[enraged_camel]

>> I don't agree that the government should be deeming any type of agreement that adults voluntarily enter into as illegal.

You cannot legally own slaves, even if both parties are consenting adults. So clearly, your premise is flawed: there are absolutely things that the government can determine to be illegal. In California, this includes exploitative labor relationships (again, even if both parties consent to the agreement).

>> Seems to me that the opposite dynamic is at play here - these companies have become large enough to be the target of legislation.

No, they got large enough by ignoring the law. We know this because Uber's only real "moat" is the size of its network. From a technology standpoint, it's fairly easy to replicate, and we have indeed seen this happen across the board. The problem of course is that Uber benefited from first-mover advantage, and quickly got so large and so well-funded that it could litigate and stonewall any local government or other party that raised issues with its labor practices.

That is coming to an end, now. And to that, I say: it's about damn time.

(I don't want to single out Uber either. Airbnb is the exact same: they became massively successful mostly by ignoring local zoning and hotel laws.)

[lhh]

> You cannot legally own slaves, even if both parties are consenting adults. So clearly, your premise is flawed: there are absolutely things that the government can determine to be illegal. In California, this includes exploitative labor relationships (again, even if both parties consent to the agreement).

If someone wants to sell themselves into slavery, I say let them (though perhaps there should be an exception if they're not of sound mind). Or alternatively, maybe slavery is just the degenerate case that removes your agency, and should be disallowed on that basis.

I challenge your premise that it's possible to consider a labor relationship exploitative if both parties voluntarily enter into it.

> No, they got large enough by ignoring the law.

Sure, but I think this is unrelated to my point. I still contend that any voluntary agreements should be allowed, with size of company involved having no bearing on the matter.

[claudiawerner]

>I challenge your premise that it's possible to consider a labor relationship exploitative if both parties voluntarily enter into it.

This is a philosophical point, and there are scholars working in economics and economic philosophy who have argued that some kind of mutual benefit is does not preclude exploitation. See for example J.E Roemer, Roberto Veneziani, and Nikolos Vrousalis, three economists on the matter. See also here[0]. In addition, slavery may not only be problematic because of the 'degenerative case' mentioned.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/#ConcExpl

[lhh]

I'm not arguing that "because they benefit they're therefore not being exploited". I'm arguing that "because they voluntarily enter into the agreement with full information they're therefore not being exploited". Or have I misunderstood your point?

[claudiawerner]

Some of the economists/philosophers I mentioned do not make the point that ignorance is sufficient and necessary for exploitation, rather, even with all the information (and perhaps even with perfect information), some such situations can still be said to be exploitative. This is because interesting cases of exploitation actually arise out of lack of means or institutional pressures, not a lack of information about one's means or ignorance of the institutional pressures.

[e12e]

> I challenge your premise that it's possible to consider a labor relationship exploitative if both parties voluntarily enter into it.

This seems to overlook the long fights for Sundays off, Saturdays off, a 60 hour work week, a 40 hour work week and so on. When options on one side is "be evicted from home, leave family to starve" and the other side is "postpone additional revenue until someone more desperate signs up" - you have to consider what "voluntary" means.