Legalizing Marajuana

[Belz...]

I don't think it's possible to be a skeptic and still hold on to freemarket beliefs.

You mean "freemarket" as in completely free of government interference ?

 

[Mephisto]

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!

I agree with your (theoretical ) position and your (theoretical ) attempt to un-derail the thread back to the OP.

 

[Admiral]

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

It certainly largely due of their protection of property rights- I would never argue that the government shouldn't do that.

Part of the reason (among other factors, of course) that Africa isn't developing as it should is that there is almost no protection of property. (That is, it's useless to start a business if you could lose it at any day to thieves or murderers).

The free market had nothing to do with those advances. They are the result of capitalism

Huh? It's not the free market, it's capitalism?

Capitalism is a system in which the means of production are privately owned and prices are determined in a free market.

The difference is largely semantic. It would be like if you said, "Government control of the economy had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, it was socialism."

Capitalism is property rights + the free market, both things you ridicule me for supporting. But OK, it was caused by capitalism- I agree, and that's something libertarians greatly support. Next?

technological progress

Libertarians greatly support technological progress. (We can discuss govenment involvement/private sector involvement in technology in another thread).

and good governance.

It depends what you mean by this. List the government policies you think spurred the economy over the last few centuries.

Now I'll respond to Belz:

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.

First could I make completely clear that this would have to be agreed upon in advance. If it's not in the contract, it's not legally consenting.

Now, are you talking about prostitution or the "sex + accounting" situation we were talking about earlier?

If you're talking about prostitution (which is far more relevant to politics, the other was a thought experiment), then what right do you have, as a government, to say to a person that she's not giving consent? Whose rights are you protecting?

There's no such thing as a right not to be allowed to do something.

 

[Belz...]

Now, are you talking about prostitution or the "sex + accounting" situation we were talking about earlier?

Both.

If you're talking about prostitution (which is far more relevant to politics, the other was a thought experiment), then what right do you have, as a government, to say to a person that she's not giving consent? Whose rights are you protecting?

Well, that's the catch. Someone can sign a contract under duress. I want to know what you consider the "line" after which someone should step in and protect the person from agreeing to something she shouldn't have to agree to. Just because someone "agrees" to something via contract doesn't mean no force was involved.

 

[Tony]

It certainly largely due of their protection of property rights- I would never argue that the government shouldn't do that.

Part of the reason (among other factors, of course) that Africa isn't developing as it should is that there is almost no protection of property. (That is, it's useless to start a business if you could lose it at any day to thieves or murderers).

Yes.

Huh? It's not the free market, it's capitalism?

Yes.

Capitalism is a system in which the means of production are privately owned and prices are determined in a free market.

No it isn't. The freemarket is anarcho-capitalism.

The difference is largely semantic.

It would be like if you said, "Government control of the economy had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, it was socialism."

I disagree. The vast majority of countries in the world have a capitalist system, none have a free market.

Capitalism is property rights + the free market, both things you ridicule me for supporting.

I'm sorry.

I'm

the one supporting property rights, the right of someone to own their body. You're supporting tyrannical business practices in the guise of property rights. But I agree, capitalism and the free-market are separate.

But OK, it was caused by capitalism- I agree, and that's something libertarians greatly support. Next?

Yes, it was caused by capitalism, not by the freemarket (since a freemarket has never existed).

Libertarians greatly support technological progress.

FYI, I'm a libertarian. I'm just not a free-market dogmatist. I support technological progress regardless of whether it comes about from government, or the private sector.

It depends what you mean by this.

I mean just that. The government got out of the way when it was necessary, and it intervened when it was necessary. I think the level of prosperity and personal freedom enjoyed by us today is a testiment to that.

First could I make completely clear that this would have to be agreed upon in advance. If it's not in the contract, it's not legally consenting.

Why do you keep bringing contracts into this? Contracts are almost never part of a job. I've never signed one when starting a new job. Have you? What percentage of jobs entail the employee signing a contract when they start working?

 

[Admiral]

Oh, OK.

I want to make something VERY clear- I am NOT an anarcho-capitalist, and the "free market" is NOT equivalent to anarcho-capitalism, at least in any definition I've heard. I apologize for being unclear. I am not in favor of a society that is entirely privatized, and I very much support the government enforcing justice.

I do not support an idealized free market any more than gnome supports a controlled economy.

On the other hand, I think that we have different definitions of justice and oppression. I believe people have the right to their own bodies. I believe that people have a right to sell their right to their own bodies. I believe that even if economic conditions "force" someone into something (in the same way they force them into work), you can't hold the employers responsible.

Requiring drug tests isn't an oppressive position, because employers, not the government, should have the right to decide whether drug use is relevant to an employee's performance or not. And just as employers have no right to their employee's bodies, employees have no right to their employer's money. Both should be free to give them up.

The reason I keep bringing up the market isn't that I'm a dogmatist. The reason is this: I strongly support property rights, but I wouldn't if it led to the kinds of situations people describe when they argue against them (people starving on the streets, widespread prostitution, public schools failing...) The good news to me is that markets make society work anyway.

Why do you keep bringing contracts into this? Contracts are almost never part of a job. I've never signed one when starting a new job. Have you? What percentage of jobs entail the employee signing a contract when they start working?

I have a confession: I'm 19 years old and a college student. I've only ever held summer jobs. Anything involving the working world, I'm going to have to defer to older posters. (If there are issues on the forum about Red Bull, video games, and the best ways for 19-year-olds to get beer, you can defer to me).

However, Black's Law Dictionary defines employment as:

A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed

So whether the contract is oral or written, it's still an employment contract, and it still is legally binding (If you hire me, I work for a year, and then you don't pay me, I could sue you).

Now, I WOULD support laws requiring that all employers wishing to perform drug tests must make employment arrangements using written contracts- that is, if an employee didn't sign a written employment contract agreeing to undergo drug tests, their employer can't require it.

By the way, I started a new thread meant to discuss issues of the free market versus government intervention, and where to strike the right balance. Some people here, like Tony, gnome, lonewulf, etc. might be interested.

 

[Belz...]

On the other hand, I think that we have different definitions of justice and oppression. I believe people have the right to their own bodies. I believe that people have a right to sell their right to their own bodies. I believe that even if economic conditions "force" someone into something (in the same way they force them into work), you can't hold the employers responsible.

Perhaps not. However, if the employer detects a certain desperation on the part of the applicant, he could very well add some juicy provisions to the contract to exploit this situation, ala psychics and victims of whatever. By your definition, the employer wouldn't be held responsible for what would clearly be exploitation and coercion. After all, single, poor mothers can't be picky about their jobs.

And just as employers have no right to their employee's bodies, employees have no right to their employer's money. Both should be free to give them up.

That, I agree with. What if the employer decides that beign black isn't the kind of thing he's looking for, though ?

By the way, I started a new thread meant to discuss issues of the free market versus government intervention, and where to strike the right balance. Some people here, like Tony, gnome, lonewulf, etc. might be interested.

Linky ?