Most people will have to make major concessions to negotiate a clause like this into their contract. I am fine with this.
Do I think a hypothetical works where all employers guaranteed this power to laborers is an improvement over the current one? Maybe, but I am morally imposed to creating this world thru government intervention.
> I'm not claiming that this particular "freedom" to openly criticize your employer deserves government intervention
Noted.
> Absolutely, in an ideal world everyone should. But many people do not and switching jobs can be difficult, particularly for people outside the tech bubble that HN exists in.
It takes hard work to get a better job with more money and benefits, but this is being human. This situation pleases me.
> Not everyone can do that [start a company], and the skills required to start and run a successful company are almost completely orthogonal to those most people develop in their careers.
So prioritize learning these skills over starting a family or whatever else.
> There's a fixed number of people that can be at the top of any market (in proportion to market size), this will only work for a handful of people. It's not a general solution.
I am suspicious of this because there is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world. People at the top of their field create new wealth.
> As an example, a child could be coerced into cleaning their room by their parent shutting down the wifi until the chores were done.
Children make the issue confusing. Let’s say that a man wants to use the WiFi at Starbucks, but he can’t get the password until he purchases something. This isn’t coercion. Starbucks is selling a service, the man can accept or deny the contract. If men with guns force him to buy the coffee, then it’s coercion.
(Edited)
> Are you trying to say that people who don't productively use their minds to participate in society deserve to die?
Yes.
> How exactly would a hypothetical nonpunishable disparagement clause in an employment contract affect your "natural property rights" in any way?
If the government forces me to add this clause to employment contracts, then my right to free association has been violated.
> Do you think that the "government's cure" of ending slavery has left people worse off?
Slavery is evil. I don’t know enough about American abolition to address the specific point. But it is certainly possible to do something evil while intending to resolve some other evil.