[Draft] Right to Consent

[Wallenburg]

"What do you mean 'maybe'? It's either a yes or no, Ambassador."

"Well, it depends on what arms are being manufactured. biological weapons, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons manufacturing would still be illegal. So would manufacturing trapped aid."

"So I really have to spell it out for you? All arms manufacturing, including illegal conventional arms operations."

"Actually, it is indirect, so your proposal would force us to essentially scrap regulations on industrial emissions."

"No, that's direct harm, as the toxic chemicals themselves directly harm people."

"Not all of them. What of toxic chemicals dangerous to crops, but not to our people? Starvation is most certainly harmful, but the toxins do not directly harm anyone."

"Payment below the minimum wage is not harmless to any one individual. It is far better than no payment at all. However, employment below the minimum wage indirectly causes great systematic harm to society in general, as people eventually are forced into poverty one way or another because such low wages are normalized."

"And how are lower wages harmful? You say by forcing people into poverty. How is poverty harmful? Likely because such people often cannot afford a minimum standard of living. Now then, if even one individual accepts a lower wage, they are being forced into poverty, and probably cannot afford a minimum standard of living. That's direct harm on that one individual, yes?

"You must be joking, Ambassador. Have you never heard of supplemental income? Have you never encountered one family that can live comfortably off of one income, but another member of the family works anyway? Are you that economically illiterate?"

Are you going to say that that one individual is not directly harmed by a lower wage? If that is the case, how can any individual in society be harmed as wages fall across the nation, since clearly poverty is not directly harmful?"

"Ambassador, a wage cannot be harmful by its very nature. It is money, and money is inherently beneficial. Poverty, however, is very harmful. So pick up a book, learn rudimentary economics, and actually debate my argument instead of shoving words down my throat."

"Yes, as long as no one else is harmed by it. Why the hell do you not adhere to that exception?"

"I do. Hence why the exception is in the proposal. Now, why do you not adhere to it, when you ban narcotics and drug smuggling?"

"You yourself admit that your 'exception' does not apply to either of those, so do not pull that horseshit with me."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Well, it depends on what arms are being manufactured. biological weapons, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons manufacturing would still be illegal. So would manufacturing trapped aid."

"So I really have to spell it out for you? All arms manufacturing, including illegal conventional arms operations."

"Oh," Schultz says. "Well, then the answer is clearly no, since all arms manufacturing would not be made legal by this resolution."

"No, that's direct harm, as the toxic chemicals themselves directly harm people."

"Not all of them. What of toxic chemicals dangerous to crops, but not to our people? Starvation is most certainly harmful, but the toxins do not directly harm anyone."

"Okay. You have a point there."

"Ambassador, a wage cannot be harmful by its very nature. It is money, and money is inherently beneficial.

"A great many people would disagree with that. I wouldn't, but I wouldn't say that the inherent benefit of money is a truth universally held."

Poverty, however, is very harmful. So pick up a book, learn rudimentary economics, and actually debate my argument instead of shoving words down my throat."

"Okay. Then you can criminalize all wages less than minimum wage unless it is for a supplemental income, which is clearly not harmful. All other negotiations for a less than minimum wage are harmful, and therefore can be criminalized by Wallenburg."

"I do. Hence why the exception is in the proposal. Now, why do you not adhere to it, when you ban narcotics and drug smuggling?"

"You yourself admit that your 'exception' does not apply to either of those, so do not pull that horseshit with me."

"Exactly my point. Since narcotics are clearly not harmful to others, why have you criminalized them?"

[Wallenburg]

"So I really have to spell it out for you? All arms manufacturing, including illegal conventional arms operations."

"Oh," Schultz says. "Well, then the answer is clearly no, since all arms manufacturing would not be made legal by this resolution."

"That is a boldfaced lie and you know it, Ambassador."

"Ambassador, a wage cannot be harmful by its very nature. It is money, and money is inherently beneficial.

"A great many people would disagree with that. I wouldn't, but I wouldn't say that the inherent benefit of money is a truth universally held."

"Really? In what society is money harmful?"

Poverty, however, is very harmful. So pick up a book, learn rudimentary economics, and actually debate my argument instead of shoving words down my throat."

"Okay. Then you can criminalize all wages less than minimum wage unless it is for a supplemental income, which is clearly not harmful. All other negotiations for a less than minimum wage are harmful, and therefore can be criminalized by Wallenburg."

"Still untrue. This resolution quite clearly abolishes all minimum wages, or at the very least makes them impossible to enforce."

"You yourself admit that your 'exception' does not apply to either of those, so do not pull that horseshit with me."

"Exactly my point. Since narcotics are clearly not harmful to others, why have you criminalized them?"

"They are indirectly harmful to others, Ambassador."

[Europe and Oceania]

We are against this proposal as it does it not specify or prohibit what the two individuals can consent to, such as causing physical/bodily harm to each other or possibly even murder.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Oh," Schultz says. "Well, then the answer is clearly no, since all arms manufacturing would not be made legal by this resolution."

"That is a boldfaced lie and you know it, Ambassador."

"Completely untrue. I spoke the truth. Manufacture of trapped aid would not be made legal, thus, not all arms manufacturing would be made legal."

"A great many people would disagree with that. I wouldn't, but I wouldn't say that the inherent benefit of money is a truth universally held."

"Really? In what society is money harmful?"

"Societies that have no currency would not agree that money is inherently beneficial. People that believe money is the root of all evil would not agree that money is inherently beneficial."

"Okay. Then you can criminalize all wages less than minimum wage unless it is for a supplemental income, which is clearly not harmful. All other negotiations for a less than minimum wage are harmful, and therefore can be criminalized by Wallenburg."

"Still untrue. This resolution quite clearly abolishes all minimum wages, or at the very least makes them impossible to enforce."

"No, it only abolishes those minimum wages which are not directly harmful to others. If a contract would result in direct harm to others, such as one which would result in a family becoming impoverished, then it can be made illegal still."

"Exactly my point. Since narcotics are clearly not harmful to others, why have you criminalized them?"

"They are indirectly harmful to others, Ambassador."

"How? If I choose to smoke weed, how does that harm others?"

[Wallenburg]

"That is a boldfaced lie and you know it, Ambassador."

"Completely untrue. I spoke the truth. Manufacture of trapped aid would not be made legal, thus, not all arms manufacturing would be made legal."

"Manufacture of trapped aid is not illegal under World Assembly law, Ambassador. How about you start speaking the truth?"

"Really? In what society is money harmful?"

"Societies that have no currency would not agree that money is inherently beneficial. People that believe money is the root of all evil would not agree that money is inherently beneficial."

"Societies that have no currency have no currency with which to pay wages, so that is a non-issue."

"Still untrue. This resolution quite clearly abolishes all minimum wages, or at the very least makes them impossible to enforce."

"No, it only abolishes those minimum wages which are not directly harmful to others. If a contract would result in direct harm to others, such as one which would result in a family becoming impoverished, then it can be made illegal still."

"I fail to see how paying someone money for work directly harms them."

"They are indirectly harmful to others, Ambassador."

"How? If I choose to smoke weed, how does that harm others?"

"Ambassador, how can you smoke weeds?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"How? If I choose to smoke weed, how does that harm others?"

"Inhaling anything in the process of combustion harms the inhaler and anybody nearby, often in the form of carcinogens. Such self-damage inevitably creates a burden on the health systems of a nation, which, thanks the the World Assembly, are likely to be socialized at least in part to ensure those who can otherwise not afford medical care have access to it. The same argument, that is places the inevitable burdens of poor health on society, are applicable to most drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. The state has a compelling interest in controlling access to some or all of these as a result.

"It's worth nothing that such public health initiatives are also valuable when dealing with harmful substances like asbestos, transoluable fats, and leaded paint, which is why states often limit commerce or contracts involving the use of these substances, despite their being between two consenting parties."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Completely untrue. I spoke the truth. Manufacture of trapped aid would not be made legal, thus, not all arms manufacturing would be made legal."

"Manufacture of trapped aid is not illegal under World Assembly law, Ambassador. How about you start speaking the truth?"

"It isn't?" Schultz walks out of the room.

One hour later, she returns. "Hmmm. You are correct. Parson's proposal was removed at vote for a category violation, and then never resubmitted. A shame, really."

"Inhaling anything in the process of combustion harms the inhaler and anybody nearby, often in the form of carcinogens. Such self-damage inevitably creates a burden on the health systems of a nation, which, thanks the the World Assembly, are likely to be socialized at least in part to ensure those who can otherwise not afford medical care have access to it. The same argument, that is places the inevitable burdens of poor health on society, are applicable to most drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. The state has a compelling interest in controlling access to some or all of these as a result.

"The potential tax revenue gained from selling alcohol, tobacco, and drugs is greater than the cost of the increased health care burden, so capitalist and market socialist nations can still benefit even after expanding coverage. If communist governments do not benefit, that is just another failure of communism."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Inhaling anything in the process of combustion harms the inhaler and anybody nearby, often in the form of carcinogens. Such self-damage inevitably creates a burden on the health systems of a nation, which, thanks the the World Assembly, are likely to be socialized at least in part to ensure those who can otherwise not afford medical care have access to it. The same argument, that is places the inevitable burdens of poor health on society, are applicable to most drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. The state has a compelling interest in controlling access to some or all of these as a result.

"The potential tax revenue gained from selling alcohol, tobacco, and drugs is greater than the cost of the increased health care burden, so capitalist and market socialist nations can still benefit even after expanding coverage. If communist governments do not benefit, that is just another failure of communism."

"That makes a pretty serious assumption about the taxation policies and public health landscape of a nation, ambassador. Alcohol in the C.D.S.P. has no excise tax, for example. Even if that was true, I seriously doubt any tax on, say, opium in late imperial China, would be able to balance the social impact the drug had on their society. And since you prohibit the state from interfering in such interpersonal transactions or actions, taxing such a substance punitively would be illegal."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Because the World Assembly should clearly force all nations to legalize all consenting activity as long as no one else is harmed by it."

Neville: "Is...is this sarcasm? Is this all just a big joke? Have we all been duped?"

Fairburn: "The sarcasm is simply dripping from that statement. It appears that the other Ambassadors were unable to comprehend that. I can't exactly say that I'm surprised."

Neville: "If this is sarcasm then I want no further part in this. Good day, "Ambassadors", though your behaviour has been completely deplorable."

Fairburn: "Someone's butthurt. All the Excidians have done is expose the inherent weakness of the World Assembly. I suggest that this proposal is submitted, right here, right now."

We are against this proposal as it does it not specify or prohibit what the two individuals can consent to, such as causing physical/bodily harm to each other or possibly even murder.

Fairburn: "Ah, you've finally given reasons for your voting habits, I see. Took you long enough."

Neville: "Would you stop it with your cheap digs already?"

Fairburn: "Take it to the Strangers' Bar. We're voting 'for', by the way."

[Calladan]

"The potential tax revenue gained from selling alcohol, tobacco, and drugs is greater than the cost of the increased health care burden, so capitalist and market socialist nations can still benefit even after expanding coverage. If communist governments do not benefit, that is just another failure of communism."

Are you suggesting we profit from the ill-health, suffering and death of our citizens? Because that - quite frankly - sounds morally deplorable.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"The potential tax revenue gained from selling alcohol, tobacco, and drugs is greater than the cost of the increased health care burden, so capitalist and market socialist nations can still benefit even after expanding coverage. If communist governments do not benefit, that is just another failure of communism."

Are you suggesting we profit from the ill-health, suffering and death of our citizens? Because that - quite frankly - sounds morally deplorable.

Parsons: Then you have a degraded sense of morality, to quote a turn of phrase from one of the great moral supremacists in recent times.

[Christian Democrats]

Why should the harm principle be restricted to private activities?

OOC: Also, Joel Feinberg.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We would like to submit the opinion that a single age of consent is a concept that cannot be used for multiple acts. For example, an appropriate age of consent for sexual activity with people of similar age cannot necessarily be considered a suitable age of consent for complete control over personal finances.

[Bananaistan]

We would like to submit the opinion that a single age of consent is a concept that cannot be used for multiple acts. For example, an appropriate age of consent for sexual activity with people of similar age cannot necessarily be considered a suitable age of consent for complete control over personal finances.

OOC: That's actually quite true. It would also make the whole thing illegal for contradicting WAR#299 Legal Competence, section 4.

Still OOC: In any case, rather than making a serious and honest effort at passing a resolution, the whole thing is just the author trying to make some sort of nonsense point about legalising activities between consenting adults in one sphere of human relations necessitating blanket legalisation of all activities between consenting adults. It's not worthy of yours or anyone else's consideration.

[Araraukar]

OOC: EP, wouldn't passing this completely bugger your IC system of starships with everyone on them in the military? You couldn't force your people to do anything (like be in the military, partake any communal/societal acitivy) they didn't want to do, and if you claim that nobody in your nation has never been forced to do something they didn't want to, I'm gonna require some proof of them suddenly being a hivemind.

EDIT because damnit typofingers.

Also, this is one of those funny proposals where I think it's utterly pointless, buggers itself up with the "WA laws exception" so that it's also toothless, and would also fuck up most national laws in the vast majority of nations, so going to be arguing against it, even though it would have no effect whatsoever on my WA nation, since PPU is essentially just one person and doesn't need anyone else's consent anyway.

[Christian Democrats]

OOC: In any case, rather than making a serious and honest effort at passing a resolution, the whole thing is just the author trying to make some sort of nonsense point about legalising activities between consenting adults in one sphere of human relations necessitating blanket legalisation of all activities between consenting adults. It's not worthy of yours or anyone else's consideration.

You're implicitly acknowledging how illogical your argument is. If sexual acts should be unregulated because adults consent to them, other activities should be unregulated because adults consent to them. "Sex is special" is not a persuasive rebuttal.

Person 1
If adults consent, A should be legal.
Adults consent.
Therefore, A should be legal.

Person 2
If adults consent, B should be legal.
Adults consent.
Therefore, B should be legal.

Person 1
No, you're wrong! B should not be legal.

Person 2
But my argument is exactly like yours.

Person 1
A is special!

[Umeria]

If sexual acts should be unregulated because adults consent to them, other activities should be unregulated because adults consent to them.

So, your claim is that if A should be legal if adults consent, then B should be legal if adults consent. Your reasoning is:

If adults consent, B should be legal.
Adults consent.
Therefore, B should be legal.

That statement is based on the premise that B should be legal if adults consent. Your claim and your reasoning are the same. Your argument boils down to:

B should be legal if adults consent because B should be legal if adults consent.

Which is circular reasoning, and meaningless.

You're implicitly acknowledging how illogical your argument is.

No, you are.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: In any case, rather than making a serious and honest effort at passing a resolution, the whole thing is just the author trying to make some sort of nonsense point about legalising activities between consenting adults in one sphere of human relations necessitating blanket legalisation of all activities between consenting adults. It's not worthy of yours or anyone else's consideration.

You're implicitly acknowledging how illogical your argument is. If sexual acts should be unregulated because adults consent to them, other activities should be unregulated because adults consent to them. "Sex is special" is not a persuasive rebuttal.

OOC: "Sex is special" is also not a rebuttal that anyone is arguing (or if they are, I missed it). The standard to apply is, does the activity affect others? Sex between consenting adults in private, does not. Many other nominally consensual activities either definitely affect others (e.g. dumping toxic waste, depressing the labor market) or are so likely to negatively affect others that they cannot be tolerated even when nobody gets hurt (e.g. drunk driving, street racing).

Things like drug use have an increasingly complex calculus between individual rights, moral imperatives, wasted tax money/the futility of enforcement, a different set of moral imperatives, harm reduction, public health costs, burgeoning prison populations, and probably a few other considerations I'm forgetting.

With sexual activity among consenting adults, the considerations are individual rights, moral imperatives (which in the US are rendered moot by the First Amendment, I would argue, though as yet no court has seen fit to rule this way ), the consequences of pregnancy, the availability of contraception and abortion, and (again) probably some other things. A consistent weighting of all of these factors can yield the view that using certain drugs ought to be illegal, while most consensual sexual activity should be legal. There is no logical contradiction, only a different view of how each facet of the question should be weighted. That's why someone can't just say, "Well, such and so ideology gives us the answer that... (insert blanket statement here)" and expect to get anywhere.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We urge the Bananaistani* delegation to revisit their sexual privacy project. This proposal is a total non-starter.


*Is that the adjective? If not I just made one up. You're welcome.

[Tinfect]

We urge the Bananaistani* delegation to revisit their sexual privacy project. This proposal is a total non-starter.[/size]

"Ambassador, the Imperium recommends that you revisit the voting floor."

[Bananaistan]

We urge the Bananaistani* delegation to revisit their sexual privacy project. This proposal is a total non-starter.


*Is that the adjective? If not I just made one up. You're welcome.

"The accepted form is generally Bananamen but thank you all the same.

"In return, I've a spare pair of spectacles somewhere around here which I can lend you."

- Ted Hornwood

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We urge the Bananaistani* delegation to revisit their sexual privacy project. This proposal is a total non-starter.[/size]

"Ambassador, the Imperium recommends that you revisit the voting floor."

Sorry, sorry; I didn't know it was already at vote. I meant it should be revisited if it fails - though the current vote count rather makes the issue moot.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Ambassador, the Imperium recommends that you revisit the voting floor."

Sorry, sorry; I didn't know it was already at vote. I meant it should be revisited if it fails - though the current vote count rather makes the issue moot.

OOC: Hey, you never know. There may be an invisible clause that contradicts five different resolutions.

[Christian Democrats]

If sexual acts should be unregulated because adults consent to them, other activities should be unregulated because adults consent to them.

So, your claim is that if A should be legal if adults consent, then B should be legal if adults consent. Your reasoning is:

If adults consent, B should be legal.
Adults consent.
Therefore, B should be legal.

That statement is based on the premise that B should be legal if adults consent. Your claim and your reasoning are the same. Your argument boils down to:

B should be legal if adults consent because B should be legal if adults consent.

Which is circular reasoning, and meaningless.

Modus ponens. Look it up.

You're implicitly acknowledging how illogical your argument is.

No, you are.

So says the ambassador who doesn't recognize modus ponens.

You're implicitly acknowledging how illogical your argument is. If sexual acts should be unregulated because adults consent to them, other activities should be unregulated because adults consent to them. "Sex is special" is not a persuasive rebuttal.

OOC: "Sex is special" is also not a rebuttal that anyone is arguing (or if they are, I missed it). The standard to apply is, does the activity affect others? Sex between consenting adults in private, does not. Many other nominally consensual activities either definitely affect others (e.g. dumping toxic waste, depressing the labor market) or are so likely to negatively affect others that they cannot be tolerated even when nobody gets hurt (e.g. drunk driving, street racing).

You're misusing the term "affect." Yes, subminimum wages affect others. So does sexual promiscuity. If you're going to apply the harm principle with any degree of evenhandedness, however, you must limit regulation to direct effects. Otherwise, it's virtually indistinguishable from the doctrines of traditional legal-moral thinkers. Let's use the minimum wage and fornication as examples.

If Amber and Bob agree to a subminimum wage in the private employment of Amber's business, it depresses the labor market. Chris, an employee of Amber, is affected by Amber and Bob's conduct. He might lose his higher wage or his job. Thus, the state may legitimately regulate wages.

If Amber (a virgin) and Bob agree to fornicate in the privacy of Amber's bedroom, it pollutes the moral ecology. Chris, an admirer of Amber, is affected by Amber and Bob's conduct. He has lost his opportunity to deflower Amber. Thus, the state may legitimately regulate sexual conduct.

Hint: Both of these arguments are bad arguments.

Things like drug use have an increasingly complex calculus between individual rights, moral imperatives, wasted tax money/the futility of enforcement, a different set of moral imperatives, harm reduction, public health costs, burgeoning prison populations, and probably a few other considerations I'm forgetting.

With sexual activity among consenting adults, the considerations are individual rights, moral imperatives (which in the US are rendered moot by the First Amendment, I would argue, though as yet no court has seen fit to rule this way ), the consequences of pregnancy, the availability of contraception and abortion, and (again) probably some other things. A consistent weighting of all of these factors can yield the view that using certain drugs ought to be illegal, while most consensual sexual activity should be legal.

Alternatively, it can lead to the conclusion that certain drugs ought to be illegal or regulated and that certain sexual practices ought to be illegal or regulated.

There is no logical contradiction, only a different view of how each facet of the question should be weighted. That's why someone can't just say, "Well, such and so ideology gives us the answer that... (insert blanket statement here)" and expect to get anywhere.

"A different view," yes. We're not dealing with a human right; we're dealing with different views on the proper regulation of a particular area of human conduct. Accepting the plausibility of other views, we should advocate that the WA not involve itself in this area.