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 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 116

Thread: Whos business is it?

  1. #81
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    It depends if they do it in public or private........
    Well, obviously if it was in public it would be the business of the government. Though, the same would be applied to heterosexual couples.

  2. #82
    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 Dr_Patrick View Post
    Well, obviously if it was in public it would be the business of the government. Though, the same would be applied to heterosexual couples.
    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. #83
    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
    Well, there will be plenty of time to talk about taxes, for now lets just talk about whose business it is in terms of morality.

    If the government has no business telling two consenting adult males that it "isn't right" for them to swap fluids, then why should they be allowed to tell two consenting adult males that it "isn't right" for them to exchange labour for less than $7.25/hr.

    What business have they telling them that it "isn't right" for them to exchange more than 8 hours of labour/day at that rate?
    Then the question you ought to be asking is: Should the government be allowed to act in the interest of society (qualifier: it's really what it believes to be in the interest of society), above and beyond what is written in the constitution? That is the reason behind which it sets the the minimum wage, not because it think it "has a business" in interfering in transactions between two consenting adults. And to extend it further: If yes, to what extend and in what areas should the government to allowed interfere in civil transactions/interactions?

    But to the more general question of whether it's "any of the governments business what consenting adults do with each other". The answer is: it would depends. People can engage is all sort of harmful things with consent, do society has a moral obligation to "save these people from themselves"? I believe so. Even if there are people willing to work in a factory with dangerous conditions, such as poisonous fume, without any safety equipment. I think society/government has an obligation to step in and require the employer to provide these safety equipment at their own costs.

    Or take organ trading. Should it be allowed because it's their body? And even if you think this should be allowed freely, who here would think these transactions should go on without any regulation whatsoever from the government? So in this case I ask: What business have the government in interfering in what consenting adults choose to do?

  4. #84
    Irrelevant Pissant

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

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    What if they want to exchange their flesh, as in eating each other, like in that German case?

    Or their organs? Organ Exchange, anyone?
    If the exchange is voluntary, whose business do you think it should be?

  5. #85
    Irrelevant Pissant

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

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Should they? I would say no...

    But dollar values are attached to shares when they are traded, no? (just like other commodities)

    It's all based upon the cash.
    Sure, if you are exchanging a stock for US currency. I am talking about a straight swap. My Bluechipichu with its powerful dividend attack for your Speculasaur and its potential to be powerful once it levels up.

    IMO, taxes should be levied directly, and only upon goods and services that are voluntarily purchased, not on incomes. What people make is nobody's business but the one who earned it.
    Labour isn't voluntarily purchased?

  6. #86
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    It depends if they do it in public or private........
    Translated: Navy doesn't mind gay people (Shhhhh......as long as they act straight in public).....
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  7. #87
    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
    Well, its hardly my fault if people want to artificially limit the scope of the debate in their own heads. The sexual aspect of people sticking their nose where it doesn't belong seemed like a good place to start.
    I can see both sides, the sexual/personal or the business, and I think the government has a role in both.

    The government should step in to separate a spouse from abuse even if they consent to live with the abuse.

    You seem to be under the impression that I was using sexuality as a guise to talk about capitalism. This is incorrect. I have said it before and I shall say it again. This thread is about people (and government) sticking their noses where they don't belong. Sexuality is an aspect of that, financial agreements are another aspect of that.

    Moving right along, we find that the initial principal (which everyone seems to give lip service to at least) that what happens between two consenting adults is no one's business but their own, also has some bearing on wage disparity between genders.

    Supposing that I (being a consenting adult) and a woman (also being a consenting adult), both voluntarily enter into an agreement whereby she agrees to do some work for me, and in exchange I agree to pay her $85,000/yr, such an arrangement according to popularly professed beliefs would be no one's business but hers and mine.

    Now supposing that I (being a consenting adult) and a man (also being a consenting adult) also both voluntarily entered into another agreement whereby he agrees to perform the exact same task in exchange for $100,000/yr, such an arrangement according to popularly professed beliefs would be no one's business but his and mine.

    Now, considering that my agreement with the man is no one's business but his and mine, it stands to reason that it is none of the woman's business, and certainly none of the governments business, despite the fact that she is making 85 cents on the dollar compared to a man for an identical task.

    Accordingly, the only solutions for this gender based wage disparity are for me to suddenly from the goodness of my heart start paying her more (Yeah, like I am going to voluntarily hurt my own bottom line), for me to from the evilness of my heart start paying him less (not great for employee retention) or for her to demand higher pay as a requirement for her continued participation in the arrangement. (which would be a smart move on her part since I am clearly willing to pay more for the services she provides)

    At no point does any of this become the government's business, as it is a voluntary arrangement between consenting adults.
    All this arguement does is saying that maybe the government shouldn't be legislating laws regarding gender disparity in wages (of course there's still holes in the arguement itself). It doesn't mean that every government interference is bad. Say in the case of factory owners colluding to suppress wages. One could argue that the workers could stop work en mass (which they sometimes do), but eventually they and their family have to choose between starvation or low wages. And law wages trumps starvation. Argueing that the government has no business interfering in what the factory owners choose to agree with each other, or the transactions between the workers and the owners, is just silly. So we have anti-collusion law. That is why Laissez-faire is a pipe dream because a "free-market" without any sort of government regulation/interference at all will produce an unbalanced and inequitable society that takes advantage of the poor.
    Last edited by nonpareil; 01-27-10 at 11:42 PM.

  8. #88
    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 Panache View Post
    Why is that?
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    It more than just tax. If you have a pokemon card that I know will soon be worth a lot more because production of it is being discontinued, and I get you to trade it for a common card that can be found in any starter deck, the government still won't interfere, even if the value of the card is thousands of dollars (as some collectibles actually are).
    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…
    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    If I pull the exact same thing with stocks, I can go to jail, even if we are just dealing with a few penny stocks worth less than the change in my pocket.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Ok, suppose that two consenting adults voluntarily enter into an arrangement where one of them has all the power, and the other is treated like a slave. These are actually fairly common sexual arrangements. Often involving chains, and ball gags and other fun toys.

    Is it ok for the government to interfere then? It obviously isn't fair for one person to have all the power and another to be treated like a slave.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I don't entirely disagree. If one person doesn't consent to an agreement, and the other person uses the threat of violence to compel them, that is when the government should step in. Non-consent is the line of debarkation where and arbiter becomes necessary. Until that line of non-consent is crossed, why should the government be involved in voluntary arrangements?
    It shouldn’t, necessarily. But if it doesn’t, who will regulate such things?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    What don't you like about it?
    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?

    /shrug

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I think minimum wage is wrong. People should be allowed to determine, and should in fact be responsible for determining, the value of their own labour.

    I don't find speculation on the economic effects it will have any more relevant than speculation on the economic effects freeing the slaves would have had back in the day. Even assuming that freeing the slaves would have caused a complete breakdown in the production of cotton, leading to a devastating collapse of US industry, that wouldn't have made slavery justifiable.

    I am sure it would have mattered a great deal to Kandahar whether setting the black people free was "practical" or not, but I just wouldn't have mattered to me.
    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.

    Arguments against it can and have also been made.

    IMO, both sides have some merits to their arguments.

    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.

    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.

    Basically, I think many people like the “safety” of the various regulations on wages, hiring/firing, etc.

    I dunno. One can mull over the topic forever, suggest various ideas, whatever, but it seems unlikely that minimum wage standards will be removed any time in the near future.

    **** this conversation is getting long.
    Education.

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

  9. #89
    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
    If the exchange is voluntary, whose business do you think it should be?
    I think it should be anyone's business to help people who are hurt/hurting themselves.
    Last edited by nonpareil; 01-27-10 at 11:46 PM.

  10. #90
    Professor
    other's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VA
    Last Seen
    01-22-14 @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,473

    Re: Whos business is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Sure, if you are exchanging a stock for US currency. I am talking about a straight swap. My Bluechipichu with its powerful dividend attack for your Speculasaur and its potential to be powerful once it levels up.
    They are assigned values relative to their dollar value...that's the default, so they can be taxed. But personally, as I said, I think straight swaps should be allowed. But of course they aren't-- the gov't makes good money off 'em.


    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Labour isn't voluntarily purchased?
    Sure. My point was that the taxes should be levied at the point of a transaction, with prior knowledge by all parties what taxes are involved with the purchase. And yes, this is also an intrusion, but a salient one, and one that is levied as per the proper power granted to the government by the people. (a government is necessary, and so are taxes)
    Last edited by other; 01-27-10 at 11:52 PM.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •