5 ms·
> If you don't like this logic, why do you support the OPs use of the inverse proposition: It's really simple, because the inverse doesn't involve legislation
by dev_dull 7y ago
> If you don't like this logic, why do you support the OPs use of the inverse proposition:
It's really simple, because the inverse doesn't involve legislation, where an individual is forced to do something at risk of life and limb.
- KirinDave 7y agoBut importantly it relies on legislation. It relies on the existence of very specific market conditions that are held in place by the state. It then supposes that these artificial conditions we cal the workplace shouldn't change if they impact the author, who is rich, to benefit the "desperate" (a larger and poorer cohort of people, I read from the OP's post). Legislation is there either way. It is involved in each case. And as employment (often dangerous) is required for living in the US, it seems pretty weird to view this structural change that only mildly inconvenienced some of the most egregious users of the very broad "contractor" status in existing law, I can't quite work out why this is important.