2 ms·

I think that bringing up the fact that "there is demand" is not necessarily an argument that it's okay to break the law. I think it's the start of a proposal th

I think that bringing up the fact that "there is demand" is not necessarily an argument that it's okay to break the law. I think it's the start of a proposal that the law should be changed. Whether or not we agree, that's the thing to address. Not "is breaking the law, in general, okay", which is silly. I also think it's wrong to equate the proposal that minimum wage law should be changed because there is demand for jobs at a certain wage with the proposal that murder-for-hire should be allowed because there is demand for it. Minimum wage laws are barely 100 years old in the US, while laws against murder are as old as law itself. I'd venture to say that you could describe punishments for murder to any civilization in history and they would at least understand why you would propose such a thing. Minimum wage law, not so much. If some newcomer to my 18th century town is willing to work on my farm for a season for nothing but room and board, and you tell me that that relationship is exploitative and should be illegal, I'd call you insane. I think a better comparison we could make is the sale of heroin. That's another instance where two consenting adults enter into an agreement that is currently, but not historically, illegal. It's also an instance where many argue that the relationship is exploitative, despite being voluntary. The similarities with minimum wage law are, from my perspective, deeper and more resonant.

klyrs 6y ago
I'm sorry, but I can't take your "18th century town" seriously, and neither would any judge. Familiarize yourself with modern case law. It's really not that difficult. And (tongue in cheek, kinda) some might say that the age of laws against murder indicate that the industry is ripe for disruption...
- rcoveson 6y ago
  Yeah, it seems like we're just talking past each other. I am aware that paying people less than minimum wage is illegal, as I am sure was the original poster to whom you replied. However, pointing out that something is illegal is not the end of a discussion about that thing. If it were, laws would never change. The point of my 18th century town illustration was not to "convince a judge", it was to demonstrate how certain laws are less deeply ingrained in human society than murder laws. Less deeply ingrained laws get argued about, deeply ingrained laws generally do not. But nobody is arguing about whether they are laws, they are arguing about whether they should be laws. Even after a law is passed, and upheld in court, it still needs to defend itself in the court of public opinion when it is questioned. If you are content with and confident in the status quo, then you don't have to participate in those discussions. But if it is important to you that minimum wage laws go away, you have every right to argue against it ("there is demand for lower-wage jobs", for example). And if it is important to you that minimum wage law continue to stand, and you believe they are under threat, then it may make sense to defend it by pointing out its merits (e.g. "competing, desperate people do not act rationally or in their collective best interests"). If somebody proposes: "There is demand for marijuana", think about how useless the comment "there is demand for murder" is. Yes, they are both illegal things. No, that does not mean it's useless to discuss whether they should remain illegal. Now, if you continue with "familiarize yourself with the case law, marijuana users go to prison because it's illegal", do you see how it continues to be useless to the discussion about the legality of marijuana use? The discussion is not about whether [marijuana use/sub-minimum-wage employment] is actually illegal.

klyrs 6y ago

I'm sorry, but I can't take your "18th century town" seriously, and neither would any judge. Familiarize yourself with modern case law. It's really not that difficult. And (tongue in cheek, kinda) some might say that the age of laws against murder indicate that the industry is ripe for disruption...

rcoveson 6y ago
Yeah, it seems like we're just talking past each other. I am aware that paying people less than minimum wage is illegal, as I am sure was the original poster to whom you replied. However, pointing out that something is illegal is not the end of a discussion about that thing. If it were, laws would never change. The point of my 18th century town illustration was not to "convince a judge", it was to demonstrate how certain laws are less deeply ingrained in human society than murder laws. Less deeply ingrained laws get argued about, deeply ingrained laws generally do not. But nobody is arguing about whether they are laws, they are arguing about whether they should be laws. Even after a law is passed, and upheld in court, it still needs to defend itself in the court of public opinion when it is questioned. If you are content with and confident in the status quo, then you don't have to participate in those discussions. But if it is important to you that minimum wage laws go away, you have every right to argue against it ("there is demand for lower-wage jobs", for example). And if it is important to you that minimum wage law continue to stand, and you believe they are under threat, then it may make sense to defend it by pointing out its merits (e.g. "competing, desperate people do not act rationally or in their collective best interests"). If somebody proposes: "There is demand for marijuana", think about how useless the comment "there is demand for murder" is. Yes, they are both illegal things. No, that does not mean it's useless to discuss whether they should remain illegal. Now, if you continue with "familiarize yourself with the case law, marijuana users go to prison because it's illegal", do you see how it continues to be useless to the discussion about the legality of marijuana use? The discussion is not about whether [marijuana use/sub-minimum-wage employment] is actually illegal.