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?
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.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.
Labour isn't voluntarily purchased?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.
The government should step in to separate a spouse from abuse even if they consent to live with the abuse.
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.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.
Last edited by nonpareil; 01-27-10 at 10:42 PM.
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 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.
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?
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.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Last edited by other; 01-27-10 at 10:52 PM.