3 ms·

>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 harm

>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
  >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! No. The whole point is what is right and what is wrong. Not if what is right is _consistent_ in situations that is not exactly the same. The only same thing in those two situations presented is that there are "two adults" present. In the case of accepting "minimum wage" the one agreeing is not even "consenting" in the same sense. He is just doing something that he is _forced_ to do by hunger and lack of jobs. Even if one "needs to have sex", it's not at all the same kind of "need" as needing to eat and feed/shelter your family. The first is an option and a choice. The other is a necessity, and a leverage you can use of people to let them do degrading things. From prostituting themselves to selling their kids.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
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 he were harmed, why would he choose to accept my offer? Lets consider a different regulation - ugly people can't have sex. This is because sex with an ugly person harms the whole of society, and first and foremost the very person that agrees to ugly sex because he/she can't get anyone better. If ugly people weren't allowed to have sex, they would at least exercise/clean up/etc to the point of non-ugliness, a level of attractiveness considered somewhat fair by our society. (The case that some people won't become more attractive, so he/she gets no sex is mostly BS. Even if that was the case, society is better off without ugly sexual partners.)
- tossacct 14y ago
  If he were harmed, why would he choose to accept my offer? The concept that you are describing is "rationality". If you do some light reading, you will find that reasonable people disagree that any human possesses or can possess it, especially in the case of economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory#Criticis...
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    If you intend for this to be an argument favoring the regulation of employment, note that it also applies to regulating sexual activities (humans are notoriously irrational about sex).
    - tossacct 14y ago
      The concept of "rationality" applies to all reasoning that a human does. It is not constrained to one specific activity or another (sexual or employment or regulation). Wikipedia>>>The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical use of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage.
cglace 14y ago
Are you better off by typing on a computer made by people that made less than minimum wage?
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  No, I'm not. I'm against cheap labour in general. And I always prefer places that pay their employees well, even if I have to pay some more.

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
>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! No. The whole point is what is right and what is wrong. Not if what is right is _consistent_ in situations that is not exactly the same. The only same thing in those two situations presented is that there are "two adults" present. In the case of accepting "minimum wage" the one agreeing is not even "consenting" in the same sense. He is just doing something that he is _forced_ to do by hunger and lack of jobs. Even if one "needs to have sex", it's not at all the same kind of "need" as needing to eat and feed/shelter your family. The first is an option and a choice. The other is a necessity, and a leverage you can use of people to let them do degrading things. From prostituting themselves to selling their kids.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

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 he were harmed, why would he choose to accept my offer? Lets consider a different regulation - ugly people can't have sex. This is because sex with an ugly person harms the whole of society, and first and foremost the very person that agrees to ugly sex because he/she can't get anyone better. If ugly people weren't allowed to have sex, they would at least exercise/clean up/etc to the point of non-ugliness, a level of attractiveness considered somewhat fair by our society. (The case that some people won't become more attractive, so he/she gets no sex is mostly BS. Even if that was the case, society is better off without ugly sexual partners.)

tossacct 14y ago
If he were harmed, why would he choose to accept my offer? The concept that you are describing is "rationality". If you do some light reading, you will find that reasonable people disagree that any human possesses or can possess it, especially in the case of economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory#Criticis...
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  If you intend for this to be an argument favoring the regulation of employment, note that it also applies to regulating sexual activities (humans are notoriously irrational about sex).
  - tossacct 14y ago
    The concept of "rationality" applies to all reasoning that a human does. It is not constrained to one specific activity or another (sexual or employment or regulation). Wikipedia>>>The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical use of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage.

cglace 14y ago

Are you better off by typing on a computer made by people that made less than minimum wage?

pretoriusB 14y ago
No, I'm not. I'm against cheap labour in general. And I always prefer places that pay their employees well, even if I have to pay some more.