You have a very naive, non-nuanced, and absolutist view of the world.
> Actually, this is completely false. You have a pretty good understanding of what they pay employees in similar positions (if you've ever heard of Glassdoor),
Are you serious? Do you really think Glassdoor is a legitimate authority for salary at companies? They do zero verification and are mostly dependent on people's honesty. Personally, I've signed up for no less than 10 Glassdoor accounts with companies I've never worked for with salaries way above and below my pay grade. Contrast that with Comcast, who, by law, knows exactly how much each employee makes down to the penny.
> Sounds really speculative -- you think it's common to go back in time and try to find old salaries?
No, it's not speculative. If a company finds out that you misrepresented yourself, they will in all likelihood fire you. I've seen it happen a few times, they don't just pretend like you didn't lie.
And your earlier posts left me a bit puzzled
> you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first place, especially if they coerce you into providing records
This is not a meeting between just two private parties. It is the meeting of a large organization with vastly superior resources with (usually) a citizen. We, as people, are given certain rights enshrined in various legal documents. Corporations are fictitious entities created to limit risk and thus do not possess certain rights.
> Where is the evidence for this? This is by no means an obvious claim. No one in the world needs "the job," even though most people need "a job."
This is simple math. Generally, 100% of your income will come from Comcast if you work for them. Your impact on the financial fortune of a billion dollar company is negligible.
> Are all employers corporations? And even as such, this is just outlawing information. I do not understand how so many on the left support such a measure.
I don't mean to disparage you, but are you an adult? Information is the most vital and valuable resource in this, the Information Age. Visuals are information, yet I am not allowed to watch or record you having intercourse. Juries are not allowed access to media during a trial. Although I agree with their actions, Chelsea Manning and Snowden released outlawed information. In terms of hiring, there are a number of questions that are outlawed for good reason Here are a few:
How old are you?
Are you married?
Are you pregnant?
Are you a US Citizen?
Do you have any disabilities?
What religion do you practice?
What is your race?
> Why is free choice so difficult to understand?
This is why I question your age/maturity. You do not possess absolute freedom. You can't do whatever you want, you live in a society with other people and we have rules. I don't agree with it, but you are not free to make crystal methamphetamine even if it is 100% for personal use. You are not free to walk around naked. The canonical example is you are not free to yell fire in a crowded building. I just don't understand how you've lived long enough to know the english language yet don't understand that there are limits on your behavior. 3 year olds know they don't have absolute freedom.
I agree, 100%, with everything you said. Ver good response.
Except.... "You are not free to walk around naked."
Funny thing, in Oregon, nudity is considered constitutionally protected speech! You might get hauled off for walking around in the nud, but people have fought that and won in court!
> You have a very naive, non-nuanced, and absolutist view of the world.
Already excited for the personal attacks and logical fallacies which await.
> Are you serious? Do you really think Glassdoor is a legitimate authority for salary at companies? They do zero verification and are mostly dependent on people's honesty. Personally, I've signed up for no less than 10 Glassdoor accounts with companies I've never worked for with salaries way above and below my pay grade. Contrast that Comcast, who knows exactly how much each employee makes down to the penny.
Sounds like the same argument people made against Wikipedia, which I consider to be a very legitimate source of information on average. You are clearly an outlier by being dishonest.
> I've seen it happen a few times, they don't just pretend like you didn't lie.
Another anecdote.. I'm looking for evidence, if you have any. Not that they wouldn't fire you, but for how common it is that they actually search for your past salaries to verify.
> This is simple math. Generally, 100% of your income will come from Comcast if you work for them. Your impact on the financial fortune of a billion dollar company is negligible.
No, Comcast represents 1/ms % of your potential income, where m= the number of employers, and s=average salary per position. Since this thread started, I've seen people try to play the numbers multiple ways, and every time they underestimate the collective influence of the job seekers.
Going to skip through your attempts at condescension here, and get to the heart of the matter:
> You do not possess absolute freedom. You can't do whatever you want, you live in a society with other people and we have rules.
In a free society, you are free to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. I think we are in agreement here, but you just didn't have a fundamental way of expressing it, so now you do. It's called the nonaggression principle. Of course, everything infringes on everyone's rights in some way, so my philosophy is to maximize net freedom.
Jefferson agreed with this philosophy and enshrined certain rights such as free speech, even though free speech can offend. Of course, there are exceptions for slander and harassment and the likes. However, I do not think asking a question could ever be considered an exception to that rule, including the above questions you listed. And in fact, most of those questions are required, not outlawed, for government reporting. The government is the primary questioner of that personal information, and I think they are the only ones that should NOT be allowed to ask because they are the only ones you could be FORCED to answer.
> I don't agree with it, but you are not free to make crystal methamphetamine even if it is 100% for personal use. You are not free to walk around naked. The canonical example is you are not free to yell fire in a crowded building.
So let's apply what you just learned. In the first case, I think you should be allowed to make meth and use it yourself. Unless there is a guarantee of inherently affecting others, which you might be able to make a decent case for with PCP. Yes, I understand there are rules, but that's a terrible argument because the rules are bad.
Walking around naked, not hurting anyone, you should probably be able to do it on your own property/potentially even public property. Private entities should be able to say 'no shoes, no service.'
Yelling fire in a theater is a different case, where you are clearly infringing on the rights of others and putting people in danger. So it's illegal, and it should be.
I do believe you just made that up. Nothing is perfect, and yet there have been studies that show Wikipedia is more often factually correct than Encyclopedia Britannica, which was previously considered the gold standard. http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html
Is the New York Times legitimate on average? I would say so. Are there mistakes from time to time? Yes. They are typically corrected, as are Wikipedia's.
I don't see the point in trying to find a petty side-argument when there is no argument to be had. If that's the best you could find though, I consider my above points to be well-vetted.
No offense, but neither of your comments here contributed anything to the discussion, nor did they prove even the small, uninteresting point that you think they did.
It would appear you were the condescending troll based on your original post, and I'm glad to have put you in your place. Being outwardly rude does not make your arguments more compelling, and it usually signifies your frustration with your own inability to express yourself. So, sorry about that, but there are more mature ways to handle your emotions. Educating yourself on the specifics would be a good first step, and not making assumptions about others that are irrelevant to the discussion would be another.
I think one would have to be extremely far right to view the predominate view of HN as 'socialist'... But as for
statist, it depends on how you define the word, but in an economic sense at least, the more I talk to libertarians, the more I associate that word with 'realist'.
There are lots of nice ideals in voluntarism and total free-market economics, but I'm less and less convinced that they could work at any significant scale in the real world...
There is a wide range of libertarian perspectives, just like you find on the left (socialist and beyond to moderate). I consider myself and my arguments on this thread to be with a moderate-leaning interpretation of the libertarian-associated non-aggression principle. I think everyone here agrees with the non-aggression principle, but Democrats don't usually recognize it or try to apply it as a logical, almost quantifiable rule (quantifiable in the sense of maximizing units of freedom) against policy positions.
HN appears to lean left of moderate liberals, though. The hive-mind can be a major turn-off at times...
> Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however.
First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression." Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on, which can be used as a pillar of debate. It's the closest you can come to a 'scientific method' in political discussion, as opposed to the Democrats'/Republicans' strategy of just picking and choosing what 'sounds fair, sounds right.'
>First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression."
Literally in the first paragraph:
"Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1]"
>Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on
That's hilarious. Not only is the definition of "property" completely open to interpretation, so is the word "aggression", the word "initiated" and the word "threaten".
This principle is clearly meant to be as vague as possible so people can attach their own meaning to it. It resembles religion.
I laid out my definition in a prior comment; the most succinct version is "your only right is the right to not be aggressed against." Adding property is a nice way of delving into specifics, but it's not the most fundamental definition.
> That's hilarious.
Sounds like you have a personal bias against libertarianism. This is nothing new -- I deal with contrarians all the time, who are usually dead set on dismissing alternative views instead of building their own. Yes, nothing in the world is "pure" and "perfect," but I'm curious what criteria you use to evaluate policy, or if it's just a doozy and you agree with whatever you read in the New York Times.
Not trying to insult you, but please, for your sake and everyone else's: don't be a contrarian. This is serious life advice. Multiple companies I've worked for have had rules like "don't complain unless you provide a better solution," and they're right. You don't need to blindly pat everyone on the back, but arguing against something without proposing or referencing something better is one of my pet peeves.
That's a statement of faith though (or ideology if you prefer), not a statement of fact. And I think it's built on shaky ground (such as requiring economic systems to tend towards equilibrium, which while perhaps a useful simplifying assumption a few hundred years ago, these days it's looking more like economic systems are actually better modelled as complex dynamic systems that don't necessarily happen in equilibrium).
I think empirically history shows that lack of regulation can be as bad as too much regulation. The reality is more of a balance, and black-and-white faith in the free market solving everything looks more and more to me at least as a dangerous delusion.
> I think empirically history shows that lack of regulation can be as bad as too much regulation.
You cannot stop every bad things in the world. Otherwise you will end up creating more unstability and, as a result, worse things.
Libertarianism/Free-Market does not claim to iradicate all the bad things humans do to each other. It just that it will give you best fighting/winning chance.
> The reality is more of a balance, and black-and-white faith in the free market solving everything looks more and more to me at least as a dangerous delusion.
You got it opposite. Its the libertarians believe that world is too complex to be understood by one entity and better left to multiple entities (aka market). Libertarians wont go around claiming they understand the intention of every employers and ban them for asking certain questions.
Free-Market is smallest abstraction. Free-market can reduce to Statism if there is a demand. But Statism wont reduce to free-market.
Does the free market really solves everything best?
Did it solve Pi for very large number of decimal digits? Fermat's Last Theorem?
Do you consult the free market when you want to decide what to do tomorrow?
This maximalist position is crazy. Our experience shows that there are some things which are most efficiently solved by the (mostly) free market, but nobody managed to conclusively prove that the free market (and which type of free market is that anyway?) solves everything. That's the point where Libertarianism shifts from an ideology to a religion.
Similarly, be careful not to generalize this to all libertarians...
Most libertarians have varying stances that all develop from the non-aggression principle ("in a free society, you have the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of anybody else.") I have never heard a compelling argument against the NAP, because it can be interpreted so broadly. Even some of the pro-no-asking-questions people on this thread are using the NAP, if unwittingly, to justify their positions.
I think 'physical assault' is a very simplistic view of the NAP; and I fall on the other end of the scale where indirect damage through social/economic/environmental channels can be considered to infringe on liberty. Slander laws, noise ordinances, and non-localized environmental pollution all fall into this category and are eligible to be addressed through regulations which actually improve liberty. However, not being allowed to ask questions does not fall in this category in my opinion.
> I think 'physical assault' is a very simplistic view of the NAP
Its simple by design. Its easiest to get universel consent.
> I fall on the other end of the scale where indirect damage through social/economic/environmental channels can be considered to infringe on liberty. Slander laws, noise ordinances, and non-localized environmental pollution all fall into this category and are eligible to be addressed through regulations which actually improve liberty. However, not being allowed to ask questions does not fall in this category in my opinion.
Sure you can create such contract. But it cannot be called NAP. Otherwise it will lead to miscommunication.
>Its simple by design. Its easiest to get universel consent.
And it falls down as soon as you want to enforce any other rules, like say, property rights.
If I reach to take your property and you slap my hand away, you have broken the NAP as you define it. Or you let me take it, but then expect the police or security company to punish me, they are breaking the NAP.
> And it falls down as soon as you want to enforce any other rules, like say, property rights.
You are right. For this desirable, two universal consents are needed: 1. NAP 2. Land Registry (eg blockchain based).
I claim that there will be 99%+ consent among inhabitants of a perticular region, which is good enough.
This have to be mentioned that no society (ancapism or socialism) can function without some minimum level of cooperation from all which is safe assumption because we are after all social animals. When this characterstic is not found, people migrate as they have been doing since ages.
What is your opinion on regulations that protect certain social classes. For example, should a business be allowed to refuse a LGBT customer their services?
Sole proprietor/family business/lemonade stand: yes, refuse whoever you want, even if you blatantly say "we don't serve gays."
Corporations/LLC's: these entities have obtained special government privileges (being detached from any personal liability/ ability to seize an owner's assets), and so it seems reasonable that they can be considered to 'meet some public standards' in exchange for these privileges. Anti-discrimination falls into that category in my opinion.
The argument I've heard against the former is that everyone ends up paying taxes and otherwise indirectly contributing to your business, so it isn't right to deny them access.
At the same time, though the business owner also contributed their own taxes to the situation.
I think I agree with your distinction and stance, with the idea being that the market will correct because it's shitty business to turn away a customer over an irrelevant detail like that
Indeed. Those filthy commies will be completely unable to provide and discuss anything that "good hackers would find interesting". Only God's only people, the Objectivists, can do that.
> Actually, this is completely false. You have a pretty good understanding of what they pay employees in similar positions (if you've ever heard of Glassdoor),
Are you serious? Do you really think Glassdoor is a legitimate authority for salary at companies? They do zero verification and are mostly dependent on people's honesty. Personally, I've signed up for no less than 10 Glassdoor accounts with companies I've never worked for with salaries way above and below my pay grade. Contrast that with Comcast, who, by law, knows exactly how much each employee makes down to the penny.
> Sounds really speculative -- you think it's common to go back in time and try to find old salaries?
No, it's not speculative. If a company finds out that you misrepresented yourself, they will in all likelihood fire you. I've seen it happen a few times, they don't just pretend like you didn't lie.
And your earlier posts left me a bit puzzled
> you can choose not to work for employers that ask the question in the first place, especially if they coerce you into providing records
This is not a meeting between just two private parties. It is the meeting of a large organization with vastly superior resources with (usually) a citizen. We, as people, are given certain rights enshrined in various legal documents. Corporations are fictitious entities created to limit risk and thus do not possess certain rights.
> Where is the evidence for this? This is by no means an obvious claim. No one in the world needs "the job," even though most people need "a job."
This is simple math. Generally, 100% of your income will come from Comcast if you work for them. Your impact on the financial fortune of a billion dollar company is negligible.
> Are all employers corporations? And even as such, this is just outlawing information. I do not understand how so many on the left support such a measure.
I don't mean to disparage you, but are you an adult? Information is the most vital and valuable resource in this, the Information Age. Visuals are information, yet I am not allowed to watch or record you having intercourse. Juries are not allowed access to media during a trial. Although I agree with their actions, Chelsea Manning and Snowden released outlawed information. In terms of hiring, there are a number of questions that are outlawed for good reason Here are a few:
How old are you?
Are you married?
Are you pregnant?
Are you a US Citizen?
Do you have any disabilities?
What religion do you practice?
What is your race?
> Why is free choice so difficult to understand?
This is why I question your age/maturity. You do not possess absolute freedom. You can't do whatever you want, you live in a society with other people and we have rules. I don't agree with it, but you are not free to make crystal methamphetamine even if it is 100% for personal use. You are not free to walk around naked. The canonical example is you are not free to yell fire in a crowded building. I just don't understand how you've lived long enough to know the english language yet don't understand that there are limits on your behavior. 3 year olds know they don't have absolute freedom.