Women think they are entitled to more restrooms than men!

[Chemical Ollie]

I have never seen a bed, or even a sofa in the restroom, and hardly ever a bath tub in the bath room either.

[Mr. Harley]

David Floyd, nice counterpost.

First, how is an entitlement different than a right? Both are legally enforced with the confines of the legal system in question. I would argue that an entitlement is something you are given. A right is something you have intrinsically, it's not a "something" you are given.

That makes the restroom issue interesting. You per se are not receiving an object directly - insurance, cash, transportation, medical care, etc. Conversely, this is not something quote inherent to you, as in the right to due process, freedom from harrassment, etc. Like most of the issues where posters here end up with good discussion, it occupies a odd middle ground. I'll stick with right .

David, as you've probably noticed in my other posts, I feel language is everything - so does Carl Rove - Bush's media genius, so I'll stick with his expertise (also, becasue he agrees with me ). Unfortunately, when you have a corporate state, which the USA came perilously close to a century ago, the government does need to intervene. The beginning of workplace legislation in the USA largely dates from this period.

Look at the strike now in California, over the health insurance. Without argueing the pros or cons, the three corporations involved signed a revenue sharing pact to help them deal with strikes (as in break the unions). They are now being investigated over exactly that, labor issues are part of the competitive system, colluding to eliminate them to the disadvantage of smaller grocery stores is illegal. The point is that corporations will collude, establish market territories and monopolies natually if they are not regulated.

That is why workplace regulations are necessary. If corporations are able to collude, either explicitly or via accepted practices, i.e 80% of our corporate officers come from the same five universtities, which all teach the same approach toward labor, so all the major employers make highly similar policies, and smaller employers emulate them due to the advantages accrued to them, and the government has a policy of permitting/encouraging widespread immigration (or there is widespread unemployment, as in third world countries) which increases employment pressures, etc. It is that type of interlocking system that often results in legislation concerning employee rights. Please note that this description is a worst case one, only portions of it apply in the USA.

(my post)
Remember, a corporation itself is a special entity created by the government, in a truly libetarian society they wouldn't exist
(your reply: We both know something similar would exist - you really have no point here

Not necessarily. Associations, etc. would exist. The unique characteristics of corporations, for example, shiedling the owners and officers from liability lawsuits would not have to exist. Coporations inevitably would exist given the history of large centralized governments in the West, but they would not have to exist. They exist because people naturally look for ways to use the system to their advantage and to protect themselves from competition, and corporations are one of the ways this was/is done, i.e. look at the Hudson Bay corporation.

Plus, based on your arguement, I could state that we both know something similar would exist - reference worker's rights and/or entitlememts in a modern semi-democratic state. Then we couldn't have this discussion.

[Dr Strangelove]

If an employer didn't provide toilets and required that employees not leave the building and refused to let them go in the hall or out the window then he would be setting himself up for workmen's compensation claims after some of his employees became sick when trying to hold onto their urine too long.

I don't see what is wrong with adjusting the ratio of men's rooms to women's rooms to a point where each sex has an equal waiting time to use the facilities, adjusting for time wasted chatting in the room.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This should depend on the terms of the contract.

Not according to the law .

[David Floyd]

shawn,

First, how is an entitlement different than a right? Both are legally enforced with the confines of the legal system in question. I would argue that an entitlement is something you are given. A right is something you have intrinsically, it's not a "something" you are given.

Precisely. I'd just add that a right is something that a government cannot create or eliminate. It's either there or not, regardless of government.

Unfortunately, when you have a corporate state, which the USA came perilously close to a century ago, the government does need to intervene. The beginning of workplace legislation in the USA largely dates from this period.

Actually, the government needs to STOP intervening. We've never had anything close to laissez-faire capitalism. We've had government laws and regulations skewed in favor of business, but we've never had a true "hands off" approach.

That is why workplace regulations are necessary. If corporations are able to collude, either explicitly or via accepted practices, i.e 80% of our corporate officers come from the same five universtities, which all teach the same approach toward labor, so all the major employers make highly similar policies, and smaller employers emulate them due to the advantages accrued to them, and the government has a policy of permitting/encouraging widespread immigration (or there is widespread unemployment, as in third world countries) which increases employment pressures, etc. It is that type of interlocking system that often results in legislation concerning employee rights. Please note that this description is a worst case one, only portions of it apply in the USA.

You can argue about workplace regulations, but I don't think this issue, fundamentally, is about workplace regulations. It's about what I can and can't do on my own private property. If I have a house, for example, no one claims that I have to let you use my restroom, and no one claims I have to let the cable guy use my restroom. Therefore, free access to a restroom cannot be a right.

If free access to a restroom isn't a right, then it must be another government entitlement program. But an entitlement program is basically a wealth transfer program of some kind. It takes money from me and gives it to you. A restroom entitlement program, for example, forces the company to incur additional costs, which are then passed on in some way to everyone.

My proposal is simple. While I don't think companies have an obligation, morally speaking, to provide restrooms, since free restroom access cannot be a right, I do think it's a good idea for a company to provide a certain number of free restrooms for its employees, from a morale standpoint. When a certain group of employees gets upset, and wants additional restrooms, they should go to the company, not the government. If they decide to go to the government, and the government decides to force the company to build more restrooms, I see no reason why the cost of those restrooms should be passed onto me, the consumer, or, in this case, me, the male employee - or, for that matter, to female employees who were NOT complaining. The solution, if the government decides to stick it's nose in, is to make the additional restrooms coin operated in some way - that way, anyone who wanted additional restrooms gets to pay for them, but anyone who doesn't want to pay still has the free access restrooms, which the company provided as a service to its employees.

The unique characteristics of corporations, for example, shiedling the owners and officers from liability lawsuits would not have to exist.

In a Libertarian society, though, product liability would be a lot less common. For example, lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers and gun manufacturers would get laughed out of court.

Coporations inevitably would exist given the history of large centralized governments in the West, but they would not have to exist. They exist because people naturally look for ways to use the system to their advantage and to protect themselves from competition, and corporations are one of the ways this was/is done, i.e. look at the Hudson Bay corporation.

Honestly, I don't know what would exist. They wouldn't have to be corporations, but it's silly to assume that SOME FORM of big business would not exist, in the absence of a strong government.

DS,

I don't see what is wrong with adjusting the ratio of men's rooms to women's rooms to a point where each sex has an equal waiting time to use the facilities, adjusting for time wasted chatting in the room.

I don't either, NECESSARILY, as long as this is done voluntarily by the company as a service to its employees, and is not something a company is forced to do, especially when the building is already built, requiring a remodel.

[:) Smiley]

A better solution of course would be to redesign the toilet to make it more efficient. The Japanese seem to be pretty good with it, when land is that scarce, you want as many people as possible to use a bathroom in a given amount of time.

The U.S. toilet still uses the same design as decades past.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Another strawman, unless you think you have a right to come into my house and use my restroom. To use another example, another "bodily function" is the need to eat. That doesn't mean food is free.

In New York City, I have the right to come into your business, if you're a public-access store/restaurant, and and use your restroom. It's city law--and legally, you cannot refuse anyone to use your restroom, customer or not. Several places try to deny non-customers the restrooms (even having signs), but all you have to do is mention the law and the owners know they have to let you use it.

I'm sure this gets libertarian hackles up, but here's the rub: Manhattan, being an insanely crowded place where land values are ridiculously high, simply cannot support a network of public restrooms and the staff necessary to maintain them throughout the city. Barring the parks and a few subway stations, public restrooms are nil.

If the city were to provide public restrooms, it would entail an expenditure of prodigious proportions, as would the subsequent maintenance of said restrooms according to NY state and city codes. Who would pay for that? Why, the taxpayers, of course--especially those small business owners.

So requiring private businesses to provide restrooms is the best solution for everyone. Business owners have to tolerate non-customers using their facilities, but they'd rather have that than higher taxes to support municipal bathrooms.

The only other option is simply unacceptable, as we have enough people pissing and pooping in our streets, thank you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In a Libertarian society, though, product liability would be a lot less common. For example, lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers and gun manufacturers would get laughed out of court.

What about those people who smoked BEFORE the cigarette companies admitted their products were bad. Are we going to reward corporate fraud?

[GePap]

Why does anyone still beat the dead horse of DF? As if anyone here could not see his answers coming from 3 trillion light years away: hint: "He is a radical libertarian"..so much space taken up by somehting that takes so little time to explain.

[Bosh]

BG: The obvious answer is private restrooms of course None of his opinions ever make the slightest allowance for reality or feasibility.

DF's answers are about as unpredictable as the exciting vista of grass growing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Another strawman, unless you think you have a right to come into my house and use my restroom. To use another example, another "bodily function" is the need to eat. That doesn't mean food is free.

It appears that you don't know what a strawman is, DF. I have never argued any stranger can come into your house and use your restroom. I wasn't arguing about general "body functions" or whether they should be free, either. Please, stop this, three strawmen in a row. My side hurts

[David Floyd]

BG,

If the city were to provide public restrooms, it would entail an expenditure of prodigious proportions, as would the subsequent maintenance of said restrooms according to NY state and city codes. Who would pay for that? Why, the taxpayers, of course--especially those small business owners.

Then the city shouldn't provide public restrooms. Neither should it force businesses to turn their restrooms into public facilities.

The only other option is simply unacceptable, as we have enough people pissing and pooping in our streets, thank you.

I guess they'll just have to learn to a)hold it, b)go before they go out, or c)learn where places are that allow restroom use.

Imran,

What about those people who smoked BEFORE the cigarette companies admitted their products were bad. Are we going to reward corporate fraud?

I think that a lawsuit in this case MIGHT be reasonable, if the following were true:
a)The tobacco company knowingly and intentionally misled people about the dangers of tobacco
b)The smoker, once he or she learned of the dangers, made a LEGITIMATE attempt to stop smoking

UR,

I have never argued any stranger can come into your house and use your restroom.

Not as such, no, but you are arguing that if I own a business, I have an obligation (outside of contracts) to let employees (or, in BG's argument, anyone) use my restroom. To me, that's the same thing - it's a private property argument that goes beyond specific examples.

[DinoDoc]

Why wouldn't you let employees use your restroom? It beats them pissing in the work areas.

[David Floyd]

First of all, I've stated repeatedly that I WOULD let employees use my restroom. The problem is, employees thinking that they are ENTITLED to do so, even without my consent.

Secondly, "pissing in the work areas" is NOT the only alternative.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
BG,

Then the city shouldn't provide public restrooms. Neither should it force businesses to turn their restrooms into public facilities.



I guess they'll just have to learn to a)hold it, b)go before they go out, or c)learn where places are that allow restroom use.

And herein we have proof you have no concept of reality whatsoever.

When you emerge from fantasy land, please realize we're talking a stretch of 5 miles with 4-6 million people on it at any given moment.

Forget it, DF--in your world, cities get to have dung and piss in the streets, with chronic outbreaks of cholera and other such diseases. People will go wherever they can if a restroom isn't available.

Here's the real world where libertarian ideology won't help a civic leader--it's A or B: publicly-funded public restrooms, or make private restrooms open to the public. Or become known as Mayor Poopsmith and get booted out of office in favor of a leader who'll actually do something about the problem rather than whine about natural rights (which a potty-starved public could care less about when they gotta go).