|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
If liberals say that government can regulate "risky behavior" that imposes medical costs on taxpayers, using the same logic, proponents of sodomy laws could argue in favor of banning homosexual sex because it puts sexual partners at increased risk for getting AIDS. To be clear, I am adamantly opposed to sodomy laws, but my opposition is rooted in the same principle that prompts me to oppose banning smoking, trans-fats, and metal baseball bats. That principle is: libertyWhile Klein doesn't subscribe to the homophobic policy position, his comparison suggests an awfully backwards view of homosexuality. Since sexual orientation is part of one's intrinsic identity, banning sodomy is more analogous to banning a religious ritual than smoking in bars or swinging metal baseball bats. But apparently to the conservative way of thinking they are equally deserving of protection, at best.
Klein makes his criticism sound like a serious statement of consistent principle, but one would hope he's smart enough to realize the silliness of this comparison and is really just being facetious. First of all, a sodomy ban, unlike bans on smoking in bars and metal bats in high school baseball, is totally unenforceable because of the infinite number of locations where the act can take place. Secondarily, to enforce it would require invasions of people's personal homes, which none of the New York laws in question do, so the infraction on liberty is clearly an order of magnitude greater. I would not support a ban on smoking or consuming transfats in one's home for this reason.
It would be nice if conservatives like Klein debated a policy on its actual merits, instead of invoking this kind of fatuous slippery slope argumentation.
cross-posted on TAPPED
!
In that case, change "homosexual sex" to "anal sex between straight couples", and his point stands.
Still, you've been caught up in a complex logical maneuver known as "Reductio ad Sodomium" -- in any argument that can be boiled down to being for or against ass-fucking, the person against said ass-fucking shall be declared the loser.
""It would be nice if conservatives like Klein debated a policy on its actual merits, instead of invoking this kind of fatuous slippery slope argumentation.""
Name a few times in our history when there *hasn't* been a serious slippery slope when the government begins taking away our liberties "for our own good".
Say, by the way -- how's that War on Drugs going, anyhow?
Isn't the real issue here, though, the difference between consentual behavior and behavior with negative externalities? Aluminum bats, I would imagine, pose a danger to innocent people involved in a game with one (kids can't consent, coaches want better bats, no one is making rational decisions), while anal sex could only possibly hurt people who have given their reasonable consent.
Huh?
Apples and oranges.
I wasn't referring to sodomy laws on the books, I was referring to *the hypothetical case that could be made, under Ben Adler's logic, for passing laws banning anal sex between straight couples*.
I was saying "Hey, see, that logic of yours? If you follow it, it can lead you to silly places."
My point has nothing to do with the specifics of whatever stupid horseshit the Texas legislature comes up with.
""Isn't the real issue here, though, the difference between consentual behavior and behavior with negative externalities? Aluminum bats, I would imagine, pose a danger to innocent people involved in a game with one (kids can't consent, coaches want better bats, no one is making rational decisions), while anal sex could only possibly hurt people who have given their reasonable consent."""
With a bit of creative thinking, one could make the case that there are negative externalities to anal sex as well.
The increased spread of diseases is a negative externality, and it's not just "between those two" -- Assuming we all believe there should be some sort of social safety net for health care, that means your good times translate into increased costs for John Q. Taxpayer.
I believe this whole "aluminum bat" issue is being blown out of proportion. It's not like you can't buy an aluminum bat anymore in New York, you just can't use it in any government sanctioned softball/baseball game or on government (school district) owned property.
Let's be reasonable with our arguments, shall we?
Wait, what? As I understood it, Ben's argument was that laws banning anal sex are invalid because they ban an activity important to a specific group's identity (implying that such laws should therefore receive more legal scrutiny). Banning homosexual sex would be fundamentally detrimental to the homosexual identity, while banning metal bats does not have the same effect on another group. That sodomy laws target homosexuals is essential to logic of that argument, and has the added value of being true. Sure, banning all anal sex might be relatively more "fair," but that's not, in my mind, what anyone was saying.
"With a bit of creative thinking, one could make the case that there are negative externalities to anal sex as well."
That's a good point. As a rights claim, thinking of the issue of metal bats and sodomy laws in terms of externalities may not be the best way to go. If we limit externalities to harms that violate reasonable consent, though, the argument can somewhat be saved. Diseases spread by anal sex can only effect people who have agreed to be involved, and taxpayers presumably chose to pay for a public health care system (if they don't want to cover STD treatments, then they don't have to). But the shortstop who gets hit by an 80 mph ball off a metal bat didn't consent, and the system of competitive sports doesn't allow him the rational ability to do so (following the logic of steroid bans). But maybe the discriminatory nature of sodomy laws, as Ben originally cited, is the better response to Klein's ridiculousness.
And so I countered that, using his logic, one could still make a compelling argument for banning anal sex among *straight couples*.
Since hopefully we all find that outcome abhorrent, it should lead us to reject his logic that leads to it.
""If we limit externalities to harms that violate reasonable consent, though, the argument can somewhat be saved. Diseases spread by anal sex can only effect people who have agreed to be involved, and taxpayers presumably chose to pay for a public health care system (if they don't want to cover STD treatments, then they don't have to). But the shortstop who gets hit by an 80 mph ball off a metal bat didn't consent, and the system of competitive sports doesn't allow him the rational ability to do so (following the logic of steroid bans).""
You don't have to consent to anal sex in order to get the diseases spread by it - there are plenty of other acts that can do that.
You could reduce the risk down to 0 by abstinence -- but then again, the little-league shortstop could reduce his risk of being hit by an 80mph softball by simply deciding not to play, too.
Oh, and as for steroid bans, it depends - if we're talking "banned by the baseball association", that's fine.
If we're talking "banned by the government", I'd argue that's a gross violation of our liberties.
Yeah, and my point is that your argument is entirely tangential to what Ben and Klein were disagreeing on. Klein's original argument, remember, was basically "well if liberals hate metal bats they should love sodomy laws," but I think we can agree that its a bad analogy given the discrimination connected to said laws.
We can also agree that laws banning heterosexual sex are illegitimate, but its not because all regulation of behavior is bad, like you argue. Unlike the use of metal bats, sex, ideally, can only harm people who consent to it. A sexually transmitted disease, from anal sex or "other acts," cannot infect another individual without their consent.
"the little-league shortstop could reduce his risk of being hit by an 80mph softball by simply deciding not to play, too."
Well...
(1) The kids don't have a presumption of rationality under the law, and the teams have an incentive to use more powerful bats. Since the league is just a formation of teams, it cannot be trusted to act in the children's best interest, but in the teams' best interest. So the government steps in to correct the failure--its why we have federal laws against steroid use, for instance. (we often times jump the "trust the parents" step when the opt-out is unreasonable, like in the case of obscenity law.)
(2) The government in this case was regulating a public league, so its empowered to do whatever it wants in the interest of the players. Its a public service, so "leave the league" doesn't count as a legitimate argument. Rights claims are insignificant; navibc31 covered this.
(3) From a practical standpoint, this certain situation looks a lot like a classic tragedy of the commons. If one kid thinks he wants to use a metal bat, everyone else faces the implications of his actions and has no disincentive to themselves move to metal bats. Consequently, a normally rational individual would end up at an irrational conclusion because of the circumstances. Great time for authority to step in!
*-(cheap shot, I know. I couldn't help myself--too much caffeine.)