Mother regrets letting her son, transition and describes realizing her mistake was like ‘leaving a c

[Kamaji]

The justification for laws is to protect our individual rights. If someone violates your right to life, or your property rights, or any of your other freedoms, then he should be subject to very strict laws as far as I am concerned. 

Being a right-leaning libertarian, I favor very strict laws against actions that violate an individual's rights. In fact, I would say such laws are paramount to having a free society.

When something is fundamentally repugnant to a culture, there is no need for a law against it, anyway. Take cannibalism, for example.  I am sure there are laws against it, but how often are such laws needed?

Our problem as a culture is that things conservatives think should be repugnant to a decent and honorable citizenry are apparently not to large numbers of people, so they seek to change the culture by changing laws. But that never works. It is the lesson of prohibition, never learned. 

If you want to change people, you need to change their hearts and minds.

If you say so, chief.

There’s another reason for having prophylactic laws like those outlawing slavery: how does a slave prove they didn’t voluntarily sell themselves into slavery?  And if people whinge about economic duress and wages, how much more easily could someone be coerced into slavery?

Libertarianism is a fine theory for upper middle class elites to virtue-signal with to each other from across the cafe but, like both socialism and laissez faire economics, it fails the test of reality.

[roamer_1]

That there is the difference between a conservative and a libertarian. Obviously, that slavery thing does not apply to apprenticeships, graduate students and the like. I don't see why a free and able person can't sell himself into slavery if he wants, or work for less than the minimum wage for that matter.

Hold on now. I don't know ANY conservatives that support minimum wage - So a bad example. Nor do I know any conservative that is against apprenticeships and the like.

Suppose a woman contractually sells herself to a master - A weirdo fetish, I know. As long as SHE wants to honor that contract, she IS a slave. But as it meets her actual liberty, the contract is null and void on its face. She cannot sell her liberty. It is endowed to her by her Creator, and is inalienable, according to every single word we are founded upon.

Contractual gymnastics are way different than the institution of slavery.

Even a case where the law requires recompense through labor - Indentured servant - would not ruffle me much. That again, is different from the institution of slavery.