[tdeck]

Maybe we should leave slavery up to the states too. Surely there are at least 20 states that would want to ban it locally.

[unclad5968]

I'm against non-competes, but likening them to slavery seems distasteful. I'm not sure they infringe on people's freedoms or rather a specific people's freedoms the way slavery did/does. No one is going to secede over non-competes.

[jfengel]

It illustrates the way the "leave it up to the states" argument grates on some ears. It's a slippery slope argument, which is not automatically faulty. It is a call to know how you expect things to not slide down.

If the suggestion is "anything shy of complete chattel slavery", people get worried.

[IncreasePosts]

Why have states at all then? Why not just one giant national government?

[SpaceNugget]

Why have a federal government at all if states are perfectly well suited to all forms of human rights oversight, lawmaking, etc?

[int_19h]

Collective defense?

[Uvix]

The US has been that since 1861.

[gamblor956]

In living memory, at least 3 SCOTUS judges have stated that slavery is legal and should not have been ended.

Two of those justices currently sit on the Supreme Court.

[unclad5968]

What does that have to do with non-competes?

[gotoeleven]

Please cite.

[hedora]

I’m not the person you are replying to, but California had a ballot initiative that would finally eliminated slavery in California in 2024.

It failed.

If you think the US completely banned slavery, or that slavery is unpopular, you’re misinformed.

[gotoeleven]

Well that was about forced labor in prisons which is a bit different.

[itsanaccount]

Restricting the slave owner to the state (+ leasing to businesses) does not make it not slavery. I can't believe I have to say this.

[lazide]

To quote a well known (fictional) sociopath - ‘what’s to prove? It’s free labor!’

[outside2344]

Really? If you are an employee of Microsoft, how is it possible not to run afoul of a non-compete in tech for example?