You smoke? You're fired!

[shanek]

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.

I am no kind of authority on the Libertarian Party. I do not work for them, and I hold no position of power with them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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.

... I really am not interested in your answer.. You show very little understanding of what logic and fallacious reasoning is.. ( no point in responding to the rest of your straw man... )

What happened to:

I think both employer and employee have rights. We are dealing with a concrete, specific scenario where an employer fires for whether the employee smokes on his own time or whether the employee votes as the employer dictates.

Where is your " concrete, specific scenario " regarding the Libertarian position on wiretapping?

 

[username]

Where is your " concrete, specific scenario " regarding the Libertarian position on wiretapping?

I used what I understand your and Shane's reasoning to be and applied it to wiretapping.

You have both taken the position that an employer has the right to use thier negotiating leverage to require employees to quit smoking or vote as the employer wishes. Your argument has been that the employer can require these things because the employee can quit their job at any time therefore anything the employee agrees to is encompassed by a freely negotiated contract.

Using this same logic the employer can require anything from employees and if the employee doesn't like it they are free to quit (sever the contract).

Wiretapping is just one item that falls under the 'anything'.

If I misunderstand your or Shane's position please correct my understanding.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....
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.

I haven't come to that conclusion, certainly not in this thread..


However, I keep seeing these slippery slopes being erected, as in: " Well, if we let them do this, what's to stop them from doing anything they want ? "


This really isn't about personal freedom. It hasn't been denied anyone. It is about playing by the rules or finding another game, and the right of the owner of the ball to make the rules.

The would-be players take on the risk of finding another game where the rules are more agreeable, and the owner of the ball takes the risk of ending up playing by himself.

 

[Tony]

Then I can only conclude you haven't been paying attention.

Non-sequitor dodge. Care to actually address my post?

 

[username]

My libertarian leanings are what drive my opposition to an employer dictating personal behavior.

Tony,

Are you sure you are a libertarian? I used to think I was as well, but I am not.

I am a civil libertarian, in other words I believe that the entity with the most rights is the individual.

Usually those who label themselves Libertarian actually mean they are political libertarians rather than civil libertarians.

Political libertarians tend to equate corporations with individuals, civil libertarians generally do not.

You and I both see the political libertarian stance as being anti government, but pro corporations committing the same abuses they criticize government for. (how many times has Shane said the constitution (including the bill of rights) only applies to government, not anyone else?

A civil libertarian says any entity screwing over the individual is to be fought and this includes heavy handed corporations who are most assuredly not as weak and indefensible as individuals. The civil liberties (as expressed in the bill of rights, but certainly not limitted to those explicitly enumerated) are rights that no entity may violate.

 

[crimresearch]

"...Wiretapping is just one item that falls under the 'anything'."

So is murder. So is rape, of the type you keep claiming employers would have the right to coerce employees into.

Too bad for your argument that all 3 are illegal.

Prohibiting smoking OTOH, isn't.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I am no kind of authority on the Libertarian Party. I do not work for them, and I hold no position of power with them.

No, but you are by far their most vocal advocate on this board and therefore you seem like a logical person around here to ask about libertarian positions.

 

[Tony]

This really isn't about personal freedom. It hasn't been denied anyone.

It's about personal freedom, the personal freedom to smoke and the personal freedom use your free time as you like.

It is about playing by the rules or finding another game, and the right of the owner of the ball to make the rules.

The would-be players take on the risk of finding another game where the rules are more agreeable, and the owner of the ball takes the risk of ending up playing by himself.

False analogy. In this case the owner of the ball isn't making rules by witch to play the game but making rules by witch the players of the game live their lives.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I used what I understand your and Shane's reasoning to be and applied it to wiretapping.

You have both taken the position that an employer has the right to use thier negotiating leverage to require employees to quit smoking or vote as the employer wishes. Your argument has been that the employer can require these things because the employee can quit their job at any time therefore anything the employee agrees to is encompassed by a freely negotiated contract.

Using this same logic the employer can require anything from employees and if the employee doesn't like it they are free to quit (sever the contract).

Maybe that's your logic, but it isn't mine.. Shane will have to speak for himself . I'll be surprised if he feels differently ..


Wiretapping is just one item that falls under the 'anything'.

If I misunderstand your or Shane's position please correct my understanding.

See above..

As I said earlier..

I personally feel it would have been more fair to have grandfathered the employees who were there before the policy was implemented, but penalized them with higher insurance premiums or denied them subsidized insurance all together..

Working for someone ( a company ) subjects one to all kinds intrusions into your personal life; as does living in a particular place and time. We have a great deal of personal freedom to pick and choose which intrusions we will tolerate ( or consider as an intrusion at all )..

Weyco INC sounds like a bad choice if you smoke..

 

[Tony]

So is murder. So is rape, of the type you keep claiming employers would have the right to coerce employees into.

Too bad for your argument that all 3 are illegal.

Prohibiting smoking OTOH, isn't.

Yes, it is. Using force on someone to keep them from smoking is just as illegal as using force on someone to get them to have sex.

 

[username]

So is murder. So is rape, of the type you keep claiming employers would have the right to coerce employees into.

Too bad for your argument that all 3 are illegal.

Prohibiting smoking OTOH, isn't.

Suicide (consentual death) is illegal, but consentual sex is not. Since those who argue it is OK for employers to fire employees who do not consent to their demands, no matter how unreasonable or unrelated to their job duties those demands are it would seem perfectly acceptable to require blow jobs from employees.

If the employee gives blow jobs to hold on to their job they are 'consenting' therefore it is consentual sex and not illegal.

As best I can tell I am accurately representing the argument of those who are justifying firing employees who smoke off company property and on their own time. If requiring employees to not smoke on their own time and requiring them to vote as the employer directs are OK, then why not free blow jobs for the upper management?

If I am misunderstanding the position, please clarify your position.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's about personal freedom, the personal freedom to smoke and the personal freedom use your free time as you like.

Who in this story lost that freedom ?

False analogy. In this case the owner of the ball isn't making rules by witch to play the game but making rules by witch the players of the game live their lives.

If you make that " choose to live their lives ", then we agree..

 

[username]

Maybe that's your logic, but it isn't mine.. Shane will have to speak for himself . I'll be surprised if he feels differently ..

Well then please explain your logic. You have defended the right of the employer to fire an employee refusing to vote according to the wishes of the employer as well as the right of the employer to fire employees who smoke on their own time.

Please explain your logic that supports these demands from the employer, but that doesn't support any other demand? Why not support mandatory blow jobs? How does this differ according to your logic than mandating how one votes or whether one smokes at home?

 

[Tony]

Who in this story lost that freedom ?

The employees.

If you make that " choose to live their lives ", then we agree..

There is no difference.

 

[shanek]

I am a civil libertarian, in other words I believe that the entity with the most rights is the individual.

I have to say it again: unless that individual is an employer.

Individuals have rights. Groups, corporations, etc. only have rights because the individuals who make them up have rights. You seem to think that by forming a group individuals give up some of their rights.

Political libertarians tend to equate corporations with individuals,

No, we don't.

A civil libertarian says any entity screwing over the individual is to be fought

Not when they haven't initiated force. Otherwise, that fight is in itself an initiation of force.

and this includes heavy handed corporations who are most assuredly not as weak and indefensible as individuals.

Suppose I am the sole owner, proprietor, and officer of my business. Everyone else in the company is in my employ. I set the above no-smoking policy with the same mandatory tests. I'm just an individual; do I get to do it now? Or are you still going to "fight" me?

 

[shanek]

No, but you are by far their most vocal advocate on this board and therefore you seem like a logical person around here to ask about libertarian positions.

I accept that. I just don't want anyone mistaking my comments for official LP positions.

 

[shanek]

False analogy. In this case the owner of the ball isn't making rules by witch to play the game but making rules by witch the players of the game live their lives.

I don't see it as a false analogy at all. When a lot of people play Monopoly, they put the tax money into Free Parking and whoever lands on that square gets it. That's nowhere to be found in the official rules anywhere. It's just something a lot of people do. And that's okay, as long as all of the players voluntarily agree to do it. Anyone who doesn't like it can either persuade the other players that the rule is stupid, or they can go play Monopoly with someone else. That rule is by no means forced upon them. Same thing here.

 

[shanek]

Yes, it is. Using force on someone to keep them from smoking is just as illegal as using force on someone to get them to have sex.

But Weyco isn't doing that.

 

[shanek]

The employees.

How?

There is no difference.

Yes, there is. You're just pretending otherwise because you're advocating taking choice away.