161 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
I'm sorry but this is just incorrect. All laws are based on moral value judgments.
"Laws that protect negative individual rights and protect innocent victims assert only that basic function of government"
For example, you are making a moral judgment by asserting that this is the just and true function of government.
You suggest minors taking and sending explicit pictures of themselves should be legal if done voluntarily. Except that children are held to be legally incapable of giving consent in such a case. Yet, you seem to want to change this in "sexting" cases. This would have the effect of making the taking and distribution of sexually explicit images of minors legal if the minor consented...yet the very notions of child pornography and statutory rape hold that children are incapable of giving legal consent in such cases due to the underdeveloped nature of their brains and their susceptibility to pressure and suggestion from an adult.
By allowing minors to consent to the creation of pornography, you are opening the door to the legalization of child pornography in general.
Do you not see the bad precedent set by a government legislating that people should buy certain products from certain corporations.
I'm not against government social programs, just comprehensive government social programs.
1) discrimination of the type that I talked about does not exist.
2) If it does, it is minor.
3) If (1) and (2) are false, they deserve it anyways.
I think (3) pretty much explains your views (1) and (2).