This thread reminds me of an argument from years ago.
Let's say you were a plantation owner in the south in say... 1820. Let's say 95% of the folks who work on your farm are free slave laborers. "Free". Like you had to pay beaucoup dollars to buy the slaves at an auction to get the best and most capable slaves to work your farm.
And then let's say a couple score later some guy was like "Hey, we should look at the constitutionality of these slaves having rights as humans."
Would you be like
"ZOMG I've invested tons of capital in acquiring these laborers! There's no way I'm going to let them all go!"
or would you be like
"I think they should have rights and though I've spent quite a bit of money on them in slave auctions, I can see why this is happening."
It's easy to see both sides (just like this FA argument) but the constitutionality of it all makes me think having rights and being able to freely exercise them might be more important that the money lost.
*shrugs* Analogous thought for food.
Let's say you were a plantation owner in the south in say... 1820. Let's say 95% of the folks who work on your farm are free slave laborers. "Free". Like you had to pay beaucoup dollars to buy the slaves at an auction to get the best and most capable slaves to work your farm.
And then let's say a couple score later some guy was like "Hey, we should look at the constitutionality of these slaves having rights as humans."
Would you be like
"ZOMG I've invested tons of capital in acquiring these laborers! There's no way I'm going to let them all go!"
or would you be like
"I think they should have rights and though I've spent quite a bit of money on them in slave auctions, I can see why this is happening."
It's easy to see both sides (just like this FA argument) but the constitutionality of it all makes me think having rights and being able to freely exercise them might be more important that the money lost.
*shrugs* Analogous thought for food.
