2 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbid... The burden of proof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbid... The burden of proof is on "why should a state ban noncompete clauses". As another commenter noted, the default should be to permit voluntary agreements between parties. There are certainly good arguments for why states should ban them. But that is the position that requires an argument.

Supermancho 3y ago
> default should be to permit voluntary agreements between parties. Government protections for wages, liability, and safety don't need additional argument. No need to construct a logical through-line against someone presenting a specious "trickle down economics" assertion. The imbalance in power is already recognized. I don't know who would believe that this decision was anything but corrupt.