I guess it's because theoretically the government is accountable to its citizens whereas Facebook is accountable to its shareholders, the citizen can exert some action against Washington via the democratic process, they have no action to take against Facebook other than not participating at all.
There's also the question of motive, Facebook exists to make money and there's the fear that the profit motive may outweigh its users privacy. The government can and has defended its actions in the context of keeping people safe.
I'm not defending any actions by Facebook or government, just trying to point out the differences.
What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Isn't the reason for the 2nd amendment to keep expansive government in check, at what point does government become a threat?
What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this.
Because many defenders of the second amendment aren't actually defenders of personal freedom, but are merely defenders of their cultural expressions (one of which is gun ownership).
See also the people who passionately defend the right of two consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but then object if I want to pay someone $2 an hour to clean the bedroom. Or the people who defend the free speech of the New York Times Corp., but not the free speech of Citizens United, Inc.
Most people are merely supporting their tribe and don't actually buy into the principles they appeal to when making arguments.
>See also the people who passionately defend the right of two consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but then object if I want to pay someone $2 an hour to clean the bedroom
While I agree with your general point about tribalism, this particular example is pretty silly -- you have to pretend to take the idiom literally for it to make sense.
Why is the principle of allowing people to engage in private acts that harm no one else "silly"?
I realize that most liberals consider it an anathema, but that's the point. People appeal to the principle in spite of disagreeing with it in basically all cases except gay sex and abortion.
Because that's not what they mean by "the privacy of your own bedroom". That usage very specifically invokes sexual freedom, and not privacy in general. If you want a more general discussion you should make that clear, and not try to play off of the particular words used in a more specific case.
How is paying $2/hr for the cleaning of the room harming no one? It is more complicated than direct and immediate harm, but (if you subscribe to modern economic models) it does indeed result in economic harm.
This argument can easily be extended to people's actions in the bedroom when no money is being exchanged. They can lead to pregnancy, spread of STDs, violence... and yet, I imagine, almost everyone supporting the minimal wage would vehemently oppose regulation of sexual activities by, for example, only allowing married couples to engage in them.
Right? No one here thinks that we should limit single motherhood by banning extramarital sexual relationships? Or the spread of HIV through anti-sodomy laws?
EDIT: OK, maybe I didn't write that clearly but both low wages and sex can lead to negative externalities. Why one should be strictly regulated and the other protected from any regulation?
Because the attempts to regulate sex are not based on some desire to reduce pregnancy and the spread of STDs, but are rather religious control over private life dressed up in friendlier colors.
Nobody has ever seriously attempted legislating away sex.
There are jobs that are illegal because the highest price people are willing to pay for them is lower than the minimum wage. The potential buyers and sellers of those services would not be harmed if they were legal—they would benefit.
This argument isn't going to go anywhere novel. The point is that such policies help some impoverished people make more, but they make other impoverished people make less.
>Why is the principle of allowing people to engage in private acts that harm no one else "silly"
Because paying below minimal wage for other people's work harms the whole of society, and first and foremost the very person that agrees to work for you because he needs the money.
If you weren't allowed to pay as little as you want, then he would have at least got minimum wage, an amount considered somewhat fair by our society.
(The case that you would only offer employment if you could pay less than that, so he gets zero is mostly BS. Even if that was the case, society is better of without employers like you, than having people barely making a living in the jobs you could offer).
That's the point of the principle that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want in their own bedroom: that others may not approve for whatever reason. You believe (perhaps completely validly) that if someone chooses to work for minimum wage they are hurting themselves and possibly "all of society". This is exactly the same argument made by people who don't want people having whatever sexual relations they want in their own bedroom. You will point out that they are wrong and your points are right -- but that's the whole point! If we say "some things are not safe for two consenting adults to do in their own bedroom", then how is your opinion on what's safe any better than theirs? In both circumstances you are interfering with someone's private choices arguing that you are "saving" them from their own ignorance or circumstances. You differ only in the subset of allowable activities -- and thus dont really support the principle of the stance, but instead happen to be ok with a different set of controls. We don't allow people to do whatever they want in their bedroom because its safe, we do so because it is none of our business and we theoretically don't want a society where we need to go ask everyone's permission before doing things with your partner, regardless of what those things may be.
I'm not necessarily arguing for this (extreme) position, but I agree that it is disingenuous to argue that you stand for people's rights to do whatever they want in their bedroom, followed by listing things they can't do because you believe they hurt society. You can certainly have that position, and it is a valid position, but it is a different position.
>That's the point of the principle that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want in their own bedroom: that others may not approve for whatever reason. You believe (perhaps completely validly) that if someone chooses to work for minimum wage they are hurting themselves and possibly "all of society". This is exactly the same argument made by people who don't want people having whatever sexual relations they want in their own bedroom. You will point out that they are wrong and your points are right -- but that's the whole point!
No. The whole point is what is right and what is wrong.
Not if what is right is _consistent_ in situations that is not exactly the same.
The only same thing in those two situations presented is that there are "two adults" present.
In the case of accepting "minimum wage" the one agreeing is not even "consenting" in the same sense.
He is just doing something that he is _forced_ to do by hunger and lack of jobs.
Even if one "needs to have sex", it's not at all the same kind of "need" as needing to eat and feed/shelter your family.
The first is an option and a choice. The other is a necessity, and a leverage you can use of people to let them do degrading things.
From prostituting themselves to selling their kids.
Because paying below minimal wage for other people's work harms the whole of society, and first and foremost the very person that agrees to work for you because he needs the money.
If he were harmed, why would he choose to accept my offer?
Lets consider a different regulation - ugly people can't have sex. This is because sex with an ugly person harms the whole of society, and first and foremost the very person that agrees to ugly sex because he/she can't get anyone better.
If ugly people weren't allowed to have sex, they would at least exercise/clean up/etc to the point of non-ugliness, a level of attractiveness considered somewhat fair by our society.
(The case that some people won't become more attractive, so he/she gets no sex is mostly BS. Even if that was the case, society is better off without ugly sexual partners.)
If he were harmed, why would he choose to accept my offer?
The concept that you are describing is "rationality". If you do some light reading, you will find that reasonable people disagree that any human possesses or can possess it, especially in the case of economics.
If you intend for this to be an argument favoring the regulation of employment, note that it also applies to regulating sexual activities (humans are notoriously irrational about sex).
The concept of "rationality" applies to all reasoning that a human does. It is not constrained to one specific activity or another (sexual or employment or regulation).
Wikipedia>>>The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical use of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage.
>If he were harmed, why would he choose to accept my offer?
Because he has to eat and you give him no other option (except not eating, which is not an option).
You have this concept that he could "shop around", but poor people cannot shop around. For one, those that would work for that kind of money don't have much bargaining power. They get what they can get. And if employers were allowed to pay them below minimum wage, they will do so. All of them (and even if some do not, their vacancies will be filled quickly exactly because of that).
So, either we correct the power imbalance (a man hungry and desperate for work and food and a guy offering work and willing to pay as little as he can) and settle a minimum amount to be paid, or we let those that have the luxury of offering work step on those having the necessity of getting a job to feed themselves.
>Even if that was the case, society is better off without ugly sexual partners.
Yes, and society if better of without poor people. Let's exterminate them. I see where you're coming from. I hope at some point you loose your job and security blanket and are forced to work minimum wage. Maybe throw in some medical bills too. If anything, it will give some perspective.
And if employers were allowed to pay them below minimum wage, they will do so.
This is silliness. Most employers pay well over minimum wage. If they did not do this, no employees would be willing to work for them. This is true in the US as well as in many countries where the minimum wage is so low as to be irrelevant.
Yes, and society if better of without poor people. Let's exterminate them. I see where you're coming from.
Huh? I just applied the exact same reasoning as you to a different field. But I guess it's easier to appeal to godwin than to actually use logic and reason.
>Huh? I just applied the exact same reasoning as you to a different field. But I guess it's easier to appeal to godwin than to actually use logic and reason.
You call "applying the same logic to a _different field_" ...logical?
As if eradicating el-cheapo employers is the same as getting rid of "ugly people"?
That's "logic and reason" to you? For one, the first is merely putting an end to a business practice, whereas the second amounts to racism and/or murder.
Different fields call for different thinking to be applied.
And what you call "logic" are merely "arguments". Only mathematic and predicate logic (both of which are well defined) can be applied the exact same way to different inputs, not mere arguments in a discussion. We might call them "logic" too, casually, but it's not at all the same.
Conversational "logic" is not "one size fits all". For example, what makes sense for pests (they destroy my flowers thus they must be exterminated so my garden is kept nice) doesn't make much sense for pets (even if they destroy the garden just the same).
>This is silliness. Most employers pay well over minimum wage. If they did not do this, no employees would be willing to work for them. This is true in the US as well as in many countries where the minimum wage is so low as to be irrelevant.
In the countries where "it's so low as to be irrelevant" you answered your own question as for why the pay more than minimum wage: because it's bloody irrelevant, so they don't care paying a little above it.
In places where minimum wage is _not_ irrelevant, OTOH, they do care, and they would pay well below it, if they could afford it.
That can be prevented in two ways: if there is a minimum wage law, or if there are enough jobs.
But I'm not talking about either situation -- I'm talking about when employers CAN get away with giving any kind of wage, because of lack of jobs or because some people have some specific issue and nobody would hire them (e.g ex convict).
Notice also how what you say invalidates your own argument. You try to present it as a non issue:
"Most employers pay well over minimum wage. If they did not do this, no employees would be willing to work for them. This is true in the US as well as in many countries where the minimum wage is so low as to be irrelevant"
whereas the whole thread started because you very well _do_ consider it an issue -- and want employers to be able to do so, without minimum wage law regulating against it.
The situation is clear: employers that CAN take advantage of below minimum wage (in the situations that I described) often do.
I think that (or I wonder whether) you've touched upon the difference between personal vs. public freedoms, the latter of which we impose many regulations upon. Many people would object to a sub-minimum-wage job offer, but would be fine to pay friends/family/neighbors (including children) such amounts for odd jobs. Or I might slander someone I don't like within a small group of friends, and nobody would object to that; but the New York Times, which is sold for public consumption, is prohibited from publishing libel or slander.
>See also the people who passionately defend the right of two consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but then object if I want to pay someone $2 an hour to clean the bedroom.
Maybe because the first case is a personal sexual affair, whereas the second is taking advantage of your position as someone with money that can offer employment to have impoverished people in need of a job working for a pittance.
>> What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Isn't the reason for the 2nd amendment to keep expansive government in check
That is the party-line.
However, if you study American history, you'll see that this 2nd amendment propaganda doesn't square up with reality.
The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war - but that was armed rebellion by the state "governments" and it was a war to defend the right to slavery. (yes, I know that some people describe it as the "war of northern aggression")
MLK talked about the long arc of history bending towards justice and that has undoubtedly been true in America. Today, native Americans cannot be massacred or driven into reservations, blacks cannot be enslaved to work in plantations, women have the right to vote and many more rights that were denied to them in previous centuries, gays have the right to not be arrested for being gay, Japanese-Americans have the right to not be arrested solely based on their ethnicity etc.
In all of these cases, freedom has expanded far beyond what America had in previous centuries. However, I think it is safe to assert that the 2nd amendment was absolutely irrelevant (in any positive way) in the expansion of any of these freedoms.
> The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war...
Like many people, you are missing the role that personal firearms play in resisting tyranny. No one is claiming that a firearm can do anything against artillery, tanks, and fighter jets (much less chemical and nuclear weapons). The armed populace obviously cannot hope to mount an offensive coup. The point is that an armed populace cannot be occupied by a tyrannical government. Look at how difficult the occupation of Iraq has proved, and imagine how much more difficult it would be in a country with ten times the population, 20 times the land area, and nearly 30 times the number of small arms.
And the ignorant and fearful keep marching in their parade of bloodlust and violence... while the rest of us keep burying the dead, unfortunate casualties in your paranoid experiment of personal rights and politics. Nothing but hypotheticals to compete with the hard facts seen in studies of other nations, the truth pales in comparison to the nightmare you wish we all lived in.
How about in the United States, where homicides from firearms dropped dramitically after the federal law banning certain assault-weapons in 1994, bottoming out and climbing since the law's repeal in 2004?
Or how about the statistical analysis of gun homicides vs gun ownership in countries with a GDP of over $20k?
But why do I have to prove to you why having guns around is a horrible thing? We could argue to the death over the correlation and causation between guns, crime, money and murder and not make any sense of it.
At the end of the day, you're the one saying that yes, as a society, we should not only allow, but promote these devices whose sole purpose is to spit violence and extinguish life.
Guns were, however, used on a number of occasions against state governments and terrorist groups backed by state governments. The Battle of Hayes Pond (1958) is one notable example.
You should actually read a little history. You'll discover that gun ownership played a significant role in blacks gaining civil rights in the past century - most early gun control efforts were actually an attempt to disarm them.
Are you arguing that the intent behind the second amendment was not to keep the powers of the government in check or that it is no longer relevant in an age where peaceful rebellions have accomplished so much?
>> However, if you study American history, you'll see that this 2nd amendment propaganda doesn't square up with reality.
I love when people trot out the old "read your history" chestnut. I have this compilation saved for just such an occasion:
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])
Seems to me, history and the founders had a pretty good idea what they were up to.
I suspect it's because weakening of the second amendment affects the public in an obvious and visible way while weakening the fourth amendment doesn't affect them immediately and is usually framed as necessary for defending them from outside attackers.
I suppose it's better for someone to defend one important aspect of the Constitution than none of them. An ardent gun-rights advocate who shrugs at this isn't much different from someone who is against unreasonable government surveillance but supports strong gun control measures.
Why do you suppose that special interest groups lobby the federal government, rather than lobbying large corporations? It has nothing to do with accountability to citizens.
There is an attitude common amongst the more radical 2nd amendment supporters: that trying to keep the government in check is a lost cause, and they're merely biding their time until "the sheeple" finally open their eyes and get fed up, at which time they can have their uprising.
Like most views espoused by radicals on any subject, it is a load of crap that left rational thinking behind a long time ago, but it does help explain why you see an inconsistency in behavior.
> I guess it's because theoretically the government is accountable to its citizens whereas Facebook is accountable to its shareholders
This is a common characterization of the difference between business accountability and government accountability, and I think it is deeply flawed.
There are differences between accountability for sure, but to simplify Facebook's accountability to "its shareholders" is just too misleading. Believe it or not, Facebook is also very much accountable to its users. If users leave Facebook, it loses power and money. Facebook, in order to exist, must remain accountable to its users by keeping them happy enough to stay.
To reiterate, I acknowledge that the power structures between governments and businesses are different, but one cannot and should not ignore the fact businesses are accountable to the people too.
That's like saying the chinese military is accountable to the chinese people since the government is full of chinese citizens.
(on second read--I can't tell if you're saying it's "accountable to shareholders" since the single majority shareholder is, indeed, a shareholder -- or -- if you're just agreeing with me. Anyway, it's a fun analogy.)
I agree about the 2nd amendment guys. If they say they care about the 2nd amendment because they want to be able to stop the government if it becomes too oppressive, then the 4th amendment should be the first thing they should defend, because the 1st and 4th amendment are the first things an oppressive US government would try to bypass. So these amendments are the first lines of defense, and they need to fight for them as hard as possible to protect them, if they really want to stop the government from becoming oppressive. But considering gun owners are usually Republicans, and Republicans are also usually the first to suppress the 4th amendment, there is some inconsistency there.
There's also the question of motive, Facebook exists to make money and there's the fear that the profit motive may outweigh its users privacy. The government can and has defended its actions in the context of keeping people safe.
I'm not defending any actions by Facebook or government, just trying to point out the differences.
What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Isn't the reason for the 2nd amendment to keep expansive government in check, at what point does government become a threat?