11 ms·

>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 sayi

>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infringe upon the right to engage in voluntary interactions, and stop enforcing those laws until they are officially repealed.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these core laws that should be maintained or spurious impositions on voluntary interactions that should be ignored and repealed (which would have the quick effect of further increasing inequality)?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.
  - toss1 9y ago
    so, your argument has finally boiled down to: ALL statutes should be repealed. Every statute impinges on conduct that could be voluntary agreed among some set of parties. You might actually knowingly want my cheap deathtrap car, or want me to pay you 50c/hour without workman's comp and unemployment insurance. You might even voluntarily want me to murder you (easier than suicide or some ritualistic purpose). There are lawless societies that exist, and they do not work well. They are usually called "Failed States" for a reason. If you really want that, it is relatively cheap to go there. But, do not expect much of a future for yourself or your family. Yes, you are nominally more free in the sense that you can do anything you want. But you are actually substantially less free because there is little or nothing in the way of resources, infrastructure, societal conventions, laws, etc. To build and maintain a complex society, there must exist some significant regulation of markets, including some voluntary activities (start with managing the Commons Problem). To say otherwise is merely spouting a useless ideology that will actually harm growth and the availability of freedom.

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.
- toss1 9y ago
  so, your argument has finally boiled down to: ALL statutes should be repealed. Every statute impinges on conduct that could be voluntary agreed among some set of parties. You might actually knowingly want my cheap deathtrap car, or want me to pay you 50c/hour without workman's comp and unemployment insurance. You might even voluntarily want me to murder you (easier than suicide or some ritualistic purpose). There are lawless societies that exist, and they do not work well. They are usually called "Failed States" for a reason. If you really want that, it is relatively cheap to go there. But, do not expect much of a future for yourself or your family. Yes, you are nominally more free in the sense that you can do anything you want. But you are actually substantially less free because there is little or nothing in the way of resources, infrastructure, societal conventions, laws, etc. To build and maintain a complex society, there must exist some significant regulation of markets, including some voluntary activities (start with managing the Commons Problem). To say otherwise is merely spouting a useless ideology that will actually harm growth and the availability of freedom.