4 ms·

SpaceX doesn't owe anything to you unless it signed a contract that says it has to employ you for this amount of time. I don't understand neither laws, nor the

by snitko 12y ago

SpaceX doesn't owe anything to you unless it signed a contract that says it has to employ you for this amount of time. I don't understand neither laws, nor the people who would foster such lawsuits. That's using government to steal someone else's money because you feel it's unfair that they laid you off.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> SpaceX doesn't owe anything to you unless it signed a contract that says it has to employ you for this amount of time. I don't understand neither laws, nor the people who would foster such lawsuits. If they agreed to employ you in a state, they agreed to do so under the laws of the state. Even if you don't understand the laws, you should be able to understand that the existence of laws providing various protections is part of the context in which people agree to accept employment from a particular employer, in a particular place, and under particular payment terms. Employers certainly consider the legal environment when they choose to employ people in a particular location, and when they decide on the terms of employment.
- snitko 12y ago
  I was trying to argue from a moral point of view. The existence of state, which itself is an immoral institution, doesn't justify the absurdity of the idea to demand being employed.
  - genwin 12y ago
    But no one in the article demanded to be employed.
    - snitko 12y ago
      As far as I understand, people demand money for being laid off. It's essentially the same.
  - cma 12y ago
    If you made your contract with that law as the understanding, you might have demanded more if the protection wasn't there.
    - snitko 12y ago
      Of course. If you actually signed a contract saying "I will abide the law of this land". But not you, not me, not the ex-employees and not even SpaceX signed ever signed such a contract. They're simply operating under a set of laws created by a system which claims to be legit, but which in reality forces people to comply.
      - genwin 12y ago
        Your life would be crap in a hurry if you couldn't depend on laws being enforceable.
        snitko 12y ago
        Laws and enforcement is not something that only governments know how to do.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        Yes, they are. Any entity who makes and enforces law is, ipso facto, a government. An entity that doesn't do that isn't a government, even if it calls itself one. That's what governing is, and government is simply that which governs.
        snitko 12y ago
        I suggest you watch this short video then, which explains how laws, protection and private property can be created and enforced in a free market: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
      - cma 12y ago
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I was trying to argue from a moral point of view. One might argue that it is moral (if not legal) for parties to by mutual consent expressly agree to conduct an economic exchange under terms other than those set by the law of the jurisdiction in which the exchange is conducted (even if the law prohibits such waivers and alternations), but I think its a much harder case to make that it is generally moral for one party in arms-length exchange where no such waiver is expressed to simply elect to ignore the governing law, except when one makes the case that what the law demands would be immoral even as a term agreed to by consent, or that the change in the law which occurred after the agreement violated the fundamental premises on which the agreement was based (and even in the last case, only if the the party acted timely to notify the other party of their objection and to either terminate or renegotiate the relationship based on the changed context.)
    - snitko 12y ago
      Of course I don't suggest SpaceX ignores the law. That would put them in a lot of trouble. What I'm saying is, people should stop and think for a moment: wait a minute, why do we have this monopoly on law which many people exploit and why can't we allow people to freely sign employment contracts with the terms defined in advance? If, for example, 100% of people who SpaceX could hire would express concern over a possible layoff, then SpaceX would have no choice, but to put this into the contract, specifying potential payouts in the case of such a layoff. However, I think people would actually compete to get into SpaceX, thus the actual terms of the contract wouldn't include that. In short, let the market decide voluntarily, what are the best terms. What's going on now is one side (employees) taking advantage of the other side. I don't care how rich Elon Musk is. If he made his money honestly, he doesn't owe a cent to those employees.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - waps 12y ago
        > why can't we allow people to freely sign employment contracts with the terms defined in advance? Because 1) What incentive would people have to abide by their deals ? (also known as : NEVER sign a contract with any royalty or any parliament or congress. They are not bound by them. Just don't get yourself into that) 2) How would you even know the terms of a contract ? People may think they agree about every detail, I have done enough law to know perfectly well they never do. Given the chance, people will sign things like "I rent this room for 800 euro per month", for example. Now, the primary renter dies in a car crash, what happens ? Who owes what ? What if they're married ? What if there's children ? Does the inheritor inherit the obligation ? 3) How would you resolve obvious assymetric bargaining positions ? Suppose someone signed a contract selling someone into slavery ? Before you say otherwise, note that under muslim law, that is legal. Without law of the land, who is to say this is wrong ? And what would you do about it. But these are the obvious arguments. How about I save the 5000 page book this would become if we went over the entire set of problems that contracts pose. Here's a link, I guarantee that every single paragraph identifies a problem in "pure" contract law and free agreements between parties : http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc Or how about the European law version : http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1950/13681/version/3/file/Code_22.pdf http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1950/13681/ve... Read a few pages. It's not nonsense.
  - georgemcbay 12y ago
    Are you trolling or not? It is kind of a sad reflection on my view of internet people that I'm not sure and leaning heavily towards you being serious. But, seriously, the state is an immoral institution? Building the national highway system and all the related infrastructure (bridges, etc), the public school system (which didn't always and needn't suck, even if it is in distress now), the various social safety nets that keep us from discarding the elderly like trash, the means of protection of yours and everyone's wealth from banditry, the means of protection of our land from outside invaders, etc, etc, etc... this is an inherently immoral institution? What an incredibly dumb and short-sighted thing to say.
    - avz 12y ago
      I'm with you on balance: state is better than no state. However, I don't think the matter is as clear cut as you think. A few examples (I'll try to match them to yours): Public infrastructure projects often involve bribery and cronyism. Public school system may be used for ideological indoctrination. National safety nets foster risk aversion and allow young people to throw off the burden of care for their elderly. Police may be overly brutal when protecting your wealth from banditry. The means of protection of your land from outside invaders can become the means to invade outsiders and to conduct mass surveillance of the locals. It's a superhard design challenge to create a set of checks and balances which prevent abuse of power.
      - georgemcbay 12y ago
        I don't disagree; I just think going from "there is a lot wrong with our current government" (and clearly there is) to "government is evil" (or immoral) is such a huge, huge leap of logic that I don't understand how rational people can make it. The very idea that anything like modern society is possible without government is entirely faith-based (since there are no successful examples to prove it) and, I would argue, very naive on the subject of the many failings humans have when not regulated by outside checks and balances.
        snitko 12y ago
genwin 12y ago
State law trumps this. It's not stealing to expect a company to adhere to the law in terms of employment and pay.

by snitko 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> SpaceX doesn't owe anything to you unless it signed a contract that says it has to employ you for this amount of time. I don't understand neither laws, nor the people who would foster such lawsuits. If they agreed to employ you in a state, they agreed to do so under the laws of the state. Even if you don't understand the laws, you should be able to understand that the existence of laws providing various protections is part of the context in which people agree to accept employment from a particular employer, in a particular place, and under particular payment terms. Employers certainly consider the legal environment when they choose to employ people in a particular location, and when they decide on the terms of employment.

snitko 12y ago
I was trying to argue from a moral point of view. The existence of state, which itself is an immoral institution, doesn't justify the absurdity of the idea to demand being employed.
- genwin 12y ago
  But no one in the article demanded to be employed.
  - snitko 12y ago
    As far as I understand, people demand money for being laid off. It's essentially the same.
- cma 12y ago
  If you made your contract with that law as the understanding, you might have demanded more if the protection wasn't there.
  - snitko 12y ago
    Of course. If you actually signed a contract saying "I will abide the law of this land". But not you, not me, not the ex-employees and not even SpaceX signed ever signed such a contract. They're simply operating under a set of laws created by a system which claims to be legit, but which in reality forces people to comply.
    - genwin 12y ago
      Your life would be crap in a hurry if you couldn't depend on laws being enforceable.
      - snitko 12y ago
        Laws and enforcement is not something that only governments know how to do.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        Yes, they are. Any entity who makes and enforces law is, ipso facto, a government. An entity that doesn't do that isn't a government, even if it calls itself one. That's what governing is, and government is simply that which governs.
        snitko 12y ago
        I suggest you watch this short video then, which explains how laws, protection and private property can be created and enforced in a free market: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
    - cma 12y ago
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I was trying to argue from a moral point of view. One might argue that it is moral (if not legal) for parties to by mutual consent expressly agree to conduct an economic exchange under terms other than those set by the law of the jurisdiction in which the exchange is conducted (even if the law prohibits such waivers and alternations), but I think its a much harder case to make that it is generally moral for one party in arms-length exchange where no such waiver is expressed to simply elect to ignore the governing law, except when one makes the case that what the law demands would be immoral even as a term agreed to by consent, or that the change in the law which occurred after the agreement violated the fundamental premises on which the agreement was based (and even in the last case, only if the the party acted timely to notify the other party of their objection and to either terminate or renegotiate the relationship based on the changed context.)
  - snitko 12y ago
    Of course I don't suggest SpaceX ignores the law. That would put them in a lot of trouble. What I'm saying is, people should stop and think for a moment: wait a minute, why do we have this monopoly on law which many people exploit and why can't we allow people to freely sign employment contracts with the terms defined in advance? If, for example, 100% of people who SpaceX could hire would express concern over a possible layoff, then SpaceX would have no choice, but to put this into the contract, specifying potential payouts in the case of such a layoff. However, I think people would actually compete to get into SpaceX, thus the actual terms of the contract wouldn't include that. In short, let the market decide voluntarily, what are the best terms. What's going on now is one side (employees) taking advantage of the other side. I don't care how rich Elon Musk is. If he made his money honestly, he doesn't owe a cent to those employees.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - waps 12y ago
      > why can't we allow people to freely sign employment contracts with the terms defined in advance? Because 1) What incentive would people have to abide by their deals ? (also known as : NEVER sign a contract with any royalty or any parliament or congress. They are not bound by them. Just don't get yourself into that) 2) How would you even know the terms of a contract ? People may think they agree about every detail, I have done enough law to know perfectly well they never do. Given the chance, people will sign things like "I rent this room for 800 euro per month", for example. Now, the primary renter dies in a car crash, what happens ? Who owes what ? What if they're married ? What if there's children ? Does the inheritor inherit the obligation ? 3) How would you resolve obvious assymetric bargaining positions ? Suppose someone signed a contract selling someone into slavery ? Before you say otherwise, note that under muslim law, that is legal. Without law of the land, who is to say this is wrong ? And what would you do about it. But these are the obvious arguments. How about I save the 5000 page book this would become if we went over the entire set of problems that contracts pose. Here's a link, I guarantee that every single paragraph identifies a problem in "pure" contract law and free agreements between parties : http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc Or how about the European law version : http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1950/13681/version/3/file/Code_22.pdf http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1950/13681/ve... Read a few pages. It's not nonsense.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  Are you trolling or not? It is kind of a sad reflection on my view of internet people that I'm not sure and leaning heavily towards you being serious. But, seriously, the state is an immoral institution? Building the national highway system and all the related infrastructure (bridges, etc), the public school system (which didn't always and needn't suck, even if it is in distress now), the various social safety nets that keep us from discarding the elderly like trash, the means of protection of yours and everyone's wealth from banditry, the means of protection of our land from outside invaders, etc, etc, etc... this is an inherently immoral institution? What an incredibly dumb and short-sighted thing to say.
  - avz 12y ago
    I'm with you on balance: state is better than no state. However, I don't think the matter is as clear cut as you think. A few examples (I'll try to match them to yours): Public infrastructure projects often involve bribery and cronyism. Public school system may be used for ideological indoctrination. National safety nets foster risk aversion and allow young people to throw off the burden of care for their elderly. Police may be overly brutal when protecting your wealth from banditry. The means of protection of your land from outside invaders can become the means to invade outsiders and to conduct mass surveillance of the locals. It's a superhard design challenge to create a set of checks and balances which prevent abuse of power.
    - georgemcbay 12y ago
      I don't disagree; I just think going from "there is a lot wrong with our current government" (and clearly there is) to "government is evil" (or immoral) is such a huge, huge leap of logic that I don't understand how rational people can make it. The very idea that anything like modern society is possible without government is entirely faith-based (since there are no successful examples to prove it) and, I would argue, very naive on the subject of the many failings humans have when not regulated by outside checks and balances.
      - snitko 12y ago

genwin 12y ago

State law trumps this. It's not stealing to expect a company to adhere to the law in terms of employment and pay.