It's an extreme example, but you rape someone and hire an agency that doesn't believe in rape or doesn't believe you raped. The other side disagrees obviously. How long do you think the first pro-rape agency would stay in business? Who's going to hire them other than rapists? Are there that many rapists? Insurance companies already settle disputes between people who don't agree on who's at fault. If someone, like my old landlord, who sued every tenant he had as a crook, abuses the REA's, they would no longer be represented. Instead, we have a court system now that allows that asshole to do what he does without any consequences. The judge is a friend of the landlord's lawyer, and they just laugh it up in court. Are you saying that system would be better than one without double standards and special protections? One that had to compete in an open market and that had to be fair and impartial?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My examples were intellectual property & abortion, not rape.
But even with rape, it must be objectively defined. If one agency believes a husband can’t rape his wife, or that it’s okay for a believer to force himself on an infidel (in the case of Sharia law) then you’ve got an agency that will violate rights.
Anarchy means such agencies can & will exist because there can be no consensus on what does & doesn’t constitute a violation of rights.
That’s why you need a proper government that is capable of holding ALL violators of rights accountable under one objective law that is applicable to all
Any thoughts on my last point @finnian ?
Do you see how it does no good to agree that rape (or any other form of aggression) is wrong if there can be no agreement on what constitutes rape? A moral authority is needed to define it, so that all whom are guilty of rape can be held accountable for it. Without that, you’ve got different agencies defending different actions, many of which will be immoral (a husband raping his wife for example)