It may not technically be Trek, but it certainly feels closer to what I loved about the franchise than the current CBS show does, probably due to Brannon Braga's involvement. The new CBS show is military sci-fi and seems closer to shows like BSG than the exploratory and philosophical themes of the past Trek shows.
You are seriously mistaken. UFO stands for "unidentified flying object" -- with the most salient characteristic being "unidentified". Although UFO sightings are often associated with (assumed) extraterrestrial phenomena, this is not necessary for the label. An unidentified object in the sky is still a UFO regardless of origin (and typically will no longer be considered a UFO when identified, even if alien/extraterrestrial).
First, it is important to note that I was not referring to infringement; I was talking about legitimate interest in commercially licensing the use of the name, voice or other personal aspect (likeness) of a deceased person, and the financial implications of any agreed upon legal use for the decedent's estate.
Second, not every asset mentioned in my post was meant to be classified specifically as IP (although many people use the terms "intellectual property," "intellectual work," or "intangible asset" interchangeably, despite the distinctions between these categories). The ability to control the use of one's name and likeness is part of a person's right of publicity. This is state-determined right that is an intangible asset, but, yes, distinctly different from (though related to) the copyright and trademark categories of IP. Intellectual property is a subset of the overarching class of intangible assets, so there is a broad range of monetizable intangible assets that factor into estate planning in terms of value or taxation that are not strictly classified as IP. Here is a good explanation of the relationship of one's right to privacy and rights of publicity to copyright, and here is a good case study on the estate of Marilyn Monroe that shows the interplay of these issues. As you can see from that case study, these post-mortem rights can be of significant value to the estate of the decedent.
(If you are interested in taxation issues, one one of my previous posts in this thread links to some good search results on that topic.)
Here, let me google that for you. Yes, there are taxes, just like any other kind of property. The first two links in the search above give a good overview of these issues.
Hard decision whether to mod this or comment, so I chose to comment so I can correct the erroneous information here.
What you wrote is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Intellectual property and intangible assets are absolutely part of one's estate (and also come into play in divorce proceedings, for that matter -- See the divorce of Tom Clancy) and are recognized as such under the law. If you disagree on a moral level with this practice, that's another matter, but to state that "it is not part of an estate" is spreading misinformation. I work at an IP consulting firm, and we are frequently asked to value intellectual works for use in estate planning. These can range from rights of publicity, to copyrights/copyrighted works, to trademarks, among other assets.
You say that "to consider intellectual works part of an estate diminishes human capital and is an insult to those who created it." I think you have this backwards. When the esteemed playwright George Abbott died, for example, his estate was left with the rights to his many copyrighted plays, which could then earn them royalties on performances. Similarly, after Marlon Brando's death, the demand to use his name and likeness did not immediately disappear. His heirs controlled his rights to publicity and had the power to decide when it was appropriate to use his voice or other personal aspects to endorse products for a fee. Don't you think that Marlon Brando would have wanted his legacy to continue to provide for his loved ones? Wouldn't it be more of an insult to George Abbott (whose "human capital" is at issue) to have his works just be taken away on the day of his death instead of allowing him to build something that could continue to benefit his family?
Copyright law may be totally frakked in its current iteration, but that is a completely separate issue. The fact is, people work to build an estate -- but this work does not always take the same form. Some people build corporations, invest is stocks, or gather cash; others create works of art. You would never just assume that a corporation should automatically become public because the owner died, so why should that novel or that play immediately lose all of its value to the owner? Somebody spent their life working on that (instead of pursuing other avenues of wealth accumulation) so those assets are what they have to pass along in their estate -- Or should everyone just give up creating original works to pursue entrepreneurial or big business goals so they can provide for their families after they are gone?
I agree with you in general; however, I think it's important to note that quantity does not necessarily equal quality. The kids may be reading more during their time online, but if the bulk of that is communication with peers that doesn't utilize proper language, it may be counterproductive (or at least not beneficial to assimilating language rules). Sometimes using proper language and punctuation can even result in ridicule from peers because it's not "cool" to actually spell things out and use an apostrophe now and then. In addition, the more acceptable it is to let proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation fall by the wayside in a variety of contexts, the less incentive there is to actually learn and care enough to implement proper language rules -- even as you enter adulthood and the professional world. I work at an IP consulting firm that provides expert witness services in litigation so I am often privy to discovery that includes email traffic between CEOs and their employees. I've been absolutely flabbergasted at times by the amount of typos and spelling errors, inappropriate abbreviations, and just generally poor written communication skills exhibited by senior members of even Fortune 500 companies in supposedly formal communications. I don't profess to be perfect myself, nor do I expect it of others, but I do feel that my written communication skills are more developed because I make an effort to actually apply proper language rules rather than relying on the principle that people will know what I mean when I use approximations.
There are probably multiple errors in the passage above, but it's comparable to what I read online so it's ok...;)
My downloads from iTunes and Amazon are almost exclusively free music.
Not to mention the "obvious exception" of free music available from a variety of sources under Creative Commons licenses. (Hint: If there are obvious exceptions, it's probably not appropriate to use the word "all.")
In fact it is the crinkling of the eyes are what differentiates a genuine smile, also known as a Duchenne smile, from a fake smile. The presence of subtle and involuntary muscle movements is a vital (if subconscious) aspect to correctly interpreting body language and facial expressions (Incidentally, this loss of subtle muscle expressions is also [part of] what makes Botox abusers look more fake and disingenuous.)
eMusic's selection is extremely limited. Even with it's new roll out of "popular artists" (and accompanying price raise), the majority of what they offer is indie and there are many gaping holes in their repertoire. I actually had a subscription for several months, but found it difficult to even find enough music I liked to fill my download allowance (and anything that is unused by your next billing cycle is lost). eMusic cannot compete in the slightest with the piracy model in terms of selection and cost. Even purchasing legitimately through iTunes and the like, I'd much rather pay a bit more per track and get exactly what I want than use the crapshoot of eMusic and get some mediocre tracks that I wouldn't otherwise buy just because they are "cheaper" (even if this benefit is more than eaten up by unused downloads) and I don't want my subscription to go to "waste." Piracy and iTunes both end up being both more value in terms of satisfaction and cheaper over the long term.
Great post. I'd mod you up if I hadn't posted in this thread already.
The stigmatization you mention is a HUGE part of the problem with delinquency and other forms of crime and deviance, particularly with juveniles. The application of deviant labels goes a long way to ensure that the kid will continue to follow the deviant path, and develop subcultural norms that are not congruent with those held by the rest of "good society." Labeling the kid as a "bad kid" (as opposed to identifying specific "inappropriate behaviors") does them (and society) no service at all, and simply contributes to them rejecting cultural norms (i.e. "They've already written me off anyway, why the hell should I try to please them?"). As they meet others in the same position (particularly within the CJ system), it only offers them additional techniques of neutralization and reinforces deviant behaviors and attitudes.
Sigh. I get that you are trolling, but just in case anyone else misunderstood the point...
The full article claims that "The most surprising finding from the 20-year study...was how help provided by the juvenile justice system substantially increased the risk of the boys engaging in criminal activities during early adulthood." My point was that this is not surprising, but rather predictable as it simply supports commonly and long-held theories in criminology that have been studied extensively before. Did you really think a study in 2009 (even with its longitudinal nature) is the first to explore social learning concepts outlined over 100 years ago?
Empirical research using survey data on adolescents has generally found support for this structure. Research finds that the process of learning definitions of delinquency is structured by delinquent peers, family structure, parental attachment, neighborhood problems, and social class...
...And then goes on to list a variety of past studies and over 30 references where this information came from. Also please note: In the social sciences, there is no such thing as a "law."
To correct a mistake in my original post, Sutherland's original uses of "differential association" occurred in the 1930s and 1940s (further expounded on in his 1978 work Criminology with Donald Cressey).
Not only obvious, but previously described by criminologists. Sutherland's Differential Association Theory was published in the '70s, and even those concepts were grounded in Social Learning Theory, which was developed in the 1800s.
The basic tenets of Differential Association Theory are that criminal (or delinquent) behavior is learned, usually through contact/behavior modeling of an intimate social group (peers). Further criminological theories posit that the labeling of these group behaviors as deviant can cause the group to develop their own subculture with values apart from traditional society. Therefore, the labeling involved in the "help given by the juvenile justice system" actually promotes continued deviant behavior.
No. This puts a serious dent in the defense's position that it was impossible for his client to have committed the crime under the requisite circumstances. The fact that it is indeed possible still does not constitute proof that his client is actually guilty.
My initial reaction was to buck against this, but on second thought (and depending on how it's implemented) maybe it wouldn't be that bad. The thing I hate about cable is that there is no "a la carte" option where I can selectively pay for the channels I actually want and not have to pay for the other 90% of the programming that comes in the packages. Depending on how they swing this, if they offer cable-based content as individual subscriptions at prices that are cumulatively less than my current cable bill, it may actually be a better option for me and allow me to cancel cable altogether.
I just feel there is enough money floating around that, if all you want to do is lie in a small apartment with goods necessary to survive, you can do it.
My wording was poor regarding "better than that." I simply meant that if no one had to do the undesirable jobs to survive (i.e. already had all their basic needs covered), I think there would be little incentive for many people to accept such positions because the payoff of holding out for a better job (with no personal risk) would seem like a more desirable option. Personally, as a college graduate, I would love to be able to live without working, at least for awhile. I don't care about material things or booze, and there are plenty of other things I would like to do with my time that are low or no cost that I simply do not have time for within the constraints of my work schedule. I'm not saying that I'd never want to work again -- I do enjoy my current job and get satisfaction from my work. However, I feel like, in general (or at least for certain stretches of time), assuming my basic survival needs were met, I would rather have my time to myself and live a minimalist lifestyle than work an undesirable job if those were my two options. I don't know how universal that feeling is, but I doubt I am a unique case.
While I see your points about how the system you describe could be beneficial, I think it is also prone to a lot of abuse that can have deleterious unintended consequences. Communal living, an integral part of civilized society as we know it, only works because the division of labor allows members of the group to work together to keep the community's needs met. The resources to support those who aren't working have to come from somewhere, and without enough contributing members, the entire system would collapse. "Qualifying people" to receive community support, as the government currently does, serves an important function because it requires people using community resources to at least make a good faith effort to contribute and replenish the system instead of simply feeding off it. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I don't know that those "takers" would be equally motivated to find work without the imposed conditions on their support, and I'm not sure that there are enough people willing to work for luxury goods to support those who are willing to live without (especially if our impending Social Security crisis is any indication).
If I'm offended by having to work as a pig farmer (some religions forbid it) do I have to take a job as a pig farmer?
Actually no, at least according to the CA EDD, you don't. There is already a clause in unemployment law allowing for conscientious objection based on religious, ethical, moral or philosophical beliefs. This is the same area that I would think that prostitution would fall under, and that there would be little difficulty making a case for exemption from those opportunities considering the divisive moral issues surrounding the practice. I am not well versed in unemployment law, so I'm not sure about all jurisdictions, but it seems like it wouldn't be particularly difficult to implement across the board.
I totally agree with you on the decriminalization issue. I think that whistleblowers or victims should be protected, regardless of the circumstances of how they were victimized. While this may appear to undermine deterrence in participating in illegal activities, I think that two wrongs do not make a right in this case, and the fear that many prostitutes (or illegals, etc.) is counterintuitive to our sense of civility and justice.
Interesting dilemma -- Not saying I disagree with you, but I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion.
There is nothing novel about people needing to accept a variety of jobs that they may not be particularly attracted to due to sheer economic need. In the current economic climate this is particularly evident, with college graduates competing for the same fast food jobs just to make ends meet. I doubt that some of the more disgusting, boring or socially stigmatized jobs necessary to make society function would be filled if everyone in the population were well off enough to be "better than that."
Saying that prostitution should remain illegal because people could be forced into it through economic coercion if it were legalized dodges the issue. The state of the economic coercion does not change whether prostitution is legal or not. As it is, people are forced into it anyway due to lack of other options -- the only difference is that they do not have the support and workplace standards that could be implemented through legal recognition.
As for your example regarding unemployment, I don't see a reason why there could not be special provisions regarding sex work as a recognized labor category, including a prohibition on requiring that it be considered in determining unemployment or welfare eligibility. Considering the moral reasons that many people have against prostitution, I can see how there would be support for these types of exceptions from the general populace and many lawmakers.
Additionally, there is a difference between legalization and decriminalization, and, in fact, many of the prostitute / sex worker advocate groups support the latter rather than the former. Decriminalization means that those who wish to engage in such activities are free to do so and have legal recourse to pursue abusers without fear of persecution themselves, which may actually be the best way to avoid exchanging one exploitative system for another.
Hard to tell if you're trolling, but just in case you're not...That argument is interesting but doesn't make very much sense upon closer inspection. No one is forcing the johns to patronize sex workers, nor is that type of payment the only way to satisfy those particular "biological urges," so it not realistic to frame the use of these services as exploitation. They are luxury / convenience services that some people choose to partake in because they enjoy the rewards, not because it is biologically necessary. Additionally, even if it were somehow necessary, why should any other person be required to satisfy another's urges without compensation? That's like saying the farmer should not charge for the food he grew because his customers are hungry. I don't like the high prices on some foods at the market either, but I don't complain that I'm being exploited. They are plenty of other options on the menu and I don't have any automatic entitlement to the more expensive delicacies just because I want them.
Very good point. There is an organization called Coyote that argues that "prostitution businesses such as brothels, massage parlors and escort services, should be operated like any other business in the community, [and] such businesses should be subject only to the same business and civil regulations which are imposed on other businesses in the area." The member base of this group is composed of social services personnel, researchers, feminists, sex workers, and others, all working in tandem to decriminalize prostitution and remove the social stigma attached to sex work.
Obviously there are a number of dangers associated with sex work, including coerced participation, abusive "management" and clients, STDS, poor working conditions, and the need to balance the impact of the trade with the needs of the community, all of which could be addressed with proper recognition and regulation. Although people tend to cry out that prostitution is demeaning to women, it is really interesting to read the firsthand accounts of sex workers and see that this is not necessarily the case. There are those who actually enjoy their jobs, feel empowered by them, and wish that they could be recognized as having legitimate professional skills and receive the respect they deserve for their services. Additionally, many point out that the aspects of these services that ARE demeaning to women could actually be addressed by proper regulation of the profession as a trade, rather than criminalization that results in abuse going unreported and unchecked.
So, yes, the demand is there, and maybe it's time to realize that the supply is not necessarily just a group of women (and men) under duress (and that those that are under duress need support, not stigmatization). Personally, I don't have a strong position on these issues, but I think the most important point, as the parent post mentions, is that there is merit to examining exactly why some things are stigmatized and outlawed, and doing a reality check as to whether those ethics / moral qualms are still appropriate for contemporary society.
Slashdot Mirror
It may not technically be Trek, but it certainly feels closer to what I loved about the franchise than the current CBS show does, probably due to Brannon Braga's involvement. The new CBS show is military sci-fi and seems closer to shows like BSG than the exploratory and philosophical themes of the past Trek shows.
You are seriously mistaken. UFO stands for "unidentified flying object" -- with the most salient characteristic being "unidentified". Although UFO sightings are often associated with (assumed) extraterrestrial phenomena, this is not necessary for the label. An unidentified object in the sky is still a UFO regardless of origin (and typically will no longer be considered a UFO when identified, even if alien/extraterrestrial).
Greed and hoarding behaviors are not relegated only to survival situations.
Can I just be the first to say..."WoW!"
First, it is important to note that I was not referring to infringement; I was talking about legitimate interest in commercially licensing the use of the name, voice or other personal aspect (likeness) of a deceased person, and the financial implications of any agreed upon legal use for the decedent's estate.
Second, not every asset mentioned in my post was meant to be classified specifically as IP (although many people use the terms "intellectual property," "intellectual work," or "intangible asset" interchangeably, despite the distinctions between these categories). The ability to control the use of one's name and likeness is part of a person's right of publicity. This is state-determined right that is an intangible asset, but, yes, distinctly different from (though related to) the copyright and trademark categories of IP. Intellectual property is a subset of the overarching class of intangible assets, so there is a broad range of monetizable intangible assets that factor into estate planning in terms of value or taxation that are not strictly classified as IP. Here is a good explanation of the relationship of one's right to privacy and rights of publicity to copyright, and here is a good case study on the estate of Marilyn Monroe that shows the interplay of these issues. As you can see from that case study, these post-mortem rights can be of significant value to the estate of the decedent.
(If you are interested in taxation issues, one one of my previous posts in this thread links to some good search results on that topic.)
Here, let me google that for you. Yes, there are taxes, just like any other kind of property. The first two links in the search above give a good overview of these issues.
Hard decision whether to mod this or comment, so I chose to comment so I can correct the erroneous information here.
What you wrote is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Intellectual property and intangible assets are absolutely part of one's estate (and also come into play in divorce proceedings, for that matter -- See the divorce of Tom Clancy) and are recognized as such under the law. If you disagree on a moral level with this practice, that's another matter, but to state that "it is not part of an estate" is spreading misinformation. I work at an IP consulting firm, and we are frequently asked to value intellectual works for use in estate planning. These can range from rights of publicity, to copyrights/copyrighted works, to trademarks, among other assets.
You say that "to consider intellectual works part of an estate diminishes human capital and is an insult to those who created it." I think you have this backwards. When the esteemed playwright George Abbott died, for example, his estate was left with the rights to his many copyrighted plays, which could then earn them royalties on performances. Similarly, after Marlon Brando's death, the demand to use his name and likeness did not immediately disappear. His heirs controlled his rights to publicity and had the power to decide when it was appropriate to use his voice or other personal aspects to endorse products for a fee. Don't you think that Marlon Brando would have wanted his legacy to continue to provide for his loved ones? Wouldn't it be more of an insult to George Abbott (whose "human capital" is at issue) to have his works just be taken away on the day of his death instead of allowing him to build something that could continue to benefit his family?
Copyright law may be totally frakked in its current iteration, but that is a completely separate issue. The fact is, people work to build an estate -- but this work does not always take the same form. Some people build corporations, invest is stocks, or gather cash; others create works of art. You would never just assume that a corporation should automatically become public because the owner died, so why should that novel or that play immediately lose all of its value to the owner? Somebody spent their life working on that (instead of pursuing other avenues of wealth accumulation) so those assets are what they have to pass along in their estate -- Or should everyone just give up creating original works to pursue entrepreneurial or big business goals so they can provide for their families after they are gone?
I agree with you in general; however, I think it's important to note that quantity does not necessarily equal quality. The kids may be reading more during their time online, but if the bulk of that is communication with peers that doesn't utilize proper language, it may be counterproductive (or at least not beneficial to assimilating language rules). Sometimes using proper language and punctuation can even result in ridicule from peers because it's not "cool" to actually spell things out and use an apostrophe now and then. In addition, the more acceptable it is to let proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation fall by the wayside in a variety of contexts, the less incentive there is to actually learn and care enough to implement proper language rules -- even as you enter adulthood and the professional world. I work at an IP consulting firm that provides expert witness services in litigation so I am often privy to discovery that includes email traffic between CEOs and their employees. I've been absolutely flabbergasted at times by the amount of typos and spelling errors, inappropriate abbreviations, and just generally poor written communication skills exhibited by senior members of even Fortune 500 companies in supposedly formal communications. I don't profess to be perfect myself, nor do I expect it of others, but I do feel that my written communication skills are more developed because I make an effort to actually apply proper language rules rather than relying on the principle that people will know what I mean when I use approximations.
There are probably multiple errors in the passage above, but it's comparable to what I read online so it's ok... ;)
My downloads from iTunes and Amazon are almost exclusively free music.
Not to mention the "obvious exception" of free music available from a variety of sources under Creative Commons licenses. (Hint: If there are obvious exceptions, it's probably not appropriate to use the word "all.")
In fact it is the crinkling of the eyes are what differentiates a genuine smile, also known as a Duchenne smile, from a fake smile. The presence of subtle and involuntary muscle movements is a vital (if subconscious) aspect to correctly interpreting body language and facial expressions (Incidentally, this loss of subtle muscle expressions is also [part of] what makes Botox abusers look more fake and disingenuous.)
My parents met playing AD&D. I am the lovechild of a dwarf paladin and elvish ranger...I never had a chance.
eMusic's selection is extremely limited. Even with it's new roll out of "popular artists" (and accompanying price raise), the majority of what they offer is indie and there are many gaping holes in their repertoire. I actually had a subscription for several months, but found it difficult to even find enough music I liked to fill my download allowance (and anything that is unused by your next billing cycle is lost). eMusic cannot compete in the slightest with the piracy model in terms of selection and cost. Even purchasing legitimately through iTunes and the like, I'd much rather pay a bit more per track and get exactly what I want than use the crapshoot of eMusic and get some mediocre tracks that I wouldn't otherwise buy just because they are "cheaper" (even if this benefit is more than eaten up by unused downloads) and I don't want my subscription to go to "waste." Piracy and iTunes both end up being both more value in terms of satisfaction and cheaper over the long term.
Great post. I'd mod you up if I hadn't posted in this thread already.
The stigmatization you mention is a HUGE part of the problem with delinquency and other forms of crime and deviance, particularly with juveniles. The application of deviant labels goes a long way to ensure that the kid will continue to follow the deviant path, and develop subcultural norms that are not congruent with those held by the rest of "good society." Labeling the kid as a "bad kid" (as opposed to identifying specific "inappropriate behaviors") does them (and society) no service at all, and simply contributes to them rejecting cultural norms (i.e. "They've already written me off anyway, why the hell should I try to please them?"). As they meet others in the same position (particularly within the CJ system), it only offers them additional techniques of neutralization and reinforces deviant behaviors and attitudes.
Sigh. I get that you are trolling, but just in case anyone else misunderstood the point...
The full article claims that "The most surprising finding from the 20-year study...was how help provided by the juvenile justice system substantially increased the risk of the boys engaging in criminal activities during early adulthood." My point was that this is not surprising, but rather predictable as it simply supports commonly and long-held theories in criminology that have been studied extensively before. Did you really think a study in 2009 (even with its longitudinal nature) is the first to explore social learning concepts outlined over 100 years ago?
From the article "Differential Association Theory" (Matsueda, Encyclopedia of Criminology and Deviant Behavior : Volume 1, Historical, Conceptual and Theoretical Issues, 2001. -- updated from Matsueda's original 1988 article):
Empirical research using survey data on adolescents has generally found support for this structure. Research finds that the process of learning definitions of delinquency is structured by delinquent peers, family structure, parental attachment, neighborhood problems, and social class...
...And then goes on to list a variety of past studies and over 30 references where this information came from. Also please note: In the social sciences, there is no such thing as a "law."
To correct a mistake in my original post, Sutherland's original uses of "differential association" occurred in the 1930s and 1940s (further expounded on in his 1978 work Criminology with Donald Cressey).
Not only obvious, but previously described by criminologists. Sutherland's Differential Association Theory was published in the '70s, and even those concepts were grounded in Social Learning Theory, which was developed in the 1800s.
The basic tenets of Differential Association Theory are that criminal (or delinquent) behavior is learned, usually through contact/behavior modeling of an intimate social group (peers). Further criminological theories posit that the labeling of these group behaviors as deviant can cause the group to develop their own subculture with values apart from traditional society. Therefore, the labeling involved in the "help given by the juvenile justice system" actually promotes continued deviant behavior.
this proves his client guilty indirectly!
No. This puts a serious dent in the defense's position that it was impossible for his client to have committed the crime under the requisite circumstances. The fact that it is indeed possible still does not constitute proof that his client is actually guilty.
Since I don't have a lot of content to sync, Dropbox meets my needs perfectly (and it's free!).
I can see it now: "The ex-wife took the whole damn planet in the divorce. All I got left is my bones."
My initial reaction was to buck against this, but on second thought (and depending on how it's implemented) maybe it wouldn't be that bad. The thing I hate about cable is that there is no "a la carte" option where I can selectively pay for the channels I actually want and not have to pay for the other 90% of the programming that comes in the packages. Depending on how they swing this, if they offer cable-based content as individual subscriptions at prices that are cumulatively less than my current cable bill, it may actually be a better option for me and allow me to cancel cable altogether.
Chevron Seven, locked.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
I just feel there is enough money floating around that, if all you want to do is lie in a small apartment with goods necessary to survive, you can do it.
My wording was poor regarding "better than that." I simply meant that if no one had to do the undesirable jobs to survive (i.e. already had all their basic needs covered), I think there would be little incentive for many people to accept such positions because the payoff of holding out for a better job (with no personal risk) would seem like a more desirable option. Personally, as a college graduate, I would love to be able to live without working, at least for awhile. I don't care about material things or booze, and there are plenty of other things I would like to do with my time that are low or no cost that I simply do not have time for within the constraints of my work schedule. I'm not saying that I'd never want to work again -- I do enjoy my current job and get satisfaction from my work. However, I feel like, in general (or at least for certain stretches of time), assuming my basic survival needs were met, I would rather have my time to myself and live a minimalist lifestyle than work an undesirable job if those were my two options. I don't know how universal that feeling is, but I doubt I am a unique case.
While I see your points about how the system you describe could be beneficial, I think it is also prone to a lot of abuse that can have deleterious unintended consequences. Communal living, an integral part of civilized society as we know it, only works because the division of labor allows members of the group to work together to keep the community's needs met. The resources to support those who aren't working have to come from somewhere, and without enough contributing members, the entire system would collapse. "Qualifying people" to receive community support, as the government currently does, serves an important function because it requires people using community resources to at least make a good faith effort to contribute and replenish the system instead of simply feeding off it. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I don't know that those "takers" would be equally motivated to find work without the imposed conditions on their support, and I'm not sure that there are enough people willing to work for luxury goods to support those who are willing to live without (especially if our impending Social Security crisis is any indication).
If I'm offended by having to work as a pig farmer (some religions forbid it) do I have to take a job as a pig farmer?
Actually no, at least according to the CA EDD, you don't. There is already a clause in unemployment law allowing for conscientious objection based on religious, ethical, moral or philosophical beliefs. This is the same area that I would think that prostitution would fall under, and that there would be little difficulty making a case for exemption from those opportunities considering the divisive moral issues surrounding the practice. I am not well versed in unemployment law, so I'm not sure about all jurisdictions, but it seems like it wouldn't be particularly difficult to implement across the board.
I totally agree with you on the decriminalization issue. I think that whistleblowers or victims should be protected, regardless of the circumstances of how they were victimized. While this may appear to undermine deterrence in participating in illegal activities, I think that two wrongs do not make a right in this case, and the fear that many prostitutes (or illegals, etc.) is counterintuitive to our sense of civility and justice.
Interesting dilemma -- Not saying I disagree with you, but I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion.
There is nothing novel about people needing to accept a variety of jobs that they may not be particularly attracted to due to sheer economic need. In the current economic climate this is particularly evident, with college graduates competing for the same fast food jobs just to make ends meet. I doubt that some of the more disgusting, boring or socially stigmatized jobs necessary to make society function would be filled if everyone in the population were well off enough to be "better than that."
Saying that prostitution should remain illegal because people could be forced into it through economic coercion if it were legalized dodges the issue. The state of the economic coercion does not change whether prostitution is legal or not. As it is, people are forced into it anyway due to lack of other options -- the only difference is that they do not have the support and workplace standards that could be implemented through legal recognition.
As for your example regarding unemployment, I don't see a reason why there could not be special provisions regarding sex work as a recognized labor category, including a prohibition on requiring that it be considered in determining unemployment or welfare eligibility. Considering the moral reasons that many people have against prostitution, I can see how there would be support for these types of exceptions from the general populace and many lawmakers.
Additionally, there is a difference between legalization and decriminalization, and, in fact, many of the prostitute / sex worker advocate groups support the latter rather than the former. Decriminalization means that those who wish to engage in such activities are free to do so and have legal recourse to pursue abusers without fear of persecution themselves, which may actually be the best way to avoid exchanging one exploitative system for another.
Hard to tell if you're trolling, but just in case you're not...That argument is interesting but doesn't make very much sense upon closer inspection. No one is forcing the johns to patronize sex workers, nor is that type of payment the only way to satisfy those particular "biological urges," so it not realistic to frame the use of these services as exploitation. They are luxury / convenience services that some people choose to partake in because they enjoy the rewards, not because it is biologically necessary. Additionally, even if it were somehow necessary, why should any other person be required to satisfy another's urges without compensation? That's like saying the farmer should not charge for the food he grew because his customers are hungry. I don't like the high prices on some foods at the market either, but I don't complain that I'm being exploited. They are plenty of other options on the menu and I don't have any automatic entitlement to the more expensive delicacies just because I want them.
Very good point. There is an organization called Coyote that argues that "prostitution businesses such as brothels, massage parlors and escort services, should be operated like any other business in the community, [and] such businesses should be subject only to the same business and civil regulations which are imposed on other businesses in the area." The member base of this group is composed of social services personnel, researchers, feminists, sex workers, and others, all working in tandem to decriminalize prostitution and remove the social stigma attached to sex work.
Obviously there are a number of dangers associated with sex work, including coerced participation, abusive "management" and clients, STDS, poor working conditions, and the need to balance the impact of the trade with the needs of the community, all of which could be addressed with proper recognition and regulation. Although people tend to cry out that prostitution is demeaning to women, it is really interesting to read the firsthand accounts of sex workers and see that this is not necessarily the case. There are those who actually enjoy their jobs, feel empowered by them, and wish that they could be recognized as having legitimate professional skills and receive the respect they deserve for their services. Additionally, many point out that the aspects of these services that ARE demeaning to women could actually be addressed by proper regulation of the profession as a trade, rather than criminalization that results in abuse going unreported and unchecked.
So, yes, the demand is there, and maybe it's time to realize that the supply is not necessarily just a group of women (and men) under duress (and that those that are under duress need support, not stigmatization). Personally, I don't have a strong position on these issues, but I think the most important point, as the parent post mentions, is that there is merit to examining exactly why some things are stigmatized and outlawed, and doing a reality check as to whether those ethics / moral qualms are still appropriate for contemporary society.