Thank you , it is so much less work for me when you include your own refutation in your argument.
What are you talking about? What, exactly, was refuted by what, exactly? I can only guess that you intended to highlight the parenthetical phrase "though I am sure sex is involved somewhere along the way". However, admitting that a marriage with more than one spouse involves sex somewhere along the way hardly refutes that polyandry is defined as having more than one husband and not as a sex act. So if that is what you meant, you're wrong.
Hahahaha, you have done it again.Involveing sex is the key element , and you are within a hair of understanding your own statement. A handfasting or sexless relationship of any sort would not be within the scope of this discussion would it? Nor would there be much reason to discourage it.
Strictly because of the effect ,the government has an intrest in preventing the ruin of its citizens the exchange of money makes the person into a rentable if not saleable comodity, the exchange of money makes the business grow powerfull , this is tolerable if the business is recruiting seamstresses or basketball players. Even when the Government recruits civil servants it is tolerable , but do we really need to tolerate the recruitment of our sons and daughters into prostitution?
An interest in preventing the ruin of its citizens. Ruin according to whom and by what standard? The exchange of money makes the person into a rentable if not salable commodity? I do not agree. Selling the service of sex is no worse than selling the service of house cleaning, plumbing or preparing one's taxes. Do we really need to tolerate the recruitment of our sons and daughters into prostitution? I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe a person owns him or herself. Do you?.
That ened with a good question.As a Christian I belong to God , as an American Citizen I belong mostly but not entirely to myself.
Do you actually not draw any distinction between plumbing and prostitution? Let me help you with that, lots of skilled plumbers in a community can reduce the incidence of disease.
And does the fact that a libertarian finds consensual prostitution acceptable mean there is a 'great gulf' or a 'narrow strait' between his position and yours?
There is a pond there , is the experiment being performed in Austrailia , Nevada and Denmark to scientificly determine which idea works better?
I am unconvinced the "experiment" is an experiment, much less that anyone would be performing it to scientifically determine anything..
Observation counts as science.
Fugu prepared incorrectly can, when eaten, cause paralysis and death. Consensual sex between a prostitute and another person, not so much.
Oh? Are you really unaware of how severely dangerous sex can be?
I am unaware of any reports of improperly executed sex directly and solely being the cause of someone becoming paralyzed or dying within hours of the act, as is known to happen with eating improperly prepared fugu due to the ingestion of poison. Feel free to share.
.
Yes! Properly prepared Fugu is safe, improperly done Sex is more dangereous than anything elese in the human experience. I knew you could make the connection. Sex causes people to kill one another , makes persons vectors for disease and corrupts persons who are liable to addiction no less than a natrcotic that you cannot leave behind anywhere.I would guess that you are not,
That saves a lot of time doesn't it? Perhaps you should let me guess your thinking rather than writeing so much.
Feel free to guess all you like. Why would guessing be a problem? Just don't lie about what I say when I correct your guesses.
I don't beleive I have been doing that , I would be irritated .
Does the government have an intrest in Fugu or does it not? The Japaneese love that stuff ,even though they know it is dangerous they pay much for it. The government trains and sells license to chefs to mitigate the danger . A lot of states license marrage and require testing for the common STDS when they issue the lisense. Does the state really have any call in mitigateing the harmfull potential of unlicensed sexual relationship ? Incest , Bigamy , beastiality , homosexuality , polyandry , prostitution and pornography , etc...?
Mitigating the harmful potential of unlicensed sexual relationship? And you compare this to licensing fugu chefs. If one follows this reasoning to its logical conclusion, then any human activity with any potential for any harm whatever is in need of government regulations and licenses. And no, I do not agree that the government has any call to be inserting itself into every area of human activity that potentially might cause harm to someone. So no, I do not agree with your argument.
Does the government have an interest in fugu? I guess you mean does the government have an interest in licensing chefs who prepare fugu because fugu can be poisonous. The argument can be made, though frankly I don't believe government licensing is necessary. Private certification would probably work about as well. It's bad for business to kill off customers.
Does the state have any call in mitigating the harmful potential of unlicensed sexual relationships? No. If it does then your argument that preventing heterosexual fornication is not worth the effort is a double standard. But, no, the state should not be involved in licensing sexual relationships. Nor should the state be involved in defining what consensual sex acts consenting human adults may or may not perform with each other.
The state has intrest in preventing disruption that is liable to destroy the state. This is the principal of evolution. States that do not prevent their own dissolution are soon not states. Diseases and dangers that are tolerable the state should allow for the sake of its individual members happyness after all there is no state without individuals , but there is also no state without order so dangers that rise to the level of extential threat, the state properly limits.
I think we would agree that the individual right is generally worthy and the state should not exercise rights to the detriment of an individuals rights without need , but I seem to see you thinking that the states right to exist is trumped by an individual right to self destructive behavior , If I have read you wrong please let me know.
I think that the State properly exists as a tool of the people and rightly rules by the consent of the governed, as long as the state has the consent of the governed and is beneficial to the people* it has a right itself to exist as a social contract and has a certain amount of right to enforce its right to exist onto the people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The people need to not only benefit , but also understand and perceive this benefit, elese consent of the governed is lost.
