Something I should say more often

[wufwugy]

If I think about "legalizing things between consenting adults" the first things that spring to mind are human rights, specifically for sexual minorities.

When I think about the economic side of this, the first things would be consumer protections. Maybe I just see things differently, but I wouldn't think my perception here is unique or unorthodox.

I wonder what a good way to discuss this would be. Because we're interpreting what allowing people to consent means antipodally.

What rights for sexual minorties are you referring to? Some of them ARE about making consent legal. Some others are about making consent illegal.

For "consumer protections", can you provide examples of some that come by making consent legal?

[CoccoBill]

I wonder what a good way to discuss this would be. Because we're interpreting what allowing people to consent means antipodally.

What rights for sexual minorties are you referring to? Some of them ARE about making consent legal. Some others are about making consent illegal.

For "consumer protections", can you provide examples of some that come by making consent legal?

Yeah I think we're talking about different things, but the wording you used seemed to suggest, apparently both to me and MMM, something else than you meant. I figured you were talking about, essentially, that everyone should be able to do what they they, be "they" a private citizen, a business-owner or a multinational corporation.

I was referring to legal rights pertaining to equal treatment according to the law, the same marital and adoption rights and taxation etc.

What exactly do you mean by making consent legal?

[wufwugy]

I was referring to legal rights pertaining to equal treatment according to the law, the same marital and adoption rights and taxation etc.

I'm a big fan of this. The government can't have different policies for different people.

What exactly do you mean by making consent legal?

One example is legalizing psychadelics for medicinal use. That allows the doctor, consumer, supplier, and other relevant parties to legally consent commercially on the selling/buying of the psychadelics.

Another example is that it is not legal for most people in the US to purchase catastrophic-only health insurance. That's the kind I want to buy, and it's a kind companies offered to people like me before the government made it illegal. The mechanism by which it is illegal is the government reducing what people are allowed to consent to.

A third example, I'll pull directly from an industry I work in, and it's the city governments that reduce the legal consent.

We contract with consumers to provide a service, but the contracting parties are not allowed to consent unless the city government is in on it. The government takes time and money away from the business, which is all passed on to the consumer. Over a life time, this one policy probably costs each person living in the city $500-1000.

If we were to attempt to provide the service that all parties consent to without having the city government in on it, the city government would shut the business down and be able to throw us in jail if we attempted to continue working.

You're probably thinking, well, what does the city government actually do? Is it for safety? The answer is no, not for safety.

They justify their policy by saying its for consumer protection, but the policy literally has nothing to do with consumer protection. They go to the job site, briefly look at something "for safety" that has no effect on safety, collect their $100s, then wait for the next time people in the city try to enter into a mutually consenting agreement so they can say it's illegal unless it includes giving them $100s again.

For this service, typically all contracting parties prefer to consent without the government involved, but that's illegal and the consumer has to pay for it.

[CoccoBill]

One example is legalizing psychadelics for medicinal use. That allows the doctor, consumer, supplier, and other relevant parties to legally consent commercially on the selling/buying of the psychadelics.

Another example is that it is not legal for most people in the US to purchase catastrophic-only health insurance. That's the kind I want to buy, and it's a kind companies offered to people like me before the government made it illegal. The mechanism by which it is illegal is the government reducing what people are allowed to consent to.

A third example, I'll pull directly from an industry I work in, and it's the city governments that reduce the legal consent.

We contract with consumers to provide a service, but the contracting parties are not allowed to consent unless the city government is in on it. The government takes time and money away from the business, which is all passed on to the consumer. Over a life time, this one policy probably costs each person living in the city $500-1000.

To me it sounds like you're for legalizing certain things that are currently illegal/restricted, and reducing government oversight. These aren't a surprise, I figured you'd support those. I was just thrown off by the framing of "legalizing consent", never seen those terms used in this context.

If we were to attempt to provide the service that all parties consent to without having the city government in on it, the city government would shut the business down and be able to throw us in jail if we attempted to continue working.

You're probably thinking, well, what does the city government actually do? Is it for safety? The answer is no, not for safety.

They justify their policy by saying its for consumer protection, but the policy literally has nothing to do with consumer protection. They go to the job site, briefly look at something "for safety" that has no effect on safety, collect their $100s, then wait for the next time people in the city try to enter into a mutually consenting agreement so they can say it's illegal unless it includes giving them $100s again.

For this service, typically all contracting parties prefer to consent without the government involved, but that's illegal and the consumer has to pay for it.

Sounds like a poorly implemented policy, which aren't too uncommon. If it incurs additional costs higher than its benefits, it should be reworked or removed.