Sex isn't viewed as a thing that can be redistributed, so it feels "off" in the same way as redistributing friends. Some people have more friends than others; should some of them be "redistributed"? IMO turning a voluntary interaction into a coercive one just feels deeply wrong
-
-
Replying to @tensorjack @robinhanson
> IMO turning a voluntary interaction into a coercive one just feels deeply wrong Many people feel this way about labor regulation.
2 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @VitalikButerin @robinhanson
I agree with the sentiment, although I think it's fair to make an exception because people need money to live. (Actually, I think there should just be a UBI and no labor regulations, but that's another topic...)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tensorjack @VitalikButerin
In rich nations today, very few are at any risk of dying. And min wage labor market regs increase that risk. Risk of dying just isn't the main reason we redistribute income.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson @VitalikButerin
I could be wrong, this isn't something I've thought about much, but aren't labor regs usually sold to the public this way? (Desperate workers, can't afford rent and food, greedy businessmen exploiting them, etc.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tensorjack @VitalikButerin
Some may be foolish enough to buy such rationales, but you shouldn't be.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson @VitalikButerin
Point is that the employer-employee relationship is (in the absence of a UBI) is inherently somewhat coercive. Employees cannot simply opt out altogether because everyone needs money to live. IMO this is why labor regs don't feel off in the same way as redist sex, friends, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tensorjack @robinhanson
We also need food to live, but few complain of farmers oppressing us. So the dynamics are more complicated...
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
That's consistent with
@tensorjack's argument though; we need food to live so we highly regulate the food supply (for both consistency and quality). I find suggestion of socially enforced monogamy to be somewhat antithetical to cryptocurrency ideals (individual autonomy/freedom)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @phildaian @VitalikButerin and
Worth noting I think that a lot of these problems will go away in the presence of sufficiently advanced robots. The problems that crop up then will make most yearn for the long tail freedom deals.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
nope, b/c this incel nonsense is about social status... not merely about sexual connection
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.