• 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
H

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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?
 
I think they do but I also think they believe there is a power discrepancy in such negotiations and the government has a role to play in leveling the playing field.
 
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...

Of course we have right to contract. That doesn't mean there can be no government oversight or regulation. And right to contract is what helped make Unions so successful, it was all about contract.
 
BrewerBob said:
I think they do but I also think they believe there is a power discrepancy in such negotiations and the government has a role to play in leveling the playing field.
Click to expand...

What does demanding paid family leave have to do with resolving a power discrepancy?
 
Ikari said:
Of course we have right to contract. That doesn't mean there can be no government oversight or regulation. And right to contract is what helped make Unions so successful, it was all about contract.
Click to expand...

So forcing terms like minimum wage has to do with government oversight? How exactly is that?
 
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...

Liberals in the American sense will tend to grant it less and many modern progressives will tend to more wright to personal rights.
 
Henrin said:
So forcing terms like minimum wage has to do with government oversight? How exactly is that?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

So your view is that the government can force considerations into play that otherwise would not be in play? That is justified to you? And unions were largely given lasting footing because of government overreach into contract negotiations.
 
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...

Well in a one sentence answer: sometimes things benefit society that may not benefit businesses*—things like a minimum wage, maternity leave, etc.

* although I would argue that things like maternity leave, min wage, etc do benefit businesses on a more holistic level.
 


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

Henrin: Contract to your hearts content.
 
It seems as if the counter argument is that because the employee gets a benefit to whatever is being forced on the employer it is justified. That line of argument seems to me to run counter to the right to contract and seems to speak towards something like the right to have terms mandated on the other party of a contract.
 
Henrin said:
So your view is that the government can force considerations into play that otherwise would not be in play? That is justified to you? And unions were largely given lasting footing because of government overreach into contract negotiations.
Click to expand...

There's a reason government and business are separate. And depending on what the "considerations" are, then yes there are times when government oversight and regulation is necessary and warranted. Anarchy doesn't work.

Unions have holding because it collectivizes the worker's right to contract. You have assembly, association, and contract at work with Unions. They're current incarnation has largely outgrown their initial necessity, but contract is what bore the Union to its success.
 
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...

Of course you have the right to make a contract. And of course there are limitations on what you can agree to in any contract. And of course you believe that there should be limitations. Otherwise you'd have to support the ability of someone to willfully sell themselves into slavery, and that's just ridiculous.
 
Ikari said:
There's a reason government and business are separate. And depending on what the "considerations" are, then yes there are times when government oversight and regulation is necessary and warranted. Anarchy doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Who even proposed anarchy here? All I said is that people have a right to agree to terms they find agreeable. That doesn't mean the government doesn't do things like enforce contracts.


Unions have holding because it collectivizes the worker's right to contract. You have assembly, association, and contract at work with Unions. They're current incarnation has largely outgrown their initial necessity, but contract is what bore the Union to its success.
Click to expand...

The employee contract is not a collective contract. That's your problem right there frankly. If you review union laws you will notice that they largely ignores that the contract it originates from is not collective contract.
 
Mithros said:
Of course you have the right to make a contract. And of course there are limitations on what you can agree to in any contract. And of course you believe that there should be limitations. Otherwise you'd have to support the ability of someone to willfully sell themselves into slavery, and that's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You can't sell yourself into slavery in the first place. If need be I will explain why what you just said is illogical, but I will wait until that is shown to be needed.
 
Henrin said:
Who even proposed anarchy here? All I said is that people have a right to agree to terms they find agreeable. That doesn't mean the government doesn't do things like enforce contracts.
Click to expand...

Government certainly does a lot to uphold contract, as well as dissolve contract. We have the court system, in part, to do this. But you said "your view is that the government can force considerations into play that otherwise would not be in play?" To which I said yes, those forced considerations are called regulation and oversight, anarchy doesn't work. So obviously, given the failure of anarchy, there is a necessity to some amount of regulation and oversight by the government.


Henrin said:
The employee contract is not a collective contract. That's your problem right there frankly. If you review union laws you will notice that they largely ignores that the contract it originates from is not collective contract.
Click to expand...

Employees can collectivize to give their right to contract more weight and allow better negotiation. The employee is trading their labor for compensation, they should be able to argue for that. A Union allows the employees greater affect for these negotiations. Unions are born from contract, just because you don't like how that exercise of Contract went, doesn't mean it's otherwise.
 
Hmm. Most fundamental contract is a purchase of Goods or services (or a combination thereof of). Always thought both parties could walk away if they didn't like the terms. Guess all except bakers these days.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
Henrin said:
It seems as if the counter argument is that because the employee gets a benefit to whatever is being forced on the employer it is justified. That line of argument seems to me to run counter to the right to contract and seems to speak towards something like the right to have terms mandated on the other party of a contract.
Click to expand...

We tried your way and we ended up with a Dickensian situation. There is more to society than business and sometimes businesses will have to do things they may not like because it benefits society.
 
Henrin said:
You can't sell yourself into slavery in the first place. If need be I will explain why what you just said is illogical, but I will wait until that is shown to be needed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There are limits to what you can contractually agree to regardless of what you may want to agree to.

The second part is hysterical FYI. If needed you'll show me what I said was illogical? But you'll wait until it's needed? How exactly do I show you that it's needed? Because I would love for you to try.
 
Ikari said:
Government certainly does a lot to uphold contract, as well as dissolve contract. We have the court system, in part, to do this. But you said "your view is that the government can force considerations into play that otherwise would not be in play?" To which I said yes, those forced considerations are called regulation and oversight, anarchy doesn't work. So obviously, given the failure of anarchy, there is a necessity to some amount of regulation and oversight by the government.
Click to expand...

There is no failure of anarchy here because anarchy is not on the table.

Employees can collectivize to give their right to contract more weight and allow better negotiation. The employee is trading their labor for compensation, they should be able to argue for that. A Union allows the employees greater affect for these negotiations. Unions are born from contract, just because you don't like how that exercise of Contract went, doesn't mean it's otherwise.
Click to expand...

Unions were born from rebelling against agreed upon contracts and then the government defending their claims. The only reason unions collectivize their contract is because government forces that to be so. It really doesn't matter anyway since individual decisions of employment are still individual and thus so should be the contract.
 
Mithros said:
Exactly. There are limits to what you can contractually agree to regardless of what you may want to agree to.

The second part is hysterical FYI. If needed you'll show me what I said was illogical? But you'll wait until it's needed? How exactly do I show you that it's needed? Because I would love for you to try.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 wouldn't make it such a binary choice. It's not an all or nothing scenario, it's a matter of how much do people think that they should be allowed to limit the terms of contracts between private parties. I'd say that most conservatives would be well to the side of fewer limits, while most liberals would be to the side of more limits. Odd that the side that's been represented as wanting to control everyone is the one that wants fewer controls and the one that's always presented itself as the champion of freedom is the one wanting to limit the terms.
 
Henrin said:
There is no failure of anarchy here because anarchy is not on the table.
Click to expand...

There is always failure of anarchy because anarchy doesn't work. Which is why some amount of government oversight and regulation is necessary.

Henrin said:
Unions were born from rebelling against agreed upon contracts and then the government defending their claims. The only reason unions collectivize their contract is because government forces that to be so. It really doesn't matter anyway since individual decisions of employment are still individual and thus so should be the contract.
Click to expand...

No, Unions were born from people fighting for equitable trade of their labor. You cannot say that you stand for the Right to Contract and then argue against things like Unions, since fundamentally they are rooted in that right. You want to restrict it to certain means that you think are appropriate, but association, assembly, contract, etc. all give weight to the fundamental of the Union.

If you want to claim that the modern incarnation of unions have become corrupted and work counter to their necessary function at times, there is certainly argument to that effect. But the fundamental of Union is born from the Right to Contract.
 
Ikari said:
There is always failure of anarchy because anarchy doesn't work. Which is why some amount of government oversight and regulation is necessary.
Click to expand...

Again, no one is talking about anarchy.

No, Unions were born from people fighting for equitable trade of their labor. You cannot say that you stand for the Right to Contract and then argue against things like Unions, since fundamentally they are rooted in that right. You want to restrict it to certain means that you think are appropriate, but association, assembly, contract, etc. all give weight to the fundamental of the Union.
Click to expand...

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.

If you want to claim that the modern incarnation of unions have become corrupted and work counter to their necessary function at times, there is certainly argument to that effect. But the fundamental of Union is born from the Right to Contract.
Click to expand...

At times? Almost everything about union laws is corrupt.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom