Comment by Lawtonfogle | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lawtonfogle | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Once a good is produced, the harm to the labor is already done. Banning things "after the fact" is pointless. By the time you've identified a "sweat shop" to "ban the shoes" you can already take appropriate actions against the fact it is a sweat shop, y'know?

Sometimes you only have jurisdiction over the point of sales.

>You punish the sweatshop, not the person in possession of a given good.

If you cannot punish the sweatshop because they are not under your jurisdiction, then the only thing you can do to discourage profit from flowing to the sweatshop is to punish those who benefit from it's product.

>We hold people to legal contracts they failed to consult a lawyer on all the time.

Considering many are too poor to afford a lawyer... I don't see it as a major difference. I actually see the contract law in much of the modern day world as allowing for the exploitation of the lower class and less informed.

>You are an adult. You have to take responsibility and do your own research and/or decide which sources of information you trust.

Once again, why can't we just say 'you are a person, you have the...'? What is magical about being an adult that suddenly makes taking advantage of someones lack of resources and information acceptable (if not admirable)?

>None of the problems you've stated with my position can actually be "solved" in a reasonable manner because the freedom for adults to make stupid choices [due to ignorance or otherwise] is a fundamental right they have [even if you think they shouldn't have it].

What if I think that freedom should happen at 13 instead of 18? Or 23 instead of 18? Or when you can past this comprehensive test instead of 18?

> If you cannot punish the sweatshop because they are not under your jurisdiction, then the only thing you can do to discourage profit from flowing to the sweatshop is to punish those who benefit from it's product.

We are talking about domestic law. Once again, you go from "apples" to "oranges".

The fact you can't stay in the context of domestic law causes me to say f it, honestly.

This whole thread has simply consisted of you talking in circles in an attempt to obfuscate the topic at hand. Instead of refuting points with a counterpoint of your own, you modify the premise of the question and answer that instead.

What is the argument you are attempting to make? Let's start there and see where we can go, yes?

>This whole thread has simply consisted of you talking in circles in an attempt to obfuscate the topic at hand. Instead of refuting points with a counterpoint of your own, you modify the premise of the question and answer that instead.

Except it doesn't, so stop making statements to try to sideline the actual argument.

>What is the argument you are attempting to make?

That people who say they do not support prohibition because it doesn't work are being dishonest about their reasoning because in reality they do support prohibition of some materials/goods/services/items/ect. even when such prohibition doesn't work.

My second and lesser point is that people determine their support of prohibiting something based on both an effectiveness and their subjective moral feelings about the subject being prohibited.

You are aware I reached the same opinion as him and stopped talking to you because you kept reaching for arguments outside the context of domestic prohibition, right?

As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.

>You are aware I reached the same opinion as him and stopped talking to you because you kept reaching for arguments outside the context of domestic prohibition, right?

I actually didn't reply to your other comment because you basically said your arguments fail as soon as goods start crossing borders. Considering that for almost everything having been discussed (goods made by slaves, goods made by abusing non-consenting individuals, and most definitely drugs) involves crossing borders. The original article is even about a substance that is crossing legal borders.

>As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.

It is pretty clear your arguments fail as soon as goods crossing borders were taken into account. As such, your arguments have no place in discussing prohibition in reality except for services that don't cross borders at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com