News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cash/Consent: The war on sex work by wodenokoto on Saturday September 28, 2019 @05:06AM (#21099311)
> why are so many people focused on whether or not this actually produces better results for people? Legislation, by and large and particularly in the United States, is driven first and foremost by principle, rather than utilitarian objectives.

Seatbelts, speed limits, health regulations, heck even labour laws are about utilitarian outcomes - generally keeping people from dying prematurely or going to the hospital.

The state generally interferes with transaction that are harmful between the two parties. You can't write whatever you want in a contract, even if it only pertains to first parties.

As for alcohol prohibition: That's not a principle stance regarding the freedom to take harmful substance. It is an exception to the prohibition of access to harmful substances. We still want something that's bad for us, so alcohol is the exception for historical reasons, but for (probably misguided) utilitarian reasons, we don't allow all sorts of drugs.

Re:Cash/Consent: The war on sex work by nothrabannosir on Saturday September 28, 2019 @07:14AM (#21099721)
> We still want something that's bad for us, so alcohol is the exception for historical reasons, but for (probably misguided) utilitarian reasons, we don't allow all sorts of drugs.

Our reasons for prohibition of certain drugs over others are far from utilitarian. If anything, they're anti-utilitarian. Compare the motivations for the 18th and for the 21st amendment.

Re:Cash/Consent: The war on sex work by wodenokoto on Saturday September 28, 2019 @07:19AM (#21099747)
That's why alcohol is an exception.
Re:Cash/Consent: The war on sex work by nothrabannosir on Saturday September 28, 2019 @08:00AM (#21099882)
Ok how is this sentence meant?

"(We still want something that's bad for us, so alcohol is the exception for historical reasons), but (for probably misguided utilitarian reasons, we don't allow all sorts of drugs)."

or

"We still want something that's bad for us, so (alcohol is the exception for historical reasons, but for probably misguided utilitarian reasons). We don't allow all sorts of drugs."

The former suggests we prohibit drugs for utilitarian reasons, misguided but utilitarian nonetheless, the latter seems odd by itself?

Re:Cash/Consent: The war on sex work by ralusek on Saturday September 28, 2019 @12:31PM (#21101283)
I think it's clear that I have an issue with seatbelt laws, and most labor laws. Speed limits are different because it imposes stark negative third party externalities. You put everyone else on the road in serious danger, none of whom consented to the imposition.