5 ms·

> 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

> 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"?

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"?