3 ms·

> Well, yes, without the laws that banned those things, they would be totally legal. That's what “law” means. Then you are conflating labor laws with criminal

> Well, yes, without the laws that banned those things, they would be totally legal. That's what “law” means. Then you are conflating labor laws with criminal law. Individuals are already prohibited from doing those things via criminal law. If one party is not paying the other, labor laws are irrelevant yet the behavior remains illegal.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Then you are conflating labor laws with criminal law. Labor law and criminal law overlap; they aren't disjoint categories. > Individuals are already prohibited from doing those things via criminal law. If Yes, criminal labor laws adopted as part of broader regulation of labor practices. > If one party is not paying the other, labor laws are irrelevant Obviously untrue; labor laws are relevant whenever labor is being supplied, whether or not it is being paid. Indeed, the current requirement that labor being supplied be paid is part of labor law (and some aspects of it are fairly recent aspects of labor law), like the restriction on economically useful labor being provided via unpaid labor even when characterized as an internship.
- unishark 6y ago
  I don't see why you are arguing with me here. How is my argument affected by these claims? Let me try putting it in a way that is (hopefully) freer from legal nitpicking: It's possible to create a system where consenting adults can engage in whatever consensual activities they wish, even when (gasp) money changes hands between them, and still not legalize objectively evil behavior like slavery, negligent homicide, etc. Further, I'd argue we don't even to make new laws to do it, though this part seems to be surprisingly controversial.
- svrb 6y ago
  > enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers > Individuals are already prohibited from doing those things via criminal law. If > Yes, criminal labor laws adopted as part of broader regulation of labor practices. You're seriously saying that slavery, poisoning, and battery would be legal if not for labor laws?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Then you are conflating labor laws with criminal law. Labor law and criminal law overlap; they aren't disjoint categories. > Individuals are already prohibited from doing those things via criminal law. If Yes, criminal labor laws adopted as part of broader regulation of labor practices. > If one party is not paying the other, labor laws are irrelevant Obviously untrue; labor laws are relevant whenever labor is being supplied, whether or not it is being paid. Indeed, the current requirement that labor being supplied be paid is part of labor law (and some aspects of it are fairly recent aspects of labor law), like the restriction on economically useful labor being provided via unpaid labor even when characterized as an internship.

unishark 6y ago
I don't see why you are arguing with me here. How is my argument affected by these claims? Let me try putting it in a way that is (hopefully) freer from legal nitpicking: It's possible to create a system where consenting adults can engage in whatever consensual activities they wish, even when (gasp) money changes hands between them, and still not legalize objectively evil behavior like slavery, negligent homicide, etc. Further, I'd argue we don't even to make new laws to do it, though this part seems to be surprisingly controversial.
svrb 6y ago
> enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers > Individuals are already prohibited from doing those things via criminal law. If > Yes, criminal labor laws adopted as part of broader regulation of labor practices. You're seriously saying that slavery, poisoning, and battery would be legal if not for labor laws?