Replies

Ehhh...kayyy.....I like liberarian's stance on the WOD; I think they have some valid gripes about search and seizure, unlawful entry...etc...BUT....

I think I've seen enough. This, is a bit extreme, imo. Umm...if a person's political ideology can't allow for the outlawing of cannibalism, then I think there's something wrong with that ideology.

And you can protest all you want artisan, but the consumption of human flesh by another human is, by all accepted rational defintions, "cannibalism". I don't care what's done in Alaska; maybe it should be stopped. Just because it hasn't been stopped already, does that make it "right"? So what if it doesn't harm someone. Beastiality doesn't "harm anyone" either, I guess that's ok too? (what am I even bothering asking for; if cannibalism is ok.........etc.....)

Besides, the whole argument to justify cannibalism is based on a commonly accepted defintion of "harm", is it not? What if I find a group of insane people who don't think it's "harmful" to kill someone themselves before eating them? How could you possibly convince an insane person that that's not right? You couldn't. That's where this system fails.

In this purely "no force or fraud" scenario you could easily have a group of people that could take it to insane extremes, and there'd be no intellectual way you could convince them otherwise. Then where would you be? I guess you'd have to use "force" against them to stop them wouldn't you?

But then, they'd cry "no force or fraud, no force or fraud! YOU are not a true libertarian!"

Damn those vicious cycles.

I do not approve of or condone cannibalism.
I was playing "devil's advocate".
FourtySeven- Sorry, I should have made that more apparent.

I do, in fact, believe that there is rational basis for laws against cannibalism
What I would like, is for Humanae Vitae to declare his rational basis for them.

As far as I can tell, he thinks that some things should be outlawed for no other reason than personal opinion.

I think laws need to serve an objective purpose - defending the rights of the innocent for example.

IMO, the non-initiation of force and fraud rule is a very good yardstick, but is not enough by itself.
There is something lacking.
Something more is required to make it all work.
I think that the differences between Humanae Vitae, Kevin Curry, and I are about just what that something is.

There seems to be a huge difference in our philosophies at the epistemological level (basis of knowledge- reason, divine revelation,ect.).
That is what I am after now.
I am not as interested in the "should" as I am in the "why".