The Glade 4.0

What happens to the company if they don't make signing a requirement of employment?

Thats right, duress.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Prove it in a court of law.

Is obeying the law duress? Don't think that will hold up well.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

It can be, it depends on the justness of the law. Were Jews under duress when they wore their little stars? Were the Japanese Americans under duress when they agreed to be moved to a detention facility?

I think you need to examine the moral base you're attempting to stand on.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If you're going to go down that road, all contracts are always under durress and therefore all contracts are always invalid.

"Duress" does not mean requiring someone to do something when one is legally empowered to do so. My daughter, for example, must go to softball practice under duress on days she doesn't feel like it because as her parent I have the legal power to compel her to do so. That does not make her participation invalid.

Your examples suck too; Hitler never took the office of President of Germany; he simply remained Chancellor and invented an extraConstitutional title of "Furher". Anything done under the Third Reich was of questionable legality in the first place. As for Japanese Americans, they have had full access to the legal system for decades to redress any wrongs.

In any case, the fact that governments have done certain things that almost everyone finds immoral under the force of law at various points in history does not mean that anything you find immoral is necessarily a problem in the same regard.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Law is not morality.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

/headshake

Elm, I think you should step back from the argument and re-examine your position on UI rather than keep fighting such an obviously losing battle. There is no agreement between you and the employer that entitles you to the money. Even if you think market forces would eventually force employers to raise wages in the absence of a UI requirement (which is silly anyway), that has no relevance to the the money your specific employer has paid to UI thus far, since, again, you have no agreement with your employer concerning that money. It is therefore the property of your employer, not yours. The government stole it (by your standards) from the employer, and is offering to give it to you if you lose your job. To accept it would be to accept stolen property. Period.

Alternatively, of course, you could re-examine your basic premise that government taxation and regulation of this kind is the equivalent of theft, but I'm guessing you're not going to do that.

Korematsu v US

Supreme Court found detention of Japanese Americans allowable under the Constitution. Law is not the arbiter of morality, I remind you once more.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Non-agreed to taxation IS theft. Sorry you don't understand that nobody else can enter you into a contract without your consent.

Yes the property is the companies for a very short duration before its given as a wage. It is no more right to steal from a company than an individual even if the company were going to keep that money as profits (which they won't in this case).

RD is it moral for a party to take ones property when the only consent given was given under the threat of force?
Yes or No only.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

^ why DFK! didn't accept Unemployment, by RD.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Why is it that you assume the Unemployment Insurance payments are an infringement by the government on your Employee-Employer contract and not a component of the company-government contract?

Now, you may (and I'm sure you will) argue that the various governments should not be making such regulations regarding the forming and operation of a business, but those regulations exist, to which the owner of the business agreed to operate as a condition for legal protections or tax changes. One of those is contributing a collective pool of money that the government uses to support a social program (again, legal or not is a different argument), but that does not make that payment "your" money as part of your contract for employment.

No.

Allow me to ask a question in return, though: How does one give valid consent to a law (or constitution) enacted prior to one's birth?

One cannot. Lysander Spooner examined the situation a long time ago. So now that we agree - how to best make the current system more moral?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The agreement was made under threat of force Ladas, that invalidates contracts.

But if you want to go that route, by the same token I enter into agreement with that company knowing that part of my compensation package is the protection of that unemployment insurance, in that view it is bundled as part of my entire compensation though not my wage. In that view its already mine. Should I not be allowed to negotiate my contract to get the insurance premium as part of my wage and waive the coverage like I can do with healthcare or almost any other benefit?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Dude, have you gone into full-bore anarchism now?



I agreed that a consent given under coercion is not valid consent. However, I never agreed that the current system is coercive or that one cannot give valid consent to abide by the laws.

Called it.


You have a written contract that explicitly states those funds are a part of your compensation package, or are you basing this hypothetical "contract" on your personal your expectations and/or understanding and not a clearly defined agreement between both parties? If it is just your assumption and not an agreement at the point of hire between both parties, it is as much "your" money as that parking spot in the lot is "your" space.


Should you, sure. I don't have any problem if UI was voluntary, just like I wouldn't have a problem with SS if it was still voluntary. That said, what you should be able to do or not do has no bearing on the concept that the money is currently yours.

And? So what? Like I said, just because something arguably immoral has been found to be legal does not mean any law you dislike is immoral.

In any case, like I said, the Japanese Americans had access to the courts. A finding not in their favor does not mean they were not granted a fair hearing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The contract was not agreed to under threat of force. The threat of force if you don't obey a part of the contract is not coercion, duress, nor causing you to sign it under threat of force. Neither is the fact that this portion of the contract is mandated by law.

You still had a choice to sign or not sign. The fact that you do not have the ability to mold a contract to your personal satsifaction in no way puts you under duress to sign it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We don't need to. The current situation is not immoral, and your consent is not needed either to the Constitution or taxation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Is morality, then, the arbiter of law? How do we know what morality is? How do we define it? Whose version of morality is the correct one?


Actually, that is very much the question, only I'm not sure you're really seeing how deep that question runs.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

One could give consent once one is informed of them however consent cannot be assumed in any contract can it? No I'm not an anarchist, I just accept certain requirements of contracts being valid.

One way to approve this is to have a cycle where current laws need to be re-authorized by elected officials in order to convey consent of the population (at least those who voted them in).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Well, consent can be implied by accepting the other party's performance. For instance, if I say, "You can live in my beach house in exchange for performing the upkeep and maintenance," and you take the keys and live there without verbally responding, the law treats your actions as an acceptance of the contract, and you will be required to perform your obligations thereunder. Similarly, one could argue that choosing to live in the United States constitutes an acceptance of the contract (i.e. the Constitution and the laws) and obligates you to perform your obligations (i.e. abide by the laws).

That said, I do like the idea of requiring laws to be re-ratified every now and then. Wouldn't really be practical to do the same thing with the Constitution, though.

Good for you, calling my positions isn't hard. If an agreement is done under threat of force its invalid - thats not really an accomplishment.



Simply showing how the assumed validity of a contract thats enacted via force muddies the waters Ladas. Apparently if I consent to laws that are passed before I was of legal age (as is this law), then I am party to that contract thus I have made explicit contract with all future employers to gain this benefit.




Unless of course that I am participant and beholden to contracts enacted before I could enter into them - and then it is simply a pre-negotiated contract on all my future employers.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

How could I demonstrate that I don't comply with laws that are passed before I can consent - without suffering the consequences of those laws as if I had consented? There is no option.

Also a contract established before I was born can force an action on me (such as moving and then all such associated expenses) - is that just?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Your environment always "forces actions" on you, regardless of whether laws exist or not. It's the natural state of things. It's not just or unjust. The laws just change the structure of your environment.

Justness does not exist in respect to nature, however man taking a willful action can be either just or unjust.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville