4 ms·

Regulating freely consented exchanges _you_ don't like out of existence will not actually make them disappear, just push them underground, out of society's eye

by nickpp 7y ago

Regulating freely consented exchanges _you_ don't like out of existence will not actually make them disappear, just push them underground, out of society's eye and where the REAL exploitation takes place. That's why adults actually working in those domains militate for legalization and that's why totalitarian societies require so much surveillance just to avoid collapse. Because people WILL do the deals they need to do to survive or get ahead. Your laws will just provide the reason to catch and incarcerate them afterwards. See the marijuana legalization mess.

gorgoiler 7y ago
I think it’s ok to separate what one approves of or doesn’t approve of, from a separate axis of looking at what causes objective harm and misery to people. Some of the hardest policy topics involve accepting things one finds distasteful because there is a moral ground for people being allowed to do what they want, and vice versa. Your point on cannabis is certainly an excellent example of how to get policy wrong and create a huge net harm to society, especially in the US where late night TV hosts can joke about getting high, while 8 million others were arrested and harassed for possession over the last decade. In my experience, from what I’ve learned from my friends who work with rough sleepers, all sex work is exploitative of those in desperation to some extent. It’s a spectrum that has at one end people trying to make ends meet, and at the other, slavery and trafficking. I know of attempts to unionize and protect some kinds of sex work, but I don’t know if that represents the majority or a vocal and comparatively unexploited minority. It’s never the most exploited that you see in a debate arguing for complete legalization. It’s easy to see both sides of an argument. It’s difficult and important to focus on where harm is being done, and to do something about that. For something with as rocky a history as prohibition has, I’m in favor of the arguments for it when it comes to sex work, and to my original point — to try to drag this back on topic! — it’s an example of required action to step in where the free market fails to protect the most vulnerable from harm. Edit: and it’s stories like this $1 voyeur hotel that really add positively to thought on the subject. A really good non-tech HN submission, imho.
- mirajshah 7y ago
  Your friends are probably not the best source on the matter. Go on YouTube and listen to interviews with actual sex workers in places where it is institutionalized (e.g. Amsterdam, New Zealand). There are plenty of Vice documentaries e.g. https://youtu.be/Q8_UGthO3CM https://youtu.be/Q8_UGthO3CM
  - gorgoiler 7y ago
    I’d reiterate that my sources are trained professionals who already work with the most vulnerable people who society has already failed — those who sleep rough and who have turned to or are thinking of turning to sex work. I accept your point though, that “sex worker” is a wide bracket that encompasses a range of personal situations though. Thanks for the link.
    - Jamwinner 7y ago
      Exqctly, get it first hand. Most of the professionals are so detached by nessesity, that their views are skewed, no matter how noble their intentions.
geofft 7y ago
Sure, but that's not an argument for "actually exploitation is good." That's an argument for figuring out a solution to exploitation seeming like a rational choice in the first place. In some cases, the problem is just that the free market sets up a race to the bottom and regulations can provide an artificial bottom. This is the standard argument for the minimum wage, for instance: even if businesses can afford to pay more and still be profitable, they won't voluntarily do so in a market where there's more supply of labor than demand for it. In some cases, like livestreaming your hotel stay or selling your organs or sacrificing your lungs to mine coal, there's a qualitative difference, and saying "This job no longer exists" doesn't solve problems. If that's the case, society should figure out if it can afford in any way to provide for people's basic needs so that they can start having meaningful other options. It seems entirely possible to me that a society with a strong social safety net (welfare, UBI, whatever) needs less regulation of its free market than one that puts the burden on its market to treat the most desperate in society with fairness. (BTW, a minor point about sex work: I believe "legalization" refers to making it a regulated industry with the remaining possibility of criminal penalties for breaking regulations, and many sex workers prefer "decriminalization," i.e. just removing criminal penalties.)
- nickpp 7y ago
  Minimum wage hurts most the very people it pretends to help: the least productive of us, who become unemployable legally. Business who can't raise their labor costs will either: - raise prices while passing costs to consumers - go out of business thus reducing consumer choice - turn onto robots or offshoring (if possible) None of those is good for neither workers nor consumers. I'd rather we raise worker wages the Silicon Valley way: through merciless competition between companies for talent, while encouraging said talent to start their own competing businesses. You know what minimum wage is great for? Electing politicians.
  - contravariant 7y ago
    Businesses that cannot turn a profit without paying their employees enough to cover basic expenses (leaving aside whether this is higher or lower than the current minimum wage) do not deserve to exist. Having those jobs automated away or passing the cost of living of the employees on to the customers are both reasonable alternatives.
paggle 7y ago
Yes, but the theory is that the requirement to be underground decreases transaction volume. So in a country where organ selling is banned, there will be far fewer cases of organ selling, although those that do happen will be far more horrifying than anything that would happen in a legal framework.
debrice 7y ago
I think your argument would make more sense if the actor in the room was paid a fair wage
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  Define 'fair' in a way 65% would agree with. To me, 'fair' is what I negotiate. In my view, when value and price are decoupled, things tend not to go well. Keeping the things we value expensive, is exactly as it should be. This view does not perclude a social 'safety net', it just takes the position that wage laws should not be forced into imperfect duty as one.
- gorgoiler 7y ago
  Somewhat tongue in cheek, but if we’re going to consider the hotel residents as actors, and the room as remuneration equivalent to the fair market value of the room, then US residents should expect to be paying income tax on their stay. Oof: this is sadly all too plausible a scenario.
lightedman 7y ago
"Regulating freely consented exchanges _you_ don't like out of existence will not actually make them disappear," If only online discussion forums could figure this one out...
timoth3y 7y ago
> Regulating freely consented exchanges _you_ don't like I believe the argument they are trying to make is not about whether they like the transaction, but what constitutes "freely consented". If someone's alternative is, for example, going hungry or sleeping on the streets or having their children go hungry, can we really say they are giving their consent freely? Should we be concerned about other forms of coercion in addition to direct physical violence?

by nickpp 7y ago

gorgoiler 7y ago

I think it’s ok to separate what one approves of or doesn’t approve of, from a separate axis of looking at what causes objective harm and misery to people. Some of the hardest policy topics involve accepting things one finds distasteful because there is a moral ground for people being allowed to do what they want, and vice versa. Your point on cannabis is certainly an excellent example of how to get policy wrong and create a huge net harm to society, especially in the US where late night TV hosts can joke about getting high, while 8 million others were arrested and harassed for possession over the last decade. In my experience, from what I’ve learned from my friends who work with rough sleepers, all sex work is exploitative of those in desperation to some extent. It’s a spectrum that has at one end people trying to make ends meet, and at the other, slavery and trafficking. I know of attempts to unionize and protect some kinds of sex work, but I don’t know if that represents the majority or a vocal and comparatively unexploited minority. It’s never the most exploited that you see in a debate arguing for complete legalization. It’s easy to see both sides of an argument. It’s difficult and important to focus on where harm is being done, and to do something about that. For something with as rocky a history as prohibition has, I’m in favor of the arguments for it when it comes to sex work, and to my original point — to try to drag this back on topic! — it’s an example of required action to step in where the free market fails to protect the most vulnerable from harm. Edit: and it’s stories like this $1 voyeur hotel that really add positively to thought on the subject. A really good non-tech HN submission, imho.

mirajshah 7y ago
Your friends are probably not the best source on the matter. Go on YouTube and listen to interviews with actual sex workers in places where it is institutionalized (e.g. Amsterdam, New Zealand). There are plenty of Vice documentaries e.g. https://youtu.be/Q8_UGthO3CM https://youtu.be/Q8_UGthO3CM
- gorgoiler 7y ago
  I’d reiterate that my sources are trained professionals who already work with the most vulnerable people who society has already failed — those who sleep rough and who have turned to or are thinking of turning to sex work. I accept your point though, that “sex worker” is a wide bracket that encompasses a range of personal situations though. Thanks for the link.
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    Exqctly, get it first hand. Most of the professionals are so detached by nessesity, that their views are skewed, no matter how noble their intentions.

geofft 7y ago

Sure, but that's not an argument for "actually exploitation is good." That's an argument for figuring out a solution to exploitation seeming like a rational choice in the first place. In some cases, the problem is just that the free market sets up a race to the bottom and regulations can provide an artificial bottom. This is the standard argument for the minimum wage, for instance: even if businesses can afford to pay more and still be profitable, they won't voluntarily do so in a market where there's more supply of labor than demand for it. In some cases, like livestreaming your hotel stay or selling your organs or sacrificing your lungs to mine coal, there's a qualitative difference, and saying "This job no longer exists" doesn't solve problems. If that's the case, society should figure out if it can afford in any way to provide for people's basic needs so that they can start having meaningful other options. It seems entirely possible to me that a society with a strong social safety net (welfare, UBI, whatever) needs less regulation of its free market than one that puts the burden on its market to treat the most desperate in society with fairness. (BTW, a minor point about sex work: I believe "legalization" refers to making it a regulated industry with the remaining possibility of criminal penalties for breaking regulations, and many sex workers prefer "decriminalization," i.e. just removing criminal penalties.)

nickpp 7y ago
Minimum wage hurts most the very people it pretends to help: the least productive of us, who become unemployable legally. Business who can't raise their labor costs will either: - raise prices while passing costs to consumers - go out of business thus reducing consumer choice - turn onto robots or offshoring (if possible) None of those is good for neither workers nor consumers. I'd rather we raise worker wages the Silicon Valley way: through merciless competition between companies for talent, while encouraging said talent to start their own competing businesses. You know what minimum wage is great for? Electing politicians.
- contravariant 7y ago
  Businesses that cannot turn a profit without paying their employees enough to cover basic expenses (leaving aside whether this is higher or lower than the current minimum wage) do not deserve to exist. Having those jobs automated away or passing the cost of living of the employees on to the customers are both reasonable alternatives.

paggle 7y ago

Yes, but the theory is that the requirement to be underground decreases transaction volume. So in a country where organ selling is banned, there will be far fewer cases of organ selling, although those that do happen will be far more horrifying than anything that would happen in a legal framework.

debrice 7y ago

I think your argument would make more sense if the actor in the room was paid a fair wage

Jamwinner 7y ago
Define 'fair' in a way 65% would agree with. To me, 'fair' is what I negotiate. In my view, when value and price are decoupled, things tend not to go well. Keeping the things we value expensive, is exactly as it should be. This view does not perclude a social 'safety net', it just takes the position that wage laws should not be forced into imperfect duty as one.
gorgoiler 7y ago
Somewhat tongue in cheek, but if we’re going to consider the hotel residents as actors, and the room as remuneration equivalent to the fair market value of the room, then US residents should expect to be paying income tax on their stay. Oof: this is sadly all too plausible a scenario.

lightedman 7y ago

"Regulating freely consented exchanges _you_ don't like out of existence will not actually make them disappear," If only online discussion forums could figure this one out...

timoth3y 7y ago

> Regulating freely consented exchanges _you_ don't like I believe the argument they are trying to make is not about whether they like the transaction, but what constitutes "freely consented". If someone's alternative is, for example, going hungry or sleeping on the streets or having their children go hungry, can we really say they are giving their consent freely? Should we be concerned about other forms of coercion in addition to direct physical violence?