1: You're banging them
2: You want to bang them
3: It's your kid and they're underage.
Regarding age of consent, what if a mature 15yr old seduces a naive and vulnerable 21yr old and causes lasting emotional harm? How is that "none of my business" but the reverse isn't?
What if a 16 year old from England travels to America and has sex with a 20 year old? Is that OK (UK law) or not (US law)?
What you call a revolution sounds more like the way it already is for many people, and is full of arbitrary and changeable definitions that unfairly discriminate against harmless activity while also allowing harmful activity.
No. Some sexual acts are still seemed shameful by society.
But all through history, human beings had some notion of a private space. The catholic confession booth is the only counter example i can think of, and even there it was just between you and you priest which was trained specifically for that role, and you had some control of what you did expose there.
And at least some psychologists ,when asked about this issue, believe that a right for privacy is critical for the psychological well being of people, not something we can give away without consequences.
This CBC series, The Origins of the Modern Public, would dispute that idea (specifically - and I don't know if this is what you are talking about - the positive sense of privacy). Luckily, a nice HNer ripped the mp3s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2984068
Here's the specific episode (8) on privacy
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Ideas/Full+Episodes/2010/ID/1...
The question is whether democracy needs bureaucracy, and if so, how much.
Obviously, democracy requires certain decisions to be made according to certain processes, which take time.
So you can't do away with all bureaucracy.
The documents aren't going to push themselves. :)
This is a classic case of the just world fallacy.
Historically, representative democracy with one man one vote exists because that was the result of the last compromise between the underclasses and elites trying to keep them from getting out of hand.
It isn't any more theoretically reasonable than the compromise before that (no women voting), or the one before that (no blacks) or the one before that (nobody votes who doesn't own property) or the one before that (nobody votes).
Who is experiencing the bias here, the founders of the representative democracy or me for pointing to the political theory? I assume you're talking about some system that isn't the US government, because otherwise your recollection of history is way off.
"Theoretically", we had kings because of the divine right of kings. Theoretically the American expansion was justified by manifest destiny. Theoretically women were not allowed to vote because "90% did not want it" or because it would "place the government under petticoat rule".
Theoretically, today, we have representatives in government because the people aren't smart enough to represent themselves.
Every system of power and domination creates a justification for its own existence and it's nearly always bullshit.
You might want to reserve the use of the word "fallacy" for cases where an argument's logic does not follow. Ironically, use the word otherwise often betrays one's own cognitive biases.
As far as my endorsement, I don't think I could state my position any more clearly than I already have: "...maybe we should reconsider the wisdom in granting some small portion of our freedom to every other voter. 42% of Americans believe in ghosts..."
You have yet to make an argument that "representatives are theoretically there to guard against majority tyranny." If you had, it wouldn't be a just world fallacy.
Correct, I have no interest in arguing that position. Any highschool graduate should immediately recognize "majority tyranny" and the political theory that it is connected to. If I had argued the virtue of representative democracy, it might have been biased by the just world fallacy, but I haven't - so it wasn't.
Also, Switzerland does not vote on every law with a referendum.
Considering what his government gets up to, it's completely clear he has no conscience at all.
I don't expect it'll ever change, as by the time someone's made it to high office, then the agencies will have collected enough material to keep them quiet and on side.
If your kid isn't underage, then presumably they are capable of making rational decisions about with whom and to what they consent. And at that point it's none of your damn business.
I like your choice of the word "bug." That's why I come to HN.