provoking outrage in people who would otherwise support it, > > but couldn't fault his logic. The most important part of > > his statement was actually "...the right to anything". > > Without turning this into yet another anti-US flamefest, US senators are > well known for believing Americans have the right to do anything they want > anyway and don't appear to have a grasp of the differences between rights > and privileges, so I don't see where this guy was really coming from. If you > and your best friend want to put your genitals up each other's bottoms, what > the hell has that got to do with him, me, or anybody else? U.S. Senators are well known for believing Americans should not be permitted to do anything without a license from U.S. Senators or their duly appointed flunkies. Hence the siezure of the U.S. Internstate Highway system by the federal government in 1956, and the ensuing "Driver's License Compact", and the need for a drivers license to drive. -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EB9ECC9.CAD7B631>