It’s not exactly theft (or the abolition of property) either, though. Perhaps it might be illuminating to consider other cases in which (1) someone does X to someone else and pays for it, and that isn’t a crime; (2) someone does X to someone else uncompensated, and that is a crime; and see how it looks when, (3) someone does X to someone against their will but compensates them (presumably at what some third party determines to be the market rate).

X is “having sex with.” Case 1 is prostitution, which is
less clearly acceptable than (other?) commerce but generally
regarded as a matter for the consciences of the individuals
involved. Case 2 is rape. Case 3 looks a lot more like rape
than like prostitution to me.

X is “demanding labour from.” Case 1 is employment, which
few seem to mind much. Case 2 is kidnap and slavery, or
something of the kind. Case 3 is, I suppose, kidnap and
indentured servitude of some sort. Again, 3 seems much nearer
to 2 than to 1.

Anyone got an example where 3 isn’t much nearer 2 than 1?

I can’t think of any.

Jim’s site is here.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 28th, 2005 at 5:45 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.