3 ms·

I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is b

by slg 6y ago

I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is best for an individual Uber driver is not necessarily what is best for society as a whole or even the population of all Uber drivers. Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.

wonder_er 6y ago
> we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car. By "protect" you seem to suggest "outlaw the thing they want to do". Can you imagine how outraged you'd feel, to be treated the way you're suggesting treating others? How would you like for the state to say: "Hey, /u/slg, for your own protection, you're not allowed to eat sugar anymore. It is now illegal to buy and sell sugar. You'll be fined if you try to purchase sugar, and if you're found with sugar in your house, you'll be taken to jail. These threats are, of course, for your protection, as the harmful effects of sugar are well-established."
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  You can make that exact same argument against labor laws, consumer protection laws, building codes, etc. "How would you like for the state to tell you that you can't buy a house with lead paint?"
- slg 6y ago
  Yes, I can imagine being outraged in that situation. However I would also understand this is how life in a society works. Sometimes my personal needs come second to the needs of the society. I don't personally agree with the US's war on drugs for example. There is probably an argument that on total sugar is more damaging to American society than marijuana. If society decided to ban sugar, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would understand it.
sokoloff 6y ago
We might need to, but my default position is that we do not want the government to interfere with someone's pursuit of happiness in the general case.
- slg 6y ago
  I wouldn't be nearly as outraged at Prop 22 if it simply repealed AB5. However it goes much beyond that. It is a proactive law that prevents new and better laws from being created. It creates a new protection for these companies. This isn't a win for small government.

by slg 6y ago

wonder_er 6y ago

> we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car. By "protect" you seem to suggest "outlaw the thing they want to do". Can you imagine how outraged you'd feel, to be treated the way you're suggesting treating others? How would you like for the state to say: "Hey, /u/slg, for your own protection, you're not allowed to eat sugar anymore. It is now illegal to buy and sell sugar. You'll be fined if you try to purchase sugar, and if you're found with sugar in your house, you'll be taken to jail. These threats are, of course, for your protection, as the harmful effects of sugar are well-established."

jakelazaroff 6y ago
You can make that exact same argument against labor laws, consumer protection laws, building codes, etc. "How would you like for the state to tell you that you can't buy a house with lead paint?"
slg 6y ago
Yes, I can imagine being outraged in that situation. However I would also understand this is how life in a society works. Sometimes my personal needs come second to the needs of the society. I don't personally agree with the US's war on drugs for example. There is probably an argument that on total sugar is more damaging to American society than marijuana. If society decided to ban sugar, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would understand it.

sokoloff 6y ago

We might need to, but my default position is that we do not want the government to interfere with someone's pursuit of happiness in the general case.

slg 6y ago
I wouldn't be nearly as outraged at Prop 22 if it simply repealed AB5. However it goes much beyond that. It is a proactive law that prevents new and better laws from being created. It creates a new protection for these companies. This isn't a win for small government.