May I see your papers, citizen?

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

WHEN the laws are changed, I might agree with you.

Besides it being fine to change unethical laws, I also consider it fine to disobey them. Antebellum Southern Blacks were right to escape the slavery on their masters' farms, and the underground railroad people were right to illegally smuggle them into Canada. Susan B. Anthony was right to illegally attempt to vote. Rosa Parks was right to illegally sit in the front part of the bus. And by the same token, poor Mexicans are right to cross the US border to mow Dys's lawn or whatever, and employers like Dys are right to hire them.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

In my view, there is nothing unethical about hiring illegal immigrants -- at least not in itself.

But you can't separate the hiring of an illegal immigrant from the reasons that there is an economic incentive to do so.

The reason hiring an illegal immigrant is so attractive is that the employer avoids all kinds of risks that might be associated with hiring a legal worker.

Maybe you're so laissez-faire that you think safety standards and overtime pay and fair employment practices and all the other protections enjoyed by workers should be eliminated, but personally I don't want to go back to the days of Robber Barons and Pinkerton strike busters.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

so you decide which laws to obey. everyone else fend for themselves.

I don't think that's the way they intended it when they drew it up...

and corporate civil disobedience is just silly.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Same sex marriage = no harm to other married couples

Hiring illegal work = possible harm to legal workers,

What is the possible harm to legal workers? You have no right to be hired into the job you want to work in any more than you have the right to be married by the partner you're in love with.

DrewDad wrote:

and possible harm to the illegal worker as well (Reduction of wages, reduction of benefits, illegal workers are afraid to report workplace violations such as safety standards, overtime violations, sexual harassment, etc.)

But if they stay in Mexico, which would be the alternative if you get your way, they're locked into even lower wages and even shittier work conditions -- as judged by their revealed preference for American conditions.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

so you decide which laws to obey.

Yep -- just as Rosa Parks did. You've got a problem with that?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I don't think those are the rules you agreed to on your Visa...

the harm is in not being treated fairly.

or given benefits.

when we close our eyes and trust business, bad things inevitably happen.

rules are there for a reason.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Maybe you're so laissez-faire that you think safety standards and overtime pay and fair employment practices and all the other protections enjoyed by workers should be eliminated, but personally I don't want to go back to the days of Robber Barons and Pinkerton strike busters.

Safety standards and these things are fine for those who want them. But I have no ethical problem when those who don't who don't want them make their own arrangements.

4 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Besides it being fine to change unethical laws, I also consider it fine to disobey them

Then are you willing to pay the price for disobeying those laws?
If the govt were to crack down and say that hiring illegals and getting caught meant 5 years in federal prison, would you be willing to go to prison?

And what about the person that considered the law against murder unethical?
Would you support them disobeying that law?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I think we are starting to see a pattern here...

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

I don't think those are the rules you agreed to on your Visa...

... and I haven't yet hired a single illegal immigrant myself.

[quote="Rockhead"the harm is in not being treated fairly.[/quote]
Even if the workers are treated more unfairly where they came from? What is the harm to them in being treated less unfairly than they would have been by their employers at home?

Rockhead wrote:

rules are there for a reason.

True. And sometimes that reason is called injustice.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Safety standards and these things are fine for those who want them. But I have no ethical problem when those who don't who don't want them make their own arrangements.

If it weren't for you getting all weepy over those who you say are the victim of some "ism" you would be a full fledged anarchist.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

We cannot fix Mexico.

nor can we allow injustice because they mistreat their people so.

We must make this country fair and safe.

ok, safe and closer to fair...

the trickle down from all this affects many American poor working people, but nobody advocates for them.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Then are you willing to pay the price for disobeying those laws?

If I chose to disobey those laws -- which I haven't -- yes.

mysteryman wrote:

And what about the person that considered the law against murder unethical?
Would you support them disobeying that law?

No, because murder, unlike employment, does not involve mutual consent. If it did -- say, if we were talking about Dr Kevorkian euthanizing his patients at their request -- then yes, I would approve of Dr Kevorkian breaking the law.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

These are slogans, not arguments, so I will not attempt to argue against them.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

ok, i'm over my head anyways.

I'd like fbaezer's take on this.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

So, you think any law making anything that involves "mutual consent" in unethical and should be disobeyed?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Those rules are in place to protect those who cannot demand them.

Collectively, our society has decided that those protections are important for all workers.

Basically, you're saying let's all jump in the water with the sharks, and those who are the toughest will survive. I'm saying let's shoot the sharks before we go swimming.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

So, you think any law making anything that involves "mutual consent" in unethical and should be disobeyed?

I'm not quite sure I understand your question, because there's an adjective missing somewhere in it. Let me answer what I think you're asking in slightly different terms. I think there ought to be no such thing as a victimless crime.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Maybe you're so laissez-faire that you think safety standards and overtime pay and fair employment practices and all the other protections enjoyed by workers should be eliminated, but personally I don't want to go back to the days of Robber Barons and Pinkerton strike busters.

Safety standards and these things are fine for those who want them. But I have no ethical problem when those who don't who don't want them make their own arrangements.

Individual workers are not competent to judge safety standards on their own, especially in today's complex work situations. No one person can ensure that all the factors involved are safe. Thus the need for regulations.

Can't believe that you'd believe that ANYONE could adequately cover all their bases on their own. It simply isn't possible.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I believe there are behaviors that risk the well being of others, though, which although they do not always produce victims should nevertheless be restricted.

Drunk driving, for example. Do you believe people should be able to risk my safety by driving drunk, and only be punished if they actually harm someone?

1 Reply

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know