6 ms·

>See also the people who passionately defend the right of two consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but then object if

>See also the people who passionately defend the right of two consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but then object if I want to pay someone $2 an hour to clean the bedroom While I agree with your general point about tribalism, this particular example is pretty silly -- you have to pretend to take the idiom literally for it to make sense.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Why is the principle of allowing people to engage in private acts that harm no one else "silly"? I realize that most liberals consider it an anathema, but that's the point. People appeal to the principle in spite of disagreeing with it in basically all cases except gay sex and abortion.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  How is paying $2/hr for the cleaning of the room harming no one? It is more complicated than direct and immediate harm, but (if you subscribe to modern economic models) it does indeed result in economic harm.
  - natrius 14y ago
    There are jobs that are illegal because the highest price people are willing to pay for them is lower than the minimum wage. The potential buyers and sellers of those services would not be harmed if they were legal—they would benefit.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      Who benefits when you establish a class of people working for $2/hr? Last I checked that's $4,000/year, which puts you solidly in poverty.
      - natrius 14y ago
        This argument isn't going to go anywhere novel. The point is that such policies help some impoverished people make more, but they make other impoverished people make less.
      - tedunangst 14y ago
        People currently making $0/hr?
  - spindritf 14y ago
    This argument can easily be extended to people's actions in the bedroom when no money is being exchanged. They can lead to pregnancy, spread of STDs, violence... and yet, I imagine, almost everyone supporting the minimal wage would vehemently oppose regulation of sexual activities by, for example, only allowing married couples to engage in them. Right? No one here thinks that we should limit single motherhood by banning extramarital sexual relationships? Or the spread of HIV through anti-sodomy laws? EDIT: OK, maybe I didn't write that clearly but both low wages and sex can lead to negative externalities. Why one should be strictly regulated and the other protected from any regulation?
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      Wait, I thought the reference to "bedroom activities" was about homosexuality and/or general deviancy.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      Because the attempts to regulate sex are not based on some desire to reduce pregnancy and the spread of STDs, but are rather religious control over private life dressed up in friendlier colors. Nobody has ever seriously attempted legislating away sex.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >Why is the principle of allowing people to engage in private acts that harm no one else "silly" Because paying below minimal wage for other people's work harms the whole of society, and first and foremost the very person that agrees to work for you because he needs the money. If you weren't allowed to pay as little as you want, then he would have at least got minimum wage, an amount considered somewhat fair by our society. (The case that you would only offer employment if you could pay less than that, so he gets zero is mostly BS. Even if that was the case, society is better of without employers like you, than having people barely making a living in the jobs you could offer).
  - tolmasky 14y ago
    That's the point of the principle that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want in their own bedroom: that others may not approve for whatever reason. You believe (perhaps completely validly) that if someone chooses to work for minimum wage they are hurting themselves and possibly "all of society". This is exactly the same argument made by people who don't want people having whatever sexual relations they want in their own bedroom. You will point out that they are wrong and your points are right -- but that's the whole point! If we say "some things are not safe for two consenting adults to do in their own bedroom", then how is your opinion on what's safe any better than theirs? In both circumstances you are interfering with someone's private choices arguing that you are "saving" them from their own ignorance or circumstances. You differ only in the subset of allowable activities -- and thus dont really support the principle of the stance, but instead happen to be ok with a different set of controls. We don't allow people to do whatever they want in their bedroom because its safe, we do so because it is none of our business and we theoretically don't want a society where we need to go ask everyone's permission before doing things with your partner, regardless of what those things may be. I'm not necessarily arguing for this (extreme) position, but I agree that it is disingenuous to argue that you stand for people's rights to do whatever they want in their bedroom, followed by listing things they can't do because you believe they hurt society. You can certainly have that position, and it is a valid position, but it is a different position.
    - pretoriusB 14y ago
- shardling 14y ago
  Because that's not what they mean by "the privacy of your own bedroom". That usage very specifically invokes sexual freedom, and not privacy in general. If you want a more general discussion you should make that clear, and not try to play off of the particular words used in a more specific case.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Why is the principle of allowing people to engage in private acts that harm no one else "silly"? I realize that most liberals consider it an anathema, but that's the point. People appeal to the principle in spite of disagreeing with it in basically all cases except gay sex and abortion.

sliverstorm 14y ago
How is paying $2/hr for the cleaning of the room harming no one? It is more complicated than direct and immediate harm, but (if you subscribe to modern economic models) it does indeed result in economic harm.
- natrius 14y ago
  There are jobs that are illegal because the highest price people are willing to pay for them is lower than the minimum wage. The potential buyers and sellers of those services would not be harmed if they were legal—they would benefit.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Who benefits when you establish a class of people working for $2/hr? Last I checked that's $4,000/year, which puts you solidly in poverty.
    - natrius 14y ago
      This argument isn't going to go anywhere novel. The point is that such policies help some impoverished people make more, but they make other impoverished people make less.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      People currently making $0/hr?
- spindritf 14y ago
  This argument can easily be extended to people's actions in the bedroom when no money is being exchanged. They can lead to pregnancy, spread of STDs, violence... and yet, I imagine, almost everyone supporting the minimal wage would vehemently oppose regulation of sexual activities by, for example, only allowing married couples to engage in them. Right? No one here thinks that we should limit single motherhood by banning extramarital sexual relationships? Or the spread of HIV through anti-sodomy laws? EDIT: OK, maybe I didn't write that clearly but both low wages and sex can lead to negative externalities. Why one should be strictly regulated and the other protected from any regulation?
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Wait, I thought the reference to "bedroom activities" was about homosexuality and/or general deviancy.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Because the attempts to regulate sex are not based on some desire to reduce pregnancy and the spread of STDs, but are rather religious control over private life dressed up in friendlier colors. Nobody has ever seriously attempted legislating away sex.
pretoriusB 14y ago
>Why is the principle of allowing people to engage in private acts that harm no one else "silly" Because paying below minimal wage for other people's work harms the whole of society, and first and foremost the very person that agrees to work for you because he needs the money. If you weren't allowed to pay as little as you want, then he would have at least got minimum wage, an amount considered somewhat fair by our society. (The case that you would only offer employment if you could pay less than that, so he gets zero is mostly BS. Even if that was the case, society is better of without employers like you, than having people barely making a living in the jobs you could offer).
- tolmasky 14y ago
  That's the point of the principle that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want in their own bedroom: that others may not approve for whatever reason. You believe (perhaps completely validly) that if someone chooses to work for minimum wage they are hurting themselves and possibly "all of society". This is exactly the same argument made by people who don't want people having whatever sexual relations they want in their own bedroom. You will point out that they are wrong and your points are right -- but that's the whole point! If we say "some things are not safe for two consenting adults to do in their own bedroom", then how is your opinion on what's safe any better than theirs? In both circumstances you are interfering with someone's private choices arguing that you are "saving" them from their own ignorance or circumstances. You differ only in the subset of allowable activities -- and thus dont really support the principle of the stance, but instead happen to be ok with a different set of controls. We don't allow people to do whatever they want in their bedroom because its safe, we do so because it is none of our business and we theoretically don't want a society where we need to go ask everyone's permission before doing things with your partner, regardless of what those things may be. I'm not necessarily arguing for this (extreme) position, but I agree that it is disingenuous to argue that you stand for people's rights to do whatever they want in their bedroom, followed by listing things they can't do because you believe they hurt society. You can certainly have that position, and it is a valid position, but it is a different position.
  - pretoriusB 14y ago
shardling 14y ago
Because that's not what they mean by "the privacy of your own bedroom". That usage very specifically invokes sexual freedom, and not privacy in general. If you want a more general discussion you should make that clear, and not try to play off of the particular words used in a more specific case.