And one person having unprotected sex with another can lead to that person's unsuspecting spouse dying of aids. Does that give the government the right to interfere in people's sex lives?
If there's a way to prevent such spread that brings more benefits than harm, it should. Too many women in Asia and Africa are getting aids through their husbands. But there's no easy way to write a law, and enforce it, in such a way that would not produce more harm (in terms of intrusion into personal privacy and cost of enforcement) than benefits so the government is left to interfere only at the fridge, by paying for educational programme for safe sex, encourage more screening and giving out free condoms.
Last edited by nonpareil; 01-29-10 at 01:32 AM.
The thought of Gordon Brown watching us shagging does stimulate me, its a pity god and his all seeing eye is a load of bollock, he could have watched us libs perform, and used it to educate the conservatives
Well, anyone who would take "A difference in information will be present in any transaction" to mean outright lies clearly just doesn't have a mastery of the English language.This is a ridiculous arguement. "A difference in information will be present in any transaction" can be taken to mean outright lies or deliberate mis-information. Taken to its extreme conclusion, it means that a fraudster should be blameless in any fraudulent scheme because the fraud victim should know that there are risk of frauds when they enter into any transactions. That's really a good arguement for non-government intervention.
If I promise you a working unicycle in exchange for $30, I am obligated to give you a working unicycle if I take your money. If promise you a working unicycle in exchange for $30, but give you an empty box that claims to contain a unicycle instead, that is fraud.
I am not obligated to tell you that my competitor across the street is selling the exact same model for $15. That is a difference in information, and is ostensibly not fraud. I don't know why this distinction should be unclear to anyone.
If consenting adults choose to take risks, they should be allowed to take risks. Its no one's damn business.If there's a way to prevent such spread that brings more benefits than harm, it should.
It's the government business if there's a contract involved, and marriage is a contract.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)