Hacker News Reader

Comment by raquo | Hacker News Reader

Why, the existence of noncompetes is exactly free market in action. "Competition" != free market.

No its not. The freedom to contract is nowhere to be found in the traditional libertarian view of rights to life liberty and property. In fact, libertarians (including those center libertarians in the republican party) consistently reject the ability for people to sign away their rights via contract.

You cannot claim in good faith that republicans support the 'freedom' to contract your rights away. Can you contract the rest of you labor away for a fixed sum (ie slavery)? Of course not. You have the grand ole party to thank for that too. The ethic is consistent

"You give up the right to spend 40 hours a week the way you want, instead spending them the way we want, while we give up the right to use some our money however we like and instead give it to you."

That's the employee giving up their right to the fruits of their labor and the employer giving up their property right to the monies used to compensate the employee.

And none of those things interfere with the more fundamental right to life liberty and property. Is the employer allowed to hold the employee there against his will if he changes his mind? Of course not. You cannot give up your right to leave a contract at any time. Which is why non competes are decidedly anti civil rights and thus anti libertarian and thus against the rights based factions of the rephblican party

Do you need help with the definition of "free market"?

> In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, or by other authority. Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in supply and demand through various methods, such as tariffs, used to restrict trade and to protect the local economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

Adding regulations to a market makes it less of a free market, even if those regulations are good for the people.

Contracts on competition -- being neither bought nor sold -- are not under the purview of the free market any more than romantic love is.

Another way to think about it. Republicans are typically for smaller government. A non conpete clause is only enforceable via government petition. A private company cannot threaten force against a person because of who they work for. All enforcement is via government. Thus banning non competes leads to less litigation and a smaller government.

Finally there is no regulation being added to the market here. The government is in fact removing regulation by declaring via statute that it will no longer interfere when people violate certain types of agreements. Thats called the government butting out of peoples business

Lets not construct bogey men.

Really, still making up your own definitions, and of basic vocabulary terms now? Pathetic.

Private contracts like non competes are not regulations. On the other hand, laws designed by the government are regulations. Which this bill will be if it becomes law. To disallow certain agreements in the labour market. To regulate it. Because it's regulation. That makes it less of a free market.

You're right. The part of the bill that says they are disallowed is a regulation. The part of the bill that says the government won't do a damned thing about the silly agreements you make with other people is not.

Please discuss in good faith.

Ridiculous. This bill does not repeal any previous legislation or regulations, it just adds new ones.

Regulation that makes privately negotiated contracts void is still regulation, and with a significant effect on the market too.

It's the opposite of free market no matter how you twist your words.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com