Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

computerworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 222 posts

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#201

Post by flanked-evergl »

consteval wrote: post #191
flanked-evergl wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the constitution has delegated to congress.

It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. That seems fairly obvious to me but I suppose some segments of the political spectrum advocate blind rule making. > delegated to congress Right, and Congress has made that law, and that law says it's delegated to the FTC. What, Congress is simultaneously expected to make every single rule ever but they don't even have the rule making power to... delegate? T…

> It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules.

No. In a democratic republic, you require the consent of the governed to make rules, not expertise.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#202

Post by flanked-evergl »

sdenton4 wrote: post #198
flanked-evergl wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for clarifying your objection. Here is a list of the most violent US cities, reckoned per capita, without first selecting for being the most high crime cities in absolute terms: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/most-viol... Here is the political affiliation of the city governments: 1. St. Louis, MO: Democrat 2. Detroit, MI: Democrat 3. Baltimore, MD: Democrat 4. Memphis, TN: Democrat 5. Littl…

Let v = high violence, d = dem mayor, r = republican mayor. You seem to want to compare P(v|d) to P(v|r). We have little to no data for comparison because there are so few examples of cities with republican mayors. Those that exist are amongst the smaller American cities. This means you need to disentangle the effect of city size on violence rates from the effect of the mayor's party. I repeat: There are 10 Republica…

You could be right, but I have my doubts that you are.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#203

Post by flanked-evergl »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #179
flanked-evergl wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morality is not defined as things that come out of William Blackstone mouth.

That's true. ( Commentaries on the Laws of England summarises a tradition older than the United States, but your point still holds.) Maybe falsely imprisoning innocents en-masse is okay, provided that (for example) the false imprisonment ratio is low enough and it could not easily be lowered further. But it being okay isn't the same as it not happening . I'm not sure why you asserted that it doesn't happen , when it'…

There is no US jurisdiction with a policy of falsely imprisoning innocents en-masse.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#204

Post by ohashi »

consteval wrote: post #190
kjksf wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, because separation of powers. Congress makes the laws. Government (bureaucrats) enforces the law. Judges decide if government enforces the law correctly. The important part is not how bureaucrats or judges get their job but that bureaucrats were de facto creating laws exceeding their authority. Because the authority to create laws belongs to congress. It's not a perfect system but it would be even worse wi…

Congress already made the law. The law says "these guys make the rules". To me, that counts. The issue is that congress are not experts. They also move really, really slow. I don't expect my congressmen to know if Red 40 is safe to consume, how much can be consumed, if it should be reported as an ingredient, etc. There's thousands of ingredients in food, I imagine. If that was written into law the law would be very l…

It's by design, they don't want any regulation. They want government to not work. They are doing their best to make both a reality, at the expense of the average person.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#205

Post by ohashi »

foobarkey wrote: post #83

In Europe if you want to force a non-compete you need to pay full salary for the duration, so if someone enforced non compete for 5 years I could sit home and play games while earning salary

That's the case in some European countries and it seems fair. If you don't want me competing, you pay for that privilege. Otherwise, the non compete is just an abuse of power.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#206

Post by ohashi »

kjksf wrote: post #164
advael wrote: post #56

I really think federal authorities should start ignoring rulings from Texan judges. The amount of corporate bankruptcy venue shopping alone should tell us the appointment process has corrupted the supposedly impartial nature of the judiciary there

Dear god. Do you understand what you're advocating for? You're advocating for literal lawlessness. For anarchy. For giving the government absolute power. Given that government abuses non-absolute power you can bet that when they get absolute power it'll take about a second to turn any country into Putin's Russia.

Pretty sure that judge's party already is trying to turn the country into Putin's Russia.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#207

Post by dangus »

quartesixte wrote: post #199
dangus wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said that each state has equal importance to the union, right? So what would you say if California had a state vote and decided to split into 5 states. There would be states for the LA, Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, and a 5th state for all the other areas. California would gain 8 new senators just by dividing its boundaries, and it would probably all be the same political party. Or the same for Wyoming. Why no…

>Or the same for Wyoming. Why not Wyoming just declare that it is now 4 states and quadruple its representation? So there's nothing stopping anyone from trying this, but admission into the Union requires the other States in the Union + POTUS to agree with you. And, I'd imagine if a coalition of states finds California splitting into 5 parts to be disadvantageous to the balance of power within the Union, they'd block…

I think the fundamental question we are debating is this: at what threshold does protecting minority voices and interests look more like minority rule denying the majority opinion than the needs of minority interests being protected? At what threshold does the desire to stop mob rule become the silencing of the common person?

And really, there's a good argument that’s where we are at today. The minority opinion controls a lot of national policy.

For example, the Supreme Court confirmed by the small state-biased senate and a president who lost the popular vote overturned Roe v Wade. Meanwhile, 57% of Americans disagree with the ruling and that number is 62% among women (Pew Research).

Congress has an extremely poor record of passing laws that people want and instead pass laws that their skewed constituency supports. The majority of Americans support free-tuition college, universal healthcare, and better gun control, but Congress has made little progress on those issues.

The founders weren’t abolishing monarchy to hand over power to the common person. The founders envisioned a republic where male property owners were allowed to vote and even then it was quite indirect. The founders owned slaves. They replaced monarchy with aristocracy, which isn’t all that helpful to the common person. That legacy lives on in the design of their system.

The US only got better after making a whole lot of changes: abolishing slavery, guaranteeing civil rights, giving women the right to vote, etc. The USA arguably wasn’t even something that could be considered a democracy until the second half of the 20th century. And it still has a long way to go.

If we truly believe that one person is equal to one person, how can we justify giving people different levels of voices based solely on where they live? Just because we don't want urban areas to have the most power? I cna't figure out why we don't we want that, or why we don't want that more than we don't want rural voices to overpower urban ones. By demographic reality those urban areas have the most people and if those people aren't being heard that is already a failure.

An entire district larger than the state of Wyoming has no voting representatives in the Senate.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#208

Post by batch12 »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #162
batch12 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They do not lose rights as one may happen when one is convicted of a crime. So you get more time in prison, losing all rights, which is what happens when you're convicted of a crime? Just because you don't want there to be legal slavery doesn't mean there isn't legal slavery.

Incorrect. You don't get more time in prison. The sentence is the sentence, and refusing to work does not increase the sentence.

You're playing with words. Early release means less time spent in prison.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#209

Post by shiroiushi »

Dalewyn wrote: post #113
shiroiushi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I think the US's Presidential system is fatally flawed, and should be abolished in favor of a parliamentary system, similar to those in the two countries that the US helped set up such systems: Germany and Japan.

>Japan Sweet baby Jesus NO . Japan is literally a 1.5 party state (LDP with Komei Party latching on as yes men), and the last time the Japanese electorate decided to give the minority JDP a shot it resulted in the worst manmade nuclear disaster in post-war history and the JDP collapsing into two different and irrelevant parties (CDP and DPFP). And today the LDP party leader election stems from a leaderless leader (Ki…

I don't see any government shutdowns in Japan. In fact, life here is generally quite peaceful and stress-free, unlike the hell that is life in the US these days.

>(Kishida) failing to both lead his country (stagnant economy and policies)

Kishida has been fine; you can't change a stagnant economy in a few years, and a PM's power is limited.

>politicians from mere Parliament members to cabinet ministers engaging in literal tax evasion).

Tax evasion by parliament members isn't great, but US congresspeople aren't any better: just look at Bob Menendez. No place has perfect politicians.

>I haven't met a single Japanese voter who understands how Parliament members are elected, either.

So what? Most Americans have no clue how their own government works either.

Japanese could certainly stand to improve their civics knowledge and become a little more politically active, but it's nothing like the shitshow that is US politics these days. It was actually nice seeing how the assassination of former PM Abe actually resulted in real positive change, with the government cracking down on Moonie cult affiliation by many politicians; that would never happen in America.

Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

#210

Post by dangus »

mgh95 wrote: post #63
dangus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office Actually, the left isn’t inconsistent in the way you are saying. They bemoaned Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence and meritocracy the administrative state. They don’t want anyone to turn the administrative state into an executive power center. For example, the…

> The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas,…

Certainly it’s not a system without flaws, but I think it beats congress in specific situations. Congress is where corporations literally write the regulations in a system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading.

Operation Choke Point was an example of a failure but it’s surrounded many successes.

You’re a business owner so you have a certain perspective. My perspective as a consumer is that consumer protection agencies in the administrative state are the only entities that actually seem to make tangible enforcement efforts to protect me from people like you (or at least, much more powerful people like you - people like Mark Zuckerberg).

The FTC is the one that sues businesses like Ticketmaster for antitrust violations. The FBI is the one that catches my politicians breaking corruption laws. Meanwhile, the judicial branch is the one that took away my right to reproductive healthcare and expanded the criminal immunity rights of the president.

Post reply on HN