[9question1]

This was a really remarkable way to undermine your argument. It's possible to make a strong philosophical argument that government regulation of salary transparency is unnecessary or harmful. This is not that.

The fact that there exist some types of private information for which we recognize a right to maintain privacy does not at all imply it is morally wrong for the government to recognize a public right for some other type of information (salary ranges). In the US there exist both the Freedom of Information Act and the Fourth Amendment guarding against warrantless search. It's obviously clear that the government recognizes the right to demand public transparency for some types of information and the right to protect privacy for other information. You've made no attempt whatsoever to explain why this type of information should fall in one category or the other, just gestured to the existence of one of the categories and implied that this proves that the information in question belongs there.

[oDot]

I did not make any claim for or against transparency, but did say that OPs claim for transparency is weak.

Lack of knowledge does not imply you can coerce transparency.

Not sure how your reply related to it.

[CRConrad]

> I did not make any claim for or against transparency, but did say that OPs claim for transparency is weak.

Yeah. And you were wrong.