zlacker

Do you apply this same reasoning to people whose housing, food, and healthcare are all put at risk if their employer decides they don't like them?

Seems like you're concerned about what's mostly a hypothetical when done by the state today- but probably hundreds of millions of people in the US alone are being coerced to do things they don't want to under threat of losing the exact things you're worried about. And in a lot of cases, what's one big thing mitigating that coercion? The very social safety nets you're worried about!

>>XMPPwo+(OP)
There are more employers than govs. Imagine if the govt could cancel your benefits because it didn’t like your tweet. A few companies, ok, it sucks, but you have a chance to move on.

>>XMPPwo+(OP)
You can change your employer much easier than you can change your government.

>>mc32+y1
A tweet may be able to cancel careers, but cannot extinguish legal entitlements.

>>Karuna+b2
Especially since Citizens United gave your employer outsized power to change the government.

>>Karuna+b2
But there are no substantial distinctions between employers in terms of how the utilize the coercive leverage that they have. So this is an illusory "safety-net".

>>mc32+y1
Consider how hard it would be to get a law like that past the judiciary system. If you or I can see how ridiculous the notion is then it must be obvious to a jury of our peers. Even with majority fiat the judiciary branch can still quell all kinds of popular but unjust laws. The travel ban is a great example of something the judiciary crushed. Same thing with the requirement in the ACA that employer-provided insurance include coverage for birth control, which is arguably far more popular.

There isn't just one Government in the US. What we have is a system of branches, each of which must agree that a law is acceptable. If just one branch disagrees then it can effect change.

Similarly we are not just one state. We're a federation and individual states can fight against federal laws that their constituents find unjust. Washington and Colorado did just that when they legalized marijuana. It's still illegal at the federal level, but the ATF has no jurisdiction within state lines so they can't do anything about manufacture and sale within state borders.

Consolidating that all under the same umbrella erases a lot of the very complexity that serves to protect you. And you can't accord that complexity to a corporation because shareholders and the board have a level of tyranny not found in our government.

>>mc32+y1
If the government could do that it would mean that legislators were elected that passed such a law. It's not a credible hypothetical, IMO. And even if it were, there would be recourse in the form of electing different legislators at the next opportunity.

>>petroc+bm
Guantanamo Bay

>>jschwa+8m
The anti-drug war.

>>nickpp+uH1
And to you does human trafficking indict the private sector in the same manner or not?

We can elect legislators who are opposed to abuses like Guantanamo Bay and campaign on fixing it.

What can we or the private sector do about abuses in the private sector?

>>petroc+2z2
Any illegalities perpetrated by the private sector should be (and are) prosecuted to the full extend of the law. In addition, market misbehaving is punished by the market through the consumer.

The private sector is not above the law. The problem is that the government is. This is why, while both can misbehave, I see governments as a much, much larger danger to the average citizen than corporations. And the history agrees with me.

>>nickpp+pU2
Just noting that in your scenario here, you are admitting that the private sector is not able to correct it's own abuses, but rather needs the elected government to do so.

>market misbehaving is punished by the market through the consumer.

Can you explain how the consumer punishes private sector entities engaged in human trafficking, for example? It seems there's plenty of evidence that deception and cutting corners is the most market competitive behavior that corporations can employ which allows them to offer the most appealing prices. Therefore market misbehavior is rewarded, not punished by consumers because the price signal is too reductionist to capture all of that.

>And the history agrees with me.

That is debate-able

>>petroc+Sl
The relative ease of ending the relationship means the effect of that leverage is greatly reduced.

>>petroc+Wq3
I wrote this in another comment but it bears repeating: Illegal behavior is punished. Markets require the rule of law. The role of governments to implement and uphold the law. Nobody is disputing that.