Sunday, 12 December 2004
|1300 - OGMAFB.|
A post in the libertarianism community quotes two law school types (it's unclear as to whether they're students or professors) as wanting to criminalize first-time sex without a condom.
Render unto me a ****ing break. Why on earth should the government criminalize such a thing? What possible business is it of theirs?
Then again, when you consider it's now not only acceptable, but required, for government employees to fondle average citizens under some circumstances...
current mood: indescribable
That makes no sense to me at all.
OTOH, knowingly spreading a disease should be considered assault, or murder if the disease is fatal and there's no known cure...but that's not at all the same thing, and it has problems with the "knowingly" part, since people will of course claim they didn't know.
That is a crime, and people do get put away for spreading HIV like that. Unfortunately, however, the "knowingly" part is hard to prove, so the only time people really get put away is when prosecutors can prove that they knew they were HIV positive before infecting a number of people--and sadly, it usually takes dozens of infected people to make a solid case that this was criminal. The only ones who really get put away for such things are the people that've managed to infect upwards of fifty victims...
And it's unfortunate that there's no easier way to prove intent before it gets that far.
Is it just me, or do most people react most strongly to absurd propositions? You know as well as I do that such a bill would never get to the floor even in the most dictatorial of countries.
Why are we required to wear seatbelts?
Where in the tax code does it say we have to pay taxes?
Why is pot illegal?
Too much government is a bad thing. JMHO.
People are required to wear seatbelts because, well, okay, let me give you a scenario.
You're driving along in your car, and accidentally rear-end someone who just slammed on the brakes in front of you. You hit him rather slowly, so there should be little to no damage... but! This person is not wearing a seatbelt, and gets his teeth knocked out by the steering wheel. Oops. Now, at this point, you're at fault for the accident (being as you rear-ended him). That much is obvious. But should you have to pay for this guy's own carelessness in not wearing a seatbelt, which would have prevented him from hitting the steering wheel in the first place? With seatbelt laws in place, you're not responsible for that damage. With them not in place, you are.
Part of the point of government, and in particular the code of law and the justice system, is to establish uniform standards of responsibility.
the US code provides for the criminality of evading due taxes in title 26, subtitle F, chapter 75. The most relevant point to this discussion is title 26, subtitle F, chapter 75, subchapter A, part I, section 7201 (sections are numbered continuously throughout a title. section 7201 is the first section in this part.), which demands a felony for "Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title [title 26 is "internal revenue code"] or the payment thereof". http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/f/chapters/75/subchapters/a/parts/i/sections/section_7201.html
The problem is that nowhere in the tax code does it state that taxes are due. It never specifies who has to pay taxes at all.
If the person who got rear ended wasn't wearing a seatbelt, they're a dumbass, but why is it a LAW? Why is government trying to legislate common sense? THAT is my point.
Not to make light ...
The government sticking it's nose in places it doesn't belong is serious... but the sheer idiocy of this AND my mood today... well
Two quotes attributed to Ronald Regan lept to mind as I read that...
The first, I think, explains the the obsession with controlling peoples sex lives and choices...
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.
The second, I think, means the IRS could be replaced in status as most feared finger of government.
The most terrifying words in the English langauge are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Lurking in my brain now is picture of a groom interupted on his wedding night by an agent with a box of condoms... Now I need some mental floss
And how, pray, would you enforce this law? Isn't government supposed to be out of the bedroom? I thought this was why John Ashcroft was so evil. Allegedly.
I thought this was why John Ashcroft was so evil.
It was. That, and the fact that once taking office (this was pre-9/11) he deprioritized terrorism and made prosecuting medicinal marijuana users and euthanasia assisters--in states that had legalized such things--a higher priority.
People who think the Republicans are about smaller government and more states' rights need look no further than John Ashcroft to see how wrong they are.
I love how you have so many varied opinions to everything you post...
Seriously though, it seems you post something and then everyone just agrees loudly. Now I don't think this bill should be passed, but I can see a lot of logic behind it.
"wanting to criminalize first-time sex without a condom."
Why do I have the odd feeling that only men would be prosecuted under such a law? Hooray! Let's go even further down the ridiculous path that women have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for their sexual conduct.
I think alot of this outlandish stuff is put forth by academics (which they both are) to generate thought and discussion as opposed to actually legistration. Isnt that the point of being a professor? To discuss and rediscuss to the end of time