Topic for the Day -- Open For Posting

[le_bebna_kamni]

Premise: "No voluntary transaction between human beings should be be curtailed."

Do you agree or disagree? Do you agree, but with some exceptions?

Mingle. Discuss. Don't post flames...unless they're pictures of cute gay men, and accompanied by on-topic discussion. ;P

Comments

[kenosis.livejournal.com]

Agree, as long as the non-negotiable "a person owns themself" is attached to it. (Which I forgot about before.)

[le-bebna-kamni.livejournal.com]

I assumed that was what you meant.

Although one would have to wonder -- is relinquishing your right to own yourself a transaction that would be allowed under that statement, and how would the rules operate for individuals who did? ;P

[sinmantyx.livejournal.com]

At least by LAW this would not be possible - which is why "inalienable rights" are called "inalienable".

I suppose within the statement posed, you would basically always have the "safe word" option. In other words, you could "relinquish" your "freedom" but you would always have the option of ending that contract at will. Not unlike saying "red light" or "banana" at a really interesting club.

This actually has been an issue (believe it or not) where people in lifestyle sub/dom relationships create contracts (for the purposes of shielding the dom from assault charges concerning mutually enjoyable actions) that are then used by the dominant partner to make the subordinate believe that they have somehow relinquished their right to end the relationship or to press charges of abuse when everything goes horribly wrong.

[le-bebna-kamni.livejournal.com]

While I'm inclined to agree with your assessment, I bust out laughing when I read the comparison you made to the D/S world. I should have expected a response from you in that regard, but for some reason I didn't see it coming.... lol

[sinmantyx.livejournal.com]

- Only if you strictly interpret the terms "voluntary" and "curtailed".

If taxing something is "curtailing it" - then no.

If "voluntary" doesn't imply informed and capable of making decisions - then no.

If someone were to want to sell my son a drug that would damage him (even if he understood the consequences) I would attempt to CURTAIL the transaction (possibly including force) because he is my son.

If an adult who is not deceived or deficient in faculties wishes to partake in a similiar transaction, I would attempt to CURTAIL the transaction by attempting to be persuative in order to prevent it, but would not use force.

[le-bebna-kamni.livejournal.com]

This is an interesting issue you bring up, because I have seen some libertarians, for example, who have struggled with whether it is acceptable to enforce certain things on their children. The issue becomes: at what age should a child be allowed to make decisions for themselves? Is it really 18? Should it be younger/older? And if we can put restrictions on some people (like children), how do we justify not putting restrictions on others who have historically been considered to have the intellect of children (women, African-Americans)?

Ironically, I also have run into a few libertarians who agree with public libertarianism, but believe that restrictions by social means is acceptable (for example, it is okay if the community pressures an Indian woman into throwing herself onto a husband's pyre by kicking her out of her house and refusing to give her a job, as long as there is no law on the books that mandates it).

Which raises an interesting question regarding that statement: what exactly does "voluntary" mean? Does social and economic pressure to do [or not do] something still allow for something to be voluntary? For example, if there is a private college that makes it very clear it doesn't like people of a certain ethnic group attending -- by refusal to grant financial aid, harassment by other students, professors refusing to acknowledge the student in class and "accidentally" not getting an assignment -- is a person of that hated ethnicity voluntarily not attending that college just because they haven't been physically or legally prevented from doing so?

[le-bebna-kamni.livejournal.com]

I should also note that I'm talking specifically about "social libertarianism" and not "economic libertarianism". Although I wonder if there are any similar circumstances related to economic situations, now that I'm thinking about it.

[sinmantyx.livejournal.com]

The term "voluntary" is always gray for that reason. I don't think anyone could describe a good hard and fast rule to decide if something is voluntary or not. Also, at some point, if you refuse to allow someone to do something because they are incapable of making their own decisions, you also tend to find yourself in murky waters. (For example, is it reasonable that severely mentally impaired adults basically cannot have a sex life, because they cannot legally give consent to have sex?)

As you pointed out, it may be much too simple to define "voluntary" to mean there is no law preventing it or other "rule through force". Actions have social consequences...anyone truly free of considering social consequences would certainly end up locked up at some point or otherwise separated from their society. I think the delineations have more to do with how severe the consequences are then if those consequences are written in some law journal somewhere or not.

AS far as children. I think it is part of my job to protect my children through-out my life. I don't care how old they are. As my mom once explained to me - your going to be just as many years younger than me regardless of how old you are. That doesn't mean I'm going to try to dictate every action, every decision, obviously. However, his family's role in creating a social context and support system is more immediate than anyone else's role. The ambiguous amorphous semi-anonymous "society" certainly does not know or understand members of a family the way a family does...I feel I would (hopefully) be in a privileged position to decide when it would be appropriate or inappropriate to "curtail" the transactions of an immediate family member. (For example, I might realize that destructive actions are due to uncharacteristic mood changes, while others may not realize that...not to mention simple emotional personal investment.)

BTW: I think the first question's answer is obvious. Historically people certainly thought others could not make decisions for themselves based on race, sex, or being considered "slow"...but we (oh yeah, it was US) were wrong. Even John Stewart Mill was all over the "savage" exception to "liberty". There are always going to be exceptions due to capacity and it's always going to be difficult to make good ethical decisions about when those exceptions should be made. It's not as easy as making some arbitrary rule or age restriction...and it never will be.