Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Jacob
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Please Discuss on Will Wilkinson
From a previous post - “Now that Chad is making a bigger salary, he is at liberty (or, more naturally: free) to travel more often." If this is true than wouldn't it follow that having more take-home pay as a result of lower taxes means that one is more free to travel or to do whatever one pleases? Whether a bigger salary or lower taxes, they both result in the same thing - more money in the pocket. The degree of coerciveness seems to be of some importance. Tapping you with my fist is different than punching you with it.
1 year ago
in If You Own It, You Can Sell It on Will Wilkinson
Aaron,
Thanks for the reply. I hadn't intended my comment to be aimed at endorsing illegalization. I probably agree with most here that government prohibitions on sexual activity are not a good choice. Mostly, I was responding to the way certain activities are justified such as Will's comment - "I don’t think prostitution is nice. I think it is work — often hard, emotionally exhausting work that is usually undesirable when there are other equally well-paying options. But I don’t think this is special, or unusual." A societal order is not only what the government imposes but what society imposes. I am more concerned with the latter.
In addition, I'm not sure how anyone who has had sex can say that it is not intrinsically different than picking lettuce. Sex is by definition an act that requires another person; it is something that joins them together, both physically and emotionally. And this is not like working with a co-worker. Just because someone CAN treat it as such does not mean that it SHOULD be. Experience should make this plainly obvious.
One more anachronism - sex and reproduction. I suppose there is no such relationship when sex has been reduced to a commodity. Child birth must be treated as some sort of accidental byproduct that happens occasionally and interrupts the flow of work, something like a paperjam.
Thanks for the reply. I hadn't intended my comment to be aimed at endorsing illegalization. I probably agree with most here that government prohibitions on sexual activity are not a good choice. Mostly, I was responding to the way certain activities are justified such as Will's comment - "I don’t think prostitution is nice. I think it is work — often hard, emotionally exhausting work that is usually undesirable when there are other equally well-paying options. But I don’t think this is special, or unusual." A societal order is not only what the government imposes but what society imposes. I am more concerned with the latter.
In addition, I'm not sure how anyone who has had sex can say that it is not intrinsically different than picking lettuce. Sex is by definition an act that requires another person; it is something that joins them together, both physically and emotionally. And this is not like working with a co-worker. Just because someone CAN treat it as such does not mean that it SHOULD be. Experience should make this plainly obvious.
One more anachronism - sex and reproduction. I suppose there is no such relationship when sex has been reduced to a commodity. Child birth must be treated as some sort of accidental byproduct that happens occasionally and interrupts the flow of work, something like a paperjam.
1 year ago
in If You Own It, You Can Sell It on Will Wilkinson
I don't think anyone has mentioned sex and its relationship to marriage, but I have a feeling that this is far too anachronistic to even be seriously considered here. Also, it seems that the question of whether something is acceptable or not rests on whether it CAN be done as opposed to whether it SHOULD be done. Are we so afraid of moral paternalism that we are unwilling to make but only the most obvious of moral judgments, such as "murder is wrong?" I fear however that even some may say that murder is wrong only because it infringes on an individual's right to life and not because it attacks the moral order of mankind. Perhaps if he could sell his body to be murdered (the money would go to his family) for the enjoyment of someone who wished to murder, then it would be alright.
