Let's just keep this simple since this again is getting way out of hand. I'm not trying to blow off everything you say, I'm just trying to get to the root of your objection.
If we have no argument against two consenting adults doing things to one another, what logically follows might be tacit approval of things we find distasteful or abhorrent. But still, unless we have a solid argument against them doing what they want to each other, on what grounds can we prohibit it? We can only prohibit it by consensus rule or by dictatorship, not on a foundation of sound argumentation. Which I'm sure is fine if you happen to be getting your own way.
I'm not exactly sure why you think this is some universal truth, that is "consensual activity between two adults is sacrosanct". Not true at all. I gave the example of organ marketing and selling, something I support remaining prohibited. Selling drugs is another (I'm not for keeping drugs illegal or for arresting people who consume them mind you, but I'm not for allowing major establishments to sell and market them either). Banning gambling establishments (again, something I'm for) is another. You get the idea. Lots of things that are technically just "consensual behavior" deserve to be prohibited. Your set of values are not universal or absolute, I most certainly disagree with them.
I don't know what you mean by voluntary slavery.
I think this is the root of the problem. Here's what I mean:
"Voluntary slavery (or self-sale) is the condition of slavery entered into at a point of voluntary consent. In ancient times, this was a common way for impoverished people to provide subsistence for themselves or their family and provision was made for this in law.[1] For example, the code of Hammurabi stated that "besides being able to borrow on personal security, an individual might sell himself or a family member into slavery."[2] In medieval Russia, self-sale was the main source of slaves.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slaveryI'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all, but this is simply a basic historical fact. In many ancient societies people voluntarily became near-permanent chattel for a variety of reasons. Why shouldn't that be allowed within your value system? If I want to do that, why can't I?
This alone would be enough to undermine the claim that the institution of chattel slavery was a consensual enterprise.
I never said chattel slavery was a consensual agreement typically, I said at times in history people voluntarily became chattel slaves, with the knowledge that yes they may never leave it, and doom their offspring to the same fate. For whatever reason, some found it worth it.
Furthermore, there is a kind of 'consent' that can be coerced, forced, or that can be an act of desperation, and so on.
Wait a minute, why does desperation void consent? So consent and right of self-ownership are only conditional? Are you saying the desperately poor of England who volunteered to be servants in North America were not making consensual agreements?
. They are entering into a situation blind.
Not necessarily in the case of the Romans, or yet again Indentured servitude.
. It doesn't seem like much of a controversial point to say that the notion of consent, if we were to view it as the pivotal crux of an argument about what is permitted between two or more persons, has broad reaching implications, even in things such as slavery.
I think sometimes it should be the pivotal crux, but when it violates the freedom of others, not so.
And so, I'd appreciate it if you would stop with the lazy insinuations that I want to permit slavery.
I never said you wanted to, I said your concept would allow it, if taken to its logical conclusion.
Now we're actually getting somewhere.
Poll
Topic: Suicide or not?