Texas Parking Lot Bill Goes to Floor

[paragrouper]

Very well said. Thank you.

I agree.

The real question is; what can we do to help the process? My understanding is that both the House and Senate versions are with the Calendars committee, which is exactly where this bill was last session. I have continued to write and call members of the committee and I'm sure that others have as well.

Any news?

 

[W.E.G.]

Sharp stick in the eye to anti-gun employers.

Pat on the back for the working man's right to self-defense.

What's not to like?

 

[PTT]

And how does it violate any of your natural rights for someone to make such policies when you can freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell your labor to them?


No, I just think you do not have a natural right to use a threat of force and violence to compel someone to accept terms to an agreement that they do not wish to enter voluntarily. That is exactly what is occurring when the government passes a law like this.

Freedom of contract only exists when there is no coercion or extortion between the two parties.

Often the employer is the only employer hiring in any given specialty, so if he institutes an anti-gun policy, the employee has the choice of complying or taking a huge pay cut by taking a job at Wal Mart or McDonalds. Yeah, what a choice.

It is the proper role of government to prevent individuals from using coercive force against others, to protect individual rights and have a truly free market. Anti-gun workplace policies are coercive in nature and offensive to individual rights.

Else, why even have government? I'd much rather have a finely-tuned republican form of government than anarchy. By your logic, we shouldn't even have police or a military. Or judges and courts and jails and prisons because they all rely on the government's use of coercive force.

Can you honestly tell me you'd rather live in Somalia than Texas if they pass the parking lot law?

Be reasonable.

 

[outlook ranch]

You may own the parking lot, but from the ground up, the vehicle is MY private property.
I wonder, if a customer parked in your lot to make a purchase, would you run him off for having a pistol in his private vehicle...Hummmmm. I doubt it.

 

[alsaqr]

Under the OK law employers are exempt from civil liability. i would imagine that the TX law would be the same.

 

[JohnKSa]

It is.

 

[henschman]

Oh boy, I have drawn a lot of responses! Sorry for the long post, but I don't want to leave anybody's points unaddressed.

So you don't think we should have any laws?

I don't think we should have any laws except for ones which apply force in defense of liberty.

One of my cherished liberties is not having others tell me what I can and can't have in my vehicle, which is MINE, and doesnt effect anyone else.

Of course it is yours, and no, it doesn't affect anyone else UNLESS you drive it onto someone else's property. But you can't put your property on someone else's property and then claim that it is none of their business and they have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with it. They have the right to expel you and your property from their property for any reason or no reason, just as you have the exact same right with regard to your own property.

This argument works only if you consider labor to be a commodity like a lemon or a gallon of gas. Two people meet, seconds later the transaction happens, the buyer is happy, the seller is happy, another few seconds later they go their merry way.

The problem is that not all jobs are as common or as interchangeable as one gallon of gas is to another or one lemon is to another. And a person doesn't invest decades of his life in the gallon of gas he sells. Nor does a lemon buyer enter into an ongoing relationship with the lemon seller.

So let's look at how reality can work.

I spend most of a decade getting an expensive and specialized education. I then sign on with a company that happens to be in a gun friendly state and that happens to have gun friendly policies. I spend another 2+ decades developing a specialized skill set that the company needs but that isn't quite as easy to find buyers for outside the company as a gallon of gas might be. Somewhere along the way, the company decides that their liability concerns outweigh my concerns for my safety and change their policies to prevent me from having a gun in my car AND to prevent me from parking off campus.

It's all well and good to say that I could "freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell my labor to them" but I think it's pretty clear to all of us that a rational person in that position and in the current economy/job market is obviously not going to make a decision like that. The companies know that. They formed those policies knowing that most employees couldn't afford to give up employment. The company doesn't want to run off the employees who carry guns for self-defense. They just want to control the contents of privately-owned employee vehicles.

Once again, the question comes down to whether the employer is forcing you to do anything. Did the employer force you to obtain the expensive education? Did the employer force you to develop a narrow skill set that applies to a specific industries with few employers? No, those were all your choices. The bottom line is that an employment relationship is mutually voluntary, and can only exist so long as both parties freely consent to it. The bottom line is that you are completely free to quit that job at any time. If you are not in a financial position to be able to do so and still enjoy the standard of living that you currently have, then that is not the employer's fault either.

It seems like one of the main issues you point out is that there is sometimes a disparity in bargaining power between the employer and employee, and that many times the employee needs the employer a lot more than the employer needs the employee. Disparities in bargaining power exist for just about every contract. There is usually one party who needs to make the deal at least a little bit more than the other party does. This doesn't mean anyone is initiating force or fraud, and it certainly doesn't mean that one party should be deprived of the ability to freely choose the terms under which he is willing to bargain. It is a fact of life that if peple are treated equally under the law, people will be unequal in their position in life. The inherent vice of capitalism, as Churchill called it. Personally, I don't consider it to be a vice... it is just the way things are. The nature of reality, as it were. And it beats the hell out of the alternative, which is a system that treats people UNEQUALLY in order to try to acheive an EQUAL position in life for all people... which is what you advocate when you support laws attempting to equalize the bargaining power of two parties.

Freedom of contract only exists when there is no coercion or extortion between the two parties.

Often the employer is the only employer hiring in any given specialty, so if he institutes an anti-gun policy, the employee has the choice of complying or taking a huge pay cut by taking a job at Wal Mart or McDonalds. Yeah, what a choice.

It is the proper role of government to prevent individuals from using coercive force against others, to protect individual rights and have a truly free market. Anti-gun workplace policies are coercive in nature and offensive to individual rights.

I agree with your premises, but not your conclusions. Our disconnect is over definitions... you seem to define "force," "extortion," "individual rights," and "free market" very differently than I do. The way you define those terms, it can be considered "force" or "extortion" for one person simply to choose the terms upon which he is willing to contract with another person.

You also seem to believe that a person's right to freely set the terms upon which he will contract with someone else is dependent on the amount of bargaining power he has.

I believe that one's position in life does not determine what rights one has... I believe that all people are entitled to equal rights at all times. And not just equal rights, but the MAXIMUM amount of rights that can be shared equally at all times. I believe that the line between "individual rights" and "initiation of force" is drawn at the point where one person's ability to act freely would begin to infringe on another person's equal ability to act freely.

There is no way that anyone can cross that line by simply setting the terms upon which he is willing to bargain, because this is something that everyone can do simultaneously without impairing anyone else's freedom in any way. Obviously if you condition your consent on certain terms, it limits the ability of others to obtain a job from you that doesn't include those terms; but that is fine because nobody has a right to have someone else provide them with ANYTHING. To force someone to affirmatively do anything, other than to respect the equal liberty of others, would violate the scheme of the maximum possible amount of equal liberty.

Else, why even have government? I'd much rather have a finely-tuned republican form of government than anarchy. By your logic, we shouldn't even have police or a military. Or judges and courts and jails and prisons because they all rely on the government's use of coercive force.

My logic does not precude having a police or a military... it just precludes having a police or military that does anything other than protect the liberty of individuals, since that is the only legitimate role of force/violence/government. It does not preclude republican government, but it precludes a republican government in which the role of the government is not strictly limited to the protection of the liberty of its citizens.

I didn't say that I am against all coercive use of force. I just said that I am against the INITIATION of coercive force. I belive force is only legitimately used in DEFENSE of someone's rightful liberty.

 

[GEM]

Thanks, John!

Not to stir the pot but natural rights? Our views of natural rights are just a social contract formed by evolutionary, psychological and sociological forces. One's natural rights can easily be discriminatory against the rights of another. Depends who calls the shots, so to speak.

My view (with others) is that an employer's rights to deal with an employee are limited to the exact conditions of his or her performance. What's in my car isn't the employer's domain because he has a parking lot. Very simple.

In terms of relative value, the right of self-defense trumps irrational terroritorial claims to be king of the parking lot.

But John said it so well. Unfortunately, the monied classes in TX are playing the legislature for their own benefit and sometimes they snow the 'natural rights' folks for their own venial benefit.

 

[henschman]

My view (with others) is that an employer's rights to deal with an employee are limited to the exact conditions of his or her performance. What's in my car isn't the employer's domain because he has a parking lot. Very simple.

In your scheme of rights, who gets to define what the "exact conditions" of the employee's performance are that are being bargained for? In a free society, it would be up to the parties to a contract to freely decide what conditions are being bargained for. If the parties wish to trade a promise to weld widgets and not bring a gun onto the employer's property for a promise to be pay 38,000 intergalactic units per year, then whose place is it to tell them they can't make such an agreement? And where would a party to such an agreement get off saying that he is being forced to adhere to these terms, when he is in fact free to reject them?

 

[paragrouper]

You may own the parking lot, but from the ground up, the vehicle is MY private property.
I wonder, if a customer parked in your lot to make a purchase, would you run him off for having a pistol in his private vehicle...Hummmmm. I doubt it.

That's the funny thing with my employer. A couple of years ago they added language to our handbook that extended their right to search to our vehicles--along with a "no Weapons" policy, But there is no notice on our premises that would satisfy 30.06--inside or out. So while they have effectively ensure that I, a CH licensee, will not store my pistol in my car while I am at work, any visitor is not likewise prohibited from carrying.

 

[rbernie]

How is this debate furthering Activism Planning? If y'all want to debate the merits of the law, I'd recommend starting a new thread in Legal rather than getting this one shut down.

Just sayin'....

 

[GEM]

I suppose it was about trying to scope out the opposition to the bill. Sort of a Red Force exercise. But you are correct. We now understand the irrational opposition to protecting human rights over the venial interests of the management.

The cogent arguments against such views can be used in the debate.

The theoretical debate about what is 'natural right' for the castle kings can be moved. if you want to put on your sophistry hat.

Glenn

 

[JohnKSa]

How is this debate furthering Activism Planning?

How did it get in Activism Planning? Last time I checked it, it was in Legal.

Once again, the question comes down to whether the employer is forcing you to do anything....No, those were all your choices.

This implies that the presence of a choice equates to the absence of coercion.

Let's say I offer you the choice to jump off a cliff or be shot. You have the ability to choose but that obviously means very little from a practical standpoint and it certainly doesn't mean that there is no coercion.

Just as in the analogy, the company is forcing me to do something. It's forcing me to choose between two options, neither one acceptable.

...it certainly doesn't mean that one party should be deprived of the ability to freely choose the terms under which he is willing to bargain....And it beats the hell out of the alternative, which is a system that treats people UNEQUALLY in order to try to acheive an EQUAL position in life for all people... which is what you advocate when you support laws attempting to equalize the bargaining power of two parties.

First of all, this isn't about freely bargaining vs. bargaining with legal restrictions for the simple reason that there is no such thing as the former. Nobody gets to freely choose the terms under which he is willing to bargain. There are always legal restrictions imposed unless we restrict our focus to totally inconsequential matters.

Second, telling an employer that there is a limit to how far he is allowed to extend his reach into the employee's private life does not even come CLOSE to equating to communism, to trying "to achieve an EQUAL position in life for all people".

Although you agree that this is a rights issue you are apparently unable to widen your focus to see anything other than the employer's standpoint. In other words, your arguments revolve around and are based on the idea that whatever the employer wants is right. That whatever he wants is his right to want. That whatever he wants to enforce is his right to enforce and that the employee should have no recourse to any of it other than "choosing" between the cliff or the bullet because anything else would unjustly limit the employer's rights. There are two sides to this issue, not just one.

You also argue as if the relationship between employer and employee is currently unfettered by legal limitations. That is not true and hasn't ever been true unless we go back to a time where there were no governments or societies to impose legal limitations.

The bottom line is that there already are and certainly should be limits on what an employer can force an employee to do as a condition of continued employment. This is just one more.

 

[GEM]

During the Depression, my father was told to register for political party X to keep his job.

His other choice was to not support his family.

My mother had to hide her religion to keep hers - I guess her free choice was to change faiths.

I think these two examples are fine with some posters. Free choice not to accept control of your faith or choose to starve.

 

[Walkalong]

It passed in Alabama and I am glad. I kept a gun in my vehicle against company rules for a long time, and now I am covered.

I believe my car is my car and they have no right to search it with out cause. Heck, the police can't without probable cause or your permission. Why should it be different with an employer just because you are parked in their lot?

Good luck Texas.

 

[GEM]

Thanks. We are keeping our fingers crossed but the business lobbies have a tight grip on the so-called progun legislators.

 

[jeffegg2]

Please please bring this to Michigan!!

 

[henschman]

This implies that the presence of a choice equates to the absence of coercion.

Let's say I offer you the choice to jump off a cliff or be shot. You have the ability to choose but that obviously means very little from a practical standpoint and it certainly doesn't mean that there is no coercion.

Just as in the analogy, the company is forcing me to do something. It's forcing me to choose between two options, neither one acceptable.

In your example, one person has the other literally at gunpoint. It makes a poor comparison to an employment relationship, which both sides have freely chosen to enter into. The difference is that the man with the gun is threatening to do things to the other person which would deprive him of the maximum amount of equal liberty that every human being is entitled to. In other words, he is threatening to do things to him which he has no RIGHT to do. Namely, he is threatening the other person's right to continue living. By contrast, when an employer or employee decides to terminate a voluntary, consensual relationship, it does not deprive anyone of one shred of liberty... because rightful liberty does not include the "right" to force someone to continue a relationship that he does not consent to. This itself would deprive the other party of HIS rightful liberty. When a person ends a voluntary relationship with another person, the only thing the other person is "deprived" of is the ability to remain in the relationship... which at that point could not be maintained without the consenting party initiating force against the non-consenting party.

The way you see things, no human interaction could ever be considered voluntary. I suppose you would consider it to be coercive use of force if your girlfriend tells you she doesn't want to have sex anymore, because now you have to make the choice to either go without, or find someone else to do it with. Maybe we need a law to force her to continue the relationship, to protect your "rights." To make it more like the "large employer" scenario you guys keep bringing up, we could say that she is a lot more attractive than you, and has a lot more other prospects. She is like the employer, with more barganining power. Is this any excuse to deny her right to withdraw consent from the relationship if she no longer wishes to continue it?

And don't tell me that an employment relationship is totally different than a sexual relationship. When it comes down to it, all voluntary human interaciton is the same, and every one of us has a right to engage in all of its forms as long as the other party freely gives their consent as well. Whether it is a employment relationship, a sexual relationship, a friendship, or a sale of goods/services, it doesn't matter. No one has any right to force someone to continue a relationship that he no longer wants to be in.

Mere withholding of consent can never be considered force... not if we are to have a society based on voluntary human interaction. It is one of the rights that all human beings have at all times, no matter what.

By contrast, using a threat of actual force to induce someone to continue to associate with another person, when he has no desire to do so, is basically the definition of FORCE. Whether this is making someone jump of a cliff at gunpoint, or forcing someone to have sex with you, or the government forcing someone them to remain in an employment relationship with you under conditions that they do not consent to, it is all a violation of the rightful liberty of man and should be resisted by every liberty-loving individual.

First of all, this isn't about freely bargaining vs. bargaining with legal restrictions for the simple reason that there is no such thing as the former. Nobody gets to freely choose the terms under which he is willing to bargain. There are always legal restrictions imposed unless we restrict our focus to totally inconsequential matters.

This is the same argument that others keep bringing up in this thread, which is basically that "the government says it, so it must be right." This is only true if our rights exist at the whim of governments, rather than being natural inalienable and God-given rights. The argument between these philosophies was had in this country back in 1775-1783, but if you want to re-hash it again in this thread, I am perfectly willing.

The fact that the government currently violates our right to free association, and the fact that free human association has almost always been forcibly interfered with throughout human history does not mean that any of this is right, or that it is the way things should be.

Although you agree that this is a rights issue you are apparently unable to widen your focus to see anything other than the employer's standpoint.

On the contrary! I have been arguing for EQUAL rights for ALL people, no matter which side of a transaction they are on or what their "station in life" is. I believe an employee has just as much right to terminate an employment relationship as an employer, and has the very same right to set the conditions upon which he is willing to contract with others.

It is you who is ignoring the rights of some in order to give extra benefits to others.

I believe that a lot of the support for laws like this comes from the same class warfare tendencies that make people support the forceful redistribution of wealth. Many in this thread have made comments that basically equate to "stick it to the man!" Kind of like the New Dealers during the great depression who were rallying to "soak the rich!"

I also believe that a lot of the supporters of this type of law have an antiquated feudal concept of the employment relationship, which is a relic of our British heritage. They see their boss as a lord or master, and themselves as a servant. They believe that they are employed purely at the mercy of their boss. It is hard for them to grasp the concept of co-equal parties with equal rights forming a voluntary relationship for their mutual benefit. They see laws like this as helping the helpless little servants from being treated "unfairly" by their masters.

The problem with supporters of gun rights is that a lot of them are very single-issue, and are not supporters of liberty as a whole. They will support anything that "scores one" for the gun rights movement and gives a black eye to who they percieve to be anti-gun.

The bottom line is that there already are and certainly should be limits on what an employer can force an employee to do as a condition of continued employment. This is just one more.

You are arguing something like the reverse of the slippery slope argument. Since they are already partially infringing on this right, it is no problem for them to infringe it a little more, right? Hell, while we're throwing the right to contract and the right to freedom of association out the window, why not throw out freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well? If the government does it, it can't be wrong, so why not?

 

[PTT]

In your example, one person has the other literally at gunpoint. It makes a poor comparison to an employment relationship, which both sides have freely chosen to enter into. The difference is that the man with the gun is threatening to do things to the other person which would deprive him of the maximum amount of equal liberty that every human being is entitled to. In other words, he is threatening to do things to him which he has no RIGHT to do. Namely, he is threatening the other person's right to continue living. By contrast, when an employer or employee decides to terminate a voluntary, consensual relationship, it does not deprive anyone of one shred of liberty... because rightful liberty does not include the "right" to force someone to continue a relationship that he does not consent to. This itself would deprive the other party of HIS rightful liberty. When a person ends a voluntary relationship with another person, the only thing the other person is "deprived" of is the ability to remain in the relationship... which at that point could not be maintained without the consenting party initiating force against the non-consenting party.

The way you see things, no human interaction could ever be considered voluntary. I suppose you would consider it to be coercive use of force if your girlfriend tells you she doesn't want to have sex anymore, because now you have to make the choice to either go without, or find someone else to do it with. Maybe we need a law to force her to continue the relationship, to protect your "rights." To make it more like the "large employer" scenario you guys keep bringing up, we could say that she is a lot more attractive than you, and has a lot more other prospects. She is like the employer, with more barganining power. Is this any excuse to deny her right to withdraw consent from the relationship if she no longer wishes to continue it?

And don't tell me that an employment relationship is totally different than a sexual relationship. When it comes down to it, all voluntary human interaciton is the same, and every one of us has a right to engage in all of its forms as long as the other party freely gives their consent as well. Whether it is a employment relationship, a sexual relationship, a friendship, or a sale of goods/services, it doesn't matter. No one has any right to force someone to continue a relationship that he no longer wants to be in.

Mere withholding of consent can never be considered force... not if we are to have a society based on voluntary human interaction. It is one of the rights that all human beings have at all times, no matter what.

By contrast, using a threat of actual force to induce someone to continue to associate with another person, when he has no desire to do so, is basically the definition of FORCE. Whether this is making someone jump of a cliff at gunpoint, or forcing someone to have sex with you, or the government forcing someone them to remain in an employment relationship with you under conditions that they do not consent to, it is all a violation of the rightful liberty of man and should be resisted by every liberty-loving individual.




This is the same argument that others keep bringing up in this thread, which is basically that "the government says it, so it must be right." This is only true if our rights exist at the whim of governments, rather than being natural inalienable and God-given rights. The argument between these philosophies was had in this country back in 1775-1783, but if you want to re-hash it again in this thread, I am perfectly willing.

The fact that the government currently violates our right to free association, and the fact that free human association has almost always been forcibly interfered with throughout human history does not mean that any of this is right, or that it is the way things should be.


On the contrary! I have been arguing for EQUAL rights for ALL people, no matter which side of a transaction they are on or what their "station in life" is. I believe an employee has just as much right to terminate an employment relationship as an employer, and has the very same right to set the conditions upon which he is willing to contract with others.

It is you who is ignoring the rights of some in order to give extra benefits to others.

I believe that a lot of the support for laws like this comes from the same class warfare tendencies that make people support the forceful redistribution of wealth. Many in this thread have made comments that basically equate to "stick it to the man!" Kind of like the New Dealers during the great depression who were rallying to "soak the rich!"

I also believe that a lot of the supporters of this type of law have an antiquated feudal concept of the employment relationship, which is a relic of our British heritage. They see their boss as a lord or master, and themselves as a servant. They believe that they are employed purely at the mercy of their boss. It is hard for them to grasp the concept of co-equal parties with equal rights forming a voluntary relationship for their mutual benefit. They see laws like this as helping the helpless little servants from being treated "unfairly" by their masters.

The problem with supporters of gun rights is that a lot of them are very single-issue, and are not supporters of liberty as a whole. They will support anything that "scores one" for the gun rights movement and gives a black eye to who they percieve to be anti-gun.


You are arguing something like the reverse of the slippery slope argument. Since they are already partially infringing on this right, it is no problem for them to infringe it a little more, right? Hell, while we're throwing the right to contract and the right to freedom of association out the window, why not throw out freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well? If the government does it, it can't be wrong, so why not?

You make a lot of assumptions about why people disagree with you. Basically anybody who isn't an anarcho-capitalist or whatever you are automatically is a socialist, communist, or sympathizes with FDR or some other such BS.

What a stupid way to engage in debate. You are hoping that if you throw a sufficient number of strawman arguments at us, we'll just shut up and you'll 'win' the argument.

 

[henschman]

I'm not making any assumptions about why any of you individually disagree with me -- I have responded to your arguments as they are made.

In that last post, I made some comments about why I think many people support laws like this (class warfare, master/servant complex, and single-issue gun rights supporters). Some of it was based on some of the comments I have seen in this thread. However, I didn't use it as a basis for any of my arguments, so it is not a straw man argument. It is just commentary designed to make people think about the reasons for their beliefs. The majority of my post was an argument in response to the arguments of another poster.

As far as people being communist, socialist, etc... if you notice, I haven't used any of those labels in my posts. I try to avoid such emotionally-charged terms that have such strong connotations, and just say what I mean. If you believe that people should be forced to engage in relationships that they do not consent to, then that really says enough about your beliefs by itself. No labels required.

 

[PTT]

I think there should be some limits on freedom of contract to prevent abuse. Things like indentured servitude come to mind.

 

[JohnKSa]

In your example, one person has the other literally at gunpoint. It makes a poor comparison to an employment relationship, which both sides have freely chosen to enter into.

Your argument would carry much more weight if a person freely chose to become an employee of a company with such policies and then immediately went about trying to get them changed. It is far less applicable to the situation where an employer unilaterally changes a policy after a person has invested many years and much effort into his career with a company.

That said, the analogy was to point out the fallacy in your implication that the presence of choice was evidence of a lack of coercion. A person can certainly be under coercion and still have the ability to choose.

I suppose you would consider it to be coercive use of force if your girlfriend tells you she doesn't want to have sex anymore, because now you have to make the choice to either go without, or find someone else to do it with.

A unilateral ultimatum set forth by one party to a particular human interaction/relationship may or may not amount to coercion depending on the ultimatum and the leverage of the party setting forth the ultimatum. That's why you can easily pick an example where it isn't coercion and I can easily pick one where it is. It's certainly not as black and white as you would like it to be or as clearcut as you imply it is.

It is you who is ignoring the rights of some in order to give extra benefits to others.

This was addressed earlier. There is no extra benefit requested or desired, the request is to be treated by the employer as it treats others. No special treatment or extra benefits, just the same treatment it affords others who use its parking lots.

You are arguing something like the reverse of the slippery slope argument. Since they are already partially infringing on this right, it is no problem for them to infringe it a little more, right?

I was addressing your comments that implied that the relationship between an employer and employee were currently unfettered by legal limitations. You may or may not agree with the imposition of those legal limitations, but it's certainly inaccurate to argue as if none exist and as if this law would be a new or radical concept in the employer/employee relationship.

If you believe that people should be forced to engage in relationships that they do not consent to, then that really says enough about your beliefs by itself.

This and most of your comments miss the point. The employer isn't seeking to end the relationship, they're simply seeking to extend their control into the employees' private lives because they know they have the leverage to get away with it.

It's instructive to remember, the employer isn't going to prosecute the employees, that's not an option that's available to them. The threatened penalty is termination (loss of employment). That penalty is what you keep calling a "free choice". In other words, you're saying that the threat by which the employer forces compliance with an unjust and inequitable policy isn't a coercive threat at all. You're trying to make it sound like it's merely a free choice of the employee. That the employee can freely avoid the forced choice by taking one of the forced choices.

Going back to the cliff/bullet analogy, your arguments are tantamount to claiming that there is no coercion because victim can freely end the confrontation at any time by merely jumping over the cliff thus putting himself out of the range of the person coercing him to choose between jumping over a cliff and being shot.

I will give you one thing. It takes a fair amount of rhetorical talent to make a penalty sound like it's remotely similar to a "free choice".

 

[henschman]

Your argument would carry much more weight if a person freely chose to become an employee of a company with such policies and then immediately went about trying to get them changed. It is far less applicable to the situation where an employer unilaterally changes a policy after a person has invested many years and much effort into his career with a company.

When you talk about an employer "unilaterally changing a policy," what you are describing is one party to a relationship setting new conditions on his consent to continue the relationship. Of course it is unilateral, because only the party himself can determine what conditions he is willing to consent to a relationship under. 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, over and beyond a pure at-will relationship that either party is free to walk away from at any time (which is what you have when two parties decide to form a relationship but do not make any promises about its duration or the conditions on which it can be terminated).

That said, the analogy was to point out the fallacy in your implication that the presence of choice was evidence of a lack of coercion. A person can certainly be under coercion and still have the ability to choose.

Certainly, but I never said that all coersion is a violation of someone's rights. I try to avoid using slippery terms like "coersion" as qualifiers for whether or not a violation of someone's rights has occurred. What I said was that INITIATION OF FORCE violates the rights of others. I define "initiation of force" as that which deprives anyone of any part of the maximum correlative rights to which all people are entitled.

When one party changes the terms of his consent to continue a relationship, the choice the other party is presented with is to either meet those terms, or foresake the relationship. 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.

If one party to a relationship changes the terms under which he is willing to consent to continue the relationship, the other party cannot demand that the relationship be continued under the previous terms. If one party (or the government) were to force the other to continue in a relationship with another when he does not consent to it, it would deprive the first party of his ability to freely choose which relationships he does and doesn't consent to. This is a liberty that everyone can share equally without diminishing anyone else's ability to exercise any of their equal maximal liberties. Therefore, denying it to someone is a violation of their rightful liberty and is the type of coersion that ought to be prohibited.

A unilateral ultimatum set forth by one party to a particular human interaction/relationship may or may not amount to coercion depending on the ultimatum and the leverage of the party setting forth the ultimatum. That's why you can easily pick an example where it isn't coercion and I can easily pick one where it is. It's certainly not as black and white as you would like it to be or as clearcut as you imply it is.

Whether or not a violation of someone's rights has occurred is not about whether coersion is present... it is all about whether one person's actions diminish the maximum amount of freedom of action that another person can have consistent with the equal right of others to the same. This is the rationale by which I distinguish placing conditions on one's consent to continue a voluntary relationship, on one hand, and kidnapping someone at gunpoint, taking them to a cliff, and asking them to choose how they wish you to murder them, on the other hand. I have distinguished your analogy... I would like to know how you distinguish my analogy between forcing someone to remain in an employment relationship despite their consent versus forcing someone to remain in a sexual relationship despite their consent.

This was addressed earlier. There is no extra benefit requested or desired, the request is to be treated by the employer as it treats others. No special treatment or extra benefits, just the same treatment it affords others who use its parking lots.

The employer has already decided that he does not wish to remain in an employment relationship with people who have guns in their cars or who refuse consent for a search of their cars. Forcing employers to remain in a relationship with employees under these circumstances changes the relationship from a voluntary and consensual one to a forced one, which deprives the employer of his liberty (his freedom of association to be specific). It gives to the employee the ability to remain in a relationship with the employer even if the employer does not consent to it. So it most certainly DOES grant benefits to some at the expense of the rights of others.

As for "treating everyone the same," the only obligation any person has toward another is to respect their rightful liberty (which I think I have sufficiently defined). Other than that, we have the right to treat others however we want based on whatever distinctions we want. A person has the right to condition his consent to associate with other people on whatever terms he chooses. If he chooses to associate with invitees on one set of terms and people with whom he has an employment relationship on another set of terms, that is all up to him. No one can claim that he is violating their rights by treating them differently than others, because no one has a right to have someone else choose to associate with them in the first place. Everyone has the right to choose the terms upon which he will associate with others, but no one has the right to choose for others the terms upon which they will associate with HIM.

This and most of your comments miss the point. The employer isn't seeking to end the relationship, they're simply seeking to extend their control into the employees' private lives because they know they have the leverage to get away with it.

The employer is simply placing a condition on his continued consent to remain in a voluntary relationship. If the other party does not consent to the condition, the employer does indeed wish to end the relationship.

As for the private lives of individuals, a person has a right to live as private a life as he wishes. As long as he doesn't violate anyone else's equal rights, a man can go and live in the woods and never see another person if he chooses. However, if a man wishes to choose to form voluntary relationships with other people, he must meet the conditions that they require (and they must meet the conditions he requires). People generally don't enter into one-sided voluntary relationships, so you generally must give them something that you have a right to. As I have said over and over, if you don't like the conditions that others place on their consent, then you do not have to accept it. You can simply refuse to associate (or to continue to associate) with them.

I will give you one thing. It takes a fair amount of rhetorical talent to make a penalty sound like it's remotely similar to a "free choice".

And I will say that it takes a fair amount of mental gymnastics to equate someone exercising his right to freedom of association with someone making another person choose how he is going to be murdered.

 

[PTT]

Yes yes yes, we've heard all this before.

It's very clear that you believe there should be no government intervention in voluntary agreements between two parties. We will assume, for the sake of argument, that all employer-employee agreements are entirely voluntary.

I have found that a great way to test anything is to put it in extreme conditions to see if it survives. We will now test unfettered freedom of contract.

Suppose one party agrees to be an unpaid servant for between 3 and 7 years in exchange for an expensive transportation fee, such as a voyage from Europe to the Americas in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Neither party was physically forced to enter the agreement.

This practice was outlawed by the turn of the nineteenth century. Would you, because of your beliefs, advocate the legalization of this practice?

 

[henschman]

Yes, why should that be prohibited? The only rationale I can think of would be to protect people from themselves, which I do not believe to be a proper role of government.

Does indentured servanthood seem like a radical concept to you? It doesn't to me. It is how a lot of our forefathes escaped a sure fate of poverty in England and were able to come to America, learn a trade, and eventually be able to buy land and better themselves. It is a lot like joining the military. You give up your freedom for a term of years in exchange for an opportunity that you would not otherwise have. Why in the world should people be forcibly prevented from entering this type of arrangement?