3 ms·

>We're both free to do this because safety regulations and laws are an impingement on our "right" to engage in any voluntary economic interactions, right? Defr

>We're both free to do this because safety regulations and laws are an impingement on our "right" to engage in any voluntary economic interactions, right? Defraudment is not a voluntary interaction. By definition, it's involuntary, and thus a criminal action that would face punishment under the criminal justice system. The corporation employing anyone who commits such fraud would also be liable in civil court, and could be forced to pay for the damages suffered by the victim of the fraud/criminal-negligence. A criminal and civil justice system is the bedrock of a free market. I am in no way implying getting rid of them. If Uber's employees are found to have committed fraud, I would in no way object to the company being forced to compensate those who suffered from the fraud. Try to understand what the person you have a disagreement with actually believes. I recommend you start by learning what a free market is, as you seem to see it as some caricature, resembling a lawless anarchy.

toss1 9y ago
OK, you're "I am in no way implying getting rid of" "criminal and civil justice system". Yet this entire discussion is based on your initial assertion that Uber should be free to break the law in order to create 'great consumer benefits'. You cannot have it both ways. Either we have a system of laws and expect people to follow them, or at least not deliberately and systematically (e.g., write software specifically to ...) break them, -OR- we have a system whereby anyone can break the laws, -OR- authorianism/crony capitalism, where the selected can break the laws.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >Yet this entire discussion is based on your initial assertion that Uber should be free to break the law in order to create 'great consumer benefits'. I'm saying we should get rid of those laws that infringe upon the right to engage in voluntary interactions, and stop enforcing those laws until they are officially repealed. We should absolutely maintain the core of the legal system, which prohibits involuntary interactions.
  - toss1 9y ago
    ok, the courts already do give great freedom to the ability to engage in contracts. But they do limit it past the point where it starts to infringe on regulated conduct. For example, employment is regulated such that employers are required to buy and pay for Workers' Compensation and Unemployment insurance, so that workers injured on the job or laid off have some safety net. It is illegal to misclassify (W-2) workers as independent contractors (1099s) largely to ensure that these programs are in place and solvent. As an employer, this is an inconvenient and somewhat costly PITA. As a worker and someone looking at the overall effect on society, it looks like a real necessity. These laws, along with minimum wage laws, etc, also reduce (a little bit) the leverage that an employer has over workers, and improve a bit the inequality. A secondary effect of unemployment insurance, COBRA laws, etc, is that they reduce the burden on other parts of society and govt, such as the health care system, welfare, crime reduction, etc. So, are these core laws that should be maintained or spurious impositions on voluntary interactions that should be ignored and repealed (which would have the quick effect of further increasing inequality)? I look at the situation and see them as core laws that need to be increased. For example WalMart pays just over minimum wage, but does not pay a living wage, so you can work there full time and still be below the poverty level. They actually provide seminars to their workers on how to obtain and maximize govt benefits. That looks to me like WalMart exploiting their available voluntary interactions to make you and me subsidize their workforce (without govt assistance, their workers would get sicker and less healthy and they'd have higher turnover and training costs). I think it argues for a minimum wage set so that 45 hour work weeks is above the poverty line and ineligible for benefits. Sounds like you think it's all voluntary, so nevermind the knock-on costs to society or the fact that WalMart's owners continue to get richer, and the workers, poorer.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      >But they do limit it past the point where it starts to infringe on regulated conduct. Because the courts are subservient to statute. What I'm saying is that those statutes that violate the right to engage in voluntary interactions should be repealed.
      - 9y ago

toss1 9y ago

OK, you're "I am in no way implying getting rid of" "criminal and civil justice system". Yet this entire discussion is based on your initial assertion that Uber should be free to break the law in order to create 'great consumer benefits'. You cannot have it both ways. Either we have a system of laws and expect people to follow them, or at least not deliberately and systematically (e.g., write software specifically to ...) break them, -OR- we have a system whereby anyone can break the laws, -OR- authorianism/crony capitalism, where the selected can break the laws.

Jabanga 9y ago
>Yet this entire discussion is based on your initial assertion that Uber should be free to break the law in order to create 'great consumer benefits'. I'm saying we should get rid of those laws that infringe upon the right to engage in voluntary interactions, and stop enforcing those laws until they are officially repealed. We should absolutely maintain the core of the legal system, which prohibits involuntary interactions.
- toss1 9y ago
  ok, the courts already do give great freedom to the ability to engage in contracts. But they do limit it past the point where it starts to infringe on regulated conduct. For example, employment is regulated such that employers are required to buy and pay for Workers' Compensation and Unemployment insurance, so that workers injured on the job or laid off have some safety net. It is illegal to misclassify (W-2) workers as independent contractors (1099s) largely to ensure that these programs are in place and solvent. As an employer, this is an inconvenient and somewhat costly PITA. As a worker and someone looking at the overall effect on society, it looks like a real necessity. These laws, along with minimum wage laws, etc, also reduce (a little bit) the leverage that an employer has over workers, and improve a bit the inequality. A secondary effect of unemployment insurance, COBRA laws, etc, is that they reduce the burden on other parts of society and govt, such as the health care system, welfare, crime reduction, etc. So, are these core laws that should be maintained or spurious impositions on voluntary interactions that should be ignored and repealed (which would have the quick effect of further increasing inequality)? I look at the situation and see them as core laws that need to be increased. For example WalMart pays just over minimum wage, but does not pay a living wage, so you can work there full time and still be below the poverty level. They actually provide seminars to their workers on how to obtain and maximize govt benefits. That looks to me like WalMart exploiting their available voluntary interactions to make you and me subsidize their workforce (without govt assistance, their workers would get sicker and less healthy and they'd have higher turnover and training costs). I think it argues for a minimum wage set so that 45 hour work weeks is above the poverty line and ineligible for benefits. Sounds like you think it's all voluntary, so nevermind the knock-on costs to society or the fact that WalMart's owners continue to get richer, and the workers, poorer.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >But they do limit it past the point where it starts to infringe on regulated conduct. Because the courts are subservient to statute. What I'm saying is that those statutes that violate the right to engage in voluntary interactions should be repealed.
    - 9y ago