If a party is concerned about the possibility of the other party changing the terms of its consent after he has become dependant on the continuance of the relationship, he should protect himself by trying to get the other party to agree to additional terms to the agreement...
Sounds good in a perfect world, but when an employee amounts to 1/60,000th of an employer's work force such attempts are not even efficacious enough to qualify as pitifully futile.
Your responses are extremely idealistic. You might find it surprising to find that your basic philosophy and mine agree remarkably closely with the exception that you refuse to acknowledge that practicality must play a part in any real-world system.
Like I said, the only thing you are denying to the other party when you discontinue a voluntary relationship is the ability for them to remain in the voluntary relationship... and a voluntary relationship is a thing which by its very definition doesn't exist without the consent of two parties. So really and truly, you are denying them nothing.
...nothing except employment and all the many benefits that go with it.
Your assertion that nothing is being denied is totally meaningless from a practical perspective. If what you say is correct then the threat of termination would be meaningless since it's "really and truly denying the employee nothing". Clearly that is not the case or employers couldn't use it at as a threat to enforce their over-reaching policies.
What I said was that INITIATION OF FORCE violates the rights of others.
That's certainly a boundary that, when crossed, generally indicates that rights have been violated. That's not the only boundary by any means. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that even something as subtle as peer pressure can, in some circumstances, be sufficient coercion that it constitutes a violation of one's rights.
As for the private lives of individuals, a person has a right to live as private a life as he wishes.
Actually, that's not true. That is what you believe SHOULD be true.
In the world that we live in there are many impositions on our private lives that keep us from living as we choose. Some large, some small.
You're certainly welcome to your personal definitions and standards, but you should realize that's all they are: "YOUR personal definitions and standards". It's also worthwhile to keep in mind that if you're going to make up your own legal sytem of standards and rights violation criteria then you shouldn't be surprised to find that people disagree with your extrapolations. It's unavoidable given that your basic premises aren't founded in reality.
The larger point is this. If you're going to engage in a debate with people about real world issues, as opposed to the purely philosophical, it's only going to frustrate them and you for you to debate from the premise that things ARE the way you believe they should be even when that's obviously not the case. In addition, at the very least you should state your starting premises so that people can understand that you're not arguing about a real-world system but rather engaging in a philosophical argument about what you believe an ideal system should be.
Ok, so in your ideal world you see no need for goverment involvement in human relationships and contracts unless the boundary of "force initiation" is crossed. Everything else can be characterized as consenting relationships under your system of what constitutes a rights violation.
In the real world, one function of government is to step in and prevent very powerful entities from wielding their power in a manner that is inimicable to the wishes of society and/or to punish them when they do. This bill is a perfect example of that function in action.
