Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most libertarians would say that gov't is there to intervene in cases of force OR fraud. This would fall under the latter rubric. If the attractive single mother had been informed when applying for the job that prostitution would be part of her job duties, then she can decide to accept or to walk across the street to work for company b where fellatio is not in the job description.
If the demand comes after she has accepted the job, rearranging her life and human capital in order to fulfill her end of the bargain, then it constitutes a fraud.
Every employee has a contract, whether in writing or not. In this case the employer is in violation of the contract.
Oh really? So employers can't require employees to perform duties that are not specifically described in their job description?
Are they not ALLOWED to fire employees who refuse acts not directly spelled out in the job description? That sounds kind UN-libertarian...
And it's gonna lead to A LOT of litigation. Enforced by the GOVERNMENT.
Person A: Do you support a person's right to say that Hitler did the right thing in exterminating millions of Jews?
Person B: Yes. I don't support what they say, but I support their right to say it. Freedom of speech is more important than silencing their opinion, even if I do think it's an evil one. If we make an exception and punish them for stating that, then the principle of free speech is gone.
Person A: So you support Hitler is what you're saying? That's what I figured.
I think you'd see the error in person A's thinking in that scenario.
So we're talking about speech?
You're saying that you support a boss's right to TELL an employee that she must suck his ***k or she's fired?
Please clarify.
Shouldn't be so hard to be clear this logic and reason that Libertarians are so big on. Stand up and be PROUD of your beliefs!
I know at least two factories back in my old stompin' grounds where this has happened to women multiple times. Those women have told people about it, have reported it and even posted it on the internet. Yet these businesses are still operating.
But I AM glad to hear that Libertarians support the rights of bosses to rape employees. Good to know where people stand
Like how you go from no force to rape.
Stupidity. His word her word. She goes out. EMTs take him out dickless. In the perfect libertarian world.
Stupidity. His word her word. She goes out. EMTs take him out dickless. In the perfect libertarian world.
I've made it very clear that the boss initiates NO force. Are you saying the woman has the right to cut off is dick when he hasn't initiated force?
Fact is that people are ROUTINELY prosecuted for rape even when direct force isn't involved. In prison for instance, a female prisoner can completely consent to sex- but legally it is still rape. Issues of consent can be very muddy- and I know Libertarians HATE to acknowledge complexity- but it exists.
So for the sake of discussion, we'll just call this act kinda-rape. It's rapey, but might not be rape- that's a question for the lawyers. Similar scenarios happen all the time.
Do Libertarians support the right of bosses to engage in rapey-actions so long as they don't initiate PHYSICAL force?
It's a simple question. No need to obfuscate unless you're ashamed of your answer.
Ok, let's clarify- I WILL apologize if I've misrepresented you.
Do you support government legislation against sexual harassment?
Do you support the right of bosses to pressure their employees into sexual acts?
A yes or no will suffice. Thanks.
No and yes. That is not what you misrepresented though, was it? Do you ever wish to engage in honest debate? The fact is under your Vegas style prostitution legalized ideal there will still be a black market. There will still be tens of thousands of women selling their ass on the street for 20 bucks and liberal economic policies have increased the supply of these street whores driving down the price. But of course you all mean well.
When there are issues of authority and undue pressure involved, such a scenario CAN be an act of rape. That's why teachers can't bone 18 year old students. But please avoid such blatant obfuscation- I've been very clear in spelling out the scenario. The boss in question has initiated NO force; only pressure in that the female in question will lose her job if she doesn't suck his **
Well since you are making it clear that it is not rape, then I will go with your call on that. I have not had reason to shop for a car for 13 years now and if you enlighten me with these complaints I will utilize that in my decision making when I do shop. Teacher's can't bone an 18 year old student? Guess you have never lined in CA and dealt with the CTA, the main CA teachers union.
Also, I live in a part of San Diego that has no easy TV access hence I have not really seen any info on all this internet posting about the boss' activities at the parts plant and would appreciate links to enlighten me.
And here is a cite about teachers and sex and union protection from a liberal CA newspaper. I will see if I can find the LA Times link where the CTA demanded the reinstatement of a teacher after he was caught on video masterbating on his elementary students lunch sandwiches.
I don't technically identify as Libertarian, though agree with the general principals Libertarians support.
I'll start by saying what you're described in the OP isn't technically rape. Rape is forced and completely non-consensual sex. Being pressured into doing it technically is consenting, therefore it's not actually rape. It's still wrong, but don't exaggerate the wrongfulness of it just to prove a point.
Do I think employers should be allowed to do this? No. I however don't necessarily think the government is the best or only body capable of addressing issues like that. Employees should unionize (I support unions so long as they don't have the ability to lobby for political power) against their employer who does this and the victim of this sexual abuse should sue and press charges for sexual misconduct.
Oh really? So employers can't require employees to perform duties that are not specifically described in their job description?
Are they not ALLOWED to fire employees who refuse acts not directly spelled out in the job description? That sounds kind UN-libertarian...
And it's gonna lead to A LOT of litigation. Enforced by the GOVERNMENT.
Really. What if an employer required the employee to murder a disliked nephew of said employer? Would it be "UN-libertarian" for employee to refuse?
Every employee has a contract, whether written or not. Gov't is there to enforce the contract. There is nothing inherently anti-libertarian about litigation.
Ok, let's clarify- I WILL apologize if I've misrepresented you.
Do you support government legislation against sexual harassment?
Do you support the right of bosses to pressure their employees into sexual acts?
A yes or no will suffice. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
No and yes. That is not what you misrepresented though, was it? Do you ever wish to engage in honest debate? The fact is under your Vegas style prostitution legalized ideal there will still be a black market. There will still be tens of thousands of women selling their ass on the street for 20 bucks and liberal economic policies have increased the supply of these street whores driving down the price. But of course you all mean well.
Thanks for clarifying that you DO in fact support the right of bosses to engage in sexual harassment. That's awesome that a Libertarian is for once being so clear. Hard to pin you guys down on exactly what you believe!
Still not clear on what you think I've misrepresented. It's my understanding that Libertarians support legalized prostitution. Libertarians also oppose all but the most basic regulations. So would it not be fair to say that Libertarians are in fact the ones who would support a starving woman's right to sell her body for a happy-meal? I mean, no force initiated... right?
Is that not the criteria??
Personally I also support legalized prostitution- but only if it's safe and regulated. And humane. See, I SUPPORT government intervention in cases like this where there's potential for people to be hurt.
Libertarians don't.
Can you see my point yet?
Will it help if I write it out in crayon??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
