View Poll Results: Is it any of the governments business what consenting adults do with each other?

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 13.56%
  • No

    51 86.44%
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 116

Thread: Whos business is it?

  1. #91
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post

    So why don't you support some government regulation in the sexual sector? If alpha males are monopolizing the heterosexual female population, and making it impossible for the beta males to get any tail, don't you think there should be some legislation to preserve competition?
    The analogy does not even fit. For one thing, do you care to define "beta male" and show how they are "not getting tails"? I see a lot of average man in marriage. Second, "beta males" haven't been seen to die off as monopolistic companies has been seen gobbled up competitions. Further, anti-trust law is about protecting the consumers. In this case, the women can try to get the "alpha-male" but if they can't, they can always fall back on the "beta male" since the males haven't died off. How are the women worse off (as in has their choices restricted)?

    And there is a sort of legislation in this area. It's called monogamous marriages. Even in Islam, men are restricted to have only 4 wives.
    Last edited by nonpareil; 01-28-10 at 12:18 AM.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Translated: Navy doesn't mind gay people (Shhhhh......as long as they act straight in public).....
    I have to do so much cut and paste when I deal with you.........Do you ever read the previous posts in a thread?


    I could give a **** less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom be they straight or gay.......Now what they do in public is a whole other matter..........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  3. #93
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Whos business is it?

    I find it disingenuous.

    You couched a question in terms which led people to a conclusion (in this case, that you are asking if the sex lives of two gay men are any of our or the government’s business). Then, after multiple persons had responded on that premise, you proceeded to change the thread topic of your own thread by revealing that which you were truly after.

    I would much rather that your entire argument had been placed in the OP, laid out to explain how you contend that there is little or no difference between government interference in one area (sex) as opposed to another (minimum wage).
    I would have found that far less entertaining.

    Crap! There has been trading card insider trading going on for years!!! We have to pass a law to stop it!!! Methinks there have been no laws/rulings in this regard precisely because it is on a much smaller scale than the stock market. Which doesn’t mean it won’t happen at some point…
    Nut you believe that if it were more of a problem that the government would be justified in stepping in and protecting people from themselves?

    I would assume that prosecution in such a small case would be less likely.
    I would think the insider trading laws are in place to prevent gaming of the stock trading system by those with…inside knowledge.
    Opportunities for companies to damage opposing companies who go public, if the market lacked such protections, seem obvious to me.
    Why should it be anyone's responsibility other than the consenting adults involved to determine whether or not the deal they are entering into is to their benefit or not?

    In such a case, said person is only being treated like a slave, and could leave at any point if they so wished. If this were not the case, then it would actually be slavery, and illegal, with good reason.
    And this is somehow different from any other voluntary arrangement? No one is holding a gun to an employee's head and telling them that they can't quit their job, start their own business and produce their own capital.

    If employers treat their employees like slaves, they do so with the employee's consent.

    It shouldn’t, necessarily. But if it doesn’t, who will regulate such things?
    Why do they need to be regulated? What compelling reason do we have to protect people from themselves?

    As I said, I don't really know. But a few thoughts.
    It excludes those who don't have the funds to buy into it, perhaps?
    Those with more funds have more influnce in it?
    The term "co-op" throws me off?
    So for example, I am a member of REI, which is a co-op. It means I am a partial owner. I pay dues and as a result I get cheap outdoor gear. People who don't want cheap outdoor gear or not forced to pay due through the threat of violence or incarceration.

    Sometimes people come into the store, not to buy anything, but just to get out of the cold. We owners pay for the heating and they freeload off it, but really, thats fine. Its just the cost of doing business.

    Well, I tend to agree with you.
    I think minimum wage should be eliminated.
    But I don’t claim to know enough about the situation to say that would be the best option.

    But I feel your analogy between minimum wage and slavery is somewhat inapt.

    Slavery was an institution which caused mass harm and prevention of freedom to a sub-group of the human race simply because of their genetic makeup. This was wrong, I feel.

    Minimum wage can and has been argued as a beneficial thing for lower-income persons, to prevent their exploitation by businesses.
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to consent to being exploited? Especially since they can quit their job and unexploit themselves at any time? How is that fundamentally different from someone consenting to be a sex slave?

    A potential compromise could be graded minimum wages, based on job type. But that would almost surely turn into a huge bureaucracy deciding which jobs fit which slot, etc., ect. So I am inherently opposed to it.
    Yeah, I think letting people determine the value of their own labour would be better. It would involve no bureaucracy and would cost no tax dollars.

    Elimination of the minimum wage would allow the option for businesses to pay sub-standard wages (as in, wages below what the job was actually worth) to their employees. Now, obviously, employees would also be able to leave their jobs and seek better-paying employers. But additionally, businesses in the same field could band together and keep wages down… Barring laws preventing such, which I assume you also would oppose.
    And what's to keep the employees from banding together and forming labour unions to oppose the employer's cartels?

    Basically, I think many people like the “safety” of the various regulations on wages, hiring/firing, etc.
    Ah, there we go. Safety at the expense of liberty is really the heart of the issue. Why then should sex be excluded? Why not make safe sex mandatory? Issue licenses to those apply to produce children and make everyone else use a condom?

  4. #94
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Whos business is it?

    I think it should be anyone's business to help people who are hurt/hurting themselves.
    So if someone is "damning themselves to hell" by performing "unnatural acts" the government should have the right to "save them from themselves?"

  5. #95
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Edit: Wall of Text Warning!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I would have found that far less entertaining.
    Heh. Well, whatever makes you happy, I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    But you believe that if it were more of a problem that the government would be justified in stepping in and protecting people from themselves?
    No. The government should never protect people from themselves. The government should prevent people from harming others. Like murder, thievery, etc.
    In your example, it could be argued that Person B, trading for the card which will be canceled, is stealing from Person A, who does not know about such.
    That, I think, is the essence of the insider trading rules.
    I think the insider trading rules are necessary, but feel free to present an argument to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Why should it be anyone's responsibility other than the consenting adults involved to determine whether or not the deal they are entering into is to their benefit or not?
    It shouldn’t be, in most cases. In this case, however, it seems to be reasonable to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    And this is somehow different from any other voluntary arrangement? No one is holding a gun to an employee's head and telling them that they can't quit their job, start their own business and produce their own capital.

    If employers treat their employees like slaves, they do so with the employee's consent.
    I tend to agree with you. But in some cases, I think such could be abused. I still don’t like minimum wage, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Why do they need to be regulated? What compelling reason do we have to protect people from themselves?
    None, IMO. It is the potential harm to others that is the issue.
    As an example, suppose a company designs, builds, and markets a product which is defective. Defective to the point of potentially causing harm to those who purchase it. The company, through incompetence, doesn’t know it is defective until many have been sold. None of those who purchase the product know it is defective until the first incident occurs.
    Sure, you could then punish the company for building a harmful product, force them to pay for repairs to the person who died, and they will lose business most likely, as people avoid a company which made a defective product.

    But someone still was harmed, or perhaps died, because there was no regulation except self-regulation, which in this case, failed.

    I once read a sci-fi book, in which the author imagined a society with no laws except those prohibiting people from harming others.
    To get around situations like the example I posed, the author had multiple 3rd party private regulatory agencies. Basically, they were paid to examine/audit companies by the companies themselves, and then allowed those they had examined to place their seal of approval on a product.

    I suppose you would have no issue with such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    So for example, I am a member of REI, which is a co-op. It means I am a partial owner. I pay dues and as a result I get cheap outdoor gear. People who don't want cheap outdoor gear are not forced to pay dues through the threat of violence or incarceration.

    Sometimes people come into the store, not to buy anything, but just to get out of the cold. We owners pay for the heating and they freeload off it, but really, that’s fine. Its just the cost of doing business.
    That example would seem to be quite different from a co-op governing a town, county, state, or the whole nation.
    And in some ways the same, I suppose.
    But after further thought, the main reason I dislike the idea is that it seems to limit the ability to have a say in what the governing body does to those who, through some form of capital transfer, pay for that right.
    This, in my mind, is not acceptable.
    It is my opinion that the right to vote should be something everyone who reaches adulthood has. Lets not get into a discussion about when someone is an adult, or how there are some 40+ year-old children out there, you know what I refer to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to consent to being exploited? Especially since they can quit their job and unexploit themselves at any time? How is that fundamentally different from someone consenting to be a sex slave?
    It isn’t, really, but if they are the breadwinner for their family, said exploitation, however self-imposed you want to couch it as, affects their dependents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Yeah, I think letting people determine the value of their own labour would be better. It would involve no bureaucracy and would cost no tax dollars.
    True, and I tend towards support of eliminating the minimum wage standards, as such fits my ideals of how the world should work.
    But I don’t know that it does work that way, so I can’t say for sure that it is the best way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    And what's to keep the employees from banding together and forming labour unions to oppose the employer's cartels?
    Nothing, unless laws are passed to prevent it (and I think that would be unconstitutional).
    But the very idea of employer or employee organizations of this sort, however informal, seems counter to the idea that competition is good.
    Wage-fixing measures from either side would seem to reduce the opportunities for employees to compete for better-paying positions due to ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Ah, there we go. Safety at the expense of liberty is really the heart of the issue. Why then should sex be excluded? Why not make safe sex mandatory? Issue licenses to those apply to produce children and make everyone else use a condom?
    Because the vast majority of people consider sex, sex lives, and who can have babies to be no ones business.
    But nowhere near as many people consider it to be no ones business what someone does in a financial transaction.

    Either that, or laws were passed against the will of the people, and they just didn’t care enough to protest to the point that such was changed.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  6. #96
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Whos business is it?

    No. The government should never protect people from themselves. The government should prevent people from harming others. Like murder, thievery, etc.
    In your example, it could be argued that Person B, trading for the card which will be canceled, is stealing from Person A, who does not know about such.
    That, I think, is the essence of the insider trading rules.
    I think the insider trading rules are necessary, but feel free to present an argument to the contrary.
    A difference in information will be present in any transaction, and will lead to one party having an advantage over the other. Those who enter into such agreements need to realize that this is a risk, and take that into account when the agree to it. No one isn't consenting, its still none of the government's business.

    None, IMO. It is the potential harm to others that is the issue.
    As an example, suppose a company designs, builds, and markets a product which is defective. Defective to the point of potentially causing harm to those who purchase it. The company, through incompetence, doesn’t know it is defective until many have been sold. None of those who purchase the product know it is defective until the first incident occurs.
    Sure, you could then punish the company for building a harmful product, force them to pay for repairs to the person who died, and they will lose business most likely, as people avoid a company which made a defective product.

    But someone still was harmed, or perhaps died, because there was no regulation except self-regulation, which in this case, failed.

    I once read a sci-fi book, in which the author imagined a society with no laws except those prohibiting people from harming others.
    To get around situations like the example I posed, the author had multiple 3rd party private regulatory agencies. Basically, they were paid to examine/audit companies by the companies themselves, and then allowed those they had examined to place their seal of approval on a product.

    I suppose you would have no issue with such.
    Correct on all accounts. Especially the last.

    That example would seem to be quite different from a co-op governing a town, county, state, or the whole nation.
    And in some ways the same, I suppose.
    But after further thought, the main reason I dislike the idea is that it seems to limit the ability to have a say in what the governing body does to those who, through some form of capital transfer, pay for that right.
    This, in my mind, is not acceptable.
    Why not?

    It is my opinion that the right to vote should be something everyone who reaches adulthood has.
    Why should people who have made no investment or contribution have a say in how everyone else's money is spent? No representation without taxation makes as much sense as no taxation without representation, and for the same reasons.

    If me and a bunch of my friends all chip in for a pizza, we can each vote on whether to get pepperoni or hawaiian. Me might share our pizza with someone who didn't chip in, but there is no reason they should have a right to vote on the flavour.

    Lets not get into a discussion about when someone is an adult, or how there are some 40+ year-old children out there, you know what I refer to.
    Not an issue with a Co-op. If a 12 yo wants to spend their hard earned dough on dues, they can join REI and get cheap gear too. They even get to vote on their CFO.

    It isn’t, really, but if they are the breadwinner for their family, said exploitation, however self-imposed you want to couch it as, affects their dependents.
    And one person having unprotected sex with another can lead to that person's unsuspecting spouse dying of aids. Does that give the government the right to interfere in people's sex lives?

    Nothing, unless laws are passed to prevent it (and I think that would be unconstitutional).
    I agree. Labour unions would be an example of consenting adults in voluntary arrangements that are none of the governments business.

    But the very idea of employer or employee organizations of this sort, however informal, seems counter to the idea that competition is good.
    If we are going to let government be the arbiter of what is "good" why not just let them say that straight sex is "good" and gay sex is "bad?"

    Because the vast majority of people consider sex, sex lives, and who can have babies to be no ones business.
    But nowhere near as many people consider it to be no ones business what someone does in a financial transaction.

    Either that, or laws were passed against the will of the people, and they just didn’t care enough to protest to the point that such was changed.
    Do you think it's any of their business?

  7. #97
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Wall of Text Warning!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    A difference in information will be present in any transaction, and will lead to one party having an advantage over the other. Those who enter into such agreements need to realize that this is a risk, and take that into account when the agree to it. No one isn't consenting, its still none of the government's business.
    Hmm… Actually, that’s a good argument…I agree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Correct on all accounts. Especially the last.
    Well, I tend to like that idea as well. It appeals to my libertarian side.

    The catch is, too many persons are primed to “trust” the government more than private corporations. So opposition to such a measure would be high.

    I still like the idea, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Why not?
    Because, depending on a multitude of other variables, some people are going to have less money than others. Or even no money. In my opinion, it would then seem to follow that they would have less or no say in how the community they were part of functioned. This, IMO, is a bad thing.

    I recognize the appeal of having only those with ability in power, but I just can’t support it. A vast amount of convincing would be required for me to change my opinion on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Why should people who have made no investment or contribution have a say in how everyone else's money is spent? No representation without taxation makes as much sense as no taxation without representation, and for the same reasons.

    If me and a bunch of my friends all chip in for a pizza, we can each vote on whether to get pepperoni or hawaiian. Me might share our pizza with someone who didn't chip in, but there is no reason they should have a right to vote on the flavour.
    Ah, but I tend towards elimination of any government programs that give money/goods/services to people, beyond, perhaps:
    • A very limited and closely watched assistance program for persons who have lost a job. Even that it pushing it, in my mind, as I think it discourages people from seeking a new job.
    • A very limited and closely watched assistance program for families which have lost their primary breadwinner.

    The problem is, I don’t really like such programs at all, and yet it seems there is a need for them. Is there a way to remove them without causing large side-effects? I don’t know.
    Elimination/massive reduction of this type of programs would remove much of the issue for you, I would think.
    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Not an issue with a Co-op. If a 12 yo wants to spend their hard earned dough on dues, they can join REI and get cheap gear too. They even get to vote on their CFO.
    Perfectly reasonable, for a co-op. But the USA isn’t a co-op, and I seriously doubt that will change any time soon. And because we don’t limit voting rights to those who can pay, and we don’t want children (who in most cases would tend to vote for poor reasons) voting for our political leaders…wait a tick, that’s what too many of the adult voters do…
    I dunno. I just don’t think the co-op idea you propose is a good idea.
    But I think my previous point addresses the issue you have with our current system which led to you proposing such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    And one person having unprotected sex with another can lead to that person's unsuspecting spouse dying of aids. Does that give the government the right to interfere in people's sex lives?
    Perhaps. In this case, the unsuspecting spouse could be considered to have been harmed/killed by the person who didn’t inform them of their disease. Making the person who infected them support their family could be said infector’s punishment. A court decision, methinks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I agree. Labour unions would be an example of consenting adults in voluntary arrangements that are none of the governments business.
    However, I am opposed to the abuse of power some labor unions have been accused of.
    But I suppose total monopoly of a labor sector by a labor union would be unacceptable to you as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    If we are going to let government be the arbiter of what is "good" why not just let them say that straight sex is "good" and gay sex is "bad?"
    I didn’t say that the government said competition was good. I think competition is good, and stated that such a situation would be counter to that idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Do you think it's any of their business?
    Well, no, not in general. I suppose there might be some rare cases that I would agree it would be, but I have yet to locate them, or have them pointed out to me.
    Last edited by The Mark; 01-28-10 at 09:54 PM.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  8. #98
    blond bombshell

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    10-19-12 @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    So people shouldn't have the agency to consent to extreme physical pain?
    Well what if someone wants to be stabbed.Should that be ok or should the government stop that from happening?
    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

  9. #99
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mikhail View Post
    Well what if someone wants to be stabbed. Should that be ok or should the government stop that from happening?
    Stabbed as in killed?

    Or stabbed as in really hard-core masochistic sexual interests?

    You can survive stabbing, I would think, depending on where, how deep, etc.

    And if the person died, it should be blamed on their partner, who was willing to follow their whim too far and kill them.

    I suppose there are people with sexual interests in being killed...
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    If two consenting adult males voluntarily agree to exchange fluids, is it any of the governments business?
    You mean like an office-gift-exchange/secret-Santa kind of thing...or what?

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •