From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Feminism and Libertarians
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:31:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.135634.23822@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
}>}why shouldn't they be treated equally?
}>
}>Because pregnancy is often chosen, whereas disease is rarely by choice.
}>
}
}Its interesting you would say this after the argument you were in about
}abortion a few weeks ago.

Another good point.  I've been trying to get you to accomodate the fact
that pregnancy can be accidental, or chosen.  I can see the possibility for
having accidental pregnany treated like any other accident, but not one that
was chosen.

}Lets say a coworker threatened you.  Basically this is a criminal offense.
} Woman find being sexual harasassed as upsetting as being threatend.  It
}seems only reasonable to give the two equal legal weight.  Rather that
}make one a difficult to prove civil issue, and the other a felony.

You claim about women finding "sexual harassment" as upsetting as being
threatened is both overinclusive and beside the point.  Many women don't
find "unwelcome" sexual advances or comments or a "hostile" work environment
that upsetting.

But the real question is the analogy to being threatened.  Are sexual advances,
comments, and "hostile" work environments threats?  I can see them being
combined with threats, but in and of themselves, I don't see that they are
threats.

}>I did think of another possible position: pemitting juries to define the
}>immediateness of a threat by their consciences in cases where women killed
}>their husband-batterers, rather than having a definition shoved down their
}>throat by the judge.
}
}Perhaps a jury selection system has gotten really bad.

This isn't a problem with jury selection, but with the rules of evidence.
Juries have the right and power to admit and interpret evidence, not the
judges or other parties to a case.  One juror I read about in the SF Examiner
wanted to vote to acquit, but was instructed by the judge to narrowly
interpret the immediacy of danger.  She later changed her mind, and is
working to get the woman she voted to convict released.

But everyone I
}know who has seen the jurys at work was unimpressed.  The general feeling
}of lwayers.... Is that jurys seem to be little better than descision by
}craps, or some equally fair method.  This is a whole nother topic though.

Yes, it is another topic.  Frankly, the system is rigged to produce poor
juries.  Attorneys can get intelligent people dismissed, and they tend to
do so.  They can get "prejudicial" evidence barred, as if jurors were
presumed incompetent to interpret it.  Jurors aren't told that they have
the right, power, and duty to nullify the law if unjust de jure or in
application according to their conscience.

}	As for the legal argument, the victums of this crime (woman) want
}to see the penalty radically increased.  Seeing as their ones under your
}scenerio who would be taking the risk of getting murdered; I can't see why
}their views on this matter shouldn't count heavily.

Which crime are you talking about?  Marital homicide by battered women?

}>"Tradition!  Tradition!... If I were a rich man..." Sorry, "Fiddler" flashback.
}>I don't like this tradition.  Legal fictions can't erase the fact that there
}>are two parties to any marriage.  Historically, the legal fiction of them
}>uniting into one has meant that one or the other parties was considered to
}>have superior legal status over the other.  Most recently in the USA, husbands
}>were considered thus superior to their wives.  This infantilizes the subor-
}>dinate party and puts the superior one in the impossible position of being
}>responsible for the actions of another adult.
}>
}
}I think the big difference here, is a view of marriage.  To repeat my
}claim in alternate post:  agreeing to joint bank accounts, living
}together, having sex....  These are all agreements between two people,
}marriage is an agreement between a couple and society.  The very
}definition of marriage incorporates this.  

What is "society"?  It's a group of individuals.  What you want is a contract
with social ramifications, which a private contract has.  Consider a marriage
contract which stipulates that two men will have sex with each other only at
pleasure.  This excludes any other sexual partners for the two.  Thus, there
is a social aspect to this private contract.

}>}>}14)  end no force divorce.
}>}>What is this?
}>}
}>}A typo, I meant, "no fault divorce".
}>
}>All right, what's this, and what's unlibertarian about it?
}
}Basically originally when two people got divorced, it was because one of
}them, or possibly both had broken their marriage vows.  The division of
}the estate, and alimony differed wildly depending on who was at fault.  No
}fault divorce attempted to end on this, and say that divorces were
}everybody's fault.  The estate gets split up evenly.  Basically nuder no
}fault its almost impossible to prove you were wronged.
}	A good analogy would be no fault auto laws.  Imagine if the
}governemt declared that when an accident occured, both parties were at
}fault unless one of them was parked at the time.  Basically woman think
}that no fault divorce has hurt their standard of living.  Many want to
}return to the old system.

Sounds about right to me.  As a private contract, breach of contract should
be actionable, and the offender should be liable for damages.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian