3 ms·

If the government has the power to stop a particular exploitation, and decides not to stop it, hoping that some decades or centuries down the line all citizens

If the government has the power to stop a particular exploitation, and decides not to stop it, hoping that some decades or centuries down the line all citizens will be enlightened enough to cease this exploitation themselves, is that morally more correct?

javert 13y ago
What exploitation? If I offer you a job paying below the market rate, don't take it.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  That's exactly the point about exploitation. Many sex workers are not in a position to leave "job paying below the market rate", for a combination of reasons like illegal immigration, underage, drug addictions, and psychological and corporal torture and abuse. In most definitions of human rights there is a provision that these rights are "unalienable", making it at least highly questionable to "buy" the right to violate someones sexual self-determination, or inflict the long term damage that has been shown to occur even in "voluntary" prostitutes.
  - javert 13y ago
    I see what you are saying, but I don't agree. For the majority of the poor (and everyone else) who want to work and move up in life, don't put up any barriers to action and economic activity. For the tiny minority who don't want to work and move up in life (usually, because they don't really care that much), who cares? Don't sacrifice the virtuous and capable majority for their sake. You may say, "What about a country like India or (less extreme Eastern Europe), where the poor genuinely can't move up?" Well, the only way to change that is to free up the economy and let people pursue sustainable economic action. If you put up barriers to economic activity, the people who want to move up will never be able to; they will be permanently poor. For example, ith an expanding economy, you can eventually make it so a person making $10/hour is able to live nicely, as productivity rises and prices fall. But if you instead put minimum wage at $20/hour, people who only actually produce $10/hour of value won't have jobs, and the economy won't be able to expand to the point where if they had a $10/hour job, they could live decently on it. Minimum wage and other regulations are why America no longer manufactures. We could be making all the things now made in China, with a commensurate decrease in expenses. Our factory workers wouldn't be rich, but they'd be able to afford the kinds of things they themselves make in the factories. Meanwhile, China would also be doing fine, it just would have grown at a more measured and sustainable pace, which isn't a bad thing.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > You may say, "What about a country like India or (less extreme Eastern Europe, where the poor genuinely can't move up?" It is possible for poor Americans to move up, but how probable is it for hard working Americans to be able to move up?
      - javert 13y ago
        I think it is almost guaranteed if you know the steps to take. Step 1: Go to college, which you can do very nearly for free these days, and major in something useful, like (say) computer science. Step 2: Get a job using that useful degree. My grandpa took 8 years go to to college, by taking every other year off to work. There isn't much excuse for people these days except not having the knowledge of the above two steps. If you fucked around in high school, that is also a barrier to going to college. But you can go to community college (they let everybody in) and then transfer after 2 years. It's a common occurence. You can also simply become a tradesman at community college: Plumber, welder, electrician, heating/AC repairman, etc. From what I can tell, there is no glut of people in these professions, people just don't want them. 51% of Americans are now on government welfare, and that's a lot easier than working hard.
    - bayesianhorse 13y ago
      No, it does not look like you see what I was saying. I said explicitly that exploited sex workers don't really have freedom of choice. Their "captivity" isn't even economic. In some cases it is outright physical captivity, sometimes it is legal captivity (illegal immigrants), psychological captivity or even addiction. Don't assume that a prostitute can just walk away from her pimp, because you think you would be able to do so in her place. I'm not talking about higher-priced or even "self-employed" prostitutes, I'm talking about the "mass market". These women don't earn more than minimum wage. Sometimes less, all things considered. In lots of cases they would even get more social benefits than the pimps pay them... In some reported cases the pimps take even the social benefits from their "employees".
      - javert 13y ago

javert 13y ago

What exploitation? If I offer you a job paying below the market rate, don't take it.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
That's exactly the point about exploitation. Many sex workers are not in a position to leave "job paying below the market rate", for a combination of reasons like illegal immigration, underage, drug addictions, and psychological and corporal torture and abuse. In most definitions of human rights there is a provision that these rights are "unalienable", making it at least highly questionable to "buy" the right to violate someones sexual self-determination, or inflict the long term damage that has been shown to occur even in "voluntary" prostitutes.
- javert 13y ago
  I see what you are saying, but I don't agree. For the majority of the poor (and everyone else) who want to work and move up in life, don't put up any barriers to action and economic activity. For the tiny minority who don't want to work and move up in life (usually, because they don't really care that much), who cares? Don't sacrifice the virtuous and capable majority for their sake. You may say, "What about a country like India or (less extreme Eastern Europe), where the poor genuinely can't move up?" Well, the only way to change that is to free up the economy and let people pursue sustainable economic action. If you put up barriers to economic activity, the people who want to move up will never be able to; they will be permanently poor. For example, ith an expanding economy, you can eventually make it so a person making $10/hour is able to live nicely, as productivity rises and prices fall. But if you instead put minimum wage at $20/hour, people who only actually produce $10/hour of value won't have jobs, and the economy won't be able to expand to the point where if they had a $10/hour job, they could live decently on it. Minimum wage and other regulations are why America no longer manufactures. We could be making all the things now made in China, with a commensurate decrease in expenses. Our factory workers wouldn't be rich, but they'd be able to afford the kinds of things they themselves make in the factories. Meanwhile, China would also be doing fine, it just would have grown at a more measured and sustainable pace, which isn't a bad thing.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > You may say, "What about a country like India or (less extreme Eastern Europe, where the poor genuinely can't move up?" It is possible for poor Americans to move up, but how probable is it for hard working Americans to be able to move up?
    - javert 13y ago
      I think it is almost guaranteed if you know the steps to take. Step 1: Go to college, which you can do very nearly for free these days, and major in something useful, like (say) computer science. Step 2: Get a job using that useful degree. My grandpa took 8 years go to to college, by taking every other year off to work. There isn't much excuse for people these days except not having the knowledge of the above two steps. If you fucked around in high school, that is also a barrier to going to college. But you can go to community college (they let everybody in) and then transfer after 2 years. It's a common occurence. You can also simply become a tradesman at community college: Plumber, welder, electrician, heating/AC repairman, etc. From what I can tell, there is no glut of people in these professions, people just don't want them. 51% of Americans are now on government welfare, and that's a lot easier than working hard.
  - bayesianhorse 13y ago
    No, it does not look like you see what I was saying. I said explicitly that exploited sex workers don't really have freedom of choice. Their "captivity" isn't even economic. In some cases it is outright physical captivity, sometimes it is legal captivity (illegal immigrants), psychological captivity or even addiction. Don't assume that a prostitute can just walk away from her pimp, because you think you would be able to do so in her place. I'm not talking about higher-priced or even "self-employed" prostitutes, I'm talking about the "mass market". These women don't earn more than minimum wage. Sometimes less, all things considered. In lots of cases they would even get more social benefits than the pimps pay them... In some reported cases the pimps take even the social benefits from their "employees".
    - javert 13y ago