You smoke? You're fired!

[Tony]

As soon as they intrude on your property without your consent.

Requiring employees to quit smoking as a condition of continued employment should be illegal?

 

[shanek]

Requiring employees to quit smoking as a condition of continued employment should be illegal?

No, because that doesn't intrude on your property without your consent. Try to keep up.

 

[CFLarsen]

Any employed person with a current work history can easily find a job during that time.

The unemployment rate in the US (March 2005) was 5.2%. That's a lot of "losers"....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I doubt it. As long as it's a private company and not the government they can pretty much get away with anything.

Why do you doubt it? Just a feeling?

Surely you have some knowledge about the Libertarian platform, and their position on civil liberties..

Hint: It has nothing to do with companies being free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate Federal law.

 

[Tony]

No, because that doesn't intrude on your property without your consent. Try to keep up.

(yes it does)


Well, that's what Nyarlethotep asked, your "answer" was clearly a dodge. Can you answer honestly?

 

[Tony]

Why do you doubt it? Just a feeling?

Based on the their positions.

Surely you have some knowledge about the Libertarian platform, and their position on civil liberties...

Absolutely, that's what attracted me to them in the first place. But like I said, they are obsessed with government tyranny and supportive of private or corporate tyranny.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Based on the their positions.



Absolutely, that's what attracted me to them in the first place. But like I said, they are obsessed with government tyranny and supportive of private or corporate tyranny.

Where is it documented, that the Libertarian perspective has no problem with private entities ( or anyone ) engaging in wiretapping ?

 

[Tony]

Where is it documented, that the Libertarian perspective has no problem with private entities ( or anyone ) engaging in wiretapping ?

I'm not falling for your bait. What's your point?

 

[shanek]

Since Claus brought up "unemployment" (which is most certainly not what we're talking about), I thought I'd be a bit preemptive and point to a part of a previous thread dealing with unemployment, to try and stave off the misinformation from him that I know is coming:

http://www.shanekillian.org/jref/macroeconomics.html#ep4

This was a thread where I partially transcribed episodes of a PBS-U series on Macroeconomics. This episode dealt with unemployment.

The labor force is defined as the total number of workers in the economy, counting both people with jobs and people out looking for jobs. Now, of course, people with jobs are considered employed. People who don't have jobs but are out looking for work are called unemployed. And people who don't have a job and aren't out looking we don't count them in our numbers.

So, it's completely dishonest of Claus to talk about the unemployed when these people were employed for the full fifteen months that they were given. Anyone who was hired after that point agreed voluntarily to the conditions.

Claus will undoubtedly pull out a very dishonest tactic he's used in the past: pointing to however-many unemployed people there are in the country and say I'm calling all of them "losers." Of course, I'm not. If, say, there's 5% unemployment in January of 2004, and 5% unemployment in January of 2005, then that just tells you that the rate of unemployment has stayed the same. But it doesn't tell you anything about whether or not they're the same 5%. They're almost certainly not. Most if not all of the 5% who were unemployed in January 2004 have found jobs, and the 5% unemployed in January 2005 represents more recently unemployed people. Check this out:

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/EM254/popUp3.html

The mean duration of unemployment is 13 weeks. The median duration is 7.4 weeks. A sizable number of unemployed workers who are unemployed for over 15 weeks account for this difference between the mean and the median. Forty-one percent of September's unemployed individuals were unemployed for five weeks or less; 33 percent were unemployed for 5 to 14 weeks; and 26 percent were unemployed for 15 weeks or more. Eleven percent (included in the last group) were even unemployed for more than half of a year.

In fact, the longest length of time the Bureau of Labor Statistics checks for as far as length of unemployment goes is 27 weeks.

And, these are unemployed people. Unemployed people have a disadvantage that grows with the length of their unemployment, and that is that they don't have an up-to-date work history. This is the reason for the descrepancy in wages between women and men: so many women have been stay-at-home moms for so long that they don't have an up-to-date work history, so when they to re-enter the workforce they find it harder to get a job and have to settle for one at a lower rate of pay. But the people we're talking about aren't in that situation. They have a job. They have an up-to-date work history. It's ridiculous to think they couldn't go 15 months without finding another job. Especially since they were given assistance in doing so.

Some more info from the first link:

All unemployment is not created equally. There are two different kinds of unemployment: cyclical and natural. First, we'll deal with cyclical unemployment, which rises and falls as we go through the Business Cycle. This happens when the economy slows down and the demand for goods and services simply isn't high enough to supply jobs to everyone who wants one. When the economy is bustling, there is little to know cyclical unemployment. But when the economy is slow, cyclical unemployment can be very high.

If someone's unemployed, how long do they remain unemployed? [A carpenter] might finish a job at one building, but not be hired on to the next job for a couple of weeks. In that short period, the Bureau of Labor Statistics might happen to find this carpenter and ask about his situation. The answer would come back, "I'm unemployed, but I'm in the labor force. I'm waiting for a job to come along." Then this carpenter would then be counted as unemployed, and with luck and pluck, the spell of unemployment would end very rapidly. This spell of unemployment, perhaps several weeks, probably less than a year, is fairly typical, especially in certain professions. And it's unemployment that's not caused by deficient demand, but is simply due to the nature of a particular industry, in which individuals work at a place for awhile and then move on to the next job after the first one's finished. Now, this is more like natural unemployment...[But] imagine someone who's working in a manufacturing plant, and the plant closes because demand across the economy has fallen off. This worker has been laid off, and since demand has fallen and we're in the low part of the Business Cycle, a recession, it might take awhile for that person to find a new job. And, of course, the worse an economy is, the longer they're likely to be out of work.

Oh, and something else that may be worth mentioning:

Minimum Wage laws will have an impact, and here's why: In the labor market, we have a demand for labor, and that comes from firms. And the supply of labor, of course, is the supply offered by individuals. This determines and equilibrium quantity [of jobs] and some equilibrium wage rate. This wage rate functions as the price of labor; a price which ensures that the supply of labor and the demand for labor are equal to one another. The Minimum Wage is a legal restriction that keeps wages from falling eblow some point chosen by the government; and of course for the Minimum Wage to make any difference, it has to be above the equilibrium wage that the market determines on its own. Otherwise, what's the point? But at the Minimum Wage, the quantity supplied of labor is more than they quantity demanded. So what we have is a certain amount of unemployment in the labor market that occurs because the wage rate is too high, and the government's made it illegal for it to go any lower. Now, there have been a number of debates in the US over the social advantages of the Minimum Wage versus its unemployment costs. It is clearly the case that the Minimum Wage is laregly irrelevant for most married heads of households in the US. Most of these people are employed at wage rates that sometimes far exceed the Minimum Wage. However, for teenage workers...there have clearly been times where the Minimum Wage was greater than the equilibrium wage. And there is evidence that increases in the Minimum Wage are probably connected to the relatively high unemployment rates for teenage workers in the US...The point is...the Minimum Wage actually contributes to a higher natural rate of unemployment. Imagine, though, what would happen if the demand for labor increased quite a bit; so much that the demand curve shifted out [to the right]. In that case, what we would find is that the new equilibrium wage rate, in fact, exceeded the Minimum Wage...In this situation, the Minimum Wage is simply no longer relevant because firms don't want to go any lower than the market wage. So it's possible that the Minimum Wage may contribute to unemployment—to a higher natural rate of unemployment—but that effect is dependent on what else is going on in the economy.

So, a Minimum Wage causes unemployment; it's agreed upon to such an extent that it appears here in a beginning Macroeconomics class. Yet, in another thread, Claus (and many others) defended the Minimum Wage. So here he is, defending something that we know causes unemployment, while accusing me of not caring about the unemployed when I haven't said anything about unemployed workers. Hypocrisy, anyone?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You went to wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much trouble to burn one of Claus' strawmen..


Will you please desist ?

 

[shanek]

You went to wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much trouble to burn one of Claus' strawmen.

I thought it was best to be preemptive. And as the post was educational, too, what's the harm?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What's your point?

What's yours? Have you lost track of the discussion?


I said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
I'll wait to see Shane's response, but I would suspect that wiretapping by anyone, is probably pretty anti-libertarian..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said:

" I doubt it. As long as it's a private company and not the government they can pretty much get away with anything. "


I said:

" Where is it documented, that the Libertarian perspective has no problem with private entities ( or anyone ) engaging in wiretapping ? "



Now you say:

" I'm not falling for your bait. What's your point.. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


You implied that Libertarians have no problem with wiretapping by private entities?

Do you belive that or not ?


If not, what was the point of your previous statements regarding this matter?

 

[username]

Well what about a maximum wage? Why should people who happen to have talent in a particular field, say acting or sport, be able to hold film companies or sports teams to ransom to pay huge salaries?

I wouldn't consider an upper or lower salary limit to be a fair target for government regulation. I have no problem with the market resulting in salary changes in either direction. The reason I have no problem with it is that compensation is both the legitimate business of the employee and employer. How one spends their money on their own time is not the business of the employer. Whether or not one smokes on their own time is not the business of the employer. Who one votes for is not the business of the employer.

How does your position about employers not being allowed to consider "Factors they can't even know about under normal circumstances without invading the privacy of the individual." deal with testing for illegal drugs? Surely that involves every bit as much coercion as being tested for nicotine smoke?

While I am not a fan of our current drug laws, I will leave that alone. The fact is that some substances are illegal and government supports and in some cases requires employers to test for illegal drug use. For this reason it isn't comparable to employers testing for legal product use because they feel like it.

When do I lose MY rights as an employer? If I need a plumbing job done in my house, surely I can choose any plumber I want and use any criteria I want in choosing which of the plumbers listed in my local telephone directory I want to use?

Of course you can. There is a fundamental difference between you as an individual selecting a contractor for a private project and a publically traded/owned corporation setting a blanket policy that discriminates against factors that are none of their business. If you need work done and one contractor is of a race you don't like you don't have to hire them. This would be a genuinely private contract. Discriminate away and make whatever demands you wish.

Once one legally opens a business and especially after they incorporate they are enjoying benefits not available to private entities. Different tax rules, different legal protections etc. Whole 'nother ball game.

It is these employers that I am discussing, not the private citizen selecting who should replace their carpeting.

 

[CFLarsen]

You went to wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much trouble to burn one of Claus' strawmen..


Will you please desist ?

Actually, I find it quite...odd that he goes through so much, because of me. After all, he does claim to have me on ignore...

 

[Tony]

The Constitution DOES NOT APPLY TO BUSINESSES. It DOES NOT APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS. It only applies to GOVERNMENT.

Yes it does, I've already demonstrated how. You have yet to even address that post.

No, it isn't. It was a complete evasion.

No it wasn't. It was legitimate. You're just too cowardly to address it.

I reserve the right to kick you out for doing so. It's my property, my rules.

What if I resist? Are you going to use deadly force to stop me from talking sports?

Total and complete weaseling.

Translation: I can't refute this.

Those actions are committed against a person, not on a piece of property. Just as I own my house, they own their bodies, and so I cannot do those things no matter whose property I'm on.

Then if you can't force someone to do something on your property, then employers can't force something on their employees (a person) on the employee's property. This is evidence of how it's not "your house, your rules".

Just another example of how desperate you've become.

And like I said before, believe this if it makes you feel better.

Yes, you have. Your entire argument is exactly that.

You are lying. It's not even a good lie. I have never said employers should be subject to restrictions employees aren't.

 

[shanek]

Of course you can. There is a fundamental difference between you as an individual selecting a contractor for a private project and a publically traded/owned corporation setting a blanket policy that discriminates against factors that are none of their business. If you need work done and one contractor is of a race you don't like you don't have to hire them. This would be a genuinely private contract. Discriminate away and make whatever demands you wish.

And how is an employee/employer relationship not a similar contract?

Once one legally opens a business and especially after they incorporate they are enjoying benefits not available to private entities. Different tax rules, different legal protections etc. Whole 'nother ball game.

Ah. So, let me see if I've gotten this straight: Government has taken rights away from us. In order to get some of those rights back, you have to incorporate. Therefore, the government is justified in restricting your rights, because you incorporated to try to get back some of your rights that were taken by the government to begin with.

This makes sense?

It is these employers that I am discussing, not the private citizen selecting who should replace their carpeting.

Would it surprise you to know that many individuals working alone incorporate? Do you have any idea what happens to businesses who don't incorporate in one form or another?

 

[username]

You implied that Libertarians have no problem with wiretapping by private entities?

Do you belive that or not ?

I will answer this question and say that I don't see how anyone who supports the right of the employer to demand an employee quit smoking or vote a certain way or lose thier job can logically say they don't support the right of the employer to demand the employee allow their phone to be tapped or lose their job.

With government our communications can be tapped if due process has been followed. If due process has not been followed we are under no obligation to allow it. If we are asked to allow it and we say no, there are no legal repercussions.

The stance here seems to be that if an employer makes the same demands and fires those who do not comply that is OK. Unreasonable searches and seizures? Scream if government does it, but it is fine if a CEO does it.

In this sense I can only conclude that in a libertarian world (to the extent that you and Shane represent libertarianism) would be a world where corporations were the government as they can easily get around any limits placed upon governments. Corporations would have far more control over human behavior than governments.

We would have evolved from a time when religion was our master to a time when government was our master to a time where corporations (those with the most money|property) were our masters. Not just when we were working for them, but on our own, unpaid time as well.

And apparently the libertarians would label this serfdom 'voluntary' and without coercion since all terms were negotiated between equal parties.

 

[username]

Ah. So, let me see if I've gotten this straight: Government has taken rights away from us. In order to get some of those rights back, you have to incorporate. Therefore, the government is justified in restricting your rights, because you incorporated to try to get back some of your rights that were taken by the government to begin with.

This makes sense?

You appear to be justifying one problem with the existence of another. You appear to justify the existence of an abusive employer with the existence of an abusive government.

Unfortunately none of this wrangling justifies an employer coercing employees to give up their right to privacy.

 

[shanek]

You appear to be justifying one problem with the existence of another.

Funny; I was just thinking the same thing of you. You're using governmental intrusions into business in the form of recognizing corporations through extortion, so they can get some of their rights back, as a justification for interfering with the voluntary contract between employer and employee.

You appear to justify the existence of an abusive employer with the existence of an abusive government.

The employer isn't being abusive, as the employer isn't using force.

 

[Tony]

You implied that Libertarians have no problem with wiretapping by private entities?

I said, "I doubt it". Which I do.

As long as it's a private company doing it, shaneK will find a way, ANYWAY to justify it, no matter how much it compromises personal rights.

Do you belive that or not ?

No, but I'd like my doubts to be shown to be unfounded. My libertarian leanings are what drive my opposition to an employer dictating personal behavior. ShaneK thinks an employer should have that power, since he is the authority on the Libertarian Party on the JREF, I only have his writings to make a judgement.