Nathan Newman wrote:
>And a conservative would rightly respond, why is this a more fundamental
>right than my right to run my business as I choose, as long as everyone I
>associate with consents to the arrangements?
-Because the worker's consent to the boss's contract is always tainted
-by coercion, and because the boss is extracting uncompensated value
-from the worker. I.e., commerce isn't the paradise of liberty,
-equality, and Bentham that conservatives say it is.
Yes, you can make the distinction, but do you trust William Rehnquist to do so? People keep making intellecutal arguments about distinctions, while ignoring the basic question. Are we better off leaving it up to unelected judges to make these decisions or should we keep it in the public realm of politics where our arguments continue to matter in convincing people on how to vote.
As for coercion, has the population of Alabama consented to being exposed to sexually-charged ads advertising dildos and such? I think they should suck it up and deal, and that's how I'd vote in Alabama. But if they want to ban such ads, while leaving everyone free to use, buy by mail order, or even buy sex toys under a different name, as long as they don't advertise it, I just don't see the law as a violation of rights and arguably a way to protect the rights of the population that doesn't want to be exposed to the ads-- however silly I may see that desire.
-- Nathan Newman