4 ms·

Ok, so all benefits are equal, and all drawbacks are equal? We as a society can't do anything that's not beneficial to absolutely everyone? I posit that a few

by pimmen 9y ago

Ok, so all benefits are equal, and all drawbacks are equal? We as a society can't do anything that's not beneficial to absolutely everyone? I posit that a few things are not that harmful to make public, except in some cases that varies for each individual (like being in a witness protection program) if someone already has the means to identify you as you (such as a full name). Some of those things would be your address, what vehicles you own, wether or not you have stock in corporations, wether or not you're married, your age, your level of education and some other things. I don't see how the knowledge about these things can be used to blackmail you through social stigma, unless you did something illegal. I have the same feeling towards pay checks. The discussion is wether or not pay checks are too private to disclose publicly, not if it's ok to release everything about everyone.

patrickaljord 9y ago
> We as a society can't do anything that's not beneficial to absolutely everyone? Are you aware that laws are enforced by government force? That is to say, if you don't obey to a law, cops will be sent to your house and if you resist they will point guns at you and shoot. This is a non-controversial fact that both leftists and right-wing economists, politicians and philosophers agree upon. Now, with that in mind, I don't like guns and I think they should only be used in extreme situations. I don't consider knowing people's paycheck to be one of these situations where gun violence should be used and therefor I'm opposed to this law forcing people to publish their income as I think gun violence would not make sense in this case. If people do not want to publish this private information, then let them be. That's just my opinion though, if you believe it is worse it to kill people who resist giving up the amount of their paycheck (because that's how every law is enforced if one resists), then you're right, this law is great.
- namlem 9y ago
  Not true, you could make it a tort instead of a law, where employees can sue for punitive damages if secret negotiations have occurred. No guns necessary.
  - patrickaljord 9y ago
    > No guns necessary. Really? A tort will get you a fine, refuse to pay it and they will send you to jail, resist your arrest and they will use their guns. No way around that.
    - krapp 9y ago
      Not every attempt at "resisting" the force of law results in being shot. You're stretching the concept of the monopoly on violence and the "men with guns" metaphor to absurdity, when the "violence" in that context involves all compulsory interactions with the state, including mere arrest and detainment, or even having to buy postage stamps to send a letter.
    - Sleeep 9y ago
      This isn't really how it works, we don't have debtors prisons. If you don't pay a civil judgement against you then the debtholder gets permission to garnish your wages and bank accounts or seizure your assets. If you have no wages, bank accounts, or assets the judgement doesn't get paid.
      - gehwartzen 9y ago
        What if I say "No, you can't seize my assets and I refuse to go to jail"?

by pimmen 9y ago

patrickaljord 9y ago

> We as a society can't do anything that's not beneficial to absolutely everyone? Are you aware that laws are enforced by government force? That is to say, if you don't obey to a law, cops will be sent to your house and if you resist they will point guns at you and shoot. This is a non-controversial fact that both leftists and right-wing economists, politicians and philosophers agree upon. Now, with that in mind, I don't like guns and I think they should only be used in extreme situations. I don't consider knowing people's paycheck to be one of these situations where gun violence should be used and therefor I'm opposed to this law forcing people to publish their income as I think gun violence would not make sense in this case. If people do not want to publish this private information, then let them be. That's just my opinion though, if you believe it is worse it to kill people who resist giving up the amount of their paycheck (because that's how every law is enforced if one resists), then you're right, this law is great.

namlem 9y ago
Not true, you could make it a tort instead of a law, where employees can sue for punitive damages if secret negotiations have occurred. No guns necessary.
- patrickaljord 9y ago
  > No guns necessary. Really? A tort will get you a fine, refuse to pay it and they will send you to jail, resist your arrest and they will use their guns. No way around that.
  - krapp 9y ago
    Not every attempt at "resisting" the force of law results in being shot. You're stretching the concept of the monopoly on violence and the "men with guns" metaphor to absurdity, when the "violence" in that context involves all compulsory interactions with the state, including mere arrest and detainment, or even having to buy postage stamps to send a letter.
  - Sleeep 9y ago
    This isn't really how it works, we don't have debtors prisons. If you don't pay a civil judgement against you then the debtholder gets permission to garnish your wages and bank accounts or seizure your assets. If you have no wages, bank accounts, or assets the judgement doesn't get paid.
    - gehwartzen 9y ago
      What if I say "No, you can't seize my assets and I refuse to go to jail"?