12 ms·

>This is a kind of feudalism, where the peasants need to rely on the strength of lords and their knights (lawyers) to enjoy basic freedoms. Actually, I think i

>This is a kind of feudalism, where the peasants need to rely on the strength of lords and their knights (lawyers) to enjoy basic freedoms. Actually, I think it's a hallmark of a free society where consenting adults are able to enter into, or not, any agreements they choose. The problem is that some people make bad choices in the agreements they commit to, or they enter them in bad faith, not intending to honor them, and when the chickens come to roost, we're instructed to feel sorry for them by writers at the New York Times.

solidsnack9000 9y ago
Why do you think noncompetes are the hallmark of a free society?
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >Why do you think noncompetes are the hallmark of a free society? You parsed it wrong. I meant to say that consenting adults freely entering (or not) into agreements with other consenting adults is a (not the) hallmark of a free society. Why do you think that consenting adults freely entering into contracts are analogous to peasants and lords?
  - solidsnack9000 9y ago
    The issue is whether people exercise their rights "under the protection" of more powerful (but private) entities. For example, in some of the cases cited in the New York Times, courts acknowledged that non-competes were not to be enforced -- but only after the hiring company went to bat for their new staffer. If someone enters into an unenforceable agreement, they should be freed of it speedily and inexpensively. Maybe the terms of the agreement are such that its' unenforceability is non-obvious; but it is ultimately the one bringing suit who should bear the cost of wasting everyone's time in that case.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >If someone enters into an unenforceable agreement, they should be freed of it speedily and inexpensively. Maybe the terms of the agreement are such that its' unenforceability is non-obvious; but it is ultimately the one bringing suit who should bear the cost of wasting everyone's time in that case. Unfortunately, the Democratic party in the US has fought tooth-and-nail against "loser pays" tort reform for decades.
      - solidsnack9000 9y ago
        I hope I answered your original question, with regards to the parallel to feudalism. In a different legal climate it might not play out that way; but in the current one it does.
afterburner 9y ago
Do you know what a power imbalance is? You think having your life controlled by a corporation is a sign of a free society?
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >Do you know what a power imbalance is? Yes. >You think having your life controlled by a corporation is a sign of a free society? When it comes to me signing a contract that some corporation would like me to sign, I have complete, inviolable power to NOT sign it. The power over my signature is 100% mine.
  - afterburner 9y ago
    What if you need that job to make ends meet?
    - mcv 9y ago
      That's the real problem of course: we're dependent on food we can't grow, and houses we can't build, and that makes us unfree. If everybody was automatically provided with the basic necessities, we'd be free to negotiate on a more equal footing.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >What if you need that job to make ends meet? Then perhaps you should be grateful enough to the company that is saving your bacon that you don't willfully violate contracts you signed with them.
      - afterburner 9y ago
        Ha, you don't get it, at all. You should read the history of labour laws.
contravariant 9y ago
I won't say that your definition of a free society is wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out that it doesn't exactly rule out a feudal system.
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  Yeah. The feudal arrangement was always understand as "reciprocal" and one can argue, it was pretty good relative to the alternatives at times.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >I won't say that your definition of a free society is wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out that it doesn't exactly rule out a feudal system. I didn't provide a "definition" of a free society.
  - contravariant 9y ago
    I suppose your post doesn't rule out that 'a free society' might be characterised by more than just the ability to freely enter agreements. However you did fail to distinguish your free society from a feudal system.
astrange 9y ago
All things you can freely choose do in life were already dictated by those who came before you.
rocqua 9y ago
No, the problem is that sometimes, people are not able to refuse a work agreement. There are plenty of cases where a potential employee essentially has a choice between signing and starving. If the employer knows this, that is no longer an agreement between consenting adults. If I put a gun to your head, and you then 'consent' to an agreement where you give me money, and I don't shoot you, is that a hallmark of free society?
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >No, the problem is that sometimes, people are not able to refuse a work agreement. That statement has absolutely no basis in reality. It gets trotted out time and time again, however. >There are plenty of cases where a potential employee essentially has a choice between signing and starving. Again, that is pure BS. No one starves in the US. The number one health problem is obesity. >If I put a gun to your head, and you then 'consent' to an agreement where you give me money, and I don't shoot you, is that a hallmark of free society? If you don't know the difference between an armed robbery and a freely entered agreement, I thinking I'm wasting my time arguing with you.
  - rocqua 9y ago
    My point is that consent is a sliding scale. Armed robbery is at an extreme point on that scale. For a less extreme point, consider your manager asking something of you in a personal capacity. There is clearly a problematic imbalance of power there. For a slightly worse example, consider sexual harassment. This is not o.k. due to the power imbalance. In general, consent given under duress isn't valid. It seems facetious to say there is a sharp line where duress ends and 'fair hardship' starts.
  - huehehue 9y ago
    >Again, that is pure BS. No one starves in the US. The number one health problem is obesity. As someone who has been starving in the US and signed a suffocating work agreement to feed myself and keep my apartment, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Plenty of people starve in the US. I don't think I'm an edge case, either -- I have many friends in similar (or worse) situations. If you've never had to strategically overdraw money from your bank account or write a check you knew would bounce to get by, then I don't think you know how bad it can get for the "middle" class.
Gibbon1 9y ago
You realize of course then that surfs (and their descendants) became surfs via an oath of bandage. Of course you do.
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  I suspect they usually became serfs by way of a great warlord saying to a lesser one: here is your territory and these people are your serfs. Whatever oath there was, was purely pro forma, and the alternative was death or banishment.

solidsnack9000 9y ago

Why do you think noncompetes are the hallmark of a free society?

rhapsodic 9y ago
>Why do you think noncompetes are the hallmark of a free society? You parsed it wrong. I meant to say that consenting adults freely entering (or not) into agreements with other consenting adults is a (not the) hallmark of a free society. Why do you think that consenting adults freely entering into contracts are analogous to peasants and lords?
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  The issue is whether people exercise their rights "under the protection" of more powerful (but private) entities. For example, in some of the cases cited in the New York Times, courts acknowledged that non-competes were not to be enforced -- but only after the hiring company went to bat for their new staffer. If someone enters into an unenforceable agreement, they should be freed of it speedily and inexpensively. Maybe the terms of the agreement are such that its' unenforceability is non-obvious; but it is ultimately the one bringing suit who should bear the cost of wasting everyone's time in that case.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >If someone enters into an unenforceable agreement, they should be freed of it speedily and inexpensively. Maybe the terms of the agreement are such that its' unenforceability is non-obvious; but it is ultimately the one bringing suit who should bear the cost of wasting everyone's time in that case. Unfortunately, the Democratic party in the US has fought tooth-and-nail against "loser pays" tort reform for decades.
    - solidsnack9000 9y ago
      I hope I answered your original question, with regards to the parallel to feudalism. In a different legal climate it might not play out that way; but in the current one it does.

afterburner 9y ago

Do you know what a power imbalance is? You think having your life controlled by a corporation is a sign of a free society?

rhapsodic 9y ago
>Do you know what a power imbalance is? Yes. >You think having your life controlled by a corporation is a sign of a free society? When it comes to me signing a contract that some corporation would like me to sign, I have complete, inviolable power to NOT sign it. The power over my signature is 100% mine.
- afterburner 9y ago
  What if you need that job to make ends meet?
  - mcv 9y ago
    That's the real problem of course: we're dependent on food we can't grow, and houses we can't build, and that makes us unfree. If everybody was automatically provided with the basic necessities, we'd be free to negotiate on a more equal footing.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >What if you need that job to make ends meet? Then perhaps you should be grateful enough to the company that is saving your bacon that you don't willfully violate contracts you signed with them.
    - afterburner 9y ago
      Ha, you don't get it, at all. You should read the history of labour laws.

contravariant 9y ago

I won't say that your definition of a free society is wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out that it doesn't exactly rule out a feudal system.

solidsnack9000 9y ago
Yeah. The feudal arrangement was always understand as "reciprocal" and one can argue, it was pretty good relative to the alternatives at times.
rhapsodic 9y ago
>I won't say that your definition of a free society is wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out that it doesn't exactly rule out a feudal system. I didn't provide a "definition" of a free society.
- contravariant 9y ago
  I suppose your post doesn't rule out that 'a free society' might be characterised by more than just the ability to freely enter agreements. However you did fail to distinguish your free society from a feudal system.

astrange 9y ago

All things you can freely choose do in life were already dictated by those who came before you.

rocqua 9y ago

No, the problem is that sometimes, people are not able to refuse a work agreement. There are plenty of cases where a potential employee essentially has a choice between signing and starving. If the employer knows this, that is no longer an agreement between consenting adults. If I put a gun to your head, and you then 'consent' to an agreement where you give me money, and I don't shoot you, is that a hallmark of free society?

rhapsodic 9y ago
>No, the problem is that sometimes, people are not able to refuse a work agreement. That statement has absolutely no basis in reality. It gets trotted out time and time again, however. >There are plenty of cases where a potential employee essentially has a choice between signing and starving. Again, that is pure BS. No one starves in the US. The number one health problem is obesity. >If I put a gun to your head, and you then 'consent' to an agreement where you give me money, and I don't shoot you, is that a hallmark of free society? If you don't know the difference between an armed robbery and a freely entered agreement, I thinking I'm wasting my time arguing with you.
- rocqua 9y ago
  My point is that consent is a sliding scale. Armed robbery is at an extreme point on that scale. For a less extreme point, consider your manager asking something of you in a personal capacity. There is clearly a problematic imbalance of power there. For a slightly worse example, consider sexual harassment. This is not o.k. due to the power imbalance. In general, consent given under duress isn't valid. It seems facetious to say there is a sharp line where duress ends and 'fair hardship' starts.
- huehehue 9y ago
  >Again, that is pure BS. No one starves in the US. The number one health problem is obesity. As someone who has been starving in the US and signed a suffocating work agreement to feed myself and keep my apartment, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Plenty of people starve in the US. I don't think I'm an edge case, either -- I have many friends in similar (or worse) situations. If you've never had to strategically overdraw money from your bank account or write a check you knew would bounce to get by, then I don't think you know how bad it can get for the "middle" class.

Gibbon1 9y ago

You realize of course then that surfs (and their descendants) became surfs via an oath of bandage. Of course you do.

solidsnack9000 9y ago
I suspect they usually became serfs by way of a great warlord saying to a lesser one: here is your territory and these people are your serfs. Whatever oath there was, was purely pro forma, and the alternative was death or banishment.