on the economical level it balances out, but on social level we both gained something
Yep. You basically gained trust and goodwill.
But I’m not sure that the defining characteristic of money transactions is that the money captures all the value. I have a feeling it has more to do with establishing (or not) some obligation for the future.
If you come to my door with a plate of cookies, by accepting it I signal that (1) I am willing to enter into a social relationship with you and (2) I now have a tiny social debt to you. Rejecting a gift is rejecting an offer of a relationship, that’s why it’s an insult in most cultures.
Notice, however, that all this does not apply when money is involved. If I buy something for money, I neither enter a relationship, nor incur a social debt. It’s a transaction without first-order social consequences.
once a girl sells her virginity for $120k, it becomes public knowledge that the value of her virginity is $120k and not a penny more
I don’t know about that. It’s an illiquid market for an idiosyncratic good, not sure you can trust the values to be exact X-D A more important point is that it’s a consumption good so its value post-sale is irrelevant: it does not exist any more.
I think the issue has more to do with the concept of things (and services :-D) that money can’t buy. If you look at it from meta heights, this concept functions as a limit on the power of money in a society. If you can buy everything, a sufficiently rich person can have everything. But if there are things money can’t buy, the power of the super-rich is constrained. This operates on both the legal level and the Overton window levelsl.
It would be wise to think carefully about consequences before saddling up to go tear down that constraint.
Another funny detail is that—although not everyone agrees with this—when something is in the category “a service provided for money to strangers”, various anti-discrimination laws can apply.
Like, if I bring cookies to some randomly selected neighbors, but I “coincidentally” ignore all black people… people may notice, but there is nothing they could legally do about it. On the other hand, if I start selling the cookies on the street, and then refuse to sell them to black people, there may be a problem.
Similarly, a girl who dates a few guys who all happen to be white is nothing to be debated. But if she happens to have a prejudice against black guys, and she publicly offers to provide sex for money, and a black customer shows interest in the offer, and she refuses… it could become quite interesting, if the offended customer decides to take legal action. (Or, what if the customer is a lesbian?)
when something is in the category “a service provided for money to strangers”, various anti-discrimination laws can apply.
Depends on the local laws, obviously, but I don’t think it’s a function of “for money”, instead it’s a function of being a public business. To clarify, I believe that in the US a private club can discriminate as much as it wants—it’s perfectly legal for a private club to admit, say, only black Christian women under the age of 30. And the club can charge money for what it does. The critical difference is that it doesn’t offer its services to the general public.
it could become quite interesting, if the offended customer decides to take legal action
Yep. You basically gained trust and goodwill.
But I’m not sure that the defining characteristic of money transactions is that the money captures all the value. I have a feeling it has more to do with establishing (or not) some obligation for the future.
If you come to my door with a plate of cookies, by accepting it I signal that (1) I am willing to enter into a social relationship with you and (2) I now have a tiny social debt to you. Rejecting a gift is rejecting an offer of a relationship, that’s why it’s an insult in most cultures.
Notice, however, that all this does not apply when money is involved. If I buy something for money, I neither enter a relationship, nor incur a social debt. It’s a transaction without first-order social consequences.
I don’t know about that. It’s an illiquid market for an idiosyncratic good, not sure you can trust the values to be exact X-D A more important point is that it’s a consumption good so its value post-sale is irrelevant: it does not exist any more.
I think the issue has more to do with the concept of things (and services :-D) that money can’t buy. If you look at it from meta heights, this concept functions as a limit on the power of money in a society. If you can buy everything, a sufficiently rich person can have everything. But if there are things money can’t buy, the power of the super-rich is constrained. This operates on both the legal level and the Overton window levelsl.
It would be wise to think carefully about consequences before saddling up to go tear down that constraint.
Another funny detail is that—although not everyone agrees with this—when something is in the category “a service provided for money to strangers”, various anti-discrimination laws can apply.
Like, if I bring cookies to some randomly selected neighbors, but I “coincidentally” ignore all black people… people may notice, but there is nothing they could legally do about it. On the other hand, if I start selling the cookies on the street, and then refuse to sell them to black people, there may be a problem.
Similarly, a girl who dates a few guys who all happen to be white is nothing to be debated. But if she happens to have a prejudice against black guys, and she publicly offers to provide sex for money, and a black customer shows interest in the offer, and she refuses… it could become quite interesting, if the offended customer decides to take legal action. (Or, what if the customer is a lesbian?)
Depends on the local laws, obviously, but I don’t think it’s a function of “for money”, instead it’s a function of being a public business. To clarify, I believe that in the US a private club can discriminate as much as it wants—it’s perfectly legal for a private club to admit, say, only black Christian women under the age of 30. And the club can charge money for what it does. The critical difference is that it doesn’t offer its services to the general public.
So if the customer is a dick… X-D