5 ms·

Why should we deny people the right to sell themselves into slavery? It's their life, after all. Perhaps in a generation or two our society will degrade to the

by wfo 10y ago

Why should we deny people the right to sell themselves into slavery? It's their life, after all. Perhaps in a generation or two our society will degrade to the point that, to the poor, slavery looks like a pretty attractive option. For some, perhaps it already does. In any capitalist system, if anything is permitted, someone (i.e. the poor) will be coerced into doing it.

icebraining 10y ago
Slavery already exists, it's just hidden from sight. A truly compassionate society would offer better alternatives, so that nobody would be coerced. Prohibitionism is not a solution to anything except to the guilt in the moral conscience of the well-fed middle class.
- wfo 10y ago
  Well of course a compassionate society would provide basic needs for everyone, but while we sit around holding hands praying for utopia to come to America overnight in the form of the end of free-market capitalist extremism let's do what we can to stop people from being exploited in the meantime. We aren't discussing restructuring all of society radically and enacting a massive cultural and political revolution right now, we are discussing specific privacy law in specific technical settings in our socioeconomic and legal circumstances. Prohibition works very well, depending on the circumstances. But you know this, of course: you are simply making a rhetorically contentless incendiary broad generalization. Murder is illegal and there is less murder. Fraud is illegal and there is less fraud.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    we can to stop people from being exploited in the meantime. My point is that they are being exploited, because even being exploited is better than the alternatives they have, and by prohibiting it, you're actually harming the people you're supposedly trying to help. My argument is not a Nirvana fallacy. I'm saying that we're actually better off doing nothing than prohibiting people from taking the least worse option they have. If we want to help, we should provide an alternative (and no, this certainly doesn't require an end of capitalism). If we can't do that, we should leave it alone. Prohibition works very well, depending on the circumstances. But you know this, of course: you are simply making a rhetorically contentless incendiary broad generalization. Murder is illegal and there is less murder. Fraud is illegal and there is less fraud. I thought it was clear from context, but I'll be specific: I'm talking about Prohibitionism as in preventing people from deciding what to do with their lives "for their own good", much like the Prohitibion Party did with alcohol in the early 20th century.

by wfo 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago

Slavery already exists, it's just hidden from sight. A truly compassionate society would offer better alternatives, so that nobody would be coerced. Prohibitionism is not a solution to anything except to the guilt in the moral conscience of the well-fed middle class.

wfo 10y ago
Well of course a compassionate society would provide basic needs for everyone, but while we sit around holding hands praying for utopia to come to America overnight in the form of the end of free-market capitalist extremism let's do what we can to stop people from being exploited in the meantime. We aren't discussing restructuring all of society radically and enacting a massive cultural and political revolution right now, we are discussing specific privacy law in specific technical settings in our socioeconomic and legal circumstances. Prohibition works very well, depending on the circumstances. But you know this, of course: you are simply making a rhetorically contentless incendiary broad generalization. Murder is illegal and there is less murder. Fraud is illegal and there is less fraud.
- icebraining 10y ago
  we can to stop people from being exploited in the meantime. My point is that they are being exploited, because even being exploited is better than the alternatives they have, and by prohibiting it, you're actually harming the people you're supposedly trying to help. My argument is not a Nirvana fallacy. I'm saying that we're actually better off doing nothing than prohibiting people from taking the least worse option they have. If we want to help, we should provide an alternative (and no, this certainly doesn't require an end of capitalism). If we can't do that, we should leave it alone. Prohibition works very well, depending on the circumstances. But you know this, of course: you are simply making a rhetorically contentless incendiary broad generalization. Murder is illegal and there is less murder. Fraud is illegal and there is less fraud. I thought it was clear from context, but I'll be specific: I'm talking about Prohibitionism as in preventing people from deciding what to do with their lives "for their own good", much like the Prohitibion Party did with alcohol in the early 20th century.