4 ms·
> Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? By that logic, all regulati
by csb6 3y ago
> Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns?
By that logic, all regulation and legislation restricting the behavior of companies and their interactions with employees on their own property is unjustifiable, including requiring certain safety measures or working conditions or permitting health/safety inspectors access to workspaces without agreement of the property owner. Some libertarians do hold these views, but I think it is important to note that these consequences are what that logic implies.
The argument against absolute deference to property rights is that under the U.S. legal framework employees also have rights, which in some cases (in diminishing number) are given more importance than the company’s property rights. According to legislation, this includes the ability to organize labor unions and communicate with organizers during non-work hours.
- nyokodo 3y ago> By that logic, all regulation and legislation restricting the behavior of companies and their interactions with employees on their own property is unjustifiable Why is that an implication? You haven’t provided a logical justification although taking someone else’s argument and taking it to absurd extremes is a common rhetorical technique. No, to genuinely protect life and limb a reasonable argument can be made to have regulations but we are far from that in this Amazon scenario. These are legally created rights arbitrarily created by the government and they have no guarantee to be justified and in this case do violate the property rights of the company. The workers can organize with widely available communication technology that they own.
- csb6 3y agoThis was the point: > Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? Health/safety regulations and inspections are examples of things that often “violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns”. The original point did not mention any exceptions whatsoever relating to “life and limb”. Now it seems like you’ve clarified that you do not think property rights are absolute, but the original post did not make that obvious.