collegestudent22 wrote:Can't even be sure that it is a net cost at all in the long run.
Yes, we can. It's been observed. Without genetic variation, evolution will fail.
A few relationships will not end all genetic variation.
Except there incest results in little genetic variation, a very important requirement in beneficial mutations.
Actually, it's virtually irrelevant - the mutations are not affected much by genetic variation. If they were, then evolution would be impossible.
collegestudent22 wrote:Plus, having laws against incest is to have laws that are virtually unenforceable until it is already "too late" with regards to this cost.
Umm...ok? There is a law against speeding, but it can only be enforced after you speed. There is a law against stealing, but it can only be enforced after you steal something. There is a law against murder, but it can only be enforced after you kill somebody.
There should be no law against speeding, either. And one can certainly prevent theft and murder beforehand - these involve unwanted intrusions against a person who can defend themselves.
collegestudent22 wrote:Sure, they can't get married.... but it isn't the marriage that is the root problem there.
Fair point, but you could say the same thing about underage drinking. Sure, they can't buy alcohol...but it isn't the purchase
of alcohol that is the root problem there.
Shouldn't be a law against underage drinking, either.
Power of attorney is regulated by--wait for it--the government!
And it shouldn't be. Why is there always the presumption that if something is done by the government, it must be done by them? Or is even necessary at all?
When there's a lack of a contract, they have to be able to fall back to something.
Fall back to there is no power of attorney if it is not granted. Not difficult.
Even with one, a power of attorney contract can be very simple, providing overarching power, or extremely complex, with power in some areas and not others. For example, you may have an investor who has power of attorney over your financial matters but not over your health matters.
No reason this cannot be sorted out through individual decisions. It isn't all that complex to say "Person X has power of attorney over A, B, and C only, and only in these circumstances".
Visiting rights can be determined by contract, but in the absence of a contract--such as when the patient is unconscious and the hospital can't even figure out insurance, let alone who the patient's attorney is--then the law provides the required guidance.
The required guidance is simple. You don't have any evidence that the patient is OK with you visiting, nor can he provide that evidence now. So you can't visit. I realize that could upset people - but that doesn't mean you can violate people's rights. The real problem is there is no such thing as a generic "right to vist" - there is only the "right to allow selected visitor's". It is not the right of the patient's loved ones to visit - it is the right of the patient to accept visitors, provided the hospital allows this.
You do know this is the legal profession we're talking about, right? Have you ever been around two attorneys handling one topic who are not technically opposed but not technically on the same side?
I'd say that the biggest reason for this problem is the way government creates law and can force people to submit to it.
Great. So you're going to do this with every hospital that you could possibly go to, right? Every bank? Every medical professional?
That's unnecessary. Their policies would operate much as before. They would, just as now, request some evidence of power of attorney. You'd still have publicly accepted notaries and arbitration firms dealing with contracts and agreements. The only thing missing is monopolistic government.
It took a sizable number of hours to get me approved by my employer's legal department
This is a problem of government. Without the various laws. it would work like this. Company A would say "we're ok with you doing training for some other companies", Company B would say "we'd like you to train these people", and you'd agree or not. No "number of hours", no needing to go through legal, none of that.
yes, there are societal costs that come from decreased fitness (or sometimes outright failure of fitness) for the workforce, resources go to supporting that person and possibly that person's offspring, deterring them from more effective use in the overall economy.
Two major fallacies there: it is not a social cost to lose something that was never guaranteed in the first place, such as a certain composition of the workforce. The other is that the only reason resources go to that person and their offspring, instead of more effective use, is because of government welfare programs - the subsidization of individual cost by the collective. It is, once again, an individual cost forced upon society.
Whether you're right or not about marriage contracts, that's a really terrible argument.
It's a fact - whether incest leads to a cost or not is not guaranteed. Beneficial mutations can be recessive just as they can be dominant. Regardless, the main point is that these people should bear whatever cost results themselves, and they should be free to choose, even if the choice is really stupid.