Legalizing Marajuana

[Admiral]

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

I did in post #111. I was responding to Baron's post, which is the one you were agreeing with in post #110.

If I misunderstood you, let me know.

 

[Admiral]

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).

I'd say that's fair- I would be concerned about taking a job with an "at will contract," and I think most people should be too, but it shouldn't be illegal to make such a contract.

It's up to the people in the transaction what terms to set in terms of ending the arrangement. And after the boss ends the arrangement, it's up to both if they want to renegotiate.

 

[Tony]

Since most of what you respond is just "THAT'S DOGMA," I have to ask what your principles are.

Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, personal freedom, human rights, and individual rights.

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.

I don't see how it follows. Work is (for most people) manditory if they want to live and support a family, prostitution is still a choice.

Oh, and you should make it illegal to hold a job too.

Why?

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:

Then why the hell don't you let it go?

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

I did. But you continued to harp on 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.

Then I say that's silly and highly unlikely, and has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

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.

It is? Show me the law that says someone can consign themselves to sexual slavery. Then show me how that's consistant with libertarianism.

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.

And I've held that I'm not talking about that.

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?

Only on a small scale, only for niche markets and regulated. A married mom who is looking for a job shouldn't have to endure being solicited for sex.

Actually, they do if they're a church

Evidence?

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).

During times of oppression, misery, poverty and when the gap between the haves and the have-nots is extreme. I'd say it's not ok in the adverse circumstances. Do you support the American Revolution? The French? The Russian? Should all the property than the royal families of those domains lost be returned or compensated?

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.

Because I see no use in responding any other way. People like you tend to be too devoted to your theories to think critically about them. I don't think it's possible to be a skeptic and still hold on to freemarket beliefs.

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?

When did I ever say prostitution is rape? I said it was rape to use a position to coerce sex from someone.

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?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal.

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.

You're right. It is her right not to be forced to do so. Which is why it's wrong for an employer to demand sex as a condition for employment in a non-sex industry job.

Same strawman.

It's not a strawman. It's what I've been speaking out against, and which you (seemingly) have been supporting.

Also, in your moral system, is it murder not to give money to someone who needs money to survive?

No. I don't see how this question relates.

Because you could misquote me?

How did I missquote you? Those were your words verbatim.

He's not being forced not to do this?

Nope. He can't be forced not to do something he doesn't have the right to do in the first place. Perhaps I'm confusing "intiate force" with "use force", but he is the one intiating force to get sex. The government would be protecting the victim from his force.

But what's the difference between being part of the job and being a requirement for the job? They mean the same thing.

No they don't. The most obvious difference is in the language. "Part of the job" and "Being a requirement for the job". There is a vast difference, you're simply trying to equate the two to support your dogmatism.

A checker at Wal-Mart may be required to take a pee-test to get the job, that doesn't mean taking pee-tests are part of the job. Checking out goods, dealing with money and greeting customers are part of the job.

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

So then, it's your contention that employment isn't required for most people to support themselves and their families? That people simply work because they want to and for no other reason?

 

[Lonewulf]

Because I see no use in responding any other way. People like you tend to be too devoted to your theories to think critically about them.

So, what, this justifies into launching into personal insults? What does this accomplish, exactly?

 

[Tony]

So, what, this justifies into launching into personal insults? What does this accomplish, exactly?

It serves to register my disgust and contempt when someone (seemingly) makes an argument in support of rape or oppression.

 

[Admiral]

I'm going to focus on the relevant topics, since there are so many differences in opinion between us that they could never be covered in one thread. (I'd appreciate it if you stopped using ad hominem attacks, though, and justifying them with generalizations about "people like you.")

The only issue that was relevant to the whole derail about sex and employment was whether sex as a job requirement THAT IS EXPLICITLY STATED IN A CONTRACT is legal. Remember, you were making the analogy from drug testing. I didn't see what the real world application was of discussing employment for sex in a contract as part of a job was, but I followed the analogy and said that if it was agreed upon previously in the contract, it was legal. At that point, you ignored what I said (that it would have to be previously agreed upon in the contract) and completely misrepresented my point. What you were arguing against (demanding sex without the prior arrangement I discussed) was a strawman.

What is relevant is what kind of contract is legal, so let's turn to that.

No they don't. The most obvious difference is in the language. "Part of the job" and "Being a requirement for the job". There is a vast difference, you're simply trying to equate the two to support your dogmatism.

A checker at Wal-Mart may be required to take a pee-test to get the job, that doesn't mean taking pee-tests are part of the job. Checking out goods, and greeting customers is part of the job.

Now I see what your point is. OK, so then how do you distinguish the two? You're saying the judicial system should define the purpose of the job, then eliminate anything in the contract that is not aimed towards the purpose of the job? (That is, the purpose of a job is bagging groceries, and therefore since taking a drug test is not related to bagging groceries, we should make it illegal?)

 

[Admiral]

It serves to register my disgust and contempt when someone (seemingly) makes an argument in support of rape or oppression.

I never seemed to do so at all. And your defition of both needs some elucidation.

By the way, I have evidence that chuches can discriminate based on religion:

http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2006/06/ministerial_exc_2.html

Wouldn't it kind of surprise you, though, if someone sued a church for discrimination based on religion for not hiring a non-Christian?

 

[Lonewulf]

Wouldn't it kind of surprise you, though, if someone sued a church for discrimination based on religion for not hiring a non-Christian?

Wouldn't surprise me in the bit, knowing how sue-happy people in America can be.

 

[Tony]

The only issue that was relevant to the whole derail about sex and employment was whether sex as a job requirement THAT IS EXPLICITLY STATED IN A CONTRACT is legal.

Why is that relevant? You brought that up, not me.

Remember, you were making the analogy from drug testing. I didn't see what the real world application was of discussing employment for sex in a contract as part of a job was, but I followed the analogy and said that if it was agreed upon previously in the contract, it was legal.

I never said it was part of a contract. A contractual agreement was never part of my analogy dude.

At that point, you ignored what I said (that it would have to be previously agreed upon in the contract) and completely misrepresented my point.

I think there was a miscomunication on both our parts.

What you were arguing against (demanding sex without the prior arrangement I discussed) was a strawman.

No, it wasn't That was my analogy to begin with.

Now I see what your point is. OK, so then how do you distinguish the two?

What do you mean? If peeing in a cup to find out if someone did drugs is necessary to checking out groceries, than it is. There is no distinction to be made, it is either part of the job or it isn't. In this case, it fundamentally isn't.

You're saying the judicial system should define the purpose of the job, then eliminate anything in the contract that is not aimed towards the purpose of the job?

(That is, the purpose of a job is bagging groceries, and therefore since taking a drug test is not related to bagging groceries, we should make it illegal?)

If the judicial system is what it takes to keep companies from abusing, exploiting, raping, terrorizing, or oppressing their employees, then so be it.

 

[Tony]

I never seemed to do so at all. And your defition of both needs some elucidation.

You did to me.

By the way, I have evidence that chuches can discriminate based on religion:

http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2006/06/ministerial_exc_2.html

Wouldn't it kind of surprise you, though, if someone sued a church for discrimination based on religion for not hiring a non-Christian?

Ok. I see where exceptions can be made for churches and other religious groups. It's not the typical employment paradigm.

 

[Admiral]

Why is that relevant? You brought that up, not me.


I never said it was part of a contract. A contractual agreement was never part of my analogy dude.

If a contractual agreement wasn't part of your analogy, than it was a false analogy (since the point I was making about drug tests stated that companies should be able to give their employees drug tests if it was in their contracts).

I think there was a miscomunication on both our parts.

Agreed.

No, it wasn't That was my analogy to begin with.

As I said above, it is therefore unrelated to my point about drug tests (that if employees agree when they sign up for a job to be subjected to drug testing, and put it in the contract, the employer should be able to test them).

What do you mean? If peeing in a cup is necessary to checking out groceries, than it is. There is no distinction to be made, it is either part of the job or it isn't. In this, it fundamentally isn't.

If the judicial system is what it takes to keep companies from abusing, exploiting, raping, terrorizing, or oppressing their employees, then so be it.

Interesting point. Don't agree, but interesting.

The problem is that you're looking at this job in a vacuum. Your logic goes:

The employee feeds his family by working at that place, therefore he is forced to work there. Since he is forced to work there, you can't take away any of his rights.

The problem is that he ISN'T forced to work there. He can work at other places. And since you're taking a consequentialist view of the issue, I'll note that if any company had unfair practices that its employees didn't like, a competing company would quickly arise that DIDN'T have those unfair practices and take all the employees away from the unfair company (after all, people would rather work at a fair company than an unfair company).

It actually balances out that when a company performs random drug testing, their salaries would have to rise correspondingly to stay competitive. How much will they raise by? It corresponds to the amount the workers value their right not to be drug-tested (if workers care a lot, then salaries will need to rise by a lot in order to be able to keep people from quitting. If workers don't care about their right to be drug tested, then the employer doesn't need to raise salaries). In other words, yes, workers are selling their right not to be tested for drugs.

(I know, I noted the benefits of the free market. You have a choice between arguing against my point intelligently, or just falling back on "THAT'S DOGMA" without actually making a point.)

 

[Lonewulf]

The problem is that he ISN'T forced to work there. He can work at other places. And since you're taking a consequentialist view of the issue, I'll note that if any company had unfair practices that its employees didn't like, a competing company would quickly arise that DIDN'T have those unfair practices and take all the employees away from the unfair company (after all, people would rather work at a fair company than an unfair company).

But this is flawed when you consider some specialist positions. To put it simply, if I spend my life (practically) learning a very specialized skill, I can't be picky about what kinds of jobs that I pick in my career. I only have a few businesses open to me to work in (or only a few people I can contract to), and the businesses that can supply them may end up using these unfair business practices. So I pick up a new skill (which I may not be able to actually do), or I am forced to take on these unfair practices.

 

[Tony]

If a contractual agreement wasn't part of your analogy, than it was a false analogy (since the point I was making about drug tests stated that companies should be able to give their employees drug tests if it was in their contracts).

My original point was that it should be illegal for companies to give drugs tests because it is a violation of rights. A contract never played a part in that.

As I said above, it is therefore unrelated to my point about drug tests (that if employees agree when they sign up for a job to be subjected to drug testing, and put it in the contract, the employer should be able to test them).

You responded to me when I said drug tests should be illegal.

The problem is that he ISN'T forced to work there. He can work at other places.

This is the old "he can work somewhere else" line. The point isn't that he can work somewhere else, but that he has to work. And if drug testing turns into something that is practiced throughout the market, he has no choice but to submit to his rights being violated. That's unacceptable. I'd rather have protections in place so that doesn't happen. You say that's a violation of the employer's rights. I say he ISN'T being forced to run a business, he can shut it down anytime he wants if he doesn't want to play by the rules (the rules being that he has to respect the rights of his workers).

And since you're taking a consequentialist view of the issue, I'll note that if any company had unfair practices that its employees didn't like, a competing company would quickly arise that DIDN'T have those unfair practices and take all the employees away from the unfair company (after all, people would rather work at a fair company than an unfair company).

This is theory stated as absolute fact. Give me a real world example of when this has happened and if in said example the company changed their drug policy because of competition.

It actually balances out that when a company performs random drug testing, their salaries would have to rise correspondingly to stay competitive. How much will they raise by? It corresponds to the amount the workers value their right not to be drug-tested (if workers care a lot, then salaries will need to rise by a lot in order to be able to keep people from quitting. If workers don't care about their right to be drug tested, then the employer doesn't need to raise salaries). In other words, yes, workers are selling their right not to be tested for drugs.

(I know, I noted the benefits of the free market. You have a choice between arguing against my point intelligently, or just falling back on "THAT'S DOGMA" without actually making a point.)

Ok, I'll argue against it intelligently. Where is your evidence that a company that performs drug tests would have to raise salaries to stay competitive? I want a specific company, and a specific time when this has happened. And what happens when every company adopts the same practice? Any relative competitiveness would become moot because all prospective employees in any given industry would be subject to the same violations. How does the free market protect against that (and no, quitting, getting a new job or changing industries is not an answer anymore than telling the employer to go to another country is an answer).

 

[Admiral]

But this is flawed when you consider some specialist positions. To put it simply, if I spend my life (practically) learning a very specialized skill, I can't be picky about what kinds of jobs that I pick in my career. I only have a few businesses open to me to work in (or only a few people I can contract to), and the businesses that can supply them may end up using these unfair business practices. So I pick up a new skill (which I may not be able to actually do), or I am forced to take on these unfair practices.

First of all, could you give me an example of such a skill?

If you think about it, the most highly specialized skills (and the kind that people spend practically their whole life developing) are ones that are highly in demand. For example, maybe you're a special kind of heart surgeon that's very rare. I doubt that many companies can "oppress" a specialized heart surgeon- if he's unhappy with his job, other hospitals will jump up with six figure salaries instead.

Indeed, it generally seems that the more specialized you get, the more desirable people with those skills are for businesses. Obviously this isn't true over all possible skills- just because a skill is hard to learn doesn't mean it is desirable (I could spend my life memorizing the dialogue to television shows). However, this is true when you consider the set of skills that people learn specifically so they can get a job, and it lines up with the reasons and situations where people learn those skills (there are many colleges meant to teach useful skills in engineering, in medicine, and so on, but not many schools designed to teach students how to memorize television shows).

So can you find me an example of a difficult and specialized skill that someone would learn for the purpose of getting a job, for which there are very few entities wishing to employ you for it?

(And if you CAN find one, that opens the question- why would you possibly bother learning such a skill?)

 

[gnome]

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.

It really is almost a pity that a society organized as you suggest doesn't yet exist to compare to ours. I think you are presenting a false dichotomy here--you suggest that we must choose between a libertarian model that may not meet people's material and liberty needs... and one that fails in the same manner under poorly designed and inefficient government interference.

I refuse to assume that any government involvement will automatically make a problem worse. In fact I've heard that's the real difference between a liberal and a conservative--the conservative believes in minimizing government influence to what is necessary, but the liberal believes that government initiatives can be beneficial if properly executed.

In fact, I think that it does a better job than most people suppose. If there was a libertarian society to compare with, I have always imagined that would become clear. No, I don't believe in unreasonable reliance on the government... in fact I believe people should be left alone to do their own thing, WHERE IT WORKS. But I believe it's false to suppose that collective, majority-decided regulation and initiative are always bad.

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.

You should get with shanek, I believe he's currently arguing that poverty is getting worse, and it's because for the past few decades there's been too much government interference.

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

Yes, if you believe overdependency and inefficiency are the only possible results of trying to solve something with a legislature.

 

[Tony]

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.

The expansion of capitalism is the result of something the government had 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.

The free market had nothing to do with those advances. They are the result of capitalism, technological progress and good governance.

 

[Lonewulf]

In fact, I think that it does a better job than most people suppose. If there was a libertarian society to compare with, I have always imagined that would become clear. No, I don't believe in unreasonable reliance on the government... in fact I believe people should be left alone to do their own thing, WHERE IT WORKS. But I believe it's false to suppose that collective, majority-decided regulation and initiative are always bad.

I agree with this statement. There are times where government regulations can be beneficial, and not all are bad.

But I think that one major concern is a fear that, once you make a law (even if it was necessary and beneficial at one point in time -- or at least perceived as such), it's harder to revoke it.

 

[wolfgirl]

That's the same with a majority of jobs (pee tests are practically a universal requirement). Are you trying to argue that this testing is inappropriate and needs to be stopped?

I think this is an erroneous statement. I have never ever had to take a pee test to get a job.
Nor will I. I'm currently looking for a new job, and when I see on a job description that a drug test is required, I don't even bother applying. Not because I'm afraid I won't pass (well, not just because of that...). But because I won't work for a company that thinks they own me on my free time. As long as I don't come into work high, and I never have, it is absolutely, positively, 100% none of their business what I do at home. If (theoretically) I want to spend my whole weekend high and smoke a joint every night when I get home, it's none of their business. As long as I come to work straight and ready to work, it has nothing to do with them.

Do they check to see if someone spends their every spare minute off work drunk? If not, then get off my (theoretical) back!

 

[gnome]

I agree with this statement. There are times where government regulations can be beneficial, and not all are bad.

But I think that one major concern is a fear that, once you make a law (even if it was necessary and beneficial at one point in time -- or at least perceived as such), it's harder to revoke it.

That's a very good point. It's why I like sunset provisions.

 

[Belz...]

I did in post #111. I was responding to Baron's post, which is the one you were agreeing with in post #110.

If I misunderstood you, let me know.

Sorry, I meant post #108. I hadn't realised I had made one after that. The last part, particularily:

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 ?

I want to know how much coercion is used before you consider that consent is no longer given. That might help clear up the matter entirely.