An animal can’t give consent. And which part of “overt” did you not understand?”
And you said they have no rights. By what logic then could public law forbid these vile practices in private?
I understand “overt” quite well and you gave no example of any threat of force, covert or overt, that exists between consenting adults, but here again the public asserts a right to forbid incest no matter the privacy observed.
“Show us the governmental enactment that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. If you can’t then the government did NOT create that default position.”
That should be so obvious that it needs no explanation.
No rule or law need enactment since a person cannot be punished for violating a law that doesn’t exist. Hence if no forbidding law exists a thing is permitted, that’s what a “default” position is.
And yes, the default position of permission is created by the laws silence.
Public and private rights are quite different. The public can assert a right to seize private property of any within its borders for its own use, or press the private person into service of the public or set the value of property within its borders. And this by force of arms, no comparable rights exist in the private realm.
And you said they have no rights. By what logic then could public law forbid these vile practices in private?
I'm reconsidering that claim - it seems to me plausible to say that sentient creatures have the right to not be made to suffer.
I understand “overt” quite well and you gave no example of any threat of force, covert or overt, that exists between consenting adults, but here again the public asserts a right to forbid incest no matter the privacy observed.
If the public really asserts such a "right" regarding adults, the public is mistaken - but I think the public's concern about incest centers around the protection of children.
Show us the governmental enactment that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. If you can’t then the government did NOT create that default position.
That should be so obvious that it needs no explanation.
No rule or law need enactment since a person cannot be punished for violating a law that doesn’t exist. Hence if no forbidding law exists a thing is permitted, that’s what a “default” position is.
So far you haven't disagreed with me.
And yes, the default position of permission is created by the laws silence.
No, the default position of permission is MAINTAINED AS THE ACTUAL POSITION by the law's silence - NOT created by it. That the default is what it is, is a consequence of the natural rights of human persons.
Public and private rights are quite different. The public can assert a right to seize private property of any within its borders for its own use, or press the private person into service of the public or set the value of property within its borders.
So rather than keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms and bloodstreams, you'd surrender to "the public" your rights to your property and even your person? Are you sure you're on the right Web site?