Even from a Libertarian perspective, I honestly think this is valid because I don't think your employer has the right to demand you receive a specific medical treatment regardless of diagnosis, drug interaction, or religious objection.
Fundamentally, I think that even a private mandate is a violation of self-as-property, which trumps other aspects of amoral economic consideration. You can't impose a medical treatment on someone without their consent until they have been deemed so mentally unfit that they are incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. It's the same reason as a Liberal Republic, we must ban slavery: Even if you insist on working for free you can't sell yourself into slavery. As you are your own sovereign, and the sole proprietor of yourself, no one can usurp that authority, as it is effectively a violation of Free Will (which we can assert is an inalienable right). Slavery is a usurpation of your own sovereignty over yourself as property, because it is a usurpation of future consent.
Keep that in mind in case any fucking Cato Cucks come out and whine about how rejection of violations of bodily autonomy is government over reach.
I could argue allowing it with libertarianism, but entirely based off of how I view contracts. In my eyes, a contract is inherently null and void if it cannot be negotiated. Allow negotiation, though, and it should be technically okay to make some insane agreements (assuming you have enough escape from red tape for competition to arise). So it would be with consent from the concerned party.
Does that make sense? Not sure I'm presenting the idea well. It just seems really simple to me, that no agreement is really an agreement if only one side can set terms. I'd sooner call it coercion, or dictation. Those digital EULA things got me thinking about it, how it's nonsense to even expect a person to read the thing when it's impossible to negotiate the contents.
I don't expect employment contracts to be truly negotiable in modern society, so I have no problem with this ban.
In my eyes, a contract is inherently null and void if it cannot be negotiated.
At first glance, maybe, but does that include a simple rejection of the contract?
If someone says: "You may buy my apple for $3", and you say "No, $2.99", and they refuse; they are refusing to negotiate on a contract, but it doesn't make it null. It just makes it rejected.
I think there's an additional measure of complexity that may be involved. Like, literal complexity to a contract. If no reasonable person can expect to understand all of the nuances and complexities of the contract, then it should be null and void because there is a lack of informed consent. Where as, in my apple example, the contract is so dead simple that any half-wit could be informed.
it should be technically okay to make some insane agreements (assuming you have enough escape from red tape for competition to arise)
If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable, I don't think it can be legitimate since it isn't going to be logically valid by definition. How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?
Apple example is good counterpoint. It's reasonable to not want to haggle as a simple merchant of goods. However, a refusal to haggle also implies a refusal to barter for non-currency goods (some society eventually has to try using a barter system rather than meme about its untested inconvenience), and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
You could be offering a cent too little for the apple because you're prepared to perform some small task in addition, like providing your own bag or maybe you'll just do a little dance to please them. Ultimately, the merchant should reserve the right to refuse to negotiate; to even hear your offers. That's because it could be a mistake to refuse it and mistakes must be permitted.
If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
The simple solution is to have city- or state- level rulings for what rights may be signed away (even if temporary). But then what if you receive harm that lasts longer than the agreed timeframe? Calculating that is a disaster I've seen enough in real world law, so it's much better to avoid it where possible.
I'm struggling to think of an example now. How about this: an employer tries to get a guarantee from their employees that they will prioritize company assets over their own safety (they now have to fight all robbers). This sounds kind of reasonable for a security guard. Change the wording a little to get body guards. Both are desirable types of employment, but both have a real chance of permanent damages. Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package? I would prefer to minimize beaurocratic workload where possible.
How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?
I probably should have specified, but by insane I meant more like signing away your intrinsic rights, such as agreeing to become someone's property. If something is impossible, like punching the sun, obviously that should be thrown in the trash. Human guinea pig is a job, I guess, but it's a really distasteful one.
and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
To be honest, central currencies aren't actually necessary from what we see from earlier time periods. Central currencies just provide standardization, but most of the time, people still saw "1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold" as the standard, no matter who's face was on it. The question for the merchants was who was fucking with their own currency and filling it with copper.
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
Unless you're going down the Ancapistan route, it will require a legal or procedural apparatus. Which is why I favor Liberalism. The focus on procedure and the pride of an independent judiciary simply designed to deal with procedure is the way to get around this problem.
Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package?
Sounds like a "Wares many hats" portion of a job application.
The purpose of a Laborer in a firm is to get guaranteed income while taking low risk; while giving reliable labor to the firm. So any sort of situation that would introduce more chaos and confusion to the laborer would require quickly increasing compensation. At some point, if the risk for the laborer gets too high, regular pay just becomes impossible. Instead, with a high enough risk, they are effectively taking on the same level of risk as the entrapanuer... and they are basically now in the same category. Which means that they are basically a part owner of the business, and will only profit when the business does (which might take some time).
But, that's the point of how the entrapanuer has to interact with the laborer. The laborer is accepting consistent pay, for consistent work, while taking minimal risk. the more risk a laborer takes, the more compensation they need. However you actually present that compensation package is up to the entrapanuer and the laborer.
Even from a Libertarian perspective, I honestly think this is valid because I don't think your employer has the right to demand you receive a specific medical treatment regardless of diagnosis, drug interaction, or religious objection.
Fundamentally, I think that even a private mandate is a violation of self-as-property, which trumps other aspects of amoral economic consideration. You can't impose a medical treatment on someone without their consent until they have been deemed so mentally unfit that they are incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. It's the same reason as a Liberal Republic, we must ban slavery: Even if you insist on working for free you can't sell yourself into slavery. As you are your own sovereign, and the sole proprietor of yourself, no one can usurp that authority, as it is effectively a violation of Free Will (which we can assert is an inalienable right). Slavery is a usurpation of your own sovereignty over yourself as property, because it is a usurpation of future consent.
Keep that in mind in case any fucking Cato Cucks come out and whine about how rejection of violations of bodily autonomy is government over reach.
I could argue allowing it with libertarianism, but entirely based off of how I view contracts. In my eyes, a contract is inherently null and void if it cannot be negotiated. Allow negotiation, though, and it should be technically okay to make some insane agreements (assuming you have enough escape from red tape for competition to arise). So it would be with consent from the concerned party.
Does that make sense? Not sure I'm presenting the idea well. It just seems really simple to me, that no agreement is really an agreement if only one side can set terms. I'd sooner call it coercion, or dictation. Those digital EULA things got me thinking about it, how it's nonsense to even expect a person to read the thing when it's impossible to negotiate the contents.
I don't expect employment contracts to be truly negotiable in modern society, so I have no problem with this ban.
At first glance, maybe, but does that include a simple rejection of the contract?
If someone says: "You may buy my apple for $3", and you say "No, $2.99", and they refuse; they are refusing to negotiate on a contract, but it doesn't make it null. It just makes it rejected.
I think there's an additional measure of complexity that may be involved. Like, literal complexity to a contract. If no reasonable person can expect to understand all of the nuances and complexities of the contract, then it should be null and void because there is a lack of informed consent. Where as, in my apple example, the contract is so dead simple that any half-wit could be informed.
If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable, I don't think it can be legitimate since it isn't going to be logically valid by definition. How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?
Apple example is good counterpoint. It's reasonable to not want to haggle as a simple merchant of goods. However, a refusal to haggle also implies a refusal to barter for non-currency goods (some society eventually has to try using a barter system rather than meme about its untested inconvenience), and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
You could be offering a cent too little for the apple because you're prepared to perform some small task in addition, like providing your own bag or maybe you'll just do a little dance to please them. Ultimately, the merchant should reserve the right to refuse to negotiate; to even hear your offers. That's because it could be a mistake to refuse it and mistakes must be permitted.
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
The simple solution is to have city- or state- level rulings for what rights may be signed away (even if temporary). But then what if you receive harm that lasts longer than the agreed timeframe? Calculating that is a disaster I've seen enough in real world law, so it's much better to avoid it where possible.
I'm struggling to think of an example now. How about this: an employer tries to get a guarantee from their employees that they will prioritize company assets over their own safety (they now have to fight all robbers). This sounds kind of reasonable for a security guard. Change the wording a little to get body guards. Both are desirable types of employment, but both have a real chance of permanent damages. Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package? I would prefer to minimize beaurocratic workload where possible.
I probably should have specified, but by insane I meant more like signing away your intrinsic rights, such as agreeing to become someone's property. If something is impossible, like punching the sun, obviously that should be thrown in the trash. Human guinea pig is a job, I guess, but it's a really distasteful one.
To be honest, central currencies aren't actually necessary from what we see from earlier time periods. Central currencies just provide standardization, but most of the time, people still saw "1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold" as the standard, no matter who's face was on it. The question for the merchants was who was fucking with their own currency and filling it with copper.
Unless you're going down the Ancapistan route, it will require a legal or procedural apparatus. Which is why I favor Liberalism. The focus on procedure and the pride of an independent judiciary simply designed to deal with procedure is the way to get around this problem.
Sounds like a "Wares many hats" portion of a job application.
The purpose of a Laborer in a firm is to get guaranteed income while taking low risk; while giving reliable labor to the firm. So any sort of situation that would introduce more chaos and confusion to the laborer would require quickly increasing compensation. At some point, if the risk for the laborer gets too high, regular pay just becomes impossible. Instead, with a high enough risk, they are effectively taking on the same level of risk as the entrapanuer... and they are basically now in the same category. Which means that they are basically a part owner of the business, and will only profit when the business does (which might take some time).
But, that's the point of how the entrapanuer has to interact with the laborer. The laborer is accepting consistent pay, for consistent work, while taking minimal risk. the more risk a laborer takes, the more compensation they need. However you actually present that compensation package is up to the entrapanuer and the laborer.