• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do liberals and progressives believe in the right to contract?

Do liberals and progressives believe in the right to contract?

  • Total voters
    19
d0gbreath said:


Children as young as four have been contracted to mine cobalt for 50 cents/day in the Congo.

Henrin: Contract to your hearts content.
Click to expand...


I don't live in the Congo. Do you?
 
jimbo said:
I don't live in the Congo. Do you?
Click to expand...

No, I do not live there. I just wanted to show what a country without regulations looks like. We were actually doing the same in the 1800s.
 
Henrin said:
What does demanding paid family leave have to do with resolving a power discrepancy?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But government, being government, given any power will almost always seek more, and then more, and then more.

And when you have an ideology that looks to government to be the national sugar daddy and arbiter over EVERYTHING--the substitute for deity that enforces everything just and good and wonderful and utopian and provides every possible protection from want or injustice--you have a group of people who think it right and proper for government to require every employer to pay a certain 'living' wage, offer specified benefits, equal outcome, and provide cradle to grave security for those who work for that employer.

The employer who provides all the venture capital, takes all the risk to invest it in a business, assumes all the liability associated with running a business, and who is solely responsible to keep that business afloat, pays the taxes, fees, insurance etc., complies with regulation, and lies awake worrying about it, is seen as property/slave of the government required to do the government's bidding in every respect. Employers who are seen as the 'haves' are essentially greedy evil people who must be required/forced to care for the 'have nots' seen as anybody who works for wages.

The disconnect within this 'government is god' ideology mentality seems to be that the employer will take on that risk, responsibility, and significant aggravation without reasonable expectation to make a profit large enough to justify taking on that risk, responsibility, and significant aggravation. And since the employer won't do that, once the profit motive is taken away, where do the jobs to pay the wage earner then come from?

There would be many more good paying jobs out there if employers were more free to contract with workers for mutual benefit for all even if everything isn't absolutely uniform. I think we have a President and administration who understand that better than the last one. I hope so.
 
Ikari said:
I'm not really all for things such as minimum wage, particularly given our fiat currency system, minimum wage is inflated away. I don't think it's really any sort of way to address wealth disparity.

But there are other things such as Family Medical Leave which does fall into some amount of oversight and regulation of a system that generally wouldn't take families into consideration, and a society that needs families to be taken into consideration. There are market forces business must obey because it's business, and government doesn't fall do those forces and can regulate beyond.

And it doesn't all need to be government. Unions are born from the power of contract.
Click to expand...

Ikari, it's not the governments job to take things such as my family situation into consideration. That would be my job, and that's the point. My family is grown, gone, and doing very well. thank you. Why should I have to buy into family leave, minimum wage, or any other considerations that don't affect me just because you think it's a good idea?

Unions, AKA collective bargainers, would not succeed without government forcing membership as a qualification to be employed. Another one size fits all solution that makes it impossible for the best and brightest to negotiate their true worth with an employee.
 
d0gbreath said:
No, I do not live there. I just wanted to show what a country without regulations looks like. We were actually doing the same in the 1800s.
Click to expand...

The subject is contracts. The Congo's problems have nothing to do with contracts.
 
jimbo said:
Ikari, it's not the governments job to take things such as my family situation into consideration. That would be my job, and that's the point. My family is grown, gone, and doing very well. thank you. Why should I have to buy into family leave, minimum wage, or any other considerations that don't affect me just because you think it's a good idea?

Unions, AKA collective bargainers, would not succeed without government forcing membership as a qualification to be employed. Another one size fits all solution that makes it impossible for the best and brightest to negotiate their true worth with an employee.
Click to expand...

Unless a company, for their own purposes, takes on a paid family leave program voluntarily, as the Trump Organization does, I can see a significant down side of a lot of young women of child bearing age being passed over for good jobs in favor of those less likely to get pregnant. We sure don't want to discourage young people from going to work.

But you are right that an employer is not hiring a family. The employer is hiring a worker who will be expected to produce a sufficient profit for that employer to justify the risk in taking the worker on. And the benefit to the worker is to be able to sell his/her labor/knowledge/experience/creativity and thereby support his/her family.
 
jimbo said:
The subject is contracts. The Congo's problems have nothing to do with contracts.
Click to expand...

In order for contracts to have any bearing on this thread, someone would have to contract a job making less than the minimum wage. That is something that undocumented immigrants know too well. They also know what it's like to see catastrophic casualties on the job site due to a lack of safety measures.

I do contract work. I also charge for my work. Skipping all the perks of a salaried employee will cost you extra.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It doesn't. But government, being government, given any power will almost always seek more, and then more, and then more.

And when you have an ideology that looks to government to be the national sugar daddy and arbiter over EVERYTHING--the substitute for deity that enforces everything just and good and wonderful and utopian and provides every possible protection from want or injustice--you have a group of people who think it right and proper for government to require every employer to pay a certain 'living' wage, offer specified benefits, equal outcome, and provide cradle to grave security for those who work for that employer.

The employer who provides all the venture capital, takes all the risk to invest it in a business, assumes all the liability associated with running a business, and who is solely responsible to keep that business afloat, pays the taxes, fees, insurance etc., complies with regulation, and lies awake worrying about it, is seen as property/slave of the government required to do the government's bidding in every respect. Employers who are seen as the 'haves' are essentially greedy evil people who must be required/forced to care for the 'have nots' seen as anybody who works for wages.

The disconnect within this 'government is god' ideology mentality seems to be that the employer will take on that risk, responsibility, and significant aggravation without reasonable expectation to make a profit large enough to justify taking on that risk, responsibility, and significant aggravation. And since the employer won't do that, once the profit motive is taken away, where do the jobs to pay the wage earner then come from?

There would be many more good paying jobs out there if employers were more free to contract with workers for mutual benefit for all even if everything isn't absolutely uniform. I think we have a President and administration who understand that better than the last one. I hope so.
Click to expand...

It's not about god, it's about legislation to a) help stop workers being exploited, and b) to create a society where workers have a decent balance.

I just can't get my head around the idea of people thinking statutory maternity leave or paid leave is a bad thing. wtf?
 
Henrin said:
After watching liberals and progressives over the course of my life propose that terms be forced on employers for the employees benefit like minimum wage, paid family leave, maternity leave, and childcare the question arises if they actually believe we have a right to contract. The right to contract doesn't just mean the right to enter into a contract, but the right to agree to the terms of a contract on your own terms for your own reasons. It means that when the terms are not to your liking you can walk away freely, and when they are to your liking you can freely agree to them. It doesn't mean that you have a long list of predetermined terms of a contract that you must find agreeable to hire employees or to get a job. To liberals and progressives however this appears to be exactly what it means, and while I find their beliefs on the subject entirely repulsive and oppressive I'm left wondering what other people think. Do you think liberals and progressives actually believe in the right to contract?
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous question. Construction contracts, maintenance and reconditioning contracts, etc. is and has been a major part of doing business for centuries.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Unless a company, for their own purposes, takes on a paid family leave program voluntarily, as the Trump Organization does, I can see a significant down side of a lot of young women of child bearing age being passed over for good jobs in favor of those less likely to get pregnant. We sure don't want to discourage young people from going to work.
Click to expand...

So the alternative is women can't start families or they are sacked if they get pregnant? Paid maternity leave works in the rest of the industrial world, why do you think it couldn't work in America?
 
Aristaeus said:
It's not about god, it's about legislation to a) help stop workers being exploited, and b) to create a society where workers have a decent balance.

I just can't get my head around the idea of people thinking statutory maternity leave or paid leave is a bad thing. wtf?
Click to expand...

To give government power to dictate a more utopian environment for all workers is to assign deity like powers to government that it was never intended to have.

It is not government's job to write employer/employee contracts. I can't get my head around the idea of why an employer should be required to pay maternity leave against his/her will when that gives the employer every incentive not to hire young women at all.
 
Aristaeus said:
So the alternative is women can't start families or they are sacked if they get pregnant? Paid maternity leave works in the rest of the industrial world, why do you think it couldn't work in America?
Click to expand...

Why should employers hire women when they cost more? Why do you believe raising the cost of hiring women is a good for women?
 
Aristaeus said:
It's not about god, it's about legislation to a) help stop workers being exploited, and b) to create a society where workers have a decent balance.

I just can't get my head around the idea of people thinking statutory maternity leave or paid leave is a bad thing. wtf?
Click to expand...

How are you being exploited by not getting certain terms you find agreeable? Explain please.
 
Henrin said:
After watching liberals and progressives over the course of my life propose that terms be forced on employers for the employees benefit like minimum wage, paid family leave, maternity leave, and childcare the question arises if they actually believe we have a right to contract. The right to contract doesn't just mean the right to enter into a contract, but the right to agree to the terms of a contract on your own terms for your own reasons. It means that when the terms are not to your liking you can walk away freely, and when they are to your liking you can freely agree to them. It doesn't mean that you have a long list of predetermined terms of a contract that you must find agreeable to hire employees or to get a job. To liberals and progressives however this appears to be exactly what it means, and while I find their beliefs on the subject entirely repulsive and oppressive I'm left wondering what other people think. Do you think liberals and progressives actually believe in the right to contract?
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to think of my rights vs a major drug corporation. Do you seriously believe I could negotiate equally? I'd still be walking. It would be useful if you knew the def of liberal? Guess you took Latin? Liber= free. Fro the individual and small gov
 
Henrin said:
Again, no one is talking about anarchy.
Click to expand...

Again, when you say "So your view is that the government can force considerations into play that otherwise would not be in play? ", you are. Because either you think anarchy works OR some level of government oversight and regulation is necessary. It's binary along that path. You seemed almost incredulous that I would suggest there are times in which government force into the system is warranted, but unless you're an anarchist, you do to.

Henrin said:
That's only if all parties agree, but that is clearly not the case with unions as they are known. What you're talking about in reality is employees rebelling and associating amongst themselves and then the government coming along and forcing that association on employers. If it worked out differently where the government never came in and did things like arrest employers that wouldn't negotiate with employees you would have point, but sadly that is not how it happened.
Click to expand...

Not employees rebelling, employees using contract and association to gain better compensation for their labor. And government action was necessary on some point, for the beginnings of unionization was fraught with violence by business against employee. There is some need for regulation and oversight to keep the peace.

Henrin said:
At times? Almost everything about union laws is corrupt.
Click to expand...

Unions are just like government in some sense. Necessary, but left to their own devices, they become corrupt and stop functioning for the purpose they are needed. Like government, it takes intelligent interaction by the general members to keep.
 
Aristaeus said:
So the alternative is women can't start families or they are sacked if they get pregnant? Paid maternity leave works in the rest of the industrial world, why do you think it couldn't work in America?
Click to expand...

I started and lived my working career for a very long time without any kind of maternity leave being mandated, much less maternity leave. And I managed to raise two wonderful kids during all that, and yes, I did choose to stay home with them for at least six months before returning to work part time. I chose to get married before having kids, and I chose a responsible guy who saw supporting the family as HIS job, and nobody else's. I also had a good rapport with my employers who were happy to take me back when they had an opening for me.

If you have a good worker, the employer usually does allow for unpaid maternity leave and makes do with temps until the worker can return to work within a reasonable time, say four to six weeks. Or, if you are running a Trump organization, you can afford to and can choose to provide paid maternity leave.

But when that simply is not feasible for the employer, the employer should not be forced to provide a benefit he/she simply cannot afford.

Again the employer is contracting with a worker, not a worker's family. And if the worker chooses to get pregnant, that is the worker's choice, not the employers. And the worker should accept responsibility for it. To force the employer to accept responsibility for it is only going to shut many young women out of the job market altogether.
 
Ikari said:
Again, when you say "So your view is that the government can force considerations into play that otherwise would not be in play? ", you are. Because either you think anarchy works OR some level of government oversight and regulation is necessary. It's binary along that path. You seemed almost incredulous that I would suggest there are times in which government force into the system is warranted, but unless you're an anarchist, you do to.
Click to expand...

When you're telling the government can force terms on either party and still uphold the right to contract I find what you're saying absurd. When I make clear that I'm still allowing the government to enforce contracts and yet you kept coming back with the whole anarchy nonsense I'm just left disgusted.

Not employees rebelling, employees using contract and association to gain better compensation for their labor. And government action was necessary on some point, for the beginnings of unionization was fraught with violence by business against employee. There is some need for regulation and oversight to keep the peace.
Click to expand...

Again, without government they would just end up fired and no one would talk to them. If you remember your history that was pretty much what was happening too. It wasn't until the government came in and stopped the employers from free association did unions get anywhere.

Unions are just like government in some sense. Necessary, but left to their own devices, they become corrupt and stop functioning for the purpose they are needed. Like government, it takes intelligent interaction by the general members to keep.
Click to expand...

There was no left to their own devices. Left to their own devices they would just be unemployed.
 
jimbo said:
Ikari, it's not the governments job to take things such as my family situation into consideration.
Click to expand...

It IS when you're trying to maintain a functioning, aggregate society. You're not in a vacuum, none of us are. Government has different interests and powers than business to look after, and maintaining the peaceful society is one of those. As we evolve and become more complex, the situations and needs evolve along side. It's not the 60's anymore. You may have done well then, but the 2010's have different situations and concerns. Things like Family Medical Leave are not bad, and even compared to other civilized nations, is not all that "advanced". It's not even paid. All it does is state that you can leave up to 12 weeks in the year for qualified family medical emergencies and still have your job when you're done.

jimbo said:
That would be my job, and that's the point. My family is grown, gone, and doing very well. thank you. Why should I have to buy into family leave, minimum wage, or any other considerations that don't affect me just because you think it's a good idea?
Click to expand...

Because it does affect you, and will affect your grandkids.

jimbo said:
Unions, AKA collective bargainers, would not succeed without government forcing membership as a qualification to be employed. Another one size fits all solution that makes it impossible for the best and brightest to negotiate their true worth with an employee.
Click to expand...

Unions would have succeeded, but it would have been bloodier without intervention. There was a definite need for collective contract for the sake of proper compensation for labor.
 
I believe in a right to contract in an ideal world, less so in the actual world. In any world, it's a third-tier right, which means that, when it comes into conflict with other rights, it loses to rights that are in the first or second tiers. The problem I see with the kinds of contracts you're talking about is that they too often come into conflict with first-or-second-tier rights.

Another way to think about the same thing: I believe in maximal social or doxastic freedom, less so in economic freedom. Wealth (and hence, for the most part, property) is created by societies and only aloted to individuals, and therefore individuals have fewer rights to exchange property in whatever way they wish.
 
YorkshirePete said:
I'm just trying to think of my rights vs a major drug corporation. Do you seriously believe I could negotiate equally? I'd still be walking. It would be useful if you knew the def of liberal? Guess you took Latin? Liber= free. Fro the individual and small gov
Click to expand...

That would only describe classical liberals though. Modern liberals are supporters of large government and considerably interested in economic controls.
 
Henrin said:
When you're telling the government can force terms on either party and still uphold the right to contract I find what you're saying absurd. When I make clear that I'm still allowing the government to enforce contracts and yet you kept coming back with the whole anarchy nonsense I'm just left disgusted.
Click to expand...

Be disgusted, but try to use a little intellectual honesty while doing so. You tried to speak to a fundamental, and I said that there are certainly times when oversight and regulation is necessary. If you do not agree with that, you are endorsing anarchy. Sorry.

jimbo said:
Again, without government they would just end up fired and no one would talk to them. If you remember your history that was pretty much what was happening too. It wasn't until the government came in and stopped the employers from free association did unions get anywhere.
Click to expand...

And we would have gotten no-where. The price of one's labor would be kept artificially low, there would still be violence for demonstrations against unfair labor practices. Unions, as they were, got a lot of traction back in the 1800's to push for better compensation for their labor and working conditions. Keeping people poor or needlessly endangered just because you can split everyone up to diminish the force of their contract isn't necessarily a good thing.

jimbo said:
There was no left to their own devices. Left to their own devices they would just be unemployed.
Click to expand...

And businesses with unfair practices would be without employees. Unions clearly had a historical need, much like government has a necessity.

You don't like this application of Contract, that's all. And so you try to argue against it. But we have long used government to uphold our rights against undue or unjust force. Such as it was here. Business fought back against the Unions, resorting even to violence, tried to keep the working class as divided as possible for their own ends. But one has right to Contract, and government has responsibility to uphold and protect that right.
 
Ikari said:
Be disgusted, but try to use a little intellectual honesty while doing so. You tried to speak to a fundamental, and I said that there are certainly times when oversight and regulation is necessary. If you do not agree with that, you are endorsing anarchy. Sorry.
Click to expand...

How am I do that?

And we would have gotten no-where. The price of one's labor would be kept artificially low, there would still be violence for demonstrations against unfair labor practices. Unions, as they were, got a lot of traction back in the 1800's to push for better compensation for their labor and working conditions. Keeping people poor or needlessly endangered just because you can split everyone up to diminish the force of their contract isn't necessarily a good thing.
Click to expand...

Violence is a punishable offense, so I guess that settles that. The employer didn't artificially do anything. The employer/employee contract is an arrangement between two parties and two parties only. When the employer finds certain terms agreeable he is not artificially keeping labor costs low, but in fact agreeing to whatever that wage rate is in a way entirely in line with market forces. When the employees associated they were in fact practicing their rights, but that fact alone doesn't mandate any action on the employers side of the table. If the employees decide to breach their contract after they decide to associate then the employer is entirely in his right to end his association with the employees. What the government did was say the employer can not end his association nor can he refuse to talk to the union, but instead he must negotiate in "good faith" with the union. Good faith of course being defined by the government.

And businesses with unfair practices would be without employees. Unions clearly had a historical need, much like government has a necessity.
Click to expand...

They would simply hire more. So what?

You don't like this application of Contract, that's all. And so you try to argue against it.
Click to expand...

There is no just application of contract in play here and that's the problem. Union contracts as we know them are not based on consent, but based on government terms and force.

But we have long used government to uphold our rights against undue or unjust force.
Click to expand...

What force is taking place between a contract between employer and employee?

Such as it was here. Business fought back against the Unions, resorting even to violence, tried to keep the working class as divided as possible for their own ends. But one has right to Contract, and government has responsibility to uphold and protect that right.
Click to expand...

Both sides were violent, you know. I'm hardly going to condone violence by either party either. You should however be aware that the workers were in violation of their contract.
 
Henrin said:
After watching liberals and progressives over the course of my life propose that terms be forced on employers for the employees benefit like minimum wage, paid family leave, maternity leave, and childcare the question arises if they actually believe we have a right to contract. The right to contract doesn't just mean the right to enter into a contract, but the right to agree to the terms of a contract on your own terms for your own reasons. It means that when the terms are not to your liking you can walk away freely, and when they are to your liking you can freely agree to them. It doesn't mean that you have a long list of predetermined terms of a contract that you must find agreeable to hire employees or to get a job. To liberals and progressives however this appears to be exactly what it means, and while I find their beliefs on the subject entirely repulsive and oppressive I'm left wondering what other people think. Do you think liberals and progressives actually believe in the right to contract?
Click to expand...

should you have phrased it "Do liberals and progressives believe in the right to HAVE A contract?
 
Henrin said:
That's not the reason. Do you know how contracts actually work? Have you ever heard of free will? Hint: The two are connected. Transferring your free will to another person is invalid nonsense.
Click to expand...

Do I know how contracts work? Somehow contract law is related to existential philosophical discussions of free will??

You're stringing words together that don't actually complete a coherent thought.
 
Mithros said:
Do I know how contracts work? Somehow contract law is related to existential philosophical discussions of free will??

You're stringing words together that don't actually complete a coherent thought.
Click to expand...

You're talking about giving up your free will in a contract, which is invalid because it's impossible to occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom