Legalizing Marajuana

[Lonewulf]

So they have limited access to americas largest cash crop now? And this is a greater social ill than locking up many people and potentially ruining their lives with the laws against something that is in comparison to tobacco and alcohol relatively innocuous?

Man, you're protecting potheads? They deserve to go to prison for years and years for inhaling that stuff! It's so much comparable to theft, burglary, assault, even homicide!

Man, if I didn't know better, I'd say that you think that potheads are human. Freak.




...

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've often posed the question to people who speak out against legalization of any drug; "would you personally use heroin if it were made legal?" They usually answer with a surprised, "NO!"

I think this makes it clear that most people aren't going to use a drug simply because it's legal to do so. For the record, I'm NOT for legalizing heroin, meth, or cocaine - they all come with a decidedly different set of problems than marijuana. Making them all legal, however, could result in the obliteration of the most fervent users through mass overdoses.

Unlikely. YOu would likely see a reduction in overdoses, because most overdoses are unintentional and the result of variances in the potency of illegal drugs. Also results of what they are cut with.

 

[Admiral]

Well, I'd say that people who ask sexual favors from employees or future employees often do so because they are exploiting someone who is desperate for a job. Said person feels forced to have sex in order to get work and pay for her kids, for example. How is that NOT a violation of her rights ?

First of all, this argument, like many others on the thread, applies in exactly the same way to prostitution (they are forced to have sex in order to get work, after all). If you don't feel that prostitution is a violation of the prostitute's rights, then you have to admit that this is not a violation of the employee's rights.

Secondly- your argument would also imply that all work is slavery. Let's replace one small part of your argument:

"Well, I'd say that people who ask eight hours of work a day from employees or future employees often do so because they are exploiting someone who is desperate for a job. Said person feels forced to work in order to get work and pay for her kids, for example. How is that NOT a violation of her rights ?"

Some people literally do think that work is slavery (Noam Chomsky, for example- I think he calls it "the slavery of need" or something). Do you?

 

[ponderingturtle]

First of all, this argument, like many others on the thread, applies in exactly the same way to prostitution (they are forced to have sex in order to get work, after all). If you don't feel that prostitution is a violation of the prostitute's rights, then you have to admit that this is not a violation of the employee's rights.

Having sex with any individual person is not a part of a prostitutes job. They are independant contracters doing their own negotiations. So for one, the contract is specific as to sex and what sex acts are required for the job, not as a prerequiste to get the job.

The issue here is about power. In the case of prostitution the power is basicly equal, in the case of as a requirement for a job you are looking at a much less equal situation.

 

[Admiral]

Having sex with any individual person is not a part of a prostitutes job. They are independant contracters doing their own negotiations. So for one, the contract is specific as to sex and what sex acts are required for the job, not as a prerequiste to get the job.

Semantics. Let's say you didn't call it "a prerequisite," but instead considered it a responsibility of the job. The contract could read (in legalese):

"A)The employee will review budget requests.
B)The employee will file budget reports regularly.
C)The employee will have sex with the employer on Tuesday, March 6th."

A and B are OK with you on their own. C is OK with you on it's own. Think of it is just two jobs.

The issue here is about power. In the case of prostitution the power is basicly equal, in the case of as a requirement for a job you are looking at a much less equal situation.

No, in prostititution the power isn't equal because of the difference in money. In both cases, people with property are trading their property to someone that wants property. Prostitution is an agreement that someone's giving up their rights in exchange for money that they need- how is that difference in power different from an employer who requires that employees have regular sex with him?

But that's irrelevant. A job is just an agreement to do something in exchange for money. Let's imagine it another way. Imagine that in this society (in which prostitution is legal), a person hires a prostititute. When he does so, he adds, "And I'll give you an extra $50 to mow my lawn," and the prostitute agrees. Is this now an infringement on the prostitute's rights just because the prostitute is now also working in other capacities?

 

[Belz...]

First of all, this argument, like many others on the thread, applies in exactly the same way to prostitution (they are forced to have sex in order to get work, after all).

Why yes, yes it does.

If you don't feel that prostitution is a violation of the prostitute's rights, then you have to admit that this is not a violation of the employee's rights.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by prostitution: pimp or no-pimp ?

Secondly- your argument would also imply that all work is slavery.

Some people literally do think that work is slavery (Noam Chomsky, for example- I think he calls it "the slavery of need" or something). Do you?

"Why do you hate America" would have been just as worthy a question.

Obviously, I don't. Having sex with the boss is not part of most job descriptions, however. And having sex against one's consent is, I do believe, more violating then, say, bringing the boss coffee against one's consent.

Or are you trying to make all things equal, here ?

 

[Admiral]

Why yes, yes it does.

OK, you're against legalizing prostitution (many people on this thread support legalizing it, I was directing that mostly at them).

I suppose it depends on what you mean by prostitution: pimp or no-pimp ?

Could I point out that the existence of pimps is a direct consequence of making prostitution illegal? Because of their jobs, prostitutes can't go to the police if an employer is abusing them. They also can't unionize, they can't work in a safe environment because if they do, police would discover them... Legal brothels in Nevada are the safest in the country. If prostitution were legal, it would be far, FAR safer for both prostitutes and clients.

"Why do you hate America" would have been just as worthy a question.

Honestly, I didn't know if you thought work was slavery! Some people do! (After arguing with libertarian socialists, I've learned not to take that for granted).

Obviously, I don't. Having sex with the boss is not part of most job descriptions, however.

Right. What if it was, in some jobs? Serious question- what if the job description was "Bring the boss coffee, file financial statements, have sex with him?" You're saying that should be illegal?

And having sex against one's consent is, I do believe, more violating then, say, bringing the boss coffee against one's consent.

In other words, you do consider work slavery and prostitution rape, but believe that slavery is better than rape. I'm not terribly interested in getting into the "Which is worse: slavery or rape" argument, but it's irrelevant anyway.

What does "against one's consent" mean in your definition? If signing a contract saying "I will have sex with this person" isn't giving consent, then what is?

You're suggesting that as soon as money is involved, prostitutes no longer have the right to have sex with the people that they want.

Or are you trying to make all things equal, here ?

Could you please clarify what you mean?

 

[Belz...]

OK, you're against legalizing prostitution

I never said so. In fact I would say I am undecided on that point. But you are correct if your only point was that we have to be consistent on the matter.

Could I point out that the existence of pimps is a direct consequence of making prostitution illegal?

Ah. So you were talking "no-pimp" ? Since sex is PART of beign a prostitude, then, why were you trying to equate it with a requirement for a non-sex job ?

If prostitution were legal, it would be far, FAR safer for both prostitutes and clients.

I agree. Plus, considering the legality of pornography, it would actually make sense.

Honestly, I didn't know if you thought work was slavery! Some people do!

Don't worry, I'm not that deluded or weird. I'm just beign careful about what could be considered abuse by an employer.

Right. What if it was, in some jobs? Serious question- what if the job description was "Bring the boss coffee, file financial statements, have sex with him?" You're saying that should be illegal?

I don't have a clue. This is why I'm in this thread. I'm trying to clear things up for me.

In other words, you do consider work slavery and prostitution rape

No and no. Where the hell did you get that idea ?

but believe that slavery is better than rape. I'm not terribly interested in getting into the "Which is worse: slavery or rape" argument, but it's irrelevant anyway.

Not only that, it's also unrelated to what I said.

What does "against one's consent" mean in your definition? If signing a contract saying "I will have sex with this person" isn't giving consent, then what is?

Depends. If you sign a contract at gunpoint (or any other form of coercion), is it "consent" ?

Could you please clarify what you mean?

Is bringing coffee to the boss a form of violation of one's rights ? Could it possibly create trauma or invade one's privacy ?

I don't think anyone would complain if an employer said "well, I can hire you, but you have to make me coffee.", though weird. If they asked for sex, however, not the same thing. However, my whole point was this: if he WAS asking for sex, and the employee felt obligated to give her "consent" in order to feed the kids, would that be ok ?

 

[baron]

Right. What if it was, in some jobs? Serious question- what if the job description was "Bring the boss coffee, file financial statements, have sex with him?" You're saying that should be illegal?

Certainly. Having sex with someone should be subject to mutual consent at the time of the event. If a woman (say) signs a contract with her boss stating that she agrees to screw him every Thursday afternoon, failure to do so from that point on would be breach of contact for which she could legally be sacked. Therefore, she would be being strongly pressured into having sex against her will (assuming she did not feel up for it on any given Thursday). The contact essentially becomes a threat. The employee then is subject to, at best, bullying, at worst, blackmail.

 

[Belz...]

Having sex with someone should be subject to mutual consent at the time of the event.

Indeed. Having sex is not the same as other acts. All things are NOT equal, even with a contract (otherwise marriage would be a liscence for marital rape, if interpreted litterally).

 

[Admiral]

Certainly. Having sex with someone should be subject to mutual consent at the time of the event. If a woman (say) signs a contract with her boss stating that she agrees to screw him every Thursday afternoon, failure to do so from that point on would be breach of contact for which she could legally be sacked. Therefore, she would be being strongly pressured into having sex against her will (assuming she did not feel up for it on any given Thursday). The contact essentially becomes a threat. The employee then is subject to, at best, bullying, at worst, blackmail.

While it's an interesting point, it starts breaking down when you consider what a job is. A job contract says the employee will come into work every Thursday, and that she can be sacked for not coming in on Thursday. Therefore, she would be strongly pressured into coming to work against her will if she didn't feel up for it on a given Thursday. Isn't that slavery? Don't they need mutual consent at the time of the event?

But you're not necessarily wrong- you're discussing an interesting aspect of contract law. Actually, a libertarian philosopher named Murray Rothbard had some interesting beliefs about contracts- he basically argued that you can't sell yourself into slavery. He had some thought experiments that were interesting and deserve their own thread.

But for right now, let's assume that you're RIGHT. You heard me- let's assume there's a legal difference between contracting to have sex at some point in the future and contracting to work at some point in the future (I don't agree with this, but I could buy that you have an argument).

Then imagine a case where the employee didn't agree to have sex every Thursday- she agreed to have sex with the employer once, in the short term future (which is the situation we're descibing by saying that "sex is a prerequisite for the job"). For example, the contract could have a clause saying "The employer and employee will have sex ten minutes after the contract is signed." If the employer and employee mutually agree to those terms, then she's giving her consent right before the event! There can also be an escape clause, saying if at any point the employee wishes to stop, she can stop and nullify the contract (she won't get the job, though).

This IS equivalent to a combination of sex and employment. Unless you're against prostitution, there's nothing wrong with this contract.

Let me also note something in general about prostitution (and this situation, which is a combination of prostitution and employment). You're suggesting that women are forced into it by desperation, and that you're protecting their rights by making it illegal.

However, imagine the situation from the point of view of a woman who wants to become a prostitute, or wants to sleep with her boss for a job, for any reason (whether it's for her kids, for drugs, for a new DVD player...). Don't say "No prostitutes would ever WANT to be prostitutes"- the fact is, prostitutes become prostitutes because they have a reason to. However, you're suggesting that not only we make it illegal for her to sell her body in this way, but that we do so while claiming to be protecting her rights!

If a prostitute asked you what right of hers you were protecting by arresting her and preventing her from selling her services, how would you respond?

 

[Tony]

Power over what? Their own property.

Nope, power over someone earning living.

Do you think that you have a right to get a job from an employer if he doesn't want to give it to you?

Yep, but it depends on the reason. An employer doesn't have the right, nor should he, to deny me a job because I'm not a christian.

There is no human right to take from other people.

In some circumstances there is.

She doesn't get the job. IT'S UP TO THE EMPLOYER WHETHER TO GIVE HER A JOB OR NOT.

So you support rape. Sick freak was dead on.

The employer-employee relationship is one of exchanging property.

This is free-market dogma regarded as absolute truth. The marketplace is more complicated in reality than it is in your theory.

I have a right to spend my time however I like. However, if I sign a contract with an employer that I'm going to come to work from 9-5 in exchange for money, I've just given up my liberty. Shouldn't that be illegal, by your logic?

False analogy.

Huh? This is a consensual drug test.

More free-market dogma. No, it isn't consensual, if it was, the employer wouldn't have to use the threat of not getting the job to convince the employee to take the test. It's done under pressure to support oneself and family. It's duress.

(Just to be clear, that was in response to "Do you support the legalization of prostitution?").

Yes.

What? The contract would say (in legalese) "The employee will have sex with the employer, after which she will work as an accountant."

Ok, that's really stupid, and that's not what I'm talking about.

Since you think prostitution should be legal, then a contract saying "The employee will have sex with the employer" is OK with you.

Non-sequitur. It is only ok if it remains regulated to a niche segment of the market and not adapted by the market at large. Such a situation has would have dire consequences for personal freedom.

And since you think that work is legal, you're OK with "The employee will work as an accountant." So both of those contracts are OK, but when they're together they're sick and depraved and rape?

You're not paying attention. You're the one who brought up the whole contract crap. For once, think outside your freemarket dogma. I'm talking about a situation where a woman or man is put in a position where he/she has to perform sex acts to get or keep a job. No contract, no pre-determined agreement, just an employer using his position to coerce sex out of someone looking for a job. If you support that, you're sick and make a mockery of libertarianism.

They're not forcing her! It's an exchange!

More free market dogma. It is not an exchange. It's someone using his position of power to coerce someone into doing something they would never do. You think that because he isn't using a gun, that it's ok, but it's the exact same.

The job is the employer's property.

So? It doesn't follow that he gets to use said property to coerce people into having sex.

He owns the salary (until he pays her). He therefore has the right to give out the job at any price he wants.

No, he doesn't. He can't pay her with crack or food stamps. There are many restrictions on what he pay for a job.

She can't be forced to have sex with anyone she doesn't want to.

Bwahahahahahaha. I suppose all the woman who've been raped are lying then? After all, it's her body, she can't be forced to have sex with anyone she doesn't want to? I guess someone saying "**** me or die" is simply an everyday business negotiation in your freemarket utopia?

Seriously, you should read over what you write before you hit submit.

If the two mutually agree on an exchange- he gives up his money, she gives him sex- where is the force?

More freemarket dogma.

That's like saying "An employer doesn't have a right to require me to work for him." That's right.

No, it isn't. This is a false analogy. Simply working for someone doesn't entail someone cheating on their spouse or running the risk of catching an STD.

He's being forced not to exchange jobs for sex.

No he isn't.

You call this human and civil rights- but you say prostitution should be legal. So exchanging money for sex is OK, but exchanging jobs for sex is force?

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

And saying "no one's forcing him to keep his business open" is totally irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It's completely relevant. It passes the onus from the worker to the employer, where it should be.

I didn't say they were. I said they were using force to prevent a voluntary exchange.

It's not a voluntary exchange. A job is almost never a voluntary exchange. It's striking how similar free-marketers are to communists in their reliance on dogma and theory. A job is something someone does because they have to, because they need to money to support themselves. It is not voluntary.

Every single one of those rights is given up by a prostitute. If you believe that prostitution is legal, than so is this.

Non-sequitur.

As I said, irrelevant. "He could shut down his business" is not an argument.

Why not? If "the employee can get another job" in an argument. Then so is "He could shut down his business".

THAT IS THE SAME THING AS PROSTITUTION. (And it's not coercion against her will if she agrees to it).

No, it isn't. Prostitutes get into that vocation by choice (sometimes). I'm talking about an entirely different situation. A situation where someone has to perform sex, not as part of the job (which is what prostitution and porn is), but merely to keep or get the job.

By your logic, work is the same thing as slavery (someone is being forced into labor to support their family)

Yes, it is. That's the cold hard fact of the matter. No one works because they want to, they work because they have to. That's not necessarily a moral judgement, but it's reality, and I support every protection we can provide to people to make work as palatable and safe as possible and make sure it infringes on human, civil and individual rights as little as possible.

prostitution should be illegal... but you don't think that work is slavery or prostitution should be illegal.

Yeah, is it too complicated for you? Just grunt and say "freemarket"?

 

[Admiral]

Since most of what you respond is just "THAT'S DOGMA," I have to ask what your principles are. I've told you mine. (By the way, Belz, you were wondering why anyone would think work is slavery- well, ask Tony).

If you truly believed this, and wanted to be consistent, you should definitely not support the legalization of prostitution, since it would be, in your defition, legalized rape. Oh, and you should make it illegal to hold a job too.

I really don't understand- you think work is slavery and prostitution rape, but that some forms should be legal and others not?

But here is, by far, the most important statement, which is actually just a misunderstanding:

You're not paying attention. You're the one who brought up the whole contract crap. For once, think outside your freemarket dogma. I'm talking about a situation where a woman or man is put in a position where he/she has to perform sex acts to get or keep a job. No contract, no pre-determined agreement, just an employer using his position to coerce sex out of someone looking for a job. If you support that, you're sick and make a mockery of libertarianism.

I DON'T support it! We AGREE on that case!

If an employer uses his position to coerce sex out of someone, where it wasn't previously agreed upon, then it's a breach of the contract. In fact, I've already made that very clear:

Let me make a quick side note. This is different from a lot of forms of sexual harrasment, many of which SHOULD be illegal. If an employer, after hiring someone, says he'll fire her unless she has sex with him, it's a breach of contract- that should be illegal.

That was in the VERY FIRST POST where I addressed this issue! You should have read it.

I'm talking ONLY about cases where the employer and the employee agreed to have sex AND PUT IT IN THE JOB CONTRACT. As you will correctly note, that narrows it down to eliminate many of the cases you're imagining.

Now, you might say that this means it should be illegal to offer a job with sex being a "requirement." I'd respond that it simply doesn't- if an employer offers a job that he states, in advance, requires both sex and accounting, then they agree to sign a contract holding her to both sex and accounting, and THEN she has sex with him as per the contract- THAT'S LEGAL.

So when you say, "No contracts, no pre-determined agreements," you're setting up a strawman. I've held through the whole thread that this would have to be agreed upon in the job contract.

So I'll ask you- since I'm talking only about cases where this is in the contract, and is agreed upon by both PRIOR to taking the job- should it be legal?

That's my main question, though I have a few responses to other comments you've made.

Yep, but it depends on the reason. An employer doesn't have the right, nor should he, to deny me a job because I'm not a christian.

Actually, they do if they're a church

In some circumstances there is.

I'm honestly interested in hearing what your principles are about when it is and when it is not OK to take from other people. (I'm not sarcastic).

So you support rape. Sick freak was dead on.

I don't. And you seem to resort to ad hominem attacks a lot:

Ok, that's really stupid, and that's not what I'm talking about.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Why are you responding this way? It's not how rational, skeptical people act. It's how second graders act on the playground. "You're wrong." "Why?" "Because you're stupid." It doesn't prove anything.

Non-sequitur. It is only ok if it remains regulated to a niche segment of the market and not adapted by the market at large. Such a situation has would have dire consequences for personal freedom.

But you think it's rape. So you say that you think it is rape, but it is OK if it is relegated to a niche segment of the market?

No, he doesn't. He can't pay her with crack or food stamps. There are many restrictions on what he pay for a job.

Crack's an odd example, since it's illegal (shouldn't be, in my opinion, but that's another issue). Let's take food stamps. Obviously it would be a gross and illegal breach of contract for me to say, "OK, I know I said I'd pay you twenty thousand dollars, but I'm giving you it in food stamps."

But (and this is a serious question in terms of legality, though it's one that wouldn't actually happen), if an employer says to his employee IN ADVANCE that he'll pay him with ten thousand dollars in food stamps, and the contract reflects this, then is it illegal? If so, why?

Bwahahahahahaha. I suppose all the woman who've been raped are lying then? After all, it's her body, she can't be forced to have sex with anyone she doesn't want to?

WHOA- you grossly misquoted me. When I said that women can't be forced to have sex, I meant LEGALLY. I meant it was her RIGHT not to be forced to do so. Obviously it's PHYSICALLY possible to rape someone.

It would be like if I said, "I can't take your property without your consent," and you responded, "You could if you held a gun to my head!" It's playing with words.

I guess someone saying "**** me or die" is simply an everyday business negotiation in your freemarket utopia?

Same strawman.

Also, in your moral system, is it murder not to give money to someone who needs money to survive? (I'm asking about what you think is legal, not what you think is moral. I give money to the homeless- the question is whether it's a crime if I don't) And if it is, then where does it stop? Are you legally required to use all of your money to help homeless people and keep only enough to survive? Does that apply to the homeless in this country, or every country? Is it a crime to spend any of your time not working to make money to help people that need money to survive?

I honestly want to know where you want to draw the line.

Seriously, you should read over what you write before you hit submit.

Because you could misquote me?

No he isn't.

He's not being forced not to do this? Then what is the government going to do to stop him, politely request?

No, it isn't. Prostitutes get into that vocation by choice (sometimes). I'm talking about an entirely different situation. A situation where someone has to perform sex, not as part of the job (which is what prostitution and porn is), but merely to keep or get the job.

As I stated clearly above, it has to be agreed upon before the job starts, so I agree with you on the issue of doing it to keep the job. But what's the difference between being part of the job and being a requirement for the job? They mean the same thing.

Yes, it is. That's the cold hard fact of the matter. No one works because they want to, they work because they have to. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's reality, and I support every protection we can provide to people to make this work as palatable as possible and make sure is infringes on human, civil and individual rights as little as possible.

I was talking about this with Belz in an earlier post. Hmmm.

 

[gnome]

I would postulate that an ideal society not only respects property rights, but also minimizes coercion. Note I don't say force... Admiral, your ideas indeed prevent force, but not coercion. What is the distinction? It refers to someone bowing to pressure rather than force. It can happen whenever two parties enter into a negotiation at an uneven level--one can give a job to anyone they choose, the other finds their job opportunities limited, but needs one to survive.

You cannot eliminate coercion completely. For example, society could not function if people who were able but unwilling to work, did not find themselves pressured to do so anyway. But it can be minimized, just as force can be minimized, for a society with more liberty.

 

[Mephisto]

What a derail! I want some of what you guys are smoking - next thing you know you guys will be asserting that the earth is merely a single molecule on God's ass.

 

[Lonewulf]

What a derail! I want some of what you guys are smoking - next thing you know you guys will be asserting that the earth is merely a single molecule on God's ass.

I thought everyone knew that...

 

[gnome]

Regarding the question of whether a sex requirement can be used to get vs. keep a job... I take it Admiral that you believe that an employment at will contract is perfectly fair--that either side can end the employment for any reason if desired--or, at least, that it would be fair if such language were in the original contract.

If that is to be upheld, the distinction of whether sex is needed to "get" or "keep" the job is meaningless. The employer can simply announce that they are ending the employment arrangement, but that they are free to reapply (and renegotiate).

 

[Belz...]

Admiral: I'd still like you to adress my last post.

 

[Mephisto]

I thought everyone knew that...

Regarding sexual harassment on the job - the corporation I once worked for was giving classes on sexual harassment and I raised a few eyebrows when I wanted to sign up (for sexual harassment).

 

[Admiral]

I would postulate that an ideal society not only respects property rights, but also minimizes coercion. Note I don't say force... Admiral, your ideas indeed prevent force, but not coercion. What is the distinction? It refers to someone bowing to pressure rather than force. It can happen whenever two parties enter into a negotiation at an uneven level--one can give a job to anyone they choose, the other finds their job opportunities limited, but needs one to survive.

You cannot eliminate coercion completely. For example, society could not function if people who were able but unwilling to work, did not find themselves pressured to do so anyway. But it can be minimized, just as force can be minimized, for a society with more liberty.

This is a common and understandable concern, that people aren't free in a libertarian society- they still need to eat, they still need to support their families, there are people richer than they are who can control them through wages, and so on.

While these problems are real, though, government solutions are not. The answer to "People are so desperate that they are forced into prostitution" is not "Make prostitution illegal- now, instead of having only one option that we find distasteful, they'll have no options."

The solution isn't to expand government's involvement in the economy, either, because all that ever happens is that it makes problems of inequality WORSE, not better. Don't believe me? Consider how the government enforces monopolies- through corporate handouts (also known as "fiscal policy"), through force (the public school system is just a goverment-enforced monopoly), through government programs (NASA has a monopoly on space travel, for example), and in various other ways.

People look at problems with economics that are real (market failures, monopolies, the free rider paradox, externalities), but then they assume that that justifies creating whatever government programs they want- "We can subsidize this- after all, markets are more complicated in practice than they are in theory," or "Let's raise taxes to create new government programs- after all, monopolies something something market failures." If you're going to address the problems with the free market, then, OK, address the problems with the free market. Don't use it as a free pass to create a vast and inefficient government.

One last point (I'm worried that if I talk for too long, I'll say something Tony can take out of context to prove I'm a Nazi war criminal). The expansion of capitalism and rises in productivity over the last few centuries have done far more to stop the problem you're talking about- the slavery of need- then anything government has ever done. Consider that today in America, it is harder to starve than it has been in pretty much any country in history. Food is far, far cheaper and more readily available than it was in any society up to only a few decades ago.

In 1939, 85% of low wage earners were living under the poverty line. By 2003, it was only 17%. And only 9% of minimum wage earners actually support a family- the vast majority are teenagers working part-time jobs, or people in entry level jobs.

So, in short, the slavery of need still exists, but the trend is that it keeps getting weaker and weaker. (Compare the needs of a minimum wage worker today to a starving farmer two centuries ago). However, the slavery of government, on the other hand, has a trend of continuing to get larger and larger- government programs have a tendency to stick around long after their use has expired, and rarely get eliminated just for being inefficient.

Considering those different trends, can you see why I'd be concerned with moving towards the slavery of government?