Not Sure How I Feel About This
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Yes. It's interesting. If you don't make drugs illegal you make it possible to regulate and protect people. If you don't make prostitution illegal you eliminate pimps and slavery almost completely. It's problems with the law that great these ecosystems.
If only it were that simple but prostitution is legal in Holland but they still have big problems with sex trafficking.
Taken to its logical extreme, would you legalise slavery in order to regulate and protect slaves?
There's no easy fix.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
I love the free market and believe it can uplift even the poorest economies, but their governments have to also ensure that their own people aren't getting the short end of the stick too. It's corruption that makes free market globalization a bad phrase.
I love free markets as well. But we don't have free markets. Western governments must take some share of the blame. For example, US farm subsidies end up hurting 3rd world farmers who can't compete as the market is rigged not free.
-
I think exploitation is a human problem, not a national or geographical one and needs to be stopped at the UN level. Do I want basic human rights for people? Yes. Do I think supply chains will stop pinching pennies where it matters without top-down intervention? No.
Realistically, if we shut down FoxConn today what would happen?
...stepping off the soap box...
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
It's corruption that makes free market globalization a bad phrase.
Here Here
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
I love the free market and believe it can uplift even the poorest economies, but their governments have to also ensure that their own people aren't getting the short end of the stick too. It's corruption that makes free market globalization a bad phrase.
I love free markets as well. But we don't have free markets. Western governments must take some share of the blame. For example, US farm subsidies end up hurting 3rd world farmers who can't compete as the market is rigged not free.
That is almost word for word what is in my $100 textbook.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Yes. It's interesting. If you don't make drugs illegal you make it possible to regulate and protect people. If you don't make prostitution illegal you eliminate pimps and slavery almost completely. It's problems with the law that great these ecosystems.
If only it were that simple but prostitution is legal in Holland but they still have big problems with sex trafficking.
Taken to its logical extreme, would you legalise slavery in order to regulate and protect slaves?
There's no easy fix.
But prostitution is a legitimate job option. Slavery is not. They still have problems but do they have as many?
-
So I have another interesting bit that was also related to this assignment, and it had to do with the difference between manufacture and production. Apparently, anthropologists get to make up their own definitions that contradict the dictionary.
"The question about manufacture versus production is accurate based on how anthropologist define and view the terms. You have to keep in mind that Webster's dictionary is a little different from the anthropological perspective. "
So anthropologists can manufacture their own definitions and Merriam-Webster can shove it? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
So anthropologists can manufacture their own definitions and Merriam-Webster can shove it? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Academic people... <rolls eyes>
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But prostitution is a legitimate job option. Slavery is not. They still have problems but do they have as many?
Probably not. My point is legalisation only alleviates the problem, it doesn't solve it.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
So anthropologists can manufacture their own definitions and Merriam-Webster can shove it? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
A Webster dictionary, by definition, manufactures it's own stuff. That's its purpose. I avoid it because it's a bad resource. A "Webster's Dictionary" is literally a different thing than a traditional dictionary like the Oxford or Cambridge. Use those instead.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But prostitution is a legitimate job option. Slavery is not. They still have problems but do they have as many?
Probably not. My point is legalisation only alleviates the problem, it doesn't solve it.
That makes sense. But reduction is a very important step. Especially when we don't know any other step to take.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
So anthropologists can manufacture their own definitions and Merriam-Webster can shove it? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
A Webster dictionary, by definition, manufactures it's own stuff. That's its purpose. I avoid it because it's a bad resource. A "Webster's Dictionary" is literally a different thing than a traditional dictionary like the Oxford or Cambridge. Use those instead.
Live and learn.
-
Noah Webster, after whom Webster Dictionaries are named, were made not for the purpose of being "correct" like normal dictionaries but to be "wrong" in a new "American way" that was, in fact, designed by Webster himself. It was Noah Webster, for example, intentionally misspelling common words like colour (as color) and theatre (as theater) that made the American English spellings that exist today and what, even after hundreds of years, left the rest of the world confused and believing that Americans are complete idiots because no one is aware that we actually are taught to spell differently than the entire rest of the English writing world. Even in Toronto, which sits right on the border and deals with the US every day, Canadians actually believe all Americans are illiterate. Thanks Noah.
-
Websters actually institutionalized the "taking pride in ignorance" problem that often plagues America. And that the school systems decided to teach his fake language instead of the real one in a ubiquitous rebellion against high learning and culture solidified the American cultural underpinnings that exist today.
-
This leads right into a conspiracy theory I heard about a few years ago. From what I recall the bases was that the government (or simply those in power) wants to keep the masses uneducated, because an uneducated populous is easier to control and manipulate to your will.
-
I feel really stupid now.
-
@Dashrender Look back to the turn of the last century, public schools were designed that way intentionally in order to have a workforce for the modern industrial movement.
-
Bill, how did you come to that conclusion from that link?
-
@Dashrender said:
This leads right into a conspiracy theory I heard about a few years ago. From what I recall the bases was that the government (or simply those in power) wants to keep the masses uneducated, because an uneducated populous is easier to control and manipulate to your will.
If you categorize common knowledge as conspiracy.
Actually I've always heard it more that public education is designed to make factory workers.
Webster was not a conspiracy. Just a guy who associated ignorance with nationalism.
-
@Dashrender said:
Bill, how did you come to that conclusion from that link?
No idea about the link but I was taught this in school.
