6 ms·

> Are you arguing that all labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, anti-compete laws and so on should be repealed? The implication being that wit

> Are you arguing that all labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, anti-compete laws and so on should be repealed? The implication being that without such laws, enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers, and other horrors would be totally legal in America? Perhaps the real problem is the mess that occurs when governments recognize and try to control abstractions like corporations to protect people from liability.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Liability is not sufficient when a sufficient power imbalance exists.
- cft 6y ago
  So the civil law system is not sufficient when the power balance exist? That's a Marxist argument. The results have been demonstrated.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    You're right, they have. Unfortunately, having failed to retain the lessons of the first Gilded Age, we're now well into a second, and closer to its inevitable failure and collapse than to its "morning in America" beginning. So it goes.
    - cft 6y ago
      First Guilded Age is what made America wealthy. I would not call what we have now a Guilded Age- look at the debt. We have been squandering that first Guilded Age's wealth since 1933, but these things have a lot of inertia.
      - throwanem 6y ago
        Only on Hacker News.
      - kyralis 6y ago
        Post-WW2, which had remarkably lower levels of inequality, is what made America wealthy. The first guilded age gave us the depression.
        unishark 6y ago
        > The first guilded age gave us the depression. This seems like a stretch. The great depression was more than a generation after the gilded age ended, and after a world war followed by an economic boom (roaring 20s). The US became a word power during the gilded age.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    The civil law system is expensive and takes years to work IF it works. Off the top of my head you can ask your congressman to make you immune from liability, force all your employees into binding arbitration with someone whose services YOU pay for and forbid group actions, work to appoint increasingly conservative judges who believe in fewer and fewer rights. Just ensuring that nobody without thousands to drop on the matter up front can probably get you out of a majority of jams.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The implication being that without such laws, enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers, and other horrors would be totally legal in America? Well, yes, without the laws that banned those things, they would be totally legal. That's what “law” means. > Perhaps the real problem is the mess that occurs when governments recognize and try to control abstractions like corporations to protect people from liability. Liability is as much a creation of government as corporations are.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>Liability is as much a creation of government as corporations are. 100% incorrect In fact corporations are a government created constructed with the expressed purpose of Limiting liability of the shareholders (owners) for what the corporation does in an effort to increase investment capital. People would be less likely to invest freely if they were personally liable. Business Structures like corporations are like most other government regulations in that they LIMIT not create liability. From the EPA, to OHSA they all taken over the liability and they alone are the arbitrators of "acceptable" and individuals actual damages do not matter
  - chaosite 6y ago
    OK, so you agree that corporations a government created construct. Is it such a leap that liability is also a government created construct?
    - svrb 6y ago
      Okay, so you agree that 1 is an odd number. Is it such a leap that 2 is also an odd number? Your two statements are entirely independent.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    You can have unlimited liability corporations, but that is beside the point. All legal concepts are government created fictions. That includes everything from corporations to parking tickets. Why do you think corporations are government created concept but liability isnt?
RandoHolmes 6y ago
> The implication being that without such laws, enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers, and other horrors would be totally legal in America? Perhaps you don't recall the number of years in which slavery was legal in the US? Or the years in which child labor was actually used? Or the years in which a 40 hour work week wasn't normal? The only way I'm able to understand how ANYONE can believe everything would be hunky dory without labor laws is if they haven't been educated in the history of this country (or any other country).
- unishark 6y ago
  > The only way I'm able to understand how ANYONE can believe everything would be hunky dory without labor laws is if they haven't been educated in the history of this country (or any other country). This is because you argue in bad faith. Apparently you already do understand the point I was making, namely that slavery is outlawed by the 13th amendment to the constitution, not the labor laws regulating consensual employee-employer decisions which the parent poster was talking about. Fyi: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    If I were to engage with you in a serious manner, it would imply that I agree with your view that the only morality is that which is in the constitution. But I fundamentally disagree with that argument. And I mean _FUNDAMENTALLY_. I cannot agree that these practices in a country that doesn't have the 13 amendment are ok. I just can't. I mean, I understand your argument. You believe these things should be ok in all countries that haven't explicitly outlawed it. But it's why we're fundamentally opposed. I believe it was reprehensible even BEFORE these countries outlawed it. I mean, I get it, this is "arguing in bad faith"... "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT". Of course it isn't because it's morally reprehensible. Of course that's not what you meant. but........... If the logical implications of your statement results in something morally reprehensible, than maaaaaaybe the statement itself is morally reprehensible... juuuuuust something to think about from a "bad faith actor".
bawolff 6y ago
> Perhaps the real problem is the mess that occurs when governments recognize and try to control abstractions like corporations to protect people from liability. Huh? I don't get it - if i understand, you are suggesting that we should kill the concept of the corporation, while still making all law related to operating a business continue to apply to individuals, and somehow that will result in a utopia where nobody gets in the way of two parties consensually working with each other, but at the same time nobody will be abused/coerced? Do i have that right?
vr46 6y ago
People literally died - yes - and fought for these laws and protections, just for things we consider basic like a weekend break.

michaelmrose 6y ago

Liability is not sufficient when a sufficient power imbalance exists.

cft 6y ago
So the civil law system is not sufficient when the power balance exist? That's a Marxist argument. The results have been demonstrated.
- throwanem 6y ago
  You're right, they have. Unfortunately, having failed to retain the lessons of the first Gilded Age, we're now well into a second, and closer to its inevitable failure and collapse than to its "morning in America" beginning. So it goes.
  - cft 6y ago
    First Guilded Age is what made America wealthy. I would not call what we have now a Guilded Age- look at the debt. We have been squandering that first Guilded Age's wealth since 1933, but these things have a lot of inertia.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      Only on Hacker News.
    - kyralis 6y ago
      Post-WW2, which had remarkably lower levels of inequality, is what made America wealthy. The first guilded age gave us the depression.
      - unishark 6y ago
        > The first guilded age gave us the depression. This seems like a stretch. The great depression was more than a generation after the gilded age ended, and after a world war followed by an economic boom (roaring 20s). The US became a word power during the gilded age.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  The civil law system is expensive and takes years to work IF it works. Off the top of my head you can ask your congressman to make you immune from liability, force all your employees into binding arbitration with someone whose services YOU pay for and forbid group actions, work to appoint increasingly conservative judges who believe in fewer and fewer rights. Just ensuring that nobody without thousands to drop on the matter up front can probably get you out of a majority of jams.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The implication being that without such laws, enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers, and other horrors would be totally legal in America? Well, yes, without the laws that banned those things, they would be totally legal. That's what “law” means. > Perhaps the real problem is the mess that occurs when governments recognize and try to control abstractions like corporations to protect people from liability. Liability is as much a creation of government as corporations are.

syshum 6y ago
>>Liability is as much a creation of government as corporations are. 100% incorrect In fact corporations are a government created constructed with the expressed purpose of Limiting liability of the shareholders (owners) for what the corporation does in an effort to increase investment capital. People would be less likely to invest freely if they were personally liable. Business Structures like corporations are like most other government regulations in that they LIMIT not create liability. From the EPA, to OHSA they all taken over the liability and they alone are the arbitrators of "acceptable" and individuals actual damages do not matter
- chaosite 6y ago
  OK, so you agree that corporations a government created construct. Is it such a leap that liability is also a government created construct?
  - svrb 6y ago
    Okay, so you agree that 1 is an odd number. Is it such a leap that 2 is also an odd number? Your two statements are entirely independent.
- bawolff 6y ago
  You can have unlimited liability corporations, but that is beside the point. All legal concepts are government created fictions. That includes everything from corporations to parking tickets. Why do you think corporations are government created concept but liability isnt?

RandoHolmes 6y ago

> The implication being that without such laws, enslavement of children, poisoning and maiming of workers, and other horrors would be totally legal in America? Perhaps you don't recall the number of years in which slavery was legal in the US? Or the years in which child labor was actually used? Or the years in which a 40 hour work week wasn't normal? The only way I'm able to understand how ANYONE can believe everything would be hunky dory without labor laws is if they haven't been educated in the history of this country (or any other country).

unishark 6y ago
> The only way I'm able to understand how ANYONE can believe everything would be hunky dory without labor laws is if they haven't been educated in the history of this country (or any other country). This is because you argue in bad faith. Apparently you already do understand the point I was making, namely that slavery is outlawed by the 13th amendment to the constitution, not the labor laws regulating consensual employee-employer decisions which the parent poster was talking about. Fyi: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  If I were to engage with you in a serious manner, it would imply that I agree with your view that the only morality is that which is in the constitution. But I fundamentally disagree with that argument. And I mean _FUNDAMENTALLY_. I cannot agree that these practices in a country that doesn't have the 13 amendment are ok. I just can't. I mean, I understand your argument. You believe these things should be ok in all countries that haven't explicitly outlawed it. But it's why we're fundamentally opposed. I believe it was reprehensible even BEFORE these countries outlawed it. I mean, I get it, this is "arguing in bad faith"... "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT". Of course it isn't because it's morally reprehensible. Of course that's not what you meant. but........... If the logical implications of your statement results in something morally reprehensible, than maaaaaaybe the statement itself is morally reprehensible... juuuuuust something to think about from a "bad faith actor".

bawolff 6y ago

> Perhaps the real problem is the mess that occurs when governments recognize and try to control abstractions like corporations to protect people from liability. Huh? I don't get it - if i understand, you are suggesting that we should kill the concept of the corporation, while still making all law related to operating a business continue to apply to individuals, and somehow that will result in a utopia where nobody gets in the way of two parties consensually working with each other, but at the same time nobody will be abused/coerced? Do i have that right?

vr46 6y ago

People literally died - yes - and fought for these laws and protections, just for things we consider basic like a weekend break.