9 ms·

The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract. There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws.

katmannthree 6y ago
>There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws. Well, not unless you consider the significant disparity in negotiating power between the employer and prospective employee when forming that contract. Very few people are in a position to negotiate something like that, and the ones that are aren't likely to be explicitly fired for speaking their mind.
- burrows 6y ago
  Is the labor market free from cartels? If so, then employees can negotiate. Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.
  - katmannthree 6y ago
    You can indeed attempt to negotiate, and the prospective employer can (and likely will) just pass you up in favor of someone less troublesome. This really only works for a handful of people applying for high level jobs where they are significantly more desirable than anyone else who applied for the position.
    - burrows 6y ago
      That’s exactly what should happen in a free market. Company makes offer, laborer counters, then company counters or holds. If the company holds, the laborer should seek work at a different company. Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.
      - katmannthree 6y ago
        So your argument has shifted from "if people want something they should negotiate for it instead of involving the government" to "even though the vast majority of people can't actually participate in meaningful negotiations the government still shouldn't intervene?" You're essentially arguing that only the few people at the top should be able to do well. Just because anyone can rise to the top of their class and do well if they work hard enough doesn't mean everyone can, it's a race to the bottom of who can give up free time or family time to be more valuable to their employer. While in the short term employers might prefer that, I really don't think it's good for society long term.
        burrows 6y ago
        “meaningful negotiation” doesn’t mean anything to me. Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t. Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.
        katmannthree 6y ago
        >“meaningful negotiation” doesn’t mean anything to me. You've already defined it with "The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract." I don't know of a single employer that would be interested in hiring someone who insisted on including a list of nonfirable offenses which included making public statements which paint the company in a bad light. That specific item we're talking about is completely unviable for most employees to negotiate, i.e. they have no meaningful/material/real/significant ability to negotiate it. >Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t. There are many more forms of coercion than just "men with guns," and if coercion specifically by men with guns is worth acting on then why shouldn't other forms be? In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money. If they're not able to work then your men with guns will come and remove them from their living space, and once on the street they'll likely have many more unpleasant encounters with more men with guns. >Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests. Nothing I've argued goes against that. My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do. This has already been necessary many times before in American history, such as with the ending of slavery, child labor, and the introduction of minimum wage laws. In all of these cases government intervention was necessary to reduce human suffering and raise people's quality of life. Yes, some "market value" was lost in the process but to people with empathy that was a completely worthwhile trade.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
skywhopper 6y ago
You have a very unrealistic view of how employment works.
- burrows 6y ago
  My view is that free men should contract without (fear of) government coercion. What is your view?
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    My view is that free people should contract without (fear of) government or corporate[0] coercion. 0: or religeous, or familial, or any other source.
    - burrows 6y ago
      I agree, man should never coerce man. The coercer’s group affiliation and reasons are irrelevant. I define coercion as initiating physical violence against another man. * And I am suspicious of market cartels (wage collusion, price fixing, labor unions, etc), but as they are freely made contracts between private individuals I can’t in good conscience support government intervention. (I heavily edited this message)
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > I define coercion as initiating physical violence against another man. That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's home and waiting for them to starve to death to qualify as physical violence? (Assume for the sake of argument that noone else interferes with this, perhaps because you're in a isolated rural area.) (I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.)
        6y ago

katmannthree 6y ago

>There’s no reason to increase state involvement with new laws. Well, not unless you consider the significant disparity in negotiating power between the employer and prospective employee when forming that contract. Very few people are in a position to negotiate something like that, and the ones that are aren't likely to be explicitly fired for speaking their mind.

burrows 6y ago
Is the labor market free from cartels? If so, then employees can negotiate. Obviously they won’t get everything they want, but that’s the nature of negotiation.
- katmannthree 6y ago
  You can indeed attempt to negotiate, and the prospective employer can (and likely will) just pass you up in favor of someone less troublesome. This really only works for a handful of people applying for high level jobs where they are significantly more desirable than anyone else who applied for the position.
  - burrows 6y ago
    That’s exactly what should happen in a free market. Company makes offer, laborer counters, then company counters or holds. If the company holds, the laborer should seek work at a different company. Just because the “value” of a man’s labor is low (in some sense), doesn’t mean the government should intervene.
    - katmannthree 6y ago
      So your argument has shifted from "if people want something they should negotiate for it instead of involving the government" to "even though the vast majority of people can't actually participate in meaningful negotiations the government still shouldn't intervene?" You're essentially arguing that only the few people at the top should be able to do well. Just because anyone can rise to the top of their class and do well if they work hard enough doesn't mean everyone can, it's a race to the bottom of who can give up free time or family time to be more valuable to their employer. While in the short term employers might prefer that, I really don't think it's good for society long term.
      - burrows 6y ago
        “meaningful negotiation” doesn’t mean anything to me. Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t. Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests.
        katmannthree 6y ago
        >“meaningful negotiation” doesn’t mean anything to me. You've already defined it with "The employee should negotiate “fireable offenses” into his contract." I don't know of a single employer that would be interested in hiring someone who insisted on including a list of nonfirable offenses which included making public statements which paint the company in a bad light. That specific item we're talking about is completely unviable for most employees to negotiate, i.e. they have no meaningful/material/real/significant ability to negotiate it. >Either men with guns coerce the market participant or they don’t. There are many more forms of coercion than just "men with guns," and if coercion specifically by men with guns is worth acting on then why shouldn't other forms be? In this case there technically _is_ coercion by men with guns, albeit a degree or two removed. People need money to keep a roof over their head, and they need jobs to receive that money. If they're not able to work then your men with guns will come and remove them from their living space, and once on the street they'll likely have many more unpleasant encounters with more men with guns. >Freemen should rationally allocate free time, family time and work time. A man isn’t guaranteed everything he wants, only the opportunity to rationally pursue his interests. Nothing I've argued goes against that. My point here is that there are certain things which the invisible hand of the free market is unable to touch due to the dynamics of the market. That is, in my and many other people's opinion, where the government needs to step in and force the market to make decisions it would be otherwise unwilling to do. This has already been necessary many times before in American history, such as with the ending of slavery, child labor, and the introduction of minimum wage laws. In all of these cases government intervention was necessary to reduce human suffering and raise people's quality of life. Yes, some "market value" was lost in the process but to people with empathy that was a completely worthwhile trade.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

skywhopper 6y ago

You have a very unrealistic view of how employment works.

burrows 6y ago
My view is that free men should contract without (fear of) government coercion. What is your view?
- a1369209993 6y ago
  My view is that free people should contract without (fear of) government or corporate[0] coercion. 0: or religeous, or familial, or any other source.
  - burrows 6y ago
    I agree, man should never coerce man. The coercer’s group affiliation and reasons are irrelevant. I define coercion as initiating physical violence against another man. * And I am suspicious of market cartels (wage collusion, price fixing, labor unions, etc), but as they are freely made contracts between private individuals I can’t in good conscience support government intervention. (I heavily edited this message)
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > I define coercion as initiating physical violence against another man. That seems oddly narrow. As a contrived example (I like stress-testing ethical intuitions) would you consider barricading the doors and windows of someone's home and waiting for them to starve to death to qualify as physical violence? (Assume for the sake of argument that noone else interferes with this, perhaps because you're in a isolated rural area.) (I'll also perfunctorially object to terms like "man" or "human", but I doubt that's a contextually relevant distinction, given linguistic history and the lack of any other sapient species respectively.)
      - 6y ago