Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

[Eddie Teach]

I'd be interested in Berkut's response to my earlier question if he is against all cases where morality is imposed by the government even though it doesn't harm others.

A few examples:
-public nudity bans
-seat belt laws
-forcing adult college players for state schools to leave games when suspected of concussions
-public sex act bans

1 & 4 certainly do affect others. Does the government enforce 3 or just the NCAA?

Dunno about Berkut, but I don't care much for seat belt laws.

[alfred russel]

1 & 4 certainly do affect others. Does the government enforce 3 or just the NCAA?

1 & 4 gross you out? I don't see how that is different than an incestuous couple which will also gross people out.

For #3, it doesn't really matter, does it? Most schools playing NCAA FBS football are state institutions.

[Berkut]

I'd be interested in Berkut's response to my earlier question if he is against all cases where morality is imposed by the government even though it doesn't harm others.

A few examples:
-public nudity bans

But arguably does harm others. This is, by definition, a question of *public* conduct. Which clearly the state has vastly more say in that private conduct

-seat belt laws

Support them as a necessary constraint on personal liberty that has a tangible, noticeable, and measurable benefit to society as a whole. Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively, society has a decided interest in making cars safer. Further, the individual imposition is extremely minimal for a very great gain in the overall good.

-forcing adult college players for state schools to leave games when suspected of concussions

By definition a concussion involves impairment of ability to make rational decisions. Also, there is no personal right to play a game, and hence all players must abide by the rules imposed by the organization they play under. If they find those rules overly onerous, they are certainly welcome not to play. This isn't a issue of personal liberty at all, IMO.

-public sex act bans

Again, by definition public is in fact public, and the mores and standard of society at large are very reasonably expected to be met in a social structure of varying personal view on these kinds of issues. Of course, there is still a back and forth necessary to find a reasonable area of acceptable public behavior versus freedom of expression.

There is a very bright line difference between the interests of the state in public and in private.

[garbon]

In fact, SF lifts its public nudity and public sex act bans (well maybe not so officially on last one) for several key money making events (aka Bay to Breakers, Folsom Street Fair, etc.).

[Eddie Teach]

1 & 4 gross you out? I don't see how that is different than an incestuous couple which will also gross people out.

Big difference between saying "I don't want to see X" and "X should not exist".

[alfred russel]

Support them as a necessary constraint on personal liberty that has a tangible, noticeable, and measurable benefit to society as a whole. Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively, society has a decided interest in making cars safer. Further, the individual imposition is extremely minimal for a very great gain in the overall good.

The constraints certainly aren't necessary--society was getting along well without them. I'm not sure what "Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively" means. Your safety is not at all affected by me wearing a seatbelt. You see collective benefits in wearing seatbelts as justifying a restriction in liberty, others see collective benefits in deterring incestuous relationships and channelling those in them into some sort of rehabilitation through the exercise of law. I don't see a significant difference between these private acts.

I also don't agree that a person walking down the street naked causes any significant harm to anyone.

In the case of a college football player, yes a concussion deters an ability to make decisions, but I'm certain at least some players would be willing to do so and sign a statement to that effect prior to a game. Why should the government restrict their ability to do so? No that isn't in the law, but it is in the rules of the game the state is generating. Why should the state make laws to restrict liberty like that?

[viper37]

If you think it is alright for a parent to have sex with their 18 year old then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

For my part, it's not that I judge it "alright", but more that I am totally uneasy at the state's regulations of sexual practice.
I find it wrong, really, and I would probably not look at someone I know the same way if I learn he was screwing his sister. 

But I don't think it should be criminal, whenever adults or children of the same age are concerned.

Of course, I do realize that if it happens between adult in the present, it's very likely it didn't start just right now and was part of the family's practice in the past, when one ore more participants were minor.
But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.

[Berkut]

Support them as a necessary constraint on personal liberty that has a tangible, noticeable, and measurable benefit to society as a whole. Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively, society has a decided interest in making cars safer. Further, the individual imposition is extremely minimal for a very great gain in the overall good.

The constraints certainly aren't necessary--society was getting along well without them.

Not really - large numbers of people were dying every year. Society was not at all getting along well in that context.

But we can argue about the details I guess, but at the end of the day it is an argument about the details. The fact is that seatbelts save lives, lots and lots and LOTS of them, and society does in fact have an interest in keeping it's members alive for a variety of reasons, some of which are collective.

I'm not sure what "Given that we accept that we handle automobile accidents collectively" means.

Our society pays a large portion of healthcare costs from collective sources, therefore society has an interest in keeping those costs under control. We have emergency response that is funded by public funds, we have helicopters to transport accident victims to hospitals at incredible expense, etc., etc.

Your safety is not at all affected by me wearing a seatbelt.

No, but that doesn't mean you not wearing a seat belt does not affect me. If I hit you, and it is my fault, and you don't have a seat belt on, the odds of your being seriously injured are vastly greater. Since we, as a society, decided that I am culpable in that case for your injuries, you not wearing a seat belt increases my liability (and hence my mandatory insurance) considerably.

Finally, driving a car is, by its very nature, a public activity, and hence is regulated, heavily regulated, by public rules. Perhaps one can argue that it should not be, but it is, and I don't see that as being outside the bounds of reasonable imposition on personal liberty in order to allow a smoothly functioning society.

You see collective benefits in wearing seatbelts as justifying a restriction in liberty, others see collective benefits in deterring incestuous relationships and channelling those in them into some sort of rehabilitation through the exercise of law. I don't see a significant difference between these private acts.

One isn't a private act, and the other is.

Beyond that, in both cases one has to make a case that the imposition is justified. I think that case is clearly made in the case of motor vehicle laws, and that case has not been made in the case of laws governing who people are allowed to sleep with.

I also don't agree that a person walking down the street naked causes any significant harm to anyone.

You don't have to agree - society itself says it does. Personally, I am ok with laws saying you cannot be naked, I am ok with laws saying you can be stark naked. Makes no personal difference to me, and I don't think that either position is outside the bounds of acceptable impositions. Again, we are talking about public behavior. I don't think seeing someone naked causes harm, but I certainly understand the viewpoint of others that it does, and accept the rule of the majority in that case, since we are talking about public behavior.

In the case of a college football player, yes a concussion deters an ability to make decisions, but I'm certain at least some players would be willing to do so and sign a statement to that effect prior to a game. Why should the government restrict their ability to do so? No that isn't in the law, but it is in the rules of the game the state is generating. Why should the state make laws to restrict liberty like that?

I've already answered that question. There is no "right" to playing NCAA football, so if you want to play, you have to abide by the NCAAs rules. If you don't like those rules, go play somewhere else.

Not a issue of liberty at all, and certainly not analogous to private matters of sexual conduct behind closed doors.

[alfred russel]

Not really - large numbers of people were dying every year. Society was not at all getting along well in that context.

But we can argue about the details I guess, but at the end of the day it is an argument about the details. The fact is that seatbelts save lives, lots and lots and LOTS of them, and society does in fact have an interest in keeping it's members alive for a variety of reasons, some of which are collective.
Our society pays a large portion of healthcare costs from collective sources, therefore society has an interest in keeping those costs under control. We have emergency response that is funded by public funds, we have helicopters to transport accident victims to hospitals at incredible expense, etc., etc.
...
No, but that doesn't mean you not wearing a seat belt does not affect me. If I hit you, and it is my fault, and you don't have a seat belt on, the odds of your being seriously injured are vastly greater. Since we, as a society, decided that I am culpable in that case for your injuries, you not wearing a seat belt increases my liability (and hence my mandatory insurance) considerably.
...
Finally, driving a car is, by its very nature, a public activity, and hence is regulated, heavily regulated, by public rules. Perhaps one can argue that it should not be, but it is, and I don't see that as being outside the bounds of reasonable imposition on personal liberty in order to allow a smoothly functioning society.

I think there are some thought patterns here that are very dangerous to the concept of liberty. As far as I can tell, we should have liberty in our private lives, and I don't see you giving many examples of private life extending beyond who people have sex with. But public lives are subject to regulation.

The biggest problem I have is that you cite the collective cost regarding care for people injured, as well as keeping people alive. But people can't decline collective care from society. We used to be a society where you could go out into the wild and take whatever risks you want. That seems to be very much what liberty is all about. Now there are increasing restrictions on the ability to do that on public land, and the legal environment makes it problematic to allow others to do that on private land.

Apparently you are cool with that--after all--people could get hurt if they take risks, and society may pay to send a rescue party or recover a dead body. That is just society looking after its own interests--not a restriction of liberty. Real liberty, apparently involving the right to bang your sister, is still secure.

[Valmy]

Incest destroys our genetic heritage.
Incest is the social relationship of the failed social group.
Incest is failure to succeed.

Did you know Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four women?  Wild.

[crazy canuck]

But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.

But that isnt the reason.  In the case I referred to above there was no evidence that the sexual relationship started before the daughter reached the age of consent (as it was at that time).  The issue was that she had been socialized while she was growing up to believe that such a thing was expected of her. 

In Berkut's view that is perfectly fine because she makes the decision to have sex when she is an adult.  But his view ignores all the years of grooming that proceed the "consent".

[Berkut]

But punishing them today for something they do as adults because we find it likely that it happened in the past when it should have been illegal is a big stretch of the law, imho.

But that isnt the reason.  In the case I referred to above there was no evidence that the sexual relationship started before the daughter reached the age of consent (as it was at that time).  The issue was that she had been socialized while she was growing up to believe that such a thing was expected of her. 

In Berkut's view that is perfectly fine because she makes the decision to have sex when she is an adult.  But his view ignores all the years of grooming that proceed the "consent".

In Berkut's view, that is not "fine" at all. It is a gross violation of the childs liberty to brainwash them like that. But the crime is not fucking her after she turns 18, the crime is in brainwashing her before that so that she finds it ok.

But I don't see it as being any different from a child being groomed to be someone *else's* wife their entire life, which happens as well in cases of cults/religious organizations. Or even in otherwise "normal" societies where daughters are told from a young age that their choices of husband are made by their parents.

I don't think that is ok either, but apparently you do, since it isn't explicitly illegal, and all that is defined as acceptable must be codified into law - so as long as it isn't actual incest - go right ahead!

The case you cite is reprehensible, but I recognize that it is generally reprehensible for reasons that have almost nothing do with the person having sex with her being her father. You apparently feel that that kind of brainwashing is a-ok as long as there isn't actual incest involved. I find it revolting regardless - I just don't know what a good way of stopping it via the legal system might be...get CPS involved early? Get rid of home schooling? Those solutions have problems as well.

The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?

[crazy canuck]

The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?

No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme.  How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases.  Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.

[The Brain]

Sometimes I wonder...

[Berkut]

The problem here is that by the time she turned eighteen, her father had made it pretty obvious she was not able to make normal, adult decisions. This is a perfect example of bad facts making bad laws. This is an extreme example of a parent destroying the very thing that makes an adult and adult - their ability to make informed, adult decisions about what they want. I find this appalling, but it happens around issues not relating to sex all the time, and apparently you are ok with that?

No this is a good example of what would occur if Berkutian Liberty was supreme.  How would the prosecution be able to prove there was not true consent in most cases.  Your view that parents and their children can have perfectly normal consensual sexual relation is too bizarre for words.

I would say that your view of my view is bizarre, but that would be giving it credit it doesn't deserve. Instead I will just note that we've reached the point were you start lying about what I say, and call it a day.