[ Log In ] [ Register ]
"If I had my own country..."
On 3/5/2012 at 9:15:29 PM, Compy01 started the thread:
-Legalise prostitution, but only in certain zones within city centres
-Legalise gay marriage, or gay unions
-Legalise ALL drugs (with exceptions depending on personal quantity)
-Promote anti-drug use and awareness through the NHS (Yeah, I'd have a NHS)
-Take away tax exemptions/benefits from religious buildings and grounds
-Extend the leaving age of school to 18
-Make university free of charge (but have loans available for those wanting to move to other towns)
They seem like no-brainers for me. Imagine all of the money the country could get from taxation of drugs. In counties such as Japan and Portugal, where laws on drugs have been relaxed, deaths and abusage have all fallen. Not to mention if people decided they still wanted to take such drugs, the manufacturing companies would provide them with relatively safe marketed brands; instead of all that dodgy stuff you'd get in a dark alley way.
Also, prostitution and homosexuality are never going to go away. So we might as well just stop arguing about it, accept it, and let these people get on with their lives in a satisfactory way.
So, DansJP3ers, what would YOU do with your countries?
Msg #1: On 3/5/2012 at 10:15:53 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Why would you only make prostitution legal in certain areas and then legalize all drugs? There's literally no reason for prostitution to be illegal anywhere.
Msg #2: On 3/5/2012 at 10:23:16 PM, Narrator replied, saying:
that sounds like Sweeden.
It's true, legalizing drugs would end much of the violence associated with the drug trade. There would also be a way to make sure to minimize the harm of the drugs, such as addiction. People who want to do drugs will, its better to have them in a safe environment where they don't have to worry about being arrested, don't have to deal with drug dealers, can start going off the drugs if they wish, with minimal side effects, etc.
I'd live in your country.
Ostro, there is a very good reason for prostitution to be illegal some places. Like under water, or in space. people could die.
Msg #3: On 3/5/2012 at 10:41:58 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
-Keep prostitution and drugs illegal.
-Open a creation museum.
-Keep government out of education, except as necessary to set basic regulations and standards.
-Keep healthcare private and the government out of it.
-Institute a flat tax.
-Eliminate welfare and entitlements, but incentivize private charity.
Msg #4: On 3/6/2012 at 5:37:50 AM, Compy01 replied to Msg #1, saying:
Ostro, I'm kind of following the Czech Republic system. Have you ever been there? I went on a stag weekend once and lemme tell ya - in the city centres, there are prostitutes EVERYWHERE. Like, to the point were you see a girl who looks like she's got a bus to catch, and you catch her eye and she shouts 'sex?'
I think everyone would appreciate it if prostitution was only legal in certain city zones so they aren't in your face everywhere and you can go clubbing in other parts and have a decent (normal?) night out.
And yeah I suppose it does sound like Sweden, or the Netherlands. Those countries really have their thinking caps on and put ours to shame.
Msg #5: On 3/6/2012 at 9:11:38 AM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #4, saying:
- Can't argue with some form of legalisation (albeit heavily regulated) of most illicit substances. Ditto to prostitution. Decades of shitty prohibiton policy has totally failed. Time for a rethink.
- Can't agree with free university education. Why should the taxpayer subsidise education through into your twenties? Surely the longterm individual benefit of taking an undergrad degree is worthy of the initial financial burden. I think the current loan system in the UK is pretty good, though I'd recommend a further rolling out of scholarship programmes to help get more lower-income families into higher education.
- I love the NHS. We Brits remain incredibly proud of it. It would remain in place in Evilgrinchopia.
Msg #6: On 3/6/2012 at 12:18:52 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I think everyone would appreciate it if prostitution was only legal in certain city zones so they aren't in your face everywhere and you can go clubbing in other parts and have a decent (normal?) night out.
Fuck prudes who want a "decent" night out. You can't just create zoning laws for every kind of perfectly harmless behavior certain people don't want to be exposed to. You might as well extend the same logic to bars, second hand smoke, street performers, sleeveless shirts, fast food stands, and any other legal activity that some people might find gross or offensive.
Prostitution should be legal everywhere, period. It's not even a matter of distributing dangerous substances, like alcohol and tobacco, that have to be taxed and controlled to prevent contamination, but everyone would flip their lids if somebody tried to make bars and tobacconists illegal except for only small specific areas in cities. Legal prostitution is a sexual rights issue, and it needs to be absolute for consenting adults.
For the sake of some people who don't want hookers "in their face" unless they want to go to the red light district, you'd basically make it so that any woman who wanted to be a prostitute but wanted to work outside the arbitrary red light district would be a criminal. That's hypocritical bullshit.
Msg #7: On 3/6/2012 at 12:47:38 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #6, saying:
Could we see eye to eye on legalised brothels then? And have individual prostitution remain illegal? I don't see what the big problem is. If you want a brass, just go to the zones. It seems to be working fine in the Czech Republic.
We have all sorts of zones in the UK. I think you can drink openly in the streets in London, but you can't anywhere else. As far as I'm aware, people aren't outraged.
Maybe, to encourage more debate, we should pretend we are all different parties in our own fictional country, debating our points in congress. What actions would you guys take in the face of the energy crisis, or global warming? Should there be a death penalty for cold blooded murderers?
EDIT: Grinch you have a good point on the university fees. If we were two MPs, I think we would have no problem finding a compromise if we discussed it together!
EDIT PART 2: I think the reason I'd zone prostituiton and not like... fast food shops (or whatever) is because its legalisation would still a touchy subject for some people. If no one had a problem I probably wouldn't have the zones. But I imagine most people would want to see it "controlled".
Msg #8: On 3/6/2012 at 1:04:39 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #7, saying:
The prostitution laws in the Czech Republic aren't working at all. It isn't clearly recognized as legal, isn't regulated, and the country is flooded with sex slaves.
The problem with the idea of prostitution zones is that it still treats prostitution as a vice that deals in a semi-illicit commodity that should be controlled. Pussy is not a substance and women shouldn't have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to do whatever they want with it. Vice is a religious concept that has no place in government. Brothels, being businesses that are tied to a physical building, should be treated no differently than any other.
Your second edit kills me: your whole original post hinges on the idea that you're the absolute dictator of your own private country, but you're apparently making compromises to appease the public when it comes to certain "touchy subjects."
Like I said before, fuck prudes.
Msg #9: On 3/6/2012 at 1:51:20 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
So I'm not just criticizing other people, here's a list of things I'd do if I were the absolute dictator of some country (ignoring, obviously, how this whole idea circumvents the democratic process). I'm assuming outlawing things like slavery, torture, murder, etc. go without saying, so I'm going to pretend that I'm inheriting the U.S. as is to avoid having to draft a constitution from scratch.
- Grant total rights for sex and marriage to all consenting adults. This covers gay marriage, prostitution, polygamy, and incest, among others.
- Legalize the possession and use of all drugs. This doesn't mean repealing controlled substance laws, but is, rather, a recognition of an individual's right to put whatever substances they want into their own body.
- Legalize the growth, sale, and distribution of marijuana (this would obviously involve a lot of complex economic infrastructure I can't really outline).
- Ban the death penalty.
- Give full citizenship rights to all people 18 years old. This includes voting, alcohol consumption, and anything else that doesn't require aptitude tests (i.e. driving)
- Grant full abortion and contraceptive rights in all instances where the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus cannot survive outside the mother's body (this is obviously medically complicated because there's no absolute cut-off point for something like that, but, again, I assume part of this whole idea is that we're not going into excruciating detail about everything)
- Legalize euthanasia for people who are physically unable to commit suicide due to illness or disability. This would not require doctors to perform euthanasia if they believed it violated the Hippocratic oath.
- Grant personhood to great apes, which includes the rights to due process and the avoidance of torture. This is not citizenship, which is what humans have.
- Ban military conscription.
- Remove tax exempt status from all religious organizations that are not incorporated as non-profit companies.
- Repeal all blue laws.
- Change the maximum amount of money available through federally subsidized student loans to be determined based on percentages rather than a fixed cap.
- Require judges to wear normal human clothing when in court instead of archaic robes.
Msg #10: On 3/6/2012 at 4:18:54 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #9, saying:
- Require judges to wear normal human clothing when in court instead of archaic robes.
Literally in love with this.
Msg #11: On 3/6/2012 at 4:35:45 PM, Narrator replied, saying:
what about playground prostitutes?
Msg #12: On 3/6/2012 at 4:37:42 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #11, saying:
I don't even know what that means.
Msg #13: On 3/6/2012 at 9:02:38 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #12, saying:
Then you, sir, are missing out.
On a serious note though, Ostro, what would your alternative to the death penalty be if any?
Msg #14: On 3/6/2012 at 9:57:52 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #13, saying:
Umm, imprisonment? I don't know what answer other than that would make sense.
Msg #15: On 3/6/2012 at 10:17:56 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #14, saying:
A life sentence in prison isn't that much better than a death sentence, when you really think about it. Either way, you are taking their life. The only difference is one way, you are forcing them to live the remainder of their lives secluded and locked away in misery while the taxpayer is forced to support them, while the other ends their life immediately.
Msg #16: On 3/6/2012 at 10:25:44 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #15, saying:
There are a lot of things wrong with that logic, but the two I'll point out right away are that you're assuming that (a) nobody given a life sentence is wrongfully convicted, and (b) life spent in prison is as good as death. I honestly find any discussion of "forcing" taxpayers to support prisoners utterly repugnant because it's dealing with human life only in terms of the money needed to maintain it.
Msg #17: On 3/7/2012 at 12:19:45 AM, Narrator replied, saying:
Life imprisonment serves no purpose. Furthers no goals. Helps no one. The justice system as a whole is incredibly flawed. The criteria for conviction, unqualified people decide if a person is guilty based on persuasive arguments filled with fallacy. Once in prison, nothing is done to better behavior or improve anything. Prison life breeds criminality. People who are convicted should not simply waste away while taxpayers pay for them to learn how to commit more crimes. An emphasis on rehabilitation is needed, that plus actually doing something. Give prisoners jobs to do that use their skills in order to do something useful. Too much emphasis is put on the emotional idea of punishment. Satisfying but accomplishes nothing in most cases.
With cases of violent crime such as murder, rape etc. we first need a much better system of conviction to greatly minimize this. Secondly, simply keeping them in prison helps no one but your conscience. It's a death sentence without the guilt. Everyone deserves the chance to live. Once someone has revoked that chance for another, he or she no longer has any place living, unless he or she is doing something valuable. Wasting away in prison is not valuable. helps no one. However, I don't think that they should be executed. Though I have no real moral issue with it. In fact, to not do so, if necessary, to keep ones own conscience clear, is immoral. But it isn't necessary. What should be done is they should be helping people in some way or another. Forced to contribute to society. If they have valuable skills, put them to use. Under guard of course. simply imprisoning for life and not eliminating them them does two things. Keeps the conscience clear, and satisfies an emotional need for punishment. Both are useless.
Msg #18: On 3/7/2012 at 12:43:28 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
I strongly support the death penalty as a means of justice. It should ideally be used sparingly, and only in cases in which you are sure of guilt well, WELL beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt; but there are simply some crimes so heinous that justice demands the death of the perpetrator. I have no idea how people can be against this.
Also, I find the idea of legalizing prostitution for women's rights to be rather humorous, but the idea of disrobing (so to speak) judges puzzling. Ostro, if you elaborate on nothing else, please explain this last point to me, and why you feel it deserving of executive (or in this case, dictatorial) attention.
Msg #19: On 3/7/2012 at 1:05:55 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #18, saying:
I can't tell how serious the second half of your post is, but I don't see what is humorous about the women's rights issues behind legalizing prostitution. Discussions about regulation, taxation, brothel licensing, etc. are just so much hot air compared to the core issue, which is that governments tell people that they don't have the right to determine the conditions under which they have consensual sex.
As for judge's robes, it was obviously a joke response, but as far as I understand it, judicial robes are kept out of some strange notion of preserving the dignity of the court. I think it does the opposite, especially in the UK where, correct me if I'm wrong, they still wear those goofy wigs.
Msg #20: On 3/7/2012 at 2:11:02 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #19, saying:
I just don't see what would be helped, fundamental rights-wise, by legalizing prostitution. You could make arguments that it could cut down on human trafficking and exploitation, but I don't feel like my rights are being trampled upon in the least because I can't be a male prostitute or buy hookers for an evening. I don't think prostitution is something a society should accept or endorse.
Msg #21: On 3/7/2012 at 3:15:37 AM, Narrator replied, saying:
if some people wanna make money for providing recreational services I don't see the problem.
Msg #22: On 3/7/2012 at 1:16:19 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I don't think prostitution is something a society should accept or endorse.
Why not? The only arguments against prostitution, in and of itself (rather than the system of exploitation that builds up around it under certain circumstances), are moral or religious, and those kinds of things have no place in secular law. Besides, something being legal doesn't mean that it has to be culturally accepted, and just because something maybe ought to remain a bit taboo or sleazy absolutely does not mean that it should be outlawed. This is even ignoring the obvious fact that our society already accepts prostitution as an inescapable reality, regardless of our personal moral feelings about it.
Just because you don't feel like rights are being trampled doesn't mean that they aren't. It has nothing to do with the practical outcomes of legalizing prostitution; it has everything to do with governments trying to police what consenting adults do with their own bodies.
I try to empathize with everyone who disagrees with me politically, but this is something that I think has absolutely no gray area. If you subscribe to the basic idea that the purpose of government is to protect individual liberty rather than enforce moral codes onto a population, then you must accept that prostitution is a private affair between consenting adult citizens that the government has no business getting involved with whatsoever. I doubt most people who want to keep prostitution illegal would also want to re-illegalize homosexuality and miscegenation, but they are all just private sexual activities.
Msg #23: On 3/7/2012 at 2:44:58 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #20, saying:
but I don't feel like my rights are being trampled upon in the least
of course your rights aren't being trampled on. lol. The government has no interest in what men do with their penises, for the most part. They seem overly interested in what women do with their vaginas.
Msg #24: On 3/7/2012 at 2:57:00 PM, Narrator replied, saying:
so how about that death penalty thing
Msg #25: On 3/7/2012 at 7:32:19 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #24, saying:
What about it?
Msg #26: On 3/7/2012 at 8:01:37 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #25, saying:
Ostro would you live in my country? All you DansJP3ers get automatic citizenship. I'll give you forty acres of lush, fertile land with a little brook running through it. As long as you try not to laugh at my compromises, I shall not be seen as a weak dictator! Just a fair one :)
Msg #27: On 3/7/2012 at 8:10:36 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #26, saying:
It would depend on the quality of the local produce and how good my internet access was.
Msg #28: On 3/8/2012 at 12:39:07 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #23, saying:
Pretty sure the issue affects me just as much; as I said, I can be a male prostitute, so the issue affects me every bit as much as women. And don't play this whole, "you're a man, you have no say" card. Anyway, implying that allowing ANYONE to openly prostitute themselves on the streets somehow empowers them is idiotic and perverse.
Ostro, I would agree with you if it were maybe two adults who knew each other or came into contact through other means, but legalizing prostitution on the streets or in brothels is pointless and serves no purpose. Also, morality does have a place in law, and one doesn't have to be religious to see that.
Msg #29: On 3/8/2012 at 1:01:16 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #28, saying:
The way two people meet is utterly irrelevant. Either consenting adults have the right to have whatever kind of sex they want with each other or they don't, and prostitution is included in this. I doubt you'd say that anonymous sex or one night stands should be outlawed, so why should the inclusion of money (as opposed to liquor, food, etc.) make it an illicit act?
Also, while I do not believe morality has any place in law whatsoever, even accepting that it does, there's nothing immoral about prostitution outside of a religious context. Things that basically everyone agrees are immoral - killing, rape, theft, things like that - are all illegal not because they are immoral, but because they violate other people's rights. This gets a bit hazy on certain issues, but not at all with prostitution, where the only two people involved - the prostitute and the customer - agree to exchange money for sex yet cannot because it's "immoral" according to arbitrary sexual mores. Nobody's rights are being violated, except by the government.
This issue affects you as much as any woman in theory only; you're not actually in an economic situation where you would need to be a prostitute, nor do you have any desire to be one. If, on the other hand, you were in a position where prostitution was something you needed to do for money or - imagine this - actually wanted to do because you enjoy it and are good at it. If you were, it would be, as it is for millions of people, a tremendous violation of your sexual and economic rights to make it criminal for you to do so. Your argument reminds me of the people who claim banning gay marriage is fair because nobody can marry the same sex, not just gays, even though those are the only people it would actually effect in real life.
Nobody is claiming that legal prostitution "empowers" people, and even if they were, it would still be totally subsidiary to the issue of individual liberty. Saying that legalizing it "serves no purpose" is, again, ignoring the core issue of rights to privacy (even though it does serve a purpose). I really want to know why you think two adults shouldn't be allowed to agree to have sex in exchange for money in terms of their rights to privacy and sexual freedom.
Msg #30: On 3/8/2012 at 1:51:19 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #29, saying:
This issue affects you as much as any woman in theory only; you're not actually in an economic situation where you would need to be a prostitute, nor do you have any desire to be one
And this is where you lose me. Even accepting this (I don't, as I could make money as a gigolo if I really wanted to), how is it morally justifiable to legalize prostitution so that more women can now sell their bodies just to support themselves? You seem to be under the impression that it is of little more psychological or physical risk than weaving and selling baskets.
At any rate, whether it applies to me as much as women or not is completely irrelevant; it's exactly the same cop-out people often use when they tell me, "you're not gay/black/female so you can't talk about gay marriage/affirmative action/abortion (unless you agree with me)."
If you were, it would be, as it is for millions of people, a tremendous violation of your sexual and economic rights to make it criminal for you to do so.
Yes, millions of girls and women in Asia are just crying out for you to legalize prostitution, since it's been their lifelong dream.
I really want to know why you think two adults shouldn't be allowed to agree to have sex in exchange for money in terms of their rights to privacy and sexual freedom.
In the privacy of their own home, who cares I'm talking about keeping streetwalkers and whorehouses outlawed. I don't see what conceivable benefit to society would come as a result of allowing this. Like I said earlier, maybe if it actually would reduce exploitation I could see it; but allowing the Czechoslovakian situation Compy mentioned earlier is unconscionable.
Msg #31: On 3/8/2012 at 2:09:18 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #30, saying:
In the privacy of their own home, who cares...
That's all we're talking about. Everything beyond the basic act of two people agreeing to have sex in exchange for money is a completely different issue: people soliciting sex on the street falls under ordinances of public behavior (drunkenness, panhandling, etc.); brothels are licensed businesses; sex trafficking is still illegal due to the extortion, violence, kidnapping, child abuse, rape, torture, slavery, and harassment involved; and so on. "Prostitution" is only the initial sex act, but the word carries with it connotations of all these other illegal activities that become associated with it.
What I'm talking about is recognizing the rights of individuals' private sex lives. All this other stuff can be controlled, regulated, or outlawed by other means. Legalizing prostitution won't magically remove the complex systems of exploitation and violence that result from pimping, but it does make it so that the non-exploited prostitutes can't be prosecuted as criminals.
I don't see what conceivable benefit to society would come as a result of allowing this.
When it comes to issues of individual rights, I don't think the net potential gains of society are really relevant; things like that can't easily be gauged, and even something that would be largely detrimental (economically, culturally, whatever) should still be legal if it's something as arbitrary as regulating private sexual behavior. However, as I said before, the main benefit of legalizing prostitution is that it would legitimize the behavior of prostitutes who are not exploited, do not have pimps, and consciously choose or even enjoy what they do.
I fully support having laws banning or limiting street hookers, unlicensed brothels, pimps, and things of that nature, but, again, that's completely separate from the most basic act of prostitution.
Think of it as the difference between babysitting and opening a daycare, or selling your own car and opening a used car lot. For all these kinds of legal, under-the-table economic transactions, we have laws in place to regulate any large-scale version of it to prevent exploitation and other unfair practices. I think this is the kind of approach governments should take towards prostitution, fully legalizing the small-scale, private, "babysitter" prostitution but regulating anything that becomes a total business.
Msg #32: On 3/8/2012 at 12:06:42 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Another thing I'd do as supreme dictator, as long as I could get the numbers to crunch, is eliminate income taxes and replace them with consumption taxes.
I don't know enough about taxes to know if this is something that only sounds good on paper, but I believe in it in principle.
Msg #33: On 3/11/2012 at 3:35:31 PM, fordprefect replied, saying:
I haven't read vast swathes of this thread but Ostro, given your views on what consenting adult citizens should have the freedom to do with their bodies in terms of drugs and prostitution, do you think it's ethically justified to legalise a human organ market where people willing to donate their organs can do so for cash?
Msg #34: On 3/13/2012 at 3:34:03 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #33, saying:
I get that organ donation does technically fall under the issue of individual rights to do what they want with their own bodies, so, yes, in theory, I don't think there's any reason a person shouldn't be able to sell a body part. The problem is that, unlike prostitution, organ donation automatically involves a series of middlemen: surgeons, organ banks, bureaucrats, etc. It's then not a matter of what two consenting adults can agree to do but what large corporate entities, private or state-run, can economically incentivize. There's no way for two private citizens to just trade cash and body parts, so even if you agree that, at the individual level, people have a right to do it, it would only be actually a legal practice if you also made it legal for the government to create large cash-for-organ programs, and I don't think that's ethically justifiable.
Yes, I realize this is potentially hypocritical, but I hope the distinction I'm trying to draw is clear. To make legal prostitution resemble a legal organ market, you would have to make it so that at least a dozen physicians, lawyers, accountants, and notaries were present at every act of prostitution.
Now, if it's a matter of one private citizen who needs an organ donation paying someone else to give their organ to them, rather than an actual organ bank or donor program buying them, that's a different issue, and I think that would be more reasonable to legalize. Again, as I said earlier about prostitution, it's difficult to draw the distinction between small-scale interpersonal conduct and large-scale commercial enterprise, so if some rich guy with a bad liver was posting $10,000,000 to anyone who gives him a new one, I'm not sure if that should be legal or not. My instinct is to say that it should be legal and to err on the side of perhaps too much leniency. However, it would still require finding doctors willing to perform the surgery, and they may object on ethical grounds.
All that said, I know the dangers caused by allowing people to sell their organs, how it creates an environment where poor people sell their parts for quick money to survive even if it shortens their lifespan in the long run. My guess would be that if only person-to-person transactions were allowed - that is, the organ receiver paying the donor, and not the organ clinics buying organs en masse - then this wouldn't be a real issue, but I don't have any evidence to back that up.
Msg #35: On 3/13/2012 at 2:45:24 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #34, saying:
Surely legalisation of drugs also includes the involvement of various government agencies (such as the FSA)?
The only reason I'm asking is that I think most people would be pro legalisation of drugs and prostitution but would find an organ market abhorrent.
if some rich guy with a bad liver was posting $10,000,000 to anyone who gives him a new one, I'm not sure if that should be legal or not. My instinct is to say that it should be legal
All that said, I know the dangers caused by allowing people to sell their organs, how it creates an environment where poor people sell their parts for quick money to survive even if it shortens their lifespan in the long run.
But a principle that would prevent this kind of 'exploitation' of poor people would make it unethical to hire poor people to do incredibly dangerous jobs like mining or fishing, or other jobs that might expose them to pollutants or carcinogens.
Msg #36: On 3/13/2012 at 3:19:04 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Surely legalisation of drugs also includes the involvement of various government agencies
It would, which is why I tried to make it clear earlier that, when it comes to legalizing drugs, I think people have a right to use whatever drugs they want, but as for actually allowing commercially available marijuana, cocaine, etc., there are a lot of other things that would need to be considered that aren't clear cut issues of rights. That's why I didn't say that in my magical totalitarian kingdom I would fully legalize all drugs.
The distinction I was trying to make was one between individuals and one between an individual and corporations, and since I don't think corporations have any rights at all (regardless of what our courts say), those kinds of interactions are much more complicated.
But a principle that would prevent this kind of 'exploitation' of poor people would make it unethical to hire poor people to do incredibly dangerous jobs
I agree, but I don't think something should necessarily be illegal just because it allows unethical practices. I mainly mentioned it because I think a lot of people get hung up on theoretical issues of rights without caring about the practical repercussions of allowing dangerous behavior.
Msg #37: On 3/13/2012 at 8:04:42 PM, Phily replied to Msg #3, saying:
Now that's a country I can get behind!
Msg #38: On 3/13/2012 at 9:16:58 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #37, saying:
How so? You wouldn't be allowed in.
Msg #39: On 3/13/2012 at 11:53:00 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #38, saying:
And that's where we get the joke.
Msg #40: On 2/13/2013 at 10:17:32 PM, Maester replied, saying:
I don't think you grasp the concept of how a nation is run. There's more to a country than just working on a few hot topics.
Msg #41: On 8/1/2015 at 2:26:43 AM, Compy01 replied, saying:
Now I'm thinking I'd just invest heavily in renewable energy, and prohibit all cars except hybrid/electric cars. Encourage manufacturing to stay localized and give more power to councils to regulate it. If any company tries to sue me for violating international trade laws, seize their assets and tell them to fuck off.
I genuinely don't think we'll ever solve the climate change crisis, unless we abolish this corporate socialism we have that is ruining the planet.
Msg #42: On 8/4/2015 at 3:30:30 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #41, saying:
At higher levels, climate change policy (fobs to pacify the public aside) has long shifted to outcome management and damage mitigation. There's literally piss all that can be done because nobody in develop(ing/ed) world is willing to sacrifice short term economic growth to implement the sorts of policies needed to make any real difference. Try telling BRICS to stop the train!
We'll see what happens. I have great faith in the power of tech innovation that runs parallel to big environmental changes taking the punch out of the worst of the damage. We'll be fine.
Msg #43: On 8/4/2015 at 10:31:00 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #42, saying:
That's exactly the kind of talk that will doom us. Waiting on non existent machines to suck the carbon out of the air won't help us. We, the developed world, should lead by example. Instead we have things like fracking destroying the water table and sucking all the investment out of green energy. We're on track to warm the planet by 4 - 6 degrees Celsius, despite the goal being to curb it before it warms by 2.
Msg #44: On 8/5/2015 at 10:05:18 AM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #43, saying:
I don't necessarily disagree, but the decision to do nothing has long since been made. There's not the international consensus or political will to shift things. We're voluntarily riding that self-inflicted warming cycle to the end with all the corresponding damage.