The relative freedom of "my" spouse

Citizens United tolerate abusadoramente control your body because abusadoramente also want to control the body of the husband.

I can hardly conceal the outrage at the attitudes of States when, seizing no less than our bodies, we care imposes on the pretext that we are protecting when we actually are submitting.

If I have no right to choose between using a seat belt in my car and not use it, or between driving a motorcycle helmet skull or not use it, it is clear that what I thought was my body actually is the state, just so that I am a user of that device for meat, skin and bones that the state itself lent me when I was born, with the promise that "they" would take care of respecting the safety rules that the owner of the body itself and imposes me inspected.

This I do not think that all citizens because if I think, the rulers who maintain and enforce these rules would not be reelected and disappear from the political map of the country.

The question is: Do citizens prefer their survival instinct is exercised by the State? You prefer to be in charge of caring for others even if they have to give up some of their freedom?

My answer is yes: a majority of people prefer to ignore the responsibility of caring for their physical integrity. Prefer that others do, ... as when the parents were not outstanding tuck your fingers in the plug electrified or to be drowned in the bathtub.

Most citizens also preferred that the property of bodies is not well defined because your spouse enjoys thinking belongs when, with apparent innocence, says "my wife" or "my husband".

(1) La irritante prepotencia del estado

 

Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): La relativa libertad de «mi» cónyuge.

 

(Este es el Artículo Nº 1.810)

●●●