5 ms·

> the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. Why?

by jasonhansel 7y ago

dymk 7y ago
What other system results in an efficient market?
- jasonhansel 7y ago
  Is "an efficient market" the only goal?
  - xapata 7y ago
    No. But an efficient market is the best technology we have to allocate society's assets. Maybe someday we'll discover a better technique.
sneak 7y ago
Because it is no person’s place to compel, using violence, two consenting adults to alter an agreement between them to which they both voluntarily consent and that harms no third party.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  So in your system, if I pay an employee to climb an unsafe ladder, OSHA has no right to slap me for that because the employee consented? That sounds awful. There would be many preventable deaths and injuries under a system that neuters OSHA; what you're proposing is deeply immoral.
  - sneak 7y ago
    The employee, and no one else, gets to decide what they want for their body. The fact is, OSHA has no moral basis to override or overrule that human being’s own decisions for their own body. What is deeply immoral is third parties using sticks and firearms to overrule that person’s choices. Their body, their choice.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      I must admit, this is the first time I've seen a libertarian bold enough to dress up something as inane as dismantling OSHA with rhetoric deliberately evocative of modern progressive social movements. As though, by dismantling an agency dedicated to assuring safe working conditions, you're doing something akin to legalizing same-sex marriages. I have mad respect to anybody that bold, but give me a break!
      - sneak 7y ago
        Why do someone’s own choices about their own body remain valid when you agree with them, but not when you disagree with them? I have given you a break: I have given you a logical, rational, sincere position, without snark or subterfuge. I did not argue for dismantling OSHA; these are moral statements independent of any national law. If anything, I argued against using violence to force people to do things (which is what OSHA, among thousands of other governmental organizations of every flavor around the world, do as a matter of course). Using violent coercion to alter a consensual agreement between two adults interacting voluntarily is immoral, and denies the agency of the people agreeing to trade on those terms.
    - mattkrause 7y ago
      How, in practice, is this supposed to work? The boss shows you a rickety ladder and says “Climb up there or you’re clocking out for the day!” You, drawing on the extensive mechanical engineering and actuarial experience that got you this $15/hr warehouse job, evaluate the likelihood of it collapsing and the expected bills, pain, and suffering if it does. “Looks shakey—give me another $2.73 first”, you say. The boss rummages around his bag, hands you some change, and away you go. Even if in a world where individual freedom/responsibility trumps everything else, it seems like safety standards would save hassle. In the actual world, where everyone can’t assess all of these risks—-and many of them are hard even for experts to accurately measure—they seem even more worthwhile.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        I'd say the libertarian's response would be that organizations like UL (which already does work for OSHA) would get hired by the company to certify their workplace, which would then serve as enticement for job candidates. This would essentially make job safety another "perk", like flex time and friday pizza - available to some, based on the scarcity of their skills.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

> the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. Why?

dymk 7y ago

What other system results in an efficient market?

jasonhansel 7y ago
Is "an efficient market" the only goal?
- xapata 7y ago
  No. But an efficient market is the best technology we have to allocate society's assets. Maybe someday we'll discover a better technique.

sneak 7y ago

Because it is no person’s place to compel, using violence, two consenting adults to alter an agreement between them to which they both voluntarily consent and that harms no third party.

darkpuma 7y ago
So in your system, if I pay an employee to climb an unsafe ladder, OSHA has no right to slap me for that because the employee consented? That sounds awful. There would be many preventable deaths and injuries under a system that neuters OSHA; what you're proposing is deeply immoral.
- sneak 7y ago
  The employee, and no one else, gets to decide what they want for their body. The fact is, OSHA has no moral basis to override or overrule that human being’s own decisions for their own body. What is deeply immoral is third parties using sticks and firearms to overrule that person’s choices. Their body, their choice.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    I must admit, this is the first time I've seen a libertarian bold enough to dress up something as inane as dismantling OSHA with rhetoric deliberately evocative of modern progressive social movements. As though, by dismantling an agency dedicated to assuring safe working conditions, you're doing something akin to legalizing same-sex marriages. I have mad respect to anybody that bold, but give me a break!
    - sneak 7y ago
      Why do someone’s own choices about their own body remain valid when you agree with them, but not when you disagree with them? I have given you a break: I have given you a logical, rational, sincere position, without snark or subterfuge. I did not argue for dismantling OSHA; these are moral statements independent of any national law. If anything, I argued against using violence to force people to do things (which is what OSHA, among thousands of other governmental organizations of every flavor around the world, do as a matter of course). Using violent coercion to alter a consensual agreement between two adults interacting voluntarily is immoral, and denies the agency of the people agreeing to trade on those terms.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    How, in practice, is this supposed to work? The boss shows you a rickety ladder and says “Climb up there or you’re clocking out for the day!” You, drawing on the extensive mechanical engineering and actuarial experience that got you this $15/hr warehouse job, evaluate the likelihood of it collapsing and the expected bills, pain, and suffering if it does. “Looks shakey—give me another $2.73 first”, you say. The boss rummages around his bag, hands you some change, and away you go. Even if in a world where individual freedom/responsibility trumps everything else, it seems like safety standards would save hassle. In the actual world, where everyone can’t assess all of these risks—-and many of them are hard even for experts to accurately measure—they seem even more worthwhile.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      I'd say the libertarian's response would be that organizations like UL (which already does work for OSHA) would get hired by the company to certify their workplace, which would then serve as enticement for job candidates. This would essentially make job safety another "perk", like flex time and friday pizza - available to some, based on the scarcity of their skills.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]