Hacker News Reader

Comment by nikatwork | Hacker News Reader

Any free market advocates or Randians care to try and fit this terrible situation into their worldview?

| Any free market advocates or Randians care to try and fit this terrible situation into their worldview?

Except anarchists, I think "Randians" and most "free market advocates" are in favor of court (government) enforcement of contracts.

> He was 16

There's a concept of "age of consent" or "capacity" to contract.

> arranging a fake passport stating he was 20

Fraud.

> wages retained

Who would sign a contract like this? It's most likely a violation.

> deprived of the ID cards they need to move around freely without fear of arrest

Seems like a failure of the State, to be arresting people who are allowed to be there.

> demand their wages, a drastic step given that the authorities can simply expel them to penury

If "the authorities" refers to the State, I'd say it's another failure of government, not the free market.

> refusing to issue the exit permits they needed to return home

Yet another failure of the State, if I'm reading that correctly as a restriction of the freedom of movement: a basic human right which brutal, anti-capitalist regimes are infamous for violating (e.g. Berlin Wall). Historically, people tend to flee from less free (market) countries to more free (market) countries.

> the kafala system binds the worker to a single employer

Is "kafala" a system of laws? This sounds like Directive 10-289 which Ayn Rand rails against in Atlas Shrugged: "All workers, wage earners, and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment"

It's a good thing it's illegal, that way these people can fight it in the courts with all the access to legal assistance they have.

One of the biggest drawbacks to the libertarian 'fight-it-out-in-court' mindset is that it considers everyone to be equal, but only if they can afford a lawyer. The people that libertarianism fails the most are the people we're talking about right now.

Forget affording a lawyer, they can't even read the contracts that they sign in the first place as they don't read Arabic. Hell some don't even read or write, and have to put an 'X' where their signature should be. Even if they could read it they'd sign anyway, because shit what choice do they have when the family needs feeding? We're talking about asymmetry the like of which people in the developed world cannot begin to comprehend, and that is the reason that unrestrained free markets can never operate effectively.

You are confused between criminal and civil courts. You only need a lawyer for civil claims. For criminal claims, the state is your lawyer (of course, if you're the victim), and the whole state criminal system was intended exactly to secure personal rights, before it was hijacked to prosecute such heinous crimes as barbering without license and smoking wrong species of plant. Libertarianism never fails on that because libertarianism claims exactly that - that the purpose of the state is to protect personal rights and nothing else. In this example, the state is failing spectacularly and the only task for which it may exist - how it is a libertarians problem? Libertarianism didn't fail these people, the state in whose jurisdiction they are did.

My point (and I am being serious) is that these worker abuses seem to be the result of a complete lack of government regulations surrounding the labor force.

However you do raise a good point, in this situation the workers are not free to pick up and leave, which invalidates it as an argument against free market advocation. I concede the discussion to you good sir.

It's not a lack of regulations, it's a lack of basic contract and law enforcement. If somebody promises you wages and does not pay, it's theft, plain and simple. One doesn't need any special regulations to prosecute theft, any basic legal system has prohibitions against theft.

'you raise a good point' .. 'I concede the discussion to you good sir'. Thank you for restoring my faith in internet based discussion.

(With the exception of the gender assumption, which I'll overlook)

You assumed his profile wasn't clicked on and the URL viewed, identifying him as male. And even if it weren't, the majority of people here are males, and even more so those that talk here about politics. So it would be a perfectly logical assumption to make.

You ruined the spirit of your reply.

Don't forget the most important underlying issue: a "free market advocate" should not want to contract with contract breakers (fraud, force) for the most obvious reason. Visible differences have historically been used as a Schelling fence on this issue. "Oh you can do business with me despite the fact that I use force and fraud, I only use it against people with dark skin."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com