tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post3372166225440787729..comments2024-03-18T22:32:52.802-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: The liberty to peeNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-8064840118775316982012-07-10T23:49:10.710-04:002012-07-10T23:49:10.710-04:00Tyler raises a lot a great questions and you ignor...Tyler raises a lot a great questions and you ignore them all. Seriously, what do you want employers to do? Pay their employess less and give them more freedom in the workplace? Pay their employess the same as now and give them more freedom in the workplace? What if I really want to trade the right to make personal long distance phone calls at work for higher pay? I'm just throwing stuff out there but this is the directin you ought to be going. If you object to the status quo, fine, but at least try to sketch out what an improvement might look like after everyone has responded to incentives and all costs are accounted for. <br /><br />In any case, I agree that if libertarians are assumed to mean by the word liberty something about feelings, rather than what they actually mean, their claims are questionable. But libertarian positions make a lot more sense when you take the libertarin definition of liberty as given. So it comes down to what definition of liberty we use. If, as you claim, it's arbitrary or up to the feelings of a majority, that's a pretty flimsy basis for what you are defending which is the power of a regulatory agency to fine proprietors, shut down businesses, etc.<br /><br />On this issue of utility, I think you are maybe just expressing yourself poorly. If some GMU professor were to just list some types of potential government failure, surely you wouldn't let that pass as a utilitarian case for laissez faire. But it looks like all you've done is list some types of possible market failures as though it were a utilitarian case for regulation. <br /><br />Also, someone has to point this out: You resort a number of times to bandwagon fallacies and name calling, e.g. at the end "But your definition is no more or less arbitrary than anyone else's, and quite possibly has the side effect of convincing normal human beings that you are - in the parlance of our times - a bit of a schmuck." Probably you weren't convinced of your own position by fallacies so I can't imaging why you want to argue for your position by appealing to fallacies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-338530787100428742012-07-10T11:04:14.619-04:002012-07-10T11:04:14.619-04:00"When you consider going to work for an emplo..."When you consider going to work for an employer, you don't know precisely what your's going to get."<br /><br />It works the other way around as well. <br /><br />"the employee who shirks is breaking the rules, whereas the boss who legally abuses an employee is not."<br /><br />Many rules are not possible to write into contract in the first place. You cannot then use the law as a prop because the law will not have anything to say about these rules; in any case, "legal abuse" is a funny term to use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58117309982814346822012-07-09T01:13:15.740-04:002012-07-09T01:13:15.740-04:00"and that is the only reason we prize one ove..."and that is the only reason we prize one over the other."<br /><br />This is the first post of yours I read and was so appalled, had to respond. You're either nuts or a fascist (or both). Having a street cleared of Armenians such that you can walk down it is not a question of being less valuable than <br />allowing the Armenian there in the first place.<br /><br />1. You have no right to denote WHO is in the street regardless of how you feel.<br />2. Everyone has an equal right to BE in the street<br /><br />That my friend is FREEDOM and most people feel that FREEDOM is valuable and that is what forms the basis of the right and wrong postulate. If you feel freedom is right, then you KNOW #1 is wrong and MUST support #2<br /><br />For example I see no value in your blog, I'd like it stopped, but my principals of freedom denote that you are free to say what you please and others are free to take it onboard or ignore it.<br /><br />Lastly, in many places people wish to walk down the street without seeing Americans. But you are still there, often categorising people and then trying to kill them to steal their resources.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-8791887100467425922012-07-08T06:22:36.286-04:002012-07-08T06:22:36.286-04:00Most of these people are victimized by the Galt De...Most of these people are victimized by the Galt Delusion, so they think that they got their job at Best Buy or wherever through a mutually agreed upon contract between parties with symmetrical endowments of power. It's too painful to believe otherwise. The Galt Delusion is ultimately a psychological survival mechanism.Conscience Warriorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13487448481194494386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-33712796338798320612012-07-06T18:06:39.651-04:002012-07-06T18:06:39.651-04:00Or, more simply, just because people now enter int...Or, more simply, just because people now enter into marriage freely, and can divorce / separate freely as well, doesn't mean we should stop loathing spouses that emotionally abuse their partners. It is not illegal; it is just disgusting.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02158108097139587199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-34601902163106922322012-07-06T17:58:12.085-04:002012-07-06T17:58:12.085-04:00Another point is that plenty of libertarians will ...Another point is that plenty of libertarians will critique private companies for their privacy practices. (And do you think if TSA was privatized that they would stop kvetching because now it is part of the free market?!) The privacy contract is analogous to that of employment, and, rarely, do I hear libertarians base the criticism on the specifics in the terms of service anyway. They can stop using Google and browsers that track movements across the internet. Or those most concerned about privacy can completely stop using the Web. Libertarians must realize this, but they also REALLY like the services that these companies and networks provide. Instead, the strategy is to shame the private companies into adopting a privacy policy that will increase “liberty.”<br /> <br />That is not a bad way to go about things by any means. But, if they can pressure a private company into better practices in regards to privacy, why don’t libertarians ever extend that agenda to other issues as well – for example, employment. <br /><br />Just because someone is free to be an ass doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to stop it by pointing out that they are being an ass. Silence is not always neutral. If liberty is something that can be maximized (I don't think it can) then libertarians who don't question these dire contracts, even if entered into freely, are not really protecting liberty - no matter how sacrosanct they pretend to be.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02158108097139587199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-66476772880660433082012-07-06T11:28:12.875-04:002012-07-06T11:28:12.875-04:00this is kind of a pointless academic debate. the p...this is kind of a pointless academic debate. the people who advocate that employees can write their own contract are people like Thiel who largely can write their own contract. Very few, and mostly highly paid, individuals have the leverage or market power to write their own contract. At most large and mid-size companies, HR and management can change the "contract" at any time for any reason.<br /><br />As for the examples in the book, there are hundreds on millions of people employed, i bet the probability of finding horror stories among them is 100%, and i am sure we all have them. That's why its called "work" and why they have to pay you for it. If you could do whatever you wanted it would be called "vacation." Somehow, through all these horror stories, we all seem to manage. <br /><br /><br />Do we need a government program to fix this? Yes, more economic stimulus by the Fed: when demand for labor is high then wages and benefits, including benefits like "freedom" and "training" increase.dwbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-83623391932965211222012-07-06T10:12:50.087-04:002012-07-06T10:12:50.087-04:00Forget about Libertarian blindness -- since when i...Forget about Libertarian blindness -- since when is the urge to pee considered to be something that can be delayed at will, like the longing for a piece of chocolate or the urge to Tweet?<br /><br />It's pretty blatant that none of the writers and commenters here are middle aged women, among whom 10 to 17% suffer urge or stress urinary incontinence. In men, the incidence is much less common, but even if it's only 3% that's still one man in thirty skipping to the loo.<br /><br />Worse than that, "prevention of urination or defecation" is a standard tactic of torture. To be sure, waiting an extra hour or four to pee is not up there with losing your fingernails, but to someone who is not physically capable of waiting, it's liable to lose them their job, or cost them big-time in Depends.Noni Mausahttp://www.angrybearblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9636423179972496412012-07-06T10:01:38.062-04:002012-07-06T10:01:38.062-04:00The government encourages (and uses cash bribes) t...The government encourages (and uses cash bribes) to get young people to surrender their freedoms under the bill of rights and enlist in the armed forces. It replaces civilian justice with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in which one is forced under pain of punishment such as loss of pay, rank and priviledges, to obey legal orders. However this is all done supposedly to defend the greater population's liberties. It is an interesting paradox that the Armed Forces, when compared with the general population, have done so much to engender racial and sexual equality. A contradiction worthy of further discussion?JR Hullshttp://somewhatlogically.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-6278645243582642022012-07-06T08:30:45.647-04:002012-07-06T08:30:45.647-04:00Reputation is a pretty silly argument--the fact is...Reputation is a pretty silly argument--the fact is that we enter contracts all the time without knowing what we will get, and the only way to avoid inefficient outcomes is through regulation. The example I usually use is the food industry--you can't literally negotiate a contract with McDonalds over the price per bacterium on your big mac, which is what the complete markets assumption says we should do. But those bacteria can make you sick, and therefore impose real costs. The reputation argument says that we get an "efficient" outcome once enough people get sick to give McDonalds a bad reputation, yet anyone who has ever worked in epidemiology knows this is absurd--even with fully equipped laboratories, highly educated scientists, and substantial datasets, it is usually very hard to figure out the source of an epidemic. And when it is just a few people involved, it is quite often impossible to tell what actually made them sick. Thus, we impose regulations on McDonalds designed to minimize the number of bacteria, and this is welfare-improving due to the incomplete markets problem.<br /><br />So yes, we often enter contracts without knowing what we are getting. Individually, this behavior cannot be improved upon, with or without reputation-building. Collectively, however, it is often welfare-improving to prohibit those contracts most likely to result in adverse outcomes.Matthew Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10254244795963585737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-10100001091246896192012-07-06T07:52:00.356-04:002012-07-06T07:52:00.356-04:00Dear Noah,
In my post, I emphasized stupidity of ...Dear Noah,<br /><br />In my post, I emphasized stupidity of owners at least as much as agency problems.<br /><br />--MilesMiles Kimballhttp://blog.supplysideliberal.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35977435425594095692012-07-05T18:26:37.506-04:002012-07-05T18:26:37.506-04:00Why is that it is always economics professors; peo...Why is that it is always economics professors; people with an unbelievable amount of "liberty" are always libertarians? They really have little concept of what everyday life is like for non-academics (I know, I'm married to an academic). Professor Cowan, try getting a real job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58889341663502872632012-07-05T14:57:42.971-04:002012-07-05T14:57:42.971-04:00"People feel that the liberty to walk down th..."People feel that the liberty to walk down the street without seeing an Armenian is less important than an Armenian's liberty..." <br /><br />This is a learned response by we Europeans as a reaction to us slaughtering each other in large numbers for hundreds of years. Tolerance is embraced only because it is more efficient, and safer, than the alternative.Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-48411387638927736042012-07-05T14:32:09.866-04:002012-07-05T14:32:09.866-04:00Noah, is it just me, or do the libertarians just n...Noah, is it just me, or do the libertarians just not respond to the issue of whether or not the employer employee relation is based on coercion? Does it really matter how a slave owner treats his or her slaves? Is that the issue? <br /><br />Of course one can disagree. Someone can think that a person coming to their job interview is negotiating on an equal basis with the person across the table. I have my opinion and if libertarians don't share it I consider that they are letting political beliefs distort their reality field, but I realize that it is a matter of opinion.<br /><br />But surely they have to take up the question in order to have a useful discussion.RobbLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58199365583925132462012-07-05T13:53:30.036-04:002012-07-05T13:53:30.036-04:00Could be a good reason ≠ cost-benefit analysisCould be a good reason ≠ cost-benefit analysisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-54518685254055538082012-07-05T13:52:15.540-04:002012-07-05T13:52:15.540-04:00LOL. The UFW fought for years to get two legally ...LOL. The UFW fought for years to get two legally mandated bathroom breaks, a means to wash your hands afterward, and drinking water which could be accessed on those breaks as well.<br /><br />They also fought to ban the "shortie" hoe due to its crippling effects on workers.<br /><br />At the time, the corporate farms called these measures "Communist".<br /><br />I kid you not. Look it up.Lulz4l1f3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-27974103535659542022012-07-05T13:18:54.516-04:002012-07-05T13:18:54.516-04:00@Anonymous: there is a reason for legally mandated...@Anonymous: there is a reason for legally mandated bathroom breaks, and it's not that employers were being too generous with them before the laws were put in place.umhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00257052260028348733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-16773731158826438592012-07-05T13:01:24.503-04:002012-07-05T13:01:24.503-04:00Seems like a bit of strawman re: peeing. Are peein...Seems like a bit of strawman re: peeing. Are peeing restrictions in the workplace really a problem? I'm sure there are isolated instances, as there are for just about anything in the workplace. If so, then you have to talk about what actual restrictions you're referring to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com