5 ms·

>A boycott is not denying anyone any right as there is no 'right' that people are compelled to buy the product you are offering. As opposed to labor where you

>A boycott is not denying anyone any right as there is no 'right' that people are compelled to buy the product you are offering. As opposed to labor where you have a right to compel any company to hire you ?

burgerbrain 15y ago
Do you really not see the difference between "companies not being allowed to conspire to not hire certain people" and "compelling a company to hire you"?
- moonchrome 15y ago
  Read it in context. People are allowed to conspire to avoid buying some product, for whatever reason they choose. He said that's different because you don't have a right to compel anyone to buy your product - implying that you have a right to compel someone to buy your labor.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    You make the assumption that corporations and people are on equal footing, so that your comparison is valid in the first place. Consumers do not form cartels.
  - chc 15y ago
    Those are not at all similar except that they both involve multiple entities doing something. All the rest of the details are different. I think you have abstracted the situation too much in your attempt to make it amenable to logical analysis. You're ignoring too much relevant information.
ryanmolden 15y ago
Where did I say you should 'compel' someone to hire you? All I said (or rather implied) is that if you go to a place advertising employment opportunities, you pass all of their tests/criteria for hire and then they don't hire you because you work for someone with whom they have made one of these secret agreements, that is a dysfunctional market. The fact these agreements were generally secret says a lot about the people making them and the fact that they knew full well it would be viewed very unfavorably by their employees. When you are instituting something you need to 'keep secret' from your employees maybe you should really think hard about the validity of what you are doing.
- moonchrome 15y ago
  >The fact these agreements were generally secret says a lot about the people making them and the fact that they knew full well it would be viewed very unfavorably by their employees. When you are instituting something you need to 'keep secret' from your employees maybe you should really think hard about the validity of what you are doing. And what about employee who goes to a job interview in secret - does that reflect on validity of his actions ? Again, the double standards are really bugging me with these sort of things, it's OK if a consumer does something, if a union pushes on employers and legislators to protect labor and act monopolistic/like a cartel - but when it's the other way around then all the sudden the moral fabric of the society is falling apart. It's likely that competing corporations are doing this because they are loosing more than they are gaining by stealing employees from each other. As long as they can't influence the legislators people will break the pact when it suits them, cartels have a very hard time enforcing their agreements and break up because of incentives for any individual entity to cheat. For the record I'm not an employer, I just hate double standards.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Why do you feel corporations should have the same rights as human beings?
    - moonchrome 15y ago
      Because they are market actors at one end of transaction. This is not about "rights" other than property rights - nobody is being forced in to anything here - you don't have a right to work for someone, they have a right to refuse your service for whatever reason - plain and simple. Unfortunately there are laws that restrict this freedoms because most voters are workers and not employers.
      - nknight 15y ago
        You keep talking about "employers", but that isn't what you mean, and it's dishonest. The generic "employer" has few restrictions at all. In most jurisdictions, I am quite free, as an individual acting in my personal capacity, to hire and fire, for example, a maid, with very few restrictions at all. What you are talking about are corporations. Corporations are artificial constructs that exist at the whim of society. They have no inherent rights, property or otherwise. They have those privileges which we choose to explicitly bestow upon them. Your next point will be that corporations are made up of people and invested in by people. This is true, but irrelevant. The corporation is a distinct entity, and the epic disaster that is limited liability ensures that its effect on the market is skewed from that of a human being. Corporations are not people, and should not be treated as such.

burgerbrain 15y ago

Do you really not see the difference between "companies not being allowed to conspire to not hire certain people" and "compelling a company to hire you"?

moonchrome 15y ago
Read it in context. People are allowed to conspire to avoid buying some product, for whatever reason they choose. He said that's different because you don't have a right to compel anyone to buy your product - implying that you have a right to compel someone to buy your labor.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  You make the assumption that corporations and people are on equal footing, so that your comparison is valid in the first place. Consumers do not form cartels.
- chc 15y ago
  Those are not at all similar except that they both involve multiple entities doing something. All the rest of the details are different. I think you have abstracted the situation too much in your attempt to make it amenable to logical analysis. You're ignoring too much relevant information.

ryanmolden 15y ago

Where did I say you should 'compel' someone to hire you? All I said (or rather implied) is that if you go to a place advertising employment opportunities, you pass all of their tests/criteria for hire and then they don't hire you because you work for someone with whom they have made one of these secret agreements, that is a dysfunctional market. The fact these agreements were generally secret says a lot about the people making them and the fact that they knew full well it would be viewed very unfavorably by their employees. When you are instituting something you need to 'keep secret' from your employees maybe you should really think hard about the validity of what you are doing.

moonchrome 15y ago
>The fact these agreements were generally secret says a lot about the people making them and the fact that they knew full well it would be viewed very unfavorably by their employees. When you are instituting something you need to 'keep secret' from your employees maybe you should really think hard about the validity of what you are doing. And what about employee who goes to a job interview in secret - does that reflect on validity of his actions ? Again, the double standards are really bugging me with these sort of things, it's OK if a consumer does something, if a union pushes on employers and legislators to protect labor and act monopolistic/like a cartel - but when it's the other way around then all the sudden the moral fabric of the society is falling apart. It's likely that competing corporations are doing this because they are loosing more than they are gaining by stealing employees from each other. As long as they can't influence the legislators people will break the pact when it suits them, cartels have a very hard time enforcing their agreements and break up because of incentives for any individual entity to cheat. For the record I'm not an employer, I just hate double standards.
- nknight 15y ago
  Why do you feel corporations should have the same rights as human beings?
  - moonchrome 15y ago
    Because they are market actors at one end of transaction. This is not about "rights" other than property rights - nobody is being forced in to anything here - you don't have a right to work for someone, they have a right to refuse your service for whatever reason - plain and simple. Unfortunately there are laws that restrict this freedoms because most voters are workers and not employers.
    - nknight 15y ago
      You keep talking about "employers", but that isn't what you mean, and it's dishonest. The generic "employer" has few restrictions at all. In most jurisdictions, I am quite free, as an individual acting in my personal capacity, to hire and fire, for example, a maid, with very few restrictions at all. What you are talking about are corporations. Corporations are artificial constructs that exist at the whim of society. They have no inherent rights, property or otherwise. They have those privileges which we choose to explicitly bestow upon them. Your next point will be that corporations are made up of people and invested in by people. This is true, but irrelevant. The corporation is a distinct entity, and the epic disaster that is limited liability ensures that its effect on the market is skewed from that of a human being. Corporations are not people, and should not be treated as such.