[bpatel576]

I think this is a situation where employees need to leave the company. We vote with our choices. If we don't deem this to be appropriate, we must respond in kind. It's not simple and not everyone has the choice, but for those that can, should.

[javajosh]

Or regulate. Consider that your same argument was applies to e.g. the 40-hour workweek, and workplace safety standards in the US. We quite rightly decided not to leave such things to the market because in practice the labor market is FAR from perfect.

[loa_in_]

Regulation is the opposite of exercising freedom you already have

[js8]

I downvoted you, because I think this is not true in general. Regulation can actually increase the freedom. It is a concept in philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

And it's also not true in particular, you might happen to be in a group which benefits from given regulation. Hopefully, in a democratic society, the group that is negatively affected (if any) is as small as possible.

[subhobroto]

.. and I downvoted you, because it absolutely true by definition.

Regulation, by definition, decreases freedom.

That's the whole point of regulation - to threaten with violence, acts that people have agreed are not a good idea.

If software engineers were regulated under IEEE, the freedoms of software engineers would decrease not increase.

I quote from the article you linked:

"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

Regulation, by definition, is intolerance.

For example - the minimum wage regulation. You have now removed the freedom of an untrained, unemployed person to sell their labor at a lower floor which was their only way to gain employment when there's a trained but unemployed person willing to also work for minimum wage!

[tkfu]

You've got a pretty simplistic view of freedom there, bud. Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others. Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom?

Employers have immense power over their workers, and regulation is one of the tools societies can use to make sure that power isn't abused.

[subhobroto]

Regulation, by definition, decreases freedom.

The word regulate, in regulation literally means "decrease freedom".

In physics, a regulator is used to decrease freedom. That's why regulators are used in the first place.

> Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others

Again, regulations can only decrease freedom.

It does not make sense to "increase" something that already exists.

The freedom to live does not make you more alive than what you already are.

> Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom?

The concept of free speech is innate and available everywhere, including countries that does not recognize free speech.

Free speech is an inalienable right that every person is born with. It does not require someone else to grant or validate it.

All that the first amendment to the Constitution does is _recognize_ (not increase) your freedom to speak against the "government".

That is it.

The "government" still can jail you or even kill you.

All that a country that recognizes free speech promises is that after the deed is done, it will bring that misdeed to justice and hopefully right that wrong.

If that was not the case, the courts would be way less crowded than it already is.

Also, first amendment to the Constitution does not apply to private citizens.

If you suddenly started to yell at your neighbor's lawn, not matter how well placed and logical your arguments are, you will still get booted with no legal recourse.

The only thing that is left is if this was the government that booted you out, you can take them to court and expect to win if you have a valid case.

There can be no such expectation in a country that does not recognize free speech.

[germinalphrase]

Your perception of definition is not universal.

[smaddox]

One person's rights/freedoms are another person's responsibility. There can be no freedom without responsibility. Regulation is legally enforced responsibility.

[subhobroto]

> One person's rights/freedoms are another person's responsibility

yes

> There can be no freedom without responsibility.

yes so as I like to say it - freedom is anything but free

> Regulation is legally enforced responsibility.

Yes!

The issue I have with regulation is it requires enforcement to be truly useful and part of that requires the person seeking enforcement to yield their freedom to the enforcing authority to kick in.

Yet people seem to believe that regulation is this magic pixe dust that grants everyone special powers.

That's crazy talk!

I tried to make the point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23169673

[subhobroto]

Spot on. I am so surprised you've been downvoted to hell.

Sometimes it seems basic economics is an alien concept.

[Spivak]

Because you're applying a definition of freedom so absolutely and narrowly that it ceases to be useful.

Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm.

Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose.

And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome.

If your definition of freedom can't explain why voluntary enslavement makes people less free then it's useless.

[Frost1x]

While there's some power in voting with your choices, it's not really voting because a true vote with your choice must occur without being under duress or leveraged.

When it comes to employment, unless you're swimming in money and are basically just working for the sole purpose that you enjoy it, you're leveraged into adjusting your vote accordingly to your best option.

When true competition exists and your labor easily transfers, then by all means, select employers with reasonable practices. Relatively few people get to completely pick where they want to work and for what position they work. Most of us who aren't the top say 5% in our field pick a few handfuls and take a shotgun approach to see which opportunity lands. If none of those options land, we move to options we don't like because not working isn't a viable option.

Right now with unemployment rates skyrocketing, you have even less flexibility because labor is even more leveraged and have to cave into more and more policies like this.

The only way to protect labor in these situations, aside from organized labor unions, is creating enforceable regulatory protections for labor.

[brenden2]

A lot of people aren't in a position where they can quit their job and spend a few months looking for a new one. And in the US there's no safety net.

[ahelwer]

While this is certainly one method, it is not the only one. Change from within is possible and requires organizing with your colleagues. Otherwise we become like locusts, forever driven from place to place in search of ever-shrinking fertile land.