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