One of the most common arguments, against both libertarian outcry that "taxation is theft" and against abortion, is the 'tacit consent' argument. Essentially, it is posited that by doing some action (in the case of the State and taxation, it is remaining in the country and using tax-funded goods and services; in the case of abortion, it is having consensual sex), you have actually tacitly contracted to do something further (pay taxes or not have an abortion).
Now, I think this is a bad argument for several reasons (and in the not too distant future I hope to elaborate more on this), not the least of which is that these seem like highly improable cases to even consider for a tacit consent argument. But I think one of the biggest problems with such arguments is that they ignore the inalienabilty of our rights. To say that our right to self-ownership is inalienable is to say that that nothing we say or do (or contract) could possibly give up our right of self-ownership. (This is why, for instance, I would argue that on libertarian principles one could never sell oneself into slavery.)
The importance of this point to the matter at hand is that contracts are always 'breakable', in the sense that even if I contract to do X, I could always change my mind. I may owe compensation to the person with whom I contracted, but that person would have no right to force me to do X. Thus, e.g., I might agree to mow my neighbor's lawn. Then, the day that I'm going to mow it, something comes up and I can't do it. I may owe my neighbor compensation for not mowing her lawn and breaking our contract, but my neighbor couldn't use force to make me mow my lawn.
I think this point is apllicable both to arguments against social contract theory, as well as arguments in favor of legalizing abortion. Focusing on the latter, let's assume that a woman having consensual sex is tantamount to 'tacit consent' to bear any child that may come of her actions (I think this is a very weak argument and hard to maintain, but that's a different matter). I still don't think this would be a strong argument against abortion, since the woman has every right to change her mind and break her "contract." Since no contract can take away a person's inalienable right of self-ownership, her 'consent' to bear the child doesn't bar her from the future action of having an abortion.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Miscellaneous Thoughts
1. That San Diego-Indy game was one of the weirder games I can remember watching recently. At this point it seems pretty safe to say that San Diego isn't going to be a threat in the playoffs, since they have no ability to pass the football. Rivers has looked awful every time I've watched him this year. Oh, and Vinitari missing that 29-yarder was absolutely shocking. I was stunned and unable to move for at least 5 minutes.
2. How big was that botched call early in the Ohio State-Illinois game? After OSU went up 7-0 in like 20 seconds, Illinois responded with a 80 yard run to OSU's 3 yard line, at the end of which the runner clearly fumbled and was recovered by Ohio State. For whatever reason, the play wasn't challenged, reviewed, etc. Talk about a game-changing performace; as bad as Ohio State looked that game, I don't think they lose the game if that play is reviewed and they get the ball back, up 7-0 still, ready to add more points at home.
3. After my Rams won on Sunday (actually looking good for once!) I had to entertain wild thoughts about them winning out (their schedule isn't too tough, but they do have Green Bay and Pittsburgh) and slipping into the division title. What's scary, though, is that the scenario, while unrealistic, isn't as unrealistic as it ought to be. San Francisco is terrible (they should be winless right no, as they were completely outplayed in their two wins), Arizona is still Arizona, and Seattle is inconsistent and overrated. That said, the Rams probably won't win out (they were 0-8 before Sunday for more reasons than massive injuries), andd Seattle will probably end up better than 8-8 (though maybe not by much). But I have to keep the dream alive!
4. I just finished reading Dune; not exactly sure what to think about it. It was definitely good, but I felt like maybe it was not quite as good as I was expecting/hoping. I plan on watching the movie (the mini-series one) soon, so maybe I'll have more thoughts after that.
5. The new Lego Star Wars game, like all the ones before it, is way more fun than it has any right to be. Honestly, I'd probably keep playing it for the next month or so, except that both Mass Effect (Nov 20th) and the new Star Wars: Legacy of the Force novel (Nov 27th) are out soon.
6. Speaking of Mass Effect, I'm currently reading the prequel-novel thing (by Drew Karpyshyn, also the author of the Darth Bane Star Wars EU novel). So far, so good, and I can't wait for Mass Effect.
2. How big was that botched call early in the Ohio State-Illinois game? After OSU went up 7-0 in like 20 seconds, Illinois responded with a 80 yard run to OSU's 3 yard line, at the end of which the runner clearly fumbled and was recovered by Ohio State. For whatever reason, the play wasn't challenged, reviewed, etc. Talk about a game-changing performace; as bad as Ohio State looked that game, I don't think they lose the game if that play is reviewed and they get the ball back, up 7-0 still, ready to add more points at home.
3. After my Rams won on Sunday (actually looking good for once!) I had to entertain wild thoughts about them winning out (their schedule isn't too tough, but they do have Green Bay and Pittsburgh) and slipping into the division title. What's scary, though, is that the scenario, while unrealistic, isn't as unrealistic as it ought to be. San Francisco is terrible (they should be winless right no, as they were completely outplayed in their two wins), Arizona is still Arizona, and Seattle is inconsistent and overrated. That said, the Rams probably won't win out (they were 0-8 before Sunday for more reasons than massive injuries), andd Seattle will probably end up better than 8-8 (though maybe not by much). But I have to keep the dream alive!
4. I just finished reading Dune; not exactly sure what to think about it. It was definitely good, but I felt like maybe it was not quite as good as I was expecting/hoping. I plan on watching the movie (the mini-series one) soon, so maybe I'll have more thoughts after that.
5. The new Lego Star Wars game, like all the ones before it, is way more fun than it has any right to be. Honestly, I'd probably keep playing it for the next month or so, except that both Mass Effect (Nov 20th) and the new Star Wars: Legacy of the Force novel (Nov 27th) are out soon.
6. Speaking of Mass Effect, I'm currently reading the prequel-novel thing (by Drew Karpyshyn, also the author of the Darth Bane Star Wars EU novel). So far, so good, and I can't wait for Mass Effect.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Seriously?
Last Sunday, I had a choice between watching the local Cleveland Browns (playing against my hapless and injury-depleted St. Louis Rams) and watching the Bears-Lions game. Now, I wouldn't call the Bears-Lions a terrible game, but it isn't a game that's going to excite many people outside of Detroit and Chicago. *Especially* Cleveland fans who don't really care what happens in the NFC North.
This weekend, the very same Cleveland market is being denied the Patriots-Colts game (which should but won't be airing in Cleveland opposite the Browns at 4:00 ET).
So let me get this straight: last weekend, it was okay to show a game opposite the Browns, when that game was insignificant. But when there's a really really good game that people might want to actually watch (one of the most anticipated regular season games in NFL history!) it won't be aired because the Browns-Seahawks game is on at the same time on another station. Who comes up with this asinine bullshit? I will pass on a rant here about the monopolies that help bring about such ridiculousness (suffice to say that I think intellectual property rights have a lot to do with this dire situation; I'll try and say more about this later). I will say, though, that this is the type of frusterating thing that legitimately makes me want to boycott the NFL. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I think I love football too much to do that.
This weekend, the very same Cleveland market is being denied the Patriots-Colts game (which should but won't be airing in Cleveland opposite the Browns at 4:00 ET).
So let me get this straight: last weekend, it was okay to show a game opposite the Browns, when that game was insignificant. But when there's a really really good game that people might want to actually watch (one of the most anticipated regular season games in NFL history!) it won't be aired because the Browns-Seahawks game is on at the same time on another station. Who comes up with this asinine bullshit? I will pass on a rant here about the monopolies that help bring about such ridiculousness (suffice to say that I think intellectual property rights have a lot to do with this dire situation; I'll try and say more about this later). I will say, though, that this is the type of frusterating thing that legitimately makes me want to boycott the NFL. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I think I love football too much to do that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
