3 ms·
Contracts on competition -- being neither bought nor sold -- are not under the purview of the free market any more than romantic love is. Another way to think
by tathougies 8y ago
Contracts on competition -- being neither bought nor sold -- are not under the purview of the free market any more than romantic love is.
Another way to think about it. Republicans are typically for smaller government. A non conpete clause is only enforceable via government petition. A private company cannot threaten force against a person because of who they work for. All enforcement is via government. Thus banning non competes leads to less litigation and a smaller government.
Finally there is no regulation being added to the market here. The government is in fact removing regulation by declaring via statute that it will no longer interfere when people violate certain types of agreements. Thats called the government butting out of peoples business
Lets not construct bogey men.
- raquo 8y agoReally, still making up your own definitions, and of basic vocabulary terms now? Pathetic. Private contracts like non competes are not regulations. On the other hand, laws designed by the government are regulations. Which this bill will be if it becomes law. To disallow certain agreements in the labour market. To regulate it. Because it's regulation. That makes it less of a free market.
- tathougies 8y agoYou're right. The part of the bill that says they are disallowed is a regulation. The part of the bill that says the government won't do a damned thing about the silly agreements you make with other people is not. Please discuss in good faith.
- raquo 8y agoRidiculous. This bill does not repeal any previous legislation or regulations, it just adds new ones. Regulation that makes privately negotiated contracts void is still regulation, and with a significant effect on the market too. It's the opposite of free market no matter how you twist your words.