2 ms·

What is the "freedom to contract" that you keep bringing up. Contracts are legal instruments defined and enforced by the government, so if the government says y

by lovich 8y ago

What is the "freedom to contract" that you keep bringing up. Contracts are legal instruments defined and enforced by the government, so if the government says you can't do x in a contract then you can't do x. >That's hyperbole Because you are stating that anything other than absolute freedom is central planning. Beyond all of this, you started off this thread by saying that you think this will bias the journalists and affect their integrity. You've moved the goalposts multiple times and it's obvious you just don't like unions. If you want to have a discussion about that then put you're argument all out on the table instead of shoving it in after saying something provocative

CryptoPunk 8y ago
The freedom to contract is what I described. The prohibitions you bring up violate the freedom to contract. You're making an appeal to legality to claim that freedom to contract doesn't exist, which is an intellectually weak argument. >>Contracts are legal instruments defined and enforced by the government A contract is defined by the parties that sign it. It is an agreement. Agreements between individuals are not defined by the government. In other words, agreements do not exist only by virtue of the govermment willing them to exist. They are private arrangements that we have delegated the enforcement of to govermment. >>Because you are stating that anything other than absolute freedom is central planning. I asked you 'why' because I don't see what's hyperbolic about that. Any rule that supplants free choice with a rule imposed by a central authority is an expansion of the scope of central planning at the expense of personal freedom. This is absolutely undeniable and I don't understand why you're trying to make it out to be a controversial statement. >>Beyond all of this, you started off this thread by saying that you think this will bias the journalists and affect their integrity. You've moved the goalposts multiple times How could you possibly accuse me of that, when I was only answering the questions posed to me? You're not treating me reasonably at all.

by lovich 8y ago

CryptoPunk 8y ago

The freedom to contract is what I described. The prohibitions you bring up violate the freedom to contract. You're making an appeal to legality to claim that freedom to contract doesn't exist, which is an intellectually weak argument. >>Contracts are legal instruments defined and enforced by the government A contract is defined by the parties that sign it. It is an agreement. Agreements between individuals are not defined by the government. In other words, agreements do not exist only by virtue of the govermment willing them to exist. They are private arrangements that we have delegated the enforcement of to govermment. >>Because you are stating that anything other than absolute freedom is central planning. I asked you 'why' because I don't see what's hyperbolic about that. Any rule that supplants free choice with a rule imposed by a central authority is an expansion of the scope of central planning at the expense of personal freedom. This is absolutely undeniable and I don't understand why you're trying to make it out to be a controversial statement. >>Beyond all of this, you started off this thread by saying that you think this will bias the journalists and affect their integrity. You've moved the goalposts multiple times How could you possibly accuse me of that, when I was only answering the questions posed to me? You're not treating me reasonably at all.