Disclosure and sex

[Admiral Yi]

I have no reasonable response to your last post on clinging Shelf.  Nolo contendere.

[Jacob]

Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers.  Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.

How many months of paid maternity leave do you provide your cleaning lady?

I think that's a pretty weak counter-argument, Yi. It's up there with the "well, if Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes why doesn't HE just voluntarily give all his money to the government".

The issue isn't that individuals should choose (or not) to be extra charitable; the issue is how society is structured. Whether a cleaning lady should get 6 months' maternity leave or not should not be down to whether she happens to have a particularly nice or nasty employer. Whether Seedy can, individually, afford to pay for someone whose services he contracts to have 6 months maternity leave is neither here nor there when it comes to determining the legislative and regulatory framework that governs maternity leave.

If you want to argue that we can't (or shouldn't) afford to provide maternity leave that's one thing, but the argument that individuals should attempt to implement government programs unilaterally is pretty weak.

[dps]

Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers.  Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.

How many months of paid maternity leave do you provide your cleaning lady?

I think that's a pretty weak counter-argument, Yi. It's up there with the "well, if Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes why doesn't HE just voluntarily give all his money to the government".

The issue isn't that individuals should choose (or not) to be extra charitable; the issue is how society is structured. Whether a cleaning lady should get 6 months' maternity leave or not should not be down to whether she happens to have a particularly nice or nasty employer. Whether Seedy can, individually, afford to pay for someone whose services he contracts to have 6 months maternity leave is neither here nor there when it comes to determining the legislative and regulatory framework that governs maternity leave.

If you want to argue that we can't (or shouldn't) afford to provide maternity leave that's one thing, but the argument that individuals should attempt to implement government programs unilaterally is pretty weak.

I think the argument is that employment benefits ought to be something provided by individual employers at their discretion, not government programs in the first place.

[Admiral Yi]

I think that's a pretty weak counter-argument, Yi. It's up there with the "well, if Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes why doesn't HE just voluntarily give all his money to the government".

The issue isn't that individuals should choose (or not) to be extra charitable; the issue is how society is structured. Whether a cleaning lady should get 6 months' maternity leave or not should not be down to whether she happens to have a particularly nice or nasty employer. Whether Seedy can, individually, afford to pay for someone whose services he contracts to have 6 months maternity leave is neither here nor there when it comes to determining the legislative and regulatory framework that governs maternity leave.

If you want to argue that we can't (or shouldn't) afford to provide maternity leave that's one thing, but the argument that individuals should attempt to implement government programs unilaterally is pretty weak.

I think this is a pretty weak rebuttal.

Seedy has a choice, as do all employers.  He can pay what the market is bearing for house cleaning, in which case he has to judge himself as soulless and Godless.  Or he can do the right thing, the socially just thing and pay a lot more.

Why did organizers of the Underground Railroad not wait for slavery to be outlawed?  Because they believed that one slave being set free was still a net good even if millions of others were not.  Just like the life of Seedy's cleaning lady would improve.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the argument is that employment benefits ought to be something provided by individual employers at their discretion, not government programs in the first place.

No, Yakie had it right.  I'm making a consistency argument.  If Seedy judges companies negatively for their actions, he should do differently.

[Jacob]

I think this is a pretty weak rebuttal.

Seedy has a choice, as do all employers.  He can pay what the market is bearing for house cleaning, in which case he has to judge himself as soulless and Godless.  Or he can do the right thing, the socially just thing and pay a lot more.

Why did organizers of the Underground Railroad not wait for slavery to be outlawed?  Because they believed that one slave being set free was still a net good even if millions of others were not.  Just like the life of Seedy's cleaning lady would improve.

Nonetheless, the solution to slavery was not the Underground Railroad. Admirable as it was, it was a patchwork ad-hoc solution.  The solution to the problem of slavery was abolishing the practice through legislation and reinforcing that abolition through concerted government action.

[Admiral Yi]

Nonetheless, the solution to slavery was not the Underground Railroad. Admirable as it was, it was a patchwork ad-hoc solution.  The solution to the problem of slavery was abolishing the practice through legislation and reinforcing that abolition through concerted government action.

And until that solution was achieved the organizers of the Underground Railroad chose to try and improve the lives of individuals.  They certainly never said "oh, if only the government were to force me to shelter runaway slaves the world would be so much better, but as things stand I'm helpless."  Social justice is ostensibly about improving people's lives.  If you improve one person's life that's a net increase in social justice.

Should individal states (or provinces) not pass social justice legislation because that's not a comprehensive solution?  Should countries not do so because there are still people outside their borders who don't benefit from this "solution?"

[PDH]

God bless Languish sex-threads.

[mongers]

God bless Languish sex-threads.

We prefer arguing the toss to, well, tossing ? 

[Jacob]

And until that solution was achieved the organizers of the Underground Railroad chose to try and improve the lives of individuals.  They certainly never said "oh, if only the government were to force me to shelter runaway slaves the world would be so much better, but as things stand I'm helpless."  Social justice is ostensibly about improving people's lives.  If you improve one person's life that's a net increase in social justice.

Of course individuals should do what they think is right, to the best of their ability, but that is separate from how society should be organized.

Your argument suggests that abolitionists who did not personally help slaves escape prior to nationwide abolition where hypocrites whose argument against slavery should be dismissed. I don't think that flies. It's a cheap rhetorical trick, no more.

Should individal states (or provinces) not pass social justice legislation because that's not a comprehensive solution?  Should countries not do so because there are still people outside their borders who don't benefit from this "solution?"

No, of course not. That's orders of magnitude different from suggesting that individuals attempt to voluntarily pay down the deficit or provide social benefits that are properly in the purview of the state.

[Martinus]

I think this is a pretty weak rebuttal.

Seedy has a choice, as do all employers.  He can pay what the market is bearing for house cleaning, in which case he has to judge himself as soulless and Godless.  Or he can do the right thing, the socially just thing and pay a lot more.

Why did organizers of the Underground Railroad not wait for slavery to be outlawed?  Because they believed that one slave being set free was still a net good even if millions of others were not.  Just like the life of Seedy's cleaning lady would improve.

Nonetheless, the solution to slavery was not the Underground Railroad. Admirable as it was, it was a patchwork ad-hoc solution.  The solution to the problem of slavery was abolishing the practice through legislation and reinforcing that abolition through concerted government action.

Yeah, it's kinda funny that Yi would make himself vulnerable with such an obvious argument.

And for the record, the Underground Railroad went much further than the equivalent of giving to charity - it was actively "stealing" other people's "possession". The equivalent of what Yi is advocating would be "if you don't like slavery, don't own slaves." Too funny.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course individuals should do what they think is right, to the best of their ability, but that is separate from how society should be organized.

Your argument suggests that abolitionists who did not personally help slaves escape prior to nationwide abolition where hypocrites whose argument against slavery should be dismissed. I don't think that flies. It's a cheap rhetorical trick, no more.

I would not accuse an abolitionist who sat out the Underground Railroad of hypocrisy because participation in the Underground Railroad entailed serious risks that they were not asking anyone else to take.

I do accuse Seedy of hypocrisy because he's demanding that others bear costs that he himself is not willing to bear.

No, of course not. That's orders of magnitude different from suggesting that individuals attempt to voluntarily pay down the deficit or provide social benefits that are properly in the purview of the state.

We were talking about imposing burdens on private companies, not the state.

I don't understand your point about orders of magnitude.  Is there some number below which action is pointless?  It's only worthwile for Seedy to give his cleaning lady paid maternity leave if he employs a couple hundred?

As an aside, I don't agree with the "Warren Buffet should pay down the deficit" argument.  If he acts unilaterally there is a free-rider problem.  The same is not true of Seedy giving his cleaning lady paid maternity leave.

[PDH]

God bless Languish sex-threads.

We prefer arguing the toss to, well, tossing ? 

Hush, Treebeard.

[CountDeMoney]

I do accuse Seedy of hypocrisy because he's demanding that others bear costs that he himself is not willing to bear.

Then I don't want to hear shit from you about future US military action, because you refuse to purchase any F/A-18s.

[Admiral Yi]

Then I don't want to hear shit from you about future US military action, because you refuse to purchase any F/A-18s.

I've pitched in on F/A-18s.