Laeserin on Nostr: It's a debate about privileges, not rights, really. Humans all have the same rights ...
It's a debate about privileges, not rights, really.
Humans all have the same rights (life, property, association, speech, movement, contract, ...), and those can only be infringed-upon, not removed. Forcing a woman to marry would infringe upon her right to choose who she associates with, who inherits her property, whether she enters into a contract, etc.
Priveleges (like voting) are supposed to be dispersed in accordance and proportion to duties (like securing a common defense), but they no longer are, and that produces much bitterness.
Forcing other mens' wives to stay at home and refrain from commerce, would infringe upon those women, but also their husbands, who have contractual duties to fulfill (ensuring his family is provided for) and therefore should also have the privelege of determining how those duties are fulfilled. The state shouldn't be involved in any manner, either to restrict her commerce or to encourage it.
Humans all have the same rights (life, property, association, speech, movement, contract, ...), and those can only be infringed-upon, not removed. Forcing a woman to marry would infringe upon her right to choose who she associates with, who inherits her property, whether she enters into a contract, etc.
Priveleges (like voting) are supposed to be dispersed in accordance and proportion to duties (like securing a common defense), but they no longer are, and that produces much bitterness.
Forcing other mens' wives to stay at home and refrain from commerce, would infringe upon those women, but also their husbands, who have contractual duties to fulfill (ensuring his family is provided for) and therefore should also have the privelege of determining how those duties are fulfilled. The state shouldn't be involved in any manner, either to restrict her commerce or to encourage it.