Many people will say that two consenting adults have the right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom. As soon as the act those adults want to do becomes nonsexual (e.g. an unpaid internship, unlicensed medicine), that principle goes out the window.
Very confusing.
The unpaid internship law serves to give some protections to the little guy.
Btw, I really don't understand why a billionaire (?) can't afford to pay hourly minimum wages to a bunch of kids.
Is it really? Is SM play "an equal partnership" between master and slave?
It's a common belief that one is not the business of the state, but the other one is. My question: what are the exceptions to the "two consenting adults can do as they wish in privacy" rule?
(active) voluntary euthanasia is one, though I think it's legal in a pair of US states (Oregon since '94 and Washington since 2008).
I think that's the problem -- people don't want him to help people if it's not a purely charitable effort, for some reason. If he actually derives material benefit from it, that makes him evil.
I don't get that attitude, but for some reason that seems to be how people view it.
But consider the hypothetical in another industry. Someone gets a shot at an unpaid internship, they do really well, the company they are associated with gives them a recommendation, and immediately after the internship they get an offer for a position in that industry. Or: Someone does not get an internship, it is a competitive industry, the person ends up working an $8 / hr job for the next some odd years until they get an opening in the industry. It would seem the benefit to the unpaid intern could be greater than the benefit to the company.
Of course, there is the scenario where the person becomes an entrepreneur.
Even for programmers, though, open source development doesn't do everything an internship can do. In fact, some people have a really difficult time getting started contributing to an open source project without some experience working closely with other coders to learn something about collaborative workflow and code review (for instance). The exception to that is cases where someone lucks into having a local mentor to help get them over the bar to entry for open source contributions -- knowledge of how to review others' code, figure out how to improve on it, and produce patches for submission to the project.
Maybe you could explain what you mean by "equal"?
That's completely different. The licensing of medical practitioners is not based on any notion of protecting society from deviant behaviour; it is based on the need to protect vulnerable individuals from fraud.
I have no problem with consenting individuals engaging in sex acts or internships, with or without pay -- but I absolutely believe that fraud, in all its forms, should be illegal, since a fraudulent transaction is not one between truly consenting individuals.
Licensing helps, but it can be abused. Unlicensed anything isn't necessarily a bad thing, and, legal and mental affairs notwithstanding, buyers should be able to choose between multiple options.
What difference is there objectively between 'a certified software engineer' and 'a programmer' ?
If they fire these people on day 364 and get new trainees next year - that would be ok?
Sure I don't have a problem with the practice you describe, but I'm pretty sure they would being unable to find workers who care enough or are even productive and losing any good workers to others. The employment market doesn't operate in a vacuum.
Corporations aren't people though and have different rights. They don't enjoy the right to employ people free of charge.
In that case, both parties are natural persons, in complete freedom, entering into an agreement with each-other that is unlikely to have bad consequences for society. There is not need for government regulation.
As soon as the act those adults want to do becomes nonsexual (e.g. an unpaid internship, unlicensed medicine), that principle goes out the window.
Because in those cases, one of the parties is either not a natural person (but a company) or it's a natural person that performs specific actions that have a much larger chance of having bad consequences.
Companies can only exist by the grace of government regulation. They can be extremely powerful and hence the government must protect its citizens against it's own creations. Government regulation is already the case.
The first purpose of the government is to take care of issues we cannot individually handle. Judging who is fit to be a doctor and who isn't is one of them, as much as maintaining a police force is. Government regulation of this is part of its 'reason for being'.
Hardly. Individuals can very easily manage a police force. Look at Blackwater.
The reason you might want the State involved in either of these is because you want it to have a monopoly. I really don't want competing police forces and armies. Having competing organizations that evaluated and licensed doctors might be a good thing.
I also don't see any connection between the two schools of thought, other than them both being things you've read recently. At least I've never seen a "CIVIL UNIONS ARE A CIVIL RIGHT, AND NO UNPAID INTERNSHIPS" sign.
Employment shapes society. Employment pays taxes, puts rooves over people's heads, causes stress and worry (what if I lose my job!?), informs societal choices regarding basic social services (tied to company healthcare). Finally, employment is a public act because it is a market -- if Joe works for free, that creates market pressure for Tina to work for free, too.
With the exception of (almost entirely illegal) sex trade...
1. Sex does not house people
2. Sex does not employ people
3. Joe doing it up the butt does not affect your ability to find a partner
4. Tina engaging in fellatio with her husband does not affect your ability to find a partner
5. Couples not having babies does not affect other couples' ability to have babies
6. None of this affects healthcare or taxes
It's simple: it's not a market.
That's why employment is a public act.
Moreover, spouses/sex partners and offspring are not half as fungible as employees. If Joe and Sue (or Bob and Brad) have a child, don't have a child, or adopt a child, that doesn't affect your ability to have a child or not, as you wish.
Meanwhile, employing people for nothing does have an affect on the job market.
We're talking about "private acts between consenting adults." Birth control is another kettle of fish entirely.
You're taking the employment/sex "between two consenting adults" line and then adding an extreme element, like, for example, everybody on earth is required to work 40 hours a week.
> We're talking about "private acts between consenting adults." Birth control is another kettle of fish entirely.
WTF?
The OP was arguing that people are hypocrits, if they say "two consenting adults can do whatever they want" (behind closed doors) for sex, and then turns around and wants worker protection laws.
Nobody in this comment thread is actually talking about sex. It's all about the metaphorical comparison, which IMO, breaks down pretty quickly.
In the metaphor -- two sex vs unpaid internships -- there is no corollary for birth control. It is a red herring.
Get it?
Women choosing to have children out of wedlock has a huge effect on everyone. Much more than some guy offering unpaid internships.
Because a disease preys on a population does not mean that population created the disease, whether or not it becomes an epidemic.
I'm pretty sure that AIDS didn't spring fully formed out of the abyss, thanks to anal sex.
And then, if you want to get picky, the deliberate ignoring of the health issues by public authorities escalated the epidemic.
I see what you're saying, but I don't agree that I misrepresented it at all.
The manner in which people have sex, unless we're talking dry humping and such, has nothing to do with creating epidemics.
If some women have sex on the 1'st date, it will be hard for women who want to hold out until marriage to compete.
Similarly, if Tina and Joan and Kellie engage in fellatio, Jennie might have trouble keeping a boyfriend if she does not. There is your "race to the bottom".
Furthermore, sex can both cause pregnancy and spread disease, and therefore does affect healthcare.
1. Sexual competition is not nearly as simple as job competition, for several reasons.
2. Many people have multiple sex partners, but a single job is staffed by a single person.
3. Sex isn't required to eat or keep a roof over your head.
4. Sex isn't taxed.
5. Sex doesn't go on your resume.
6. Sex is between two people (or so), not a person and a corporate entity.
7. People don't involve lawyers or accountants before having sex.
8. Trading sex for money is, in almost all parts of the US, illegal.
9. Individual's choices leading to STDs or pregnancy don't compare, on a magnitude level, with governmental regulation changes that affect employment because the majority of Americans who have health insurance are only covered thru their employers
And, as another commenter wrote, if there is a huge imbalance of power between two sexual partners, that is also often illegal.
There is a commonly stated principle, "two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom." This principle clearly has an unstated limiting clause: "two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in privacy, except when ___").
I'm asking what to replace the "___" with.
[edit: also curious why I'm being downmodded for asking.]
I think you have an oversimplified view of the employment market.
> Many people have multiple sex partners, but a single job is staffed by a single person.
Employers often have many, many employees -- sometimes more employees at one time than anyone has sex partners in a decade.
> Sex isn't required to eat or keep a roof over your head.
. . . and working at IBM probably won't give you herpes.
> Sex isn't taxed.
Thank goodness.
> Sex doesn't go on your resume.
Not your professional employment resume, anyway -- unless you have sex professionally (as in the case of porn stars or Las Vegas prostitutes).
> Sex is between two people (or so), not a person and a corporate entity.
. . . and one doesn't normally fill out an application to get hired by one's spouse. So what?
> People don't involve lawyers or accountants before having sex.
. . . except sometimes. Have you heard of "white weddings" and "prenuptial agreements"?
> Trading sex for money is, in almost all parts of the US, illegal.
The porn industry is huge in the US. There's definitely some sex going on, there.
> Individual's choices leading to STDs or pregnancy don't compare, on a magnitude level, with governmental regulation changes that affect employment because the majority of Americans who have health insurance are only covered thru their employers
On the other hand, governmental regulation changes meant to address STDs do at least match that "magnitude".