4 ms·

> One of the central contradictions of capitalism is that what makes it work — competition — is also what capitalists want to get rid of the most. The subtext

by vxNsr 8y ago

> One of the central contradictions of capitalism is that what makes it work — competition — is also what capitalists want to get rid of the most. The subtext of this, that capitalism is bad (and perhaps socialism is better) is pretty disingenuous. The only reason non-competes work is because we don't have pure capitalism (I'm not arguing for that, it'd be bad, but) the government is stepping in and saying you have to follow the rules of this contract which are not in your best interest.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
Au contraire: "pure capitalism" would permit two parties to sign any binding contract they wish, free from government regulations about which clauses are permissible.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  > the government is stepping in and saying you have to follow the rules of this contract which are not in your best interest. I think they may be arguing that pure capitalism would be like Mad Max - you just do what you want until the next powerful leather-clad CEO decides to change the rules and use you not as software engineer but as a blood bag.
  - vxNsr 8y ago
    I'm arguing that building a new social contract because the current one isn't perfect is foolish and naive in the extreme. The author kinda touches on it later in the article, but the only reason we have these contracts and they were deemed enforceable is because we wanted to avoid a breakdown where executives would steal all their company's secrets and then go to a competitor. Slightly amended regulation is necessary, not some sorta social uprising.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      > Slightly amended regulation is necessary, not some sorta social uprising. And here I'd just broken out my leather chaps. In that case I totally agree with you. What was once a tool for a company to protect itself against someone with leverage is now a method to discourage and oppress those at a disadvantage.
- samatman 8y ago
  Binding how exactly? Government enforcement is what makes contracts binding. One could contemplate a private mercenary force which enforces contracts but what actually distinguishes that from a government?
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    I'm not claiming that "pure capitalism" prohibits a government from enforcing contracts — just that it wouldn't impose a particular restriction on non-compete agreements, as OP claims.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Au contraire: "pure capitalism" would permit two parties to sign any binding contract they wish, free from government regulations about which clauses are permissible. “Pure capitalism” is the exact system for which the name “capitalism” was coined, the dominant system in the developed West in he mid 19th century. It most certainly did not allow that. What you are referring to isn't “pure capitalism” but “anarcho-capitalism”. And, actually, nothing would be particularly binding based on agreement, as enforcement would be based on what the parties could pay enforcers to enforce, which would in practice depend on ability to pay enforcers, not on the text of documents or the evidence of whether the other party had agreed to them and violated the applicable terms.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    All anarcho-capitalism means is that the entity enforcing contracts is not the state. I'm not making any claim about how contracts would be enforced; rather, about regulations on which clauses would be impermissible. Semantics aside, the point is that non-compete clauses in contracts are very much in line with capitalism, both in theory and in practice.

by vxNsr 8y ago

jakelazaroff 8y ago

Au contraire: "pure capitalism" would permit two parties to sign any binding contract they wish, free from government regulations about which clauses are permissible.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
> the government is stepping in and saying you have to follow the rules of this contract which are not in your best interest. I think they may be arguing that pure capitalism would be like Mad Max - you just do what you want until the next powerful leather-clad CEO decides to change the rules and use you not as software engineer but as a blood bag.
- vxNsr 8y ago
  I'm arguing that building a new social contract because the current one isn't perfect is foolish and naive in the extreme. The author kinda touches on it later in the article, but the only reason we have these contracts and they were deemed enforceable is because we wanted to avoid a breakdown where executives would steal all their company's secrets and then go to a competitor. Slightly amended regulation is necessary, not some sorta social uprising.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    > Slightly amended regulation is necessary, not some sorta social uprising. And here I'd just broken out my leather chaps. In that case I totally agree with you. What was once a tool for a company to protect itself against someone with leverage is now a method to discourage and oppress those at a disadvantage.
samatman 8y ago
Binding how exactly? Government enforcement is what makes contracts binding. One could contemplate a private mercenary force which enforces contracts but what actually distinguishes that from a government?
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  I'm not claiming that "pure capitalism" prohibits a government from enforcing contracts — just that it wouldn't impose a particular restriction on non-compete agreements, as OP claims.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Au contraire: "pure capitalism" would permit two parties to sign any binding contract they wish, free from government regulations about which clauses are permissible. “Pure capitalism” is the exact system for which the name “capitalism” was coined, the dominant system in the developed West in he mid 19th century. It most certainly did not allow that. What you are referring to isn't “pure capitalism” but “anarcho-capitalism”. And, actually, nothing would be particularly binding based on agreement, as enforcement would be based on what the parties could pay enforcers to enforce, which would in practice depend on ability to pay enforcers, not on the text of documents or the evidence of whether the other party had agreed to them and violated the applicable terms.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  All anarcho-capitalism means is that the entity enforcing contracts is not the state. I'm not making any claim about how contracts would be enforced; rather, about regulations on which clauses would be impermissible. Semantics aside, the point is that non-compete clauses in contracts are very much in line with capitalism, both in theory and in practice.