Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Laminations · 14-05-2010 01:12PM

wrong wring wrong. Under the current system you have a choice just the same as libertarianism, in fact you have more choice. Basically if you dont like doing something, don't do it (but know there will be consequences). Under libertarianism if I don't like the way my boss treats me I have a choice, I can leave - the consequence of which is I have to find another job. alternatively I could stay, this would not be entirely volitional as my circumstances my force me to accept the abuse, as not having a job and relying on charity could endanger my life. So yes I still have a choice but it becomes a choice between life of exploitation and abuse vs. sickness and death. Under the current system I have more choices, I can stay and accept it or I can leave or I can bring the power of the state down on him. This in no way curtails the choice of behaviour available to me boss it merely introduces some more consequences.

And if you don't like paying tax you still have a choice - leave. Just because you may not like the choice doesn't mean you don't have one. I'm sure many people wouldn't like the choices they are left with under libertarianism.

14-05-2010 01:13PM

So, an employment contract can be torn up on a whim..do you therefore also believe in the destruction of other contracts?..you dont for example think anything should be done re mortgages in this country, where it is essentially the same thing, the mortgage holders says to the bank i can no longer afford to pay this back, as opposed to the employer saying i can no longer afford to pay you, sorry..
Or is that just one of the many benefits of 'Limited Liability'?

And, as it seems, the PS contracts do actually say they cant be torn up, are you in favour of the PS in our current Public vs Private debate?

Permabear · 14-05-2010 01:13PM

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce · 14-05-2010 01:13PM

Not on the street, but in a business if a person in a position of power over another does so it becomes another story. I think that people in power have a responsibility to ensure staff are safe and free from harassment; if it is the boss himself (usually him) who is the problem, then a higher authority must step it. I don't accept that the solution is for a person to simply leave the job- in reality, they might not be in a position to (and this would become even more acute in a world with no social welfare), and be forced by circumstance to grin and bare it.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 01:24PM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 01:24PM

again you only seem capable of talking in absolutes, no one is talking about legislating foe every situation in which people can take offence. In fact it's not really offence we are talking about - it's abuse of power, something you see the state doing all too often but you can't recognise it when one individual holds power over another

Scofflaw · 14-05-2010 01:28PM

That's not an argument against sexual harassment legislation in principle - it's an argument that the use of it you cite would be ridiculous. I would have no difficulty saying the above is extremely unlikely to be a case of sexual harassment. If the press' best-selling genre is indeed romance, and there is little use to Ms Smith's position if it is filled by someone who cannot read steamy novels, then Ms Smith is unsuitable for the job and this is not a case of sexual harassment.

However, if the press has a wide range of publications, and Mr Jones has given Ms Smith the steamy novels because he enjoys forcing her to read sexual scenes against her preferences, even though she could equally well be reviewing engineering manuals, then that is obviously a case of a man abusing his power to get a kick out of making a subordinate woman do something quasi-sexual against her will.

Under libertarianism, Ms Smith has no recourse in either case but to leave her employment, quite possibly with a bad reference ("not a good sport").

regards,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 14-05-2010 01:30PM

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 14-05-2010 01:33PM

Let the jury decide!
(Or an employment tribunal).

Permabear · 14-05-2010 01:35PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 01:44PM

This post has been deleted.

14-05-2010 01:45PM

Ah, no...dont go bringing up the Muslim cartoons..it's pretty much the one thing they ask, that their prophet is not depicted in an image..is it too much too ask to let them have one thing you cant do?..these people's religion is very important to them..as a godless capitalist, imagine how you'd feel if people started burning money in front of you?..This is the entire reason behind Political correctrness...its nice to be nice...its not nice to be needlessly offensive to people..

So in answer to your question, both should, because if people dont take other people's offence into account what have we become?

14-05-2010 01:46PM

WTF?

Laminations · 14-05-2010 01:49PM

And you dont see the power relationship affecting this? where the employer has many alternative options for employees and the employee has limited options for alternative employment? You are justifying the exploitation of individual circumstance. Yes I'll admit this happens today, we all 'prostitute' ourselves to a certain extent (e.g. we dont all work in our dream jobs, we compromise) but we have the state to ensure the compromise does not jeopardise our fundamental rights.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 01:54PM

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987 · 14-05-2010 01:55PM

I wouldn't be in favour of conscription so yes conscription is an overextension of government power but that is not to say government enforcing worker safety is the same as enforcing conscription, one protects the individual another enslaves the indivdiual.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 01:56PM

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ABUSE OF POWER FOR EXPLOITATION!!!!

sorry to use caps, they are a poor substitute for expletives...
this is increasingly frustrating. We are not talking about offence, people do not have the right to not be offended.

14-05-2010 01:56PM

Ah, i saw that one coming...

Permabear · 14-05-2010 01:59PM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 02:00PM

I agree with you on this. Freedom of speech, freedom to offend but NOT freedom to harrass or abuse, which you accept as a freedom in which the state should not interfere.

Anonymous1987 · 14-05-2010 02:01PM

But we are not giving the state absolute power, just because you have to wear a safety harness on a building site doesn't mean you are in the hands of the state, again thinking in absolutes lead to very poor reasoning. Treat each case on its merits.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 02:04PM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 02:35PM

Its why we have a judicial system to perambulate over these things.

In my eyes 'the visual depiction' would have to be threatening or an abuse of power, repeatedly running after a muslim and flashing a cartoon of their prophet in their face would be harrassment, publishing such pictures, although insensitive and possibly offensive, remains freedom of speech. Again we have courts to decide these things.

thebaldsoprano · 14-05-2010 02:41PM

No doubt the free market would punish this employer for hiring employees he wants to sleep with rather than the best sports shop employees it has to offer...

Permabear · 14-05-2010 02:45PM

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 14-05-2010 02:49PM

More likely, a consumer will have absolutely no inside information regarding the behavior of the manager toward one or 2 of his staff.
Since they don't know about the abuse, it wil not factor into the decision to shop there.

Even if they DID know of the abuse, they might still shop there depending on their own needs, the prices of the goods, convenience and their own pov.

In effect, this means that the victim must be rather public in her protest and win the empathy and resolution of the general public.
A much harder hill to climb and probably one in which most people would be intimadated from trying.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 02:51PM

Yes. The people in that office are dicks.

If an employer does not satisfactorily deal with workplace complaints (the muslim case would be a case of workplace bullying - so would the other case if it continued to occur after it was made clear it was unwanted) then there are other avenues the woman has, other then stay and endure or leave (as with a libertarian system). There are internal HR procedures that she could access, (if not, or if unresolved) she can go higher up or get the state involved. If someone left a sheeps head on my desk I'd be equally inclined to go to the boss and expect a resolution, if it happened repeatedly then it would be a failure of my boss to regulate the situation and the state may get involved.

EDIT: the boss still has all choices open to him. He can do nothing, or he can intervene etc etc. The consequences of his choices have changed somewhat so as to balance the power dynamic between him and his workers.

Permabear · 14-05-2010 03:00PM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 14-05-2010 03:06PM

Ah ok, notice board. The way I read it first time I though it was office desk. Yep internal procedures should deal with potentially offensive material to ensure worker congeniality. If it becomes a case of office bullying then there is a role for the state acting under legislation (if the issue is not resolved by the internal procedures). Again the courts can decide

BluePlanet · 14-05-2010 03:06PM

The reason those workplaces have those internal HR procedures is to mitigate against getting sued by one of their employees or the State.
So in effect, it is because of the State that those procedures exist.

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Comments