Federal Judge Envisions 'Rape License' for 'Right to Rape'

The Christian Post ^ | 9/15/2015 | Matt Barber

[CharlesOConnell]

https://www.google.com/search?q=rape+Judge+Richard+Posner

Judge Richard Posner advocated issuance of a "license to rape" in a 2011 book he wrote. Posner contradicts the presupposition that it's always wrong for a man to rape a woman. This idea, according to Posner in his 2011 book "Economic Analysis of the Law" (8th edition), is evidently an equally archaic tradition that, like the institution of natural marriage, needs a significant overhaul. Posner writes that perhaps it's time the government begin issuing "rape licenses" since, and based upon an exclusively utilitarian and morally relative cost-benefit analysis, the "right to rape," for some men at least, "exceeds the victim's physical and emotional pain." On page 216, Posner, a Reagan appointee considered "conservative" in "progressive" circles, writes, "Rape bypasses the market in sexual relations (marital and otherwise) in the same way that theft bypasses markets in ordinary goods and services, and it should therefore be forbidden." "But," continues Posner, "some rapists derive extra pleasure from the fact that the woman has not consented. For these rapists, there is no market substitute … and it could be argued therefore that, for them, rape is not a purely coercive transfer and should not be punished if the pleasure to the rapist (as measured by what he would be willing to pay – though not to the victim – for the right to rape) exceeds the victim's physical and emotional pain. There are practical objections … [b]ut the fact that any sort of rape license is even thinkable … is a limitation on the usefulness of that theory. "What generates the possibility of a rape license," he persists , "is the fact that the rapist's utility is weighted the same as his victim's utility. If it were given a zero weight in the calculus of costs and benefits, a rape license could not be efficient. The only persuasive basis for such a weighting, however, would be a moral principle different from efficiency." "In a society that prizes premarital virginity and marital chastity, the cardinal harm from rape is the destruction of those goods and is not inflicted by marital rape," he writes. "… The nature of the harm to the wife raped by her husband is a little obscure," he continues. "If she is beaten or threatened, these of course are real harms inflicted by an ordinary assault and battery. Especially since the goods of virginity and of chastity are not endangered, the fact of her having intercourse one more time with a man with whom she has had intercourse many times before seems peripheral to the harm actually inflicted but is critical to making the offense rape. "Most of the reasons for not making marital rape a crime have lost force with time," he laments.

[Scoutmaster]

I doubt Posner would go there. However, he views adoption agencies, whether private or public, as inefficient social welfare agents rather than agents to efficiently process adoptions. He blames adoption agencies for the shortage of babies to adopt and makes good arguments.

Among other things, he argues that if it were lawful to purchase babies, fewer babies would be raised in poverty by single mothers.

It's been years since I read the article, but if I remember correctly, he did a good job of explaining why the availability of babies to purchase would result in a price that did not include an incentive for women to give birth simply to sell their babies.

He's also argued in favor of offering organs for sale on the grounds that more people would become organ donors. Well, it's Posner. The explanation was economic and much more complicated than that.

[pla9999]

Oh? Is this entire book satirical as well?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't have much time to comment on this (I'm just about out the door) but selling babies is a bad idea. Those who have the money to do it, are are materialistic enough to actually become party to buying humans, wouldn't be buying the children of the poor, whom they would regard as off-brand, possibly coming from doper fathers and unhealthy mothers who probably have diabetes and haven't been taking their prenatal vitamins. They'd be buying babies from healthy white college students and willing to pay the premium price. Adoption only works to the good of the child if the child is adopted because of the child's personal dignity and human need, not because of the adult's wants or demands or yen for a lifestyle accessory.

Further promoting the modern babies-are-property trend is a very, very bad idea.

[Scoutmaster]

I understand the argument against selling babies. The problem with Posner is that when you read him, you find yourself nodding in agreement at some point. When you realize you're nodding in agreement you often have a moment of panic.

Maybe I can find an article by Posner on the issue, rather than a book.

Posner's theories are all based on a concept he pioneered called 'wealth maximization' - an economic theory that he says results in the best and most ethical operation of social institutions.

Here's a book review on one of the many books he's written on the subject of wealth maximization.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for the link.

[Scoutmaster]

My pleasure. Here are links to two articles on the economics of adoption that Postner has authored or co-authored on the issue of free marked adoption/baby selling:

The Economics of the Baby Shortage

The Regulation of the Market in Adoptions

Other authors have written on the subject as well:

The Free Market Approach to Adoption: The Value of a Baby

A Modest Proposal to Deregulation Infant Adoptions

For those of you coming into the thread now, I'm not promoting the selling of babies. I mentioned earlier that Posner is primarily an economist who has writes about economic maximization - economics and the legal system in a morally neutral setting.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for the links.

[jpsb]

"I'm not sure if the author of this article was totally disingenuous or just ignorant"

Thanks for explaining things to me.