Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If two adults consent to something that affects only them, what's the problem?
There are millions of laws which determine the legality or illegality
of consented actions between adults.
Understand, you don't own the money, the government allows you to use their money.
IT ALONE has the RIGHT to determine when its money may be transacted.
When the legal tender is brought into the equation, then the transaction
must be approved by the government, in order for its property
(the money) to be used in that manner.
Sorry if you don't accept this, but that's how it works.
Also, municipalities are full of laws which influence behavior,
such as operating hours, smoking, driving, assembly, insurance,
zoning, etc ad nauseum, which have nothing to do with violence,
and restrict the actions of their citizens.
So if you're arguing that sexual acts must be sanctioned as a legal transaction,
then the government is entitled to allow or prohibit the use of its property,
make and enforce regulations, such as non-discrimination
against individual customers (I can only imagine the potential
for lawsuits here), taxation, standards of product,
inspections, inventory and whatever else the representatives and
beaurocratic agencies of the government deem appropriate, including
the collection and storage of personal information and data on all transactions.
So you are a hypocrite.
You won't allow your daughter to do that but want put other people's daughters and sisters in that position. Am I correct?
No, you are not correct. You obviously have reading problems. I said "I'm confident that she would not choose that profession but it certainly is her choice, ". Does that sound like I "won't allow" ????
IT'S HER CHOICE!!!!!!!!! How much clearer can I make it?
There are lots of choices I don't want her to make, but they are her choices, not mine. I don't want her to join the military. I don't want her to be a local cop. I don't want her to live in San Francisco. I don't want her to jump out of airplanes. But those are her choices. Not mine and certainly not the governments.
Are you really having trouble understanding CHOICE as opposed to what one may want for another person?
There are millions of laws which determine the legality or illegality
of consented actions between adults.
Understand, you don't own the money, the government allows you to use their money.
IT ALONE has the RIGHT to determine when its money may be transacted.
When the legal tender is brought into the equation, then the transaction
must be approved by the government, in order for its property
(the money) to be used in that manner.
Sorry if you don't accept this, but that's how it works.
Also, municipalities are full of laws which influence behavior,
such as operating hours, smoking, driving, assembly, insurance,
zoning, etc ad nauseum, which have nothing to do with violence,
and restrict the actions of their citizens.
So if you're arguing that sexual acts must be sanctioned as a legal transaction,
then the government is entitled to allow or prohibit the use of its property,
make and enforce regulations, such as non-discrimination
against individual customers (I can only imagine the potential
for lawsuits here), taxation, standards of product,
inspections, inventory and whatever else the representatives and
beaurocratic agencies of the government deem appropriate.
No and the down grading of women. Come on you Liberals must be outraged?
You assume voluntary consent...hardly a reality when "government" is an institution of violence and aggression upon the individual. One does not "voluntarily" enter an agreement at the end of the barrel of a government gun...
The non-aggression principle is simple to anyone who supports human freedom and is not a delusional tyrant and thug towards their fellow man...
Once people think it through, it is very simple. The difficult part is getting past the idea that "my idea is correct, which makes it okay to force on everyone else." Obviously everyone thinks they have all the right answers...nobody thinks their ideas are wrong, and if they do they abandon those ideas.
There are millions of laws which determine the legality or illegality
of consented actions between adults.
So what. That's meaningless information.
Quote:
Understand, you don't own the money, the government allows you to use their money.
IT ALONE has the RIGHT to determine when its money may be transacted.
Not true at all. Where did you get that idea? Are you Barack Obama in disguise?
Once people think it through, it is very simple. The difficult part is getting past the idea that "my idea is correct, which makes it okay to force on everyone else." Obviously everyone thinks they have all the right answers...nobody thinks their ideas are wrong, and if they do they abandon those ideas.
But that is what puzzles me. You don't have to believe that you are wrong to accept the absolute morality of the non-aggression principle.
You only have to accept that you have no right to initiate force upon others. Which no one would argue against if the roles were reversed....who would allow/approve/condone/consent to their neighbor imposing their will upon them by force???
To be against the non-aggression principle is to be the ultimate hypocrite...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
