And of course the collected data resource is one heck of a retirement nest egg in and of itself. I call it a Lifestream cos I'm a geek. lol

i guess i cant use the term authoritarianism if we gonna start arguing semantics
but they want to levy a lot of coercion against humans within the market place.

I understand supply chain economics enough to know why increasing a minimum wage is a bad idea

Terrible idea

if you increase the minimum wage to 15, at best, you wind up devaluing work.

Main driver of inflation, yep

at worst, you increase the cost of living proportionally or worse.

this is utilitarian arguments against it, but theres also the fact that you're simply preventing two parties to negotiate on their own terms.

I mean, sure.

The Utilitarian approach I listed is the one that people think of the least.

Does truth play a part, though?

How acceptable is deception and to what level?

But the result is that the market needs to be able to assign the value of work to determine if that work is worth it.

yeah i feel privileged that i can use either approach

Which leads in to your own argument.

There's also the tangential behemoth coming off of that

At what level does deception become aggression? If I hand you cyanide laced lemonade but didn't lace it myself, I am simply deceiving you.

That there's also currently a push in certain areas for undocumented workers being given a free pass

at which point they're able to compete in a way that a law abiding citizen can't.

Arguing for higher minimum wage and legal amnesty for undocumented employment simultaneously is disingenuous at best.

i think selling foods without giving info about toxins is without a doubt poisoning people is pretty clear aggression, imo. in other words it violates the nap.
but if there is info provided, you can sell toxic foods like tobacco or alcohol and people can posion themselves willingly however much they want.

See, I can agree with that perspective.

but its of course complicated to figure out if cusomers are reasonably informed, so there will be a lot of grayzones and edge cases

I mean, I ALSO consider it a bit annoying seeing these 'State of California' messages on shit.

Working in an auto parts store, I subject myself to materials known to the State of California to cause birth defects on a daily basis.

So, there's got to be some middle ground on that.

Here we have it, though

i think what the middle ground is will always be up for debate

Like all areas, my answer is more data

The company should have the _Responsibility_ to inform, while the individual should have the _right_ to ignore the warnings.

if both parties own a recording of the transaction and whatnot

yup thats a good way to put it i think, rye

legalism becomes much simpler

I don't like Lawyers and Insurance companies running everything.

If you want to look at the ruling class, look no further than that.

but they operate under a monopoly that has perceived public legitimacy, so thats why i personally don't think it's a good metric

Lawyers and insurance companies?

yeah, some insurance companies gets to use government force to make people have to buy them by law

thats quite a way to secure your profits

Well, yeah,

I mean... here where I live