Putting the shoe on the other foot. Lets say I wanted to shut down the NY times because it has influence on the other major newspaper publications in the US. Are Chris and Henry advocating for this? If the answer is in any way no, then this entire line of thought is an exercise in increasing one point of view and not in in the creation of some sort of balanced voice.

There’s the word “claim” in that sentence.

Brett hasn’t said a single thing I’ve agreed with in the several months I’ve been reading CT, and I certainly agree that there are more intelligent libertarians and conservatives out there. But brett is generally civil and articulate, and his point of view is quite common and influential in the US. Europeans and others in more advanced societies than the USA may feel justifiably exasperated with him, but those who hope to shift American politics in a more humane direction will have to find a way to convince an awful lot of people who believe what brett believes. I suggest you all treat arguing with him as a form of exercise, a way to cultivate patience, tact, persuasiveness, and the other rhetorical and political virtues.

(And of course when an employer explicitly fires someone for exercising their rights there’s a brief backlash, but the nature of chilling effect is that for every rehired employee—if they dare go back to the workplace—there are 10 or 100 who think better of making waves…)

Possibly, although references are becoming increasingly useless here. For fear of liability, HR departments are less and less willing to provide anything other than, yes, the person you’re asking about worked here from date X to date Y.

Even so, I’d happily advocate for at-will employment plus a proper safety net if I thought it was a feasible political option in the US (unfortunately I don’t).

In terms of political feasibility, I’d argue that is much more likely than a heavily regulated French-style labor market (not to mention a hell of lot more desirable).

I’m not seeing that the seen/not seen argument is a specifically libertarian one, by the way.

Well, libertarians certainly include Bastiat in the pantheon, but if those on the left claim his as well, so much the better.

The ACLU on Workplace issues

And here’s an interesting one

The non-metaphorical example turns out to be not so hypothetical.”

The remedy is easement by necessity. Or special exception. Or both.

Slocum – you’re quite right that the threat of getting fired is greater or lesser depending on the job market, safety net etc, although this can be exaggerated – someone who can’t get a reference from their previous employer, and seems like a ‘troublemaker’ is likely to have a tougher time getting a new job, for obvious reasons. Even so, I’d happily advocate for at-will employment plus a proper safety net if I thought it was a feasible political option in the US (unfortunately I don’t). Your what is seen, what is not seen applies to the issue of free speech here too. It’s going to be difficult to demonstrate the stifling of free speech b/c except in rare cases, people who are intimidated from engaging in it by their employers will not be ‘seen’ – to use more formal language, certain kinds of political speech will be off the equilibrium path of play. I’m not seeing that the seen/not seen argument is a specifically libertarian one, by the way – it doesn’t seem to me to stem from libertarian ideas so much as insider/outsider theories of employment markets (which I think do have some purchase in countries like Italy, but are considerably exaggerated in others).

I’d ask people to refrain, insofar as they can, from the temptation of arguing with brett bellmore. There are much more intelligent and interesting statements of the conservative and libertarian cases to be argued with if that’s what you’re looking for.

The notion that we have more “no-knock” raids now than back in the 30’s, a couple of decades before Mapp v Ohio was decided, is risable.

This makes the disagreement clear, not that it wasn’t already. Libertarians are unconcerned about inequalities deriving from differences in wealth (and power), and are militant about any but the most minimal exercise of government power. Probably 300 years ago this was a reasonable stance, but in the world of today (transformed by three centuries of liberalization and strengthening of property rights) most find it unreasonable. That’s why libertarians are lucky to get 1% of the vote, except as protest candidates or in mentally ill places like Texas.

Well, yes, and no. Yes, that’s the typical libertarian position, but no, that’s not a good summary of the rationale. Seems like a good idea to trot out a reference to What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen’.

When you make it legally difficult for employers to dismiss employees (and create a variety of legal grounds for employees to bring suit for wrongful dismissal), you protect existing jobs—that’s what’s seen. But you make employers much more reluctant to make the commitment to hire full-time employees in the first place—that is what is unseen (though even the Europeans are starting to notice).

Whether being fired by a jerk like Geddes is a big deal or not depends very much on the job market and the safety net. If the job market is healthy, unemployment is low, and the safety net is adequate, then employees themselves are better off with flexibility and ‘at will’ employment. This is, of course, the idea behind the Danish ‘Flexicurity’ model.

Posted by yoyo

yoyo, Brett has a long, long history here. ‘Uncomprehending’ is not the correct term. The correct term is ‘evil and highly dishonest’.