6 ms·

There are also state mandated immigration laws that prevent those indian workers from offering their services on a level playing field. That company is basicall

There are also state mandated immigration laws that prevent those indian workers from offering their services on a level playing field. That company is basically using the state as a tool for their extortionate practices. I don't see how that is "good on them" even by the most libertarian of standards.

jasonisalive 12y ago
If your concern is that the company is taking advantage of the paralegal environment to exploit these workers, you should be as against these ridiculous laws as me. The market will find the correct price for goods, criminalisation simply creates a legal and social vacuum for all transactions below the mandated minimum sale price, encouraging perverse and destructive behaviours. The minimum wage laws do not prevent exploitation, they encourage it. Edit: I would not be surprised if the people who are downvoting me now have never worked a minimum wage job. They might be interested to know that I have, and indeed currently do work minimum wage in my country. My first-hand experience has only confirmed my total opposition to the practice. Of course, it's a lot easier to downvote than actually engage an opposing opinion in debate :)
- fauigerzigerk 12y ago
  >If your concern is that the company is taking advantage of the paralegal environment to exploit these workers, you should be as against these ridiculous laws as me. I am opposed to all immigration laws as a matter of principle. Immigration laws violate a fundamental democratic principle, which is that laws should affect those who have a say in making them. Laws made by insiders that only affect outsiders _and_ govern that exact same insider/outsider status have no democratic legitimacy whatsoever. Immigration laws are also a severe distortion of markets. They are the worst form of protectionism because they protect the (relatively) rich against having to compete against the poor. However, for me, markets are tools and just as every other tool they are imperfect. They don't replace goals or values, they are not equivalent to freedom, they represent but one particular freedom of many. Markets simply don't cover everything it means to be human. If markets fail to achieve one of my goals, then I will look for other tools to fix that. One of my fundamental values is that poverty is wrong in a world that is capable of providing food, shelter, education and healthcare for everyone. Markets don't fix that on their own, but in this particular case, more market would have helped those indian workers to protect themselves against a company that used immigration laws to exploit them. (Another one of my convictions is that downvoting is a ridiculous way of having a debate)

jasonisalive 12y ago

If your concern is that the company is taking advantage of the paralegal environment to exploit these workers, you should be as against these ridiculous laws as me. The market will find the correct price for goods, criminalisation simply creates a legal and social vacuum for all transactions below the mandated minimum sale price, encouraging perverse and destructive behaviours. The minimum wage laws do not prevent exploitation, they encourage it. Edit: I would not be surprised if the people who are downvoting me now have never worked a minimum wage job. They might be interested to know that I have, and indeed currently do work minimum wage in my country. My first-hand experience has only confirmed my total opposition to the practice. Of course, it's a lot easier to downvote than actually engage an opposing opinion in debate :)

fauigerzigerk 12y ago
>If your concern is that the company is taking advantage of the paralegal environment to exploit these workers, you should be as against these ridiculous laws as me. I am opposed to all immigration laws as a matter of principle. Immigration laws violate a fundamental democratic principle, which is that laws should affect those who have a say in making them. Laws made by insiders that only affect outsiders _and_ govern that exact same insider/outsider status have no democratic legitimacy whatsoever. Immigration laws are also a severe distortion of markets. They are the worst form of protectionism because they protect the (relatively) rich against having to compete against the poor. However, for me, markets are tools and just as every other tool they are imperfect. They don't replace goals or values, they are not equivalent to freedom, they represent but one particular freedom of many. Markets simply don't cover everything it means to be human. If markets fail to achieve one of my goals, then I will look for other tools to fix that. One of my fundamental values is that poverty is wrong in a world that is capable of providing food, shelter, education and healthcare for everyone. Markets don't fix that on their own, but in this particular case, more market would have helped those indian workers to protect themselves against a company that used immigration laws to exploit them. (Another one of my convictions is that downvoting is a ridiculous way of having a debate)