5 ms·

>unions got laws passed that violate the rights of employers lol this is precious

CryptoPunk 7y ago
I think you should do a little research to get a basic familiarity with what labor laws relating to union action prohibit. You'll find that they blatantly violate the contracting rights of employers. Snickering at me while being unaware of such a basic fact is deplorable.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  What is a "contracting right"? A quick search doesn't bring it up as legal terminology, so I'm thinking it's somewhere between generic libertarian and freeman-of-the-land level nonsense, but I welcome a less ridiculous explanation. If you aren't far libertarian, the government exists specifically to limit what people can contract to do. Unless you consider a government to be nothing more than a contract-enforcement entity (and even then, it is in some sense implied by there being contracts that the government would refuse to enforce). Further, describing a constitutional law as a violation of rights is in a sense a reverse tautology. It is by definition not a violation of anyone's rights, unless you believe that the US legal system is in some sense unjust, in which case I'm very, very curious to know in what way US law is unfair to employers.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    The term of art is freedom of contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract Freedom of contract is a basic prequisite of a free society. It's a subset of free association. >Unless you consider a government to be nothing more than a contract-enforcement entity In a free society the government exists only to restrict action in order to protect rights, which extends to the rights one gains through contracts, and to administer public goods for the public benefit. In a free society the government does not restrict the right of two consenting adults to engage in a mutually voluntary interaction. There's absolutely no excuse for laws that restrict the right of someone to offer employment terms that reserve the right to fire someone for unionizing or going on a strike. >Further, describing a constitutional law as a violation of rights is in a sense a reverse tautology. That's a disingenuous appeal to legality. Law does not confer moral legitimacy.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      There absolutely is: an imbalance of power between the two groups contracting. There are practically no situations where contracts are unrestricted. Healthcare, labor, and housing (rentals) all restrict what the provider can do. Freedom to contract that you describe is not commonly considered ethical. While you're correct that law does not on its own confer moral legitimacy, you can usually find some jurisdiction that does something. There aren't any that provide complete freedom to contract. It's a highly fringe anarcho-liberetarian position vthat leads to exploration.
      - CryptoPunk 7y ago
        Existing violations of the freedom of contract are due to popular misconceptions and common tropes like the idea that two people of unequal power cannot arrived at a genuinely consensual agreement. First of all a court will throw out any contract which is not genuinely consensual. Second, balance of power is irrelevant for a mutually agreed contract. Powerful companies compete with each just as much as they compete with workers. Powerful employers therefore neutralize each other's power because they are competing for the same pool of workers. A powerful corporation has no power to compel someone to agree to an employment contract that is not the best one on the market just as a powerful corporation has no power to compel someone to buy a product that is not the best one on the market. >>There aren't any that provide complete freedom to contract. That's an appeal to popularism. 300 years ago a slavery supporter could say the same about slavery. >>It's a highly fringe anarcho-liberetarian position vthat leads to exploration. There is no evidence at all that it leads to exploitation and name-calling basic principles of justice doesn't make them go away. Two consenting adults have every right in the world to enter into any agreement they want as long as it is mutually voluntary as judged by a competent court. Cookie cutter rules that generalize entire classes of interaction as non-consensual don't cut it. They are crude interventions that are based on popular misconceptions.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        > First of all a court will throw out any contract which is not genuinely consensual. Sure, and minimum wage and fair housing laws are simply legal shortcuts to abbreviate arguments about non-genuinely-consentual contracts. > Second, balance of power is irrelevant for a mutually agreed contract. Powerful companies compete with each just as much as they compete with workers. This is naive. Certainly in markets where demand outstrips supply this is true, but for markets where supply is smaller than the demand (housing, jobs, healthcare, you see a pattern?) there's little need for suppliers to compete with each other, except at the very top of the market. Put it simply, if I can pay you $3.00 or $15.00, and make a profit either way, I'll choose to pay you $3.00, and there are markets where that is absolutely possible. > That's an appeal to popularism. 300 years ago a slavery supporter could say the same about slavery. No, there have always been some jurisdictions where slavery was outlawed. I'm saying that there are zero jurisdictions with an unrestricted "freedom of contract". In other words, literally no governing body recognizes such a freedom, anywhere in the world. > There is no evidence at all that it leads to exploitation and name-calling basic principles of justice Calling a position fringe has exactly as much merit (actually more, since its based on evidence that no one recognizes it) than calling it a "basic principle of justice". You're essentially claiming that there are no just governments anywhere, which is indeed your prerogative (and I might be inclined to agree although for vastly different reasons), but you have yet to justify why your world is more just. Below I outline why why I believe your world would increase homelessness and exploitation of lower class working people at the hands of employers and landlords, as one example. I claim that is less just than the world we currently inhabit. The onus is now on you to either explain why more exploitation is more just, or why it won't occur. > Two consenting adults have every right in the world to enter into any agreement they want as long as it is mutually voluntary as judged by a competent court. The assumption here is that the person with the lesser power will be able to successfully win in court quickly and cheaply enough to make a court case worth it. That's an assumption that doesn't hold out in practice and makes these legal shortcuts necessary to prevent. It relies on a basic level of safety: an income to sustain yourself, a place to live, at a minimum. When adjudicating a contract with the provider of your income or your home, you risk abuse at the hand of them. You also need to know your rights and responsibilities, and have some way of ensuring your continued safety in the meantime. That's not possible when you're taking an adversarial relationship with someone who could make you homeless. Even if (and that's an if) a court eventually finds them to have acted in bad faith, you're still homeless. You lose relatively more.

I think you should do a little research to get a basic familiarity with what labor laws relating to union action prohibit. You'll find that they blatantly violate the contracting rights of employers. Snickering at me while being unaware of such a basic fact is deplorable.

joshuamorton 7y ago
What is a "contracting right"? A quick search doesn't bring it up as legal terminology, so I'm thinking it's somewhere between generic libertarian and freeman-of-the-land level nonsense, but I welcome a less ridiculous explanation. If you aren't far libertarian, the government exists specifically to limit what people can contract to do. Unless you consider a government to be nothing more than a contract-enforcement entity (and even then, it is in some sense implied by there being contracts that the government would refuse to enforce). Further, describing a constitutional law as a violation of rights is in a sense a reverse tautology. It is by definition not a violation of anyone's rights, unless you believe that the US legal system is in some sense unjust, in which case I'm very, very curious to know in what way US law is unfair to employers.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  The term of art is freedom of contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract Freedom of contract is a basic prequisite of a free society. It's a subset of free association. >Unless you consider a government to be nothing more than a contract-enforcement entity In a free society the government exists only to restrict action in order to protect rights, which extends to the rights one gains through contracts, and to administer public goods for the public benefit. In a free society the government does not restrict the right of two consenting adults to engage in a mutually voluntary interaction. There's absolutely no excuse for laws that restrict the right of someone to offer employment terms that reserve the right to fire someone for unionizing or going on a strike. >Further, describing a constitutional law as a violation of rights is in a sense a reverse tautology. That's a disingenuous appeal to legality. Law does not confer moral legitimacy.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    There absolutely is: an imbalance of power between the two groups contracting. There are practically no situations where contracts are unrestricted. Healthcare, labor, and housing (rentals) all restrict what the provider can do. Freedom to contract that you describe is not commonly considered ethical. While you're correct that law does not on its own confer moral legitimacy, you can usually find some jurisdiction that does something. There aren't any that provide complete freedom to contract. It's a highly fringe anarcho-liberetarian position vthat leads to exploration.
    - CryptoPunk 7y ago
      Existing violations of the freedom of contract are due to popular misconceptions and common tropes like the idea that two people of unequal power cannot arrived at a genuinely consensual agreement. First of all a court will throw out any contract which is not genuinely consensual. Second, balance of power is irrelevant for a mutually agreed contract. Powerful companies compete with each just as much as they compete with workers. Powerful employers therefore neutralize each other's power because they are competing for the same pool of workers. A powerful corporation has no power to compel someone to agree to an employment contract that is not the best one on the market just as a powerful corporation has no power to compel someone to buy a product that is not the best one on the market. >>There aren't any that provide complete freedom to contract. That's an appeal to popularism. 300 years ago a slavery supporter could say the same about slavery. >>It's a highly fringe anarcho-liberetarian position vthat leads to exploration. There is no evidence at all that it leads to exploitation and name-calling basic principles of justice doesn't make them go away. Two consenting adults have every right in the world to enter into any agreement they want as long as it is mutually voluntary as judged by a competent court. Cookie cutter rules that generalize entire classes of interaction as non-consensual don't cut it. They are crude interventions that are based on popular misconceptions.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        > First of all a court will throw out any contract which is not genuinely consensual. Sure, and minimum wage and fair housing laws are simply legal shortcuts to abbreviate arguments about non-genuinely-consentual contracts. > Second, balance of power is irrelevant for a mutually agreed contract. Powerful companies compete with each just as much as they compete with workers. This is naive. Certainly in markets where demand outstrips supply this is true, but for markets where supply is smaller than the demand (housing, jobs, healthcare, you see a pattern?) there's little need for suppliers to compete with each other, except at the very top of the market. Put it simply, if I can pay you $3.00 or $15.00, and make a profit either way, I'll choose to pay you $3.00, and there are markets where that is absolutely possible. > That's an appeal to popularism. 300 years ago a slavery supporter could say the same about slavery. No, there have always been some jurisdictions where slavery was outlawed. I'm saying that there are zero jurisdictions with an unrestricted "freedom of contract". In other words, literally no governing body recognizes such a freedom, anywhere in the world. > There is no evidence at all that it leads to exploitation and name-calling basic principles of justice Calling a position fringe has exactly as much merit (actually more, since its based on evidence that no one recognizes it) than calling it a "basic principle of justice". You're essentially claiming that there are no just governments anywhere, which is indeed your prerogative (and I might be inclined to agree although for vastly different reasons), but you have yet to justify why your world is more just. Below I outline why why I believe your world would increase homelessness and exploitation of lower class working people at the hands of employers and landlords, as one example. I claim that is less just than the world we currently inhabit. The onus is now on you to either explain why more exploitation is more just, or why it won't occur. > Two consenting adults have every right in the world to enter into any agreement they want as long as it is mutually voluntary as judged by a competent court. The assumption here is that the person with the lesser power will be able to successfully win in court quickly and cheaply enough to make a court case worth it. That's an assumption that doesn't hold out in practice and makes these legal shortcuts necessary to prevent. It relies on a basic level of safety: an income to sustain yourself, a place to live, at a minimum. When adjudicating a contract with the provider of your income or your home, you risk abuse at the hand of them. You also need to know your rights and responsibilities, and have some way of ensuring your continued safety in the meantime. That's not possible when you're taking an adversarial relationship with someone who could make you homeless. Even if (and that's an if) a court eventually finds them to have acted in bad faith, you're still homeless. You lose relatively more.