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

FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#511

Post by adastra22 »

xpe wrote: post #507
adastra22 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t choose that language. The “war on drugs” is the DEA’s own marketing.

I grant that the DEA deserves scrutiny for its handling of the Adderall manufacturers. [1] [1] https://reason.com/2024/02/26/dea-shuts-down-drug-factory-ev... Stepping back (hopefully to clear the air), I hope you can see this: it is hard for others to tell when you are using a phrase sarcastically to criticize some other party's usage of the same phrase. Aside: unfortunately, the use of "war" as in "war on drugs" of…

War on Drugs.

War on Poverty.

War on Cancer.

America just loves war metaphors. I think you're reading too much into it.

https://www.hoover.org/research/rise-war-metaphor-public-pol...

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#512

Post by xpe »

adastra22 wrote: post #511
xpe wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grant that the DEA deserves scrutiny for its handling of the Adderall manufacturers. [1] [1] https://reason.com/2024/02/26/dea-shuts-down-drug-factory-ev... Stepping back (hopefully to clear the air), I hope you can see this: it is hard for others to tell when you are using a phrase sarcastically to criticize some other party's usage of the same phrase. Aside: unfortunately, the use of "war" as in "war on drugs" of…

War on Drugs. War on Poverty. War on Cancer. America just loves war metaphors. I think you're reading too much into it. https://www.hoover.org/research/rise-war-metaphor-public-pol...

I’m aware. I am hoping to persuade it is better to not abuse the word as well. How we choose to frame things can help promote useful conversation or hinder it.

I’m detecting an argument that “other people muddle words, so I can too”. Yikes. Can ain’t the same thing as should.

Maybe I should be more specific: The words you wrote can be easily read as a crackpot suggestion that the FDA is seeking to actively harm people with ADHD. (I write this now after having reread the source comment.)

Cancer doesn’t know we are at war with it; neither does poverty. There is no one we can kill to solve these problems. Instead, hopefully, we are seeking understanding of science and human nature so that we can reduce these problems.

Anyhow, I can’t tell if any of my main logical arguments have gotten through, which is a symptom of a bad conversation in my eyes at least. I don’t view this as a debate —- rather as a process of understanding.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#513

Post by unclebucknasty »

VS1999 wrote: post #425
gamblor956 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right. When this country was founded, a lot of its residents were slaves, so I'm sure Thomas and Alito will find plenty of fodder in that for their "originalist" stance denying workers rights.

I'm pretty sure the constitution was not written for slaves and no "originalist" stance would consider them. This is a silly "gotcha" that you just made up so you can get mad.

>constitution was not written for slaves

That's the point.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#514

Post by runako »

cryptonector wrote: post #504
runako wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is a circular argument. On the one hand, Congress isn't allowed to delegate to the executive (agencies) because the agencies then act as delegates (by interpreting their mandates), so Congress must explicitly legislate everything. But then on the other hand, Congress is dysfunctional and is incapable of legislating. This feels like a recipe for the unelected branch (the courts) to run everything.

It's more like: - Congress is allowed to delegate to the executive (agencies) - but if an agency goes so far in beyond the original understanding of its delegation as to cause a major political controversy, then it has overstepped its mandate For example, if Congress were to delegate to the EPA the power to ban internal combustion engines at the EPA's choice, then the EPA could absolutely do that. (Perhaps Congress c…

> if an agency goes so far in beyond the original understanding of its delegation as to cause a major political controversy

Because "major political controversy" is very subjective and subject to manipulation (we had a "major political controversy" over the name of French fries in the 2002 era), the "then" part of your clause governs in most cases. That is "it has overstepped its mandate."

Congressional oversight of the executive agencies involves the two elected branches working together to govern. Delegating more power to the unelected branch is not a healthy way for a republic to operate.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#515

Post by _akhe »

benced wrote: post #503
_akhe wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most hilarious attempt at moving goalposts I've seen all week - this conversation has been about whether or not its bad for California the whole time, now you're switching to say whether or not its good for the FTC! Just funny

I said "I suspect this is bad for California" which I stand by. That statement says absolutely nothing about whether or not I think this is a good decision by the FTC. However, you treated it like I was against this action by the FTC and started arguing about why it's good to ban noncompetes and why it's good California is on the leading edge of such policies. As it happens, I am very against noncompetes and I very m…

I have to remind you that your original comment was:

  It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing.
You were not talking about the FTC, you were talking about the state. Furthermore, the parent comment to which you're replying was:

  It's not bad when people are copying you, it signals that California is ahead of the curve on the issue...
which was a reply to

  I suspect this is bad for California
We were all - and especially you - very clearly talking about whether or not it's bad for California. Only later in the conversation did you start to shift your statements to seem as if you're talking about the FTC.

Moving the goalpost fallacy:

  Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other evidence is demanded.
e.g. "It might be bad for California, but not the FTC", "you can't read", "incorrectly inferring", "assuming" etc. Nope, none of those, just sticking to the topic.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#516

Post by cryptonector »

runako wrote: post #514
cryptonector wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like: - Congress is allowed to delegate to the executive (agencies) - but if an agency goes so far in beyond the original understanding of its delegation as to cause a major political controversy, then it has overstepped its mandate For example, if Congress were to delegate to the EPA the power to ban internal combustion engines at the EPA's choice, then the EPA could absolutely do that. (Perhaps Congress c…

> if an agency goes so far in beyond the original understanding of its delegation as to cause a major political controversy Because "major political controversy" is very subjective and subject to manipulation (we had a "major political controversy" over the name of French fries in the 2002 era), the "then" part of your clause governs in most cases. That is "it has overstepped its mandate." Congressional oversight of…

If Congress is disfunctional then every vague delegation of power can be abused by the Executive because Congress will not be able to say no after the fact. That means Congress stays disfuncitonal. That's not a good recipe.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#517

Post by cryptonector »

runako wrote: post #514
cryptonector wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like: - Congress is allowed to delegate to the executive (agencies) - but if an agency goes so far in beyond the original understanding of its delegation as to cause a major political controversy, then it has overstepped its mandate For example, if Congress were to delegate to the EPA the power to ban internal combustion engines at the EPA's choice, then the EPA could absolutely do that. (Perhaps Congress c…

> if an agency goes so far in beyond the original understanding of its delegation as to cause a major political controversy Because "major political controversy" is very subjective and subject to manipulation (we had a "major political controversy" over the name of French fries in the 2002 era), the "then" part of your clause governs in most cases. That is "it has overstepped its mandate." Congressional oversight of…

The Chevron scheme essentially leads a disfunctional Congress to abdicate all its regulatory power slowly but surely and to never claw it back. Why even have a Congress? Reversing Chevron might or might not help Congress get its pants back on, but it's worth a try, and I hope the SCOTUS does it. If it doesn't work, then we'll have to confront the possibility that the Founders' design no longer works and some serious reform is needed (though what that would be I've no idea).

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#518

Post by timeflex »

cryptonector wrote: post #337
timeflex wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court doesn't have any power to enforce its decisions. District and Appeals Courts could just say no to their decisions and there isn't much they can do.

When district and appeals courts do what they like, the SCOTUS can reverse every one of their decisions. The inferior courts can then go on a spree of incorrectly deciding every relevant case and delay the final judgement by years, but then the SCOTUS could just speed up its process of reversing every such decision by the inferior courts. The SCOTUS also has options for removing judges from certain types of cases, II…

There has been times in the past where the other branches ignored the Supreme Courts rulings. They cannot call out troops. The only people that give them power are the other branches that enforce those rulings, but they could decide not to.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#519

Post by runako »

cryptonector wrote: post #517
runako wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if an agency goes so far in beyond the original understanding of its delegation as to cause a major political controversy Because "major political controversy" is very subjective and subject to manipulation (we had a "major political controversy" over the name of French fries in the 2002 era), the "then" part of your clause governs in most cases. That is "it has overstepped its mandate." Congressional oversight of…

The Chevron scheme essentially leads a disfunctional Congress to abdicate all its regulatory power slowly but surely and to never claw it back. Why even have a Congress? Reversing Chevron might or might not help Congress get its pants back on, but it's worth a try, and I hope the SCOTUS does it. If it doesn't work, then we'll have to confront the possibility that the Founders' design no longer works and some serious…

Congress does not abdicate power at all. Congress is not prevented from regulating when it feels like doing so.

Just because some people do not like the results of their delegation does not mean that Congress is similarly dissatisfied with those same results. Some parties want Congress to be dissatisfied and exercise its powers. Congress regulated a single app made by a single company this week; Congress can act when it wants to do so.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#520

Post by runako »

cryptonector wrote: post #516
runako wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if an agency goes so far in beyond the original understanding of its delegation as to cause a major political controversy Because "major political controversy" is very subjective and subject to manipulation (we had a "major political controversy" over the name of French fries in the 2002 era), the "then" part of your clause governs in most cases. That is "it has overstepped its mandate." Congressional oversight of…

If Congress is disfunctional then every vague delegation of power can be abused by the Executive because Congress will not be able to say no after the fact. That means Congress stays disfuncitonal. That's not a good recipe.

Congress is dysfunctional because there is a populist political movement that does not believe in governing. Eventually, that fever will break. (Or they will succeed and we will lose the republic, in which case discussions about the efficacy of Congress become moot.)
Post reply on HN