# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  5 states will have 'social media privacy law' or 'facebook password law'

## Tpoints

More government regulations to prohibit free choice and employers from knowing their potential applicants
http://www.upi.com/blog/2012/12/31/F...9231356986835/

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Well, good news: Starting tomorrow, employers are forbidden from demanding *private* information about social media activity from employees and job applicants in five states, where laws were passed last year prohibiting the practice.


I'm very seldom a "there oughtta be law" guy, but in this case, good.

Now prohibit government from snooping around as well.

----------


## Tpoints

> I'm very seldom a "there oughtta be law" guy, but in this case, good.
> 
> Now prohibit government from snooping around as well.


It's private, but so are employers.

----------


## bolil

Employer access to private infromation seems like a transgression of the 4th amendment to me.  Papers, and effects.

----------


## emazur

I'd vote for that law in a heartbeat.  The main reason people have been cornered into surrendering their private information is b/c the government makes it so difficult to become self-employed and so we have to grovel to get employment from the outside.  In a truly free market, employers would have to treat their employees a lot better b/c they would always have other options - cutting grass, painting houses, teaching a foreign language, teaching a musical instrument, walking dogs, house sitting, baby sitting, transferring analog audio and video to digital, all of the above and more - you name it and people would do it to escape from the rat race. Complications like getting your taxes and accounting straight for big brother, getting your government license, and regulations (you can't even stuff an advertisement in your neighbors' mailboxes to advertise your services without breaking the law) make people want to give up before they even get started.

So the government does break your leg, but if it actually is willing to also give you this crutch that would make your personal and working conditions more in line with what would happen in a free market, I say so be it.

And besides - $#@! privacy perverting companies.

----------


## Tpoints

> Employer access to private infromation seems like a transgression of the 4th amendment to me.  Papers, and effects.


No, it isn't. For 2 reasons : 1) it's not government, 4th amendment (as well as the rest of bill of rights, Constitution) protects people and restricts government, it does not protect individuals from individuals (though there are other laws and remedies for privacy invasion) and 2) the access to information is not forced, the employers are not forcing employees to apply for their jobs, nor stay if they are employed, so the employee and potential employee is always free to turn around, and walk away if he dislikes the conditions set by his workplaces. Do not confuse this with employers spying on workers without their consent, that's privacy invasion plain and simple.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> No, it isn't. For 2 reasons : 1) it's not government, 4th amendment (as well as the rest of bill of rights, Constitution) protects people and restricts government, it does not protect individuals from individuals (though there are other laws and remedies for privacy invasion) and 2) the access to information is not forced, the employers are not forcing employees to apply for their jobs, nor stay if they are employed, so the employee and potential employee is always free to turn around, and walk away if he dislikes the conditions set by his workplaces. Do not confuse this with employers spying on workers without their consent, that's privacy invasion plain and simple.


Until there is no place left to work or conduct business that does not "require" this.

----------


## Tpoints

> I'd vote for that law in a heartbeat.  The main reason people have been cornered into surrendering their private information is b/c the government makes it so difficult to become self-employed and so we have to grovel to get employment from the outside.


The government has made it difficult to be self employed? How is that? What self employment were you trying to do that you've been stopped from?

In a truly free market, employers would have to treat their employees a lot better b/c they would always have other options - *cutting grass, painting houses, teaching a foreign language, teaching a musical instrument, walking dogs, house sitting, baby sitting, transferring analog audio and video to digital, all of the above and more - you name it and people would do it to escape from the rat race.*  (oh, sorry, I didn't know these jobs are gone or illegal....I swear I know a bunch of people still doing these jobs happily)

----------


## Tpoints

> Until there is no place left to work or conduct business that does not "require" this.


so what? you think you're entitled to a job? That's like saying "until there's no food or house I can afford", therefore there oughtta be a law to force people to sell you affordable houses at the place you choose? And don't you think there's always going to be SOME people who have a little more respect for privacy? Or do you think employers are a special breed and class of people that'll never think like you?

----------


## tttppp

This is a pointless law. Raiding someones facebook account is just bad business. Free markets would elliminate that crap. If you want to monitor employees information, check out their linkedin account. At least some of that is job related.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Until there is no place left to work or conduct business that does not "require" this.


Yeah. You ALWAYS have to think 5 moves ahead. In a free market/ free society this law would be ridiculous.

But we are nowhere near free.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> so what? you think you're entitled to a job? That's like saying "until there's no food or house I can afford", therefore there oughtta be a law to force people to sell you affordable houses at the place you choose? And don't you think there's always going to be SOME people who have a little more respect for privacy? Or do you think employers are a special breed and class of people that'll never think like you?


No no no. You have to look ahead to realize what is wrong with this. I agree with you, but in this $#@!ed up society this is a good law. 

It has nothing to do with a "right" to work. It's about being forced by the government into not having any other options.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I always wondered why we have to do our own taxes or pay someone to do them, when the IRS seems to know if you did your taxes right or wrong. if they know what you owe, then why don't they just fill out the form for you?

But anyway my desire to not work doesn't come from being lazy, it comes from feeling like there's so many fees just to be a productive member of society, $#@! it. When you account for everything you pay, including taxes, licenses, registrations, and government mandated insurance (specifically auto insurance) How much of our pay does that equate to?

----------


## Tpoints

> I always wondered why we have to do our own taxes or pay someone to do them, when the IRS seems to know if you did your taxes right or wrong. if they know what you owe, then why don't they just fill out the form for you?
> 
> But anyway my desire to not work doesn't come from being lazy, it comes from feeling like there's so many fees just to be a productive member of society, $#@! it. When you account for everything you pay, including taxes, licenses, registrations, and government mandated insurance (specifically auto insurance) How much of our pay does that equate to?


are you in the right thread?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> so what? you think you're entitled to a job? That's like saying "until there's no food or house I can afford", therefore there oughtta be a law to force people to sell you affordable houses at the place you choose? And don't you think there's always going to be SOME people who have a little more respect for privacy? Or do you think employers are a special breed and class of people that'll never think like you?


No, I think I am entitled to keep my private affairs and personal effects *private*, free from the snooping eyes of *anybody*.

That includes government, an employer, an ex-wife, you...it doesn't matter.

Oh, that steps on Mega-Global-Hyper-Corp's "human resources" data mining operations?

Boo $#@!ing hoo.

----------


## tttppp

I was just thinking there is a valid reason why some companies would want to see your facebook account. It can get a since of your personality. It can tell them whether a person is more likely to spend his time working on the next project, or spend it screwing around. Additionally there are certain personality type and facebook could help companies determine what kind of personality you have. But I do think it will mostly be used for bad reasons and companies would avoid using it in the free market because it makes them look bad. As I stated before, why are companies looking at your facebook account and not your linkin account. Seems stupid to me.

----------


## RCA

I'm an ancap, but I hate when people use the private companies have the right to do "x" to you argument as if corporations are private businesses to begin with. Well guess what? Private companies also have the right NOT to hire you if they can't get access to your private information. In my opinion and in any reasonable person's head, privacy for an individual far outweighs a private business's right to snoop.

----------


## BAllen

> The government has made it difficult to be self employed? How is that? What self employment were you trying to do that you've been stopped from?
> 
> In a truly free market, employers would have to treat their employees a lot better b/c they would always have other options - *cutting grass, painting houses, teaching a foreign language, teaching a musical instrument, walking dogs, house sitting, baby sitting, transferring analog audio and video to digital, all of the above and more - you name it and people would do it to escape from the rat race.*  (oh, sorry, I didn't know these jobs are gone or illegal....I swear I know a bunch of people still doing these jobs happily)


 Do you deny there are regulations and licensing fees?

----------


## acptulsa

> The government has made it difficult to be self employed? How is that? What self employment were you trying to do that you've been stopped from?


It's now a federal crime to decorate a cake in a non-federally approved kitchen.  Never mind baking a cake, I'm talking about decorating a cake.  This in response to a salmonella outbreak that came from--guess where--a government-inspected commercial kitchen.

Are you seriously arguing that the government hasn't made it exponentially harder to be self-employed in the last century?  Seriously?  Hell, eighty years ago you could work for yourself without having a clue how to pay a 'self-employment tax'.  Get real.

----------


## thoughtomator

> The government has made it difficult to be self employed? How is that? What self employment were you trying to do that you've been stopped from?


Spoken like a man who has never even considered running his own business. If you had any idea the mountain of law and regulation and punitive taxation that a small business owner must endure to remain on the right side of the law, nothing like the above statement could ever pass your keyboard without sarcasm.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

There's an easy way around this, you know.  Just set up a fake FB page and never use it except when employers ask for it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Spoken like a man who has never even considered running his own business. If you had any idea the mountain of law and regulation and punitive taxation that a small business owner must endure to remain on the right side of the law, nothing like the above statement could ever pass your keyboard without sarcasm.


This^^  Tpoints, I suggest you build a business plan for an imaginary (self-employed) company as an exercise.  That way, you'll learn all the $#@! business owners have to go through.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> Until there is no place left to work or conduct business that does not "require" this.


Actually, more likely the state will REQUIRE certain individuals to give their employers access to private social media sites. This law easily can be turned. Why should teachers and cops be able to hide DANGEROUS or PERVERTED activities from PUBLIC employement? Think of the children! If a law can be made by the state to stop the dissemination of information, it can easily make a another law to force that information disseminated.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

When my boss gives me thier password I'll give mine. Just so I know who i'm working for.

----------


## tttppp

> I'm an ancap, but I hate when people use the private companies have the right to do "x" to you argument as if corporations are private businesses to begin with. Well guess what? Private companies also have the right NOT to hire you if they can't get access to your private information. In my opinion and in any reasonable person's head, privacy for an individual far outweighs a private business's right to snoop.


Its not always snooping. Seeing your facebook account can provide valuable information to employers. For example, if they know your likes and dislikes that could give them a better idea if you can fit into the culture. If you have opinions on everything, you might not fit into a shut your mouth corporation. There are valid reasons for using it. But I admit large corporations will abuse it and use it as a tool to prevent hiring people.

----------


## Tpoints

> Do you deny there are regulations and licensing fees?


No, I deny they are bad enough to prevent people from doing it. With two exceptions I'm aware of: taxi driving and alcohol serving. Oh, and even then, licensed users know how to make their money back, and sharing it around, it's called employing people.

----------


## Tpoints

> It's now a federal crime to decorate a cake in a non-federally approved kitchen.  Never mind baking a cake, I'm talking about decorating a cake.  This in response to a salmonella outbreak that came from--guess where--a government-inspected commercial kitchen.
> 
> Are you seriously arguing that the government hasn't made it exponentially harder to be self-employed in the last century?  Seriously?  Hell, eighty years ago you could work for yourself without having a clue how to pay a 'self-employment tax'.  Get real.


Cite me the law, and/or tell me how hard it is to be federally approved.

----------


## jkr

fuk dat!then i get to see theirs...
better everyone mind their OWN business
this is a defacto end around of the rights we keep bitching about

----------


## Tpoints

> Spoken like a man who has never even considered running his own business. If you had any idea the mountain of law and regulation and punitive taxation that a small business owner must endure to remain on the right side of the law, nothing like the above statement could ever pass your keyboard without sarcasm.


To the contrary, I have run several. To my admission, not always licensed and registered, but I managed to pay my bills. I'm not saying everybody must survive on the amount I was making, but to make the excuse that government is keeping you from working for yourself is ridiculous.

----------


## Tpoints

> fuk dat!then i get to see theirs...
> better everyone mind their OWN business
> this is a defacto end around of the rights we keep bitching about


nobody is forcing you to seek employment with them.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> To the contrary, I have run several. To my admission, *not* always *licensed and registered*, but I managed to pay my bills. I'm not saying everybody must survive on the amount I was making, but to make the excuse that government is keeping you from working for yourself is ridiculous.


you lose. I could make plenty of money running dope too. lol

----------


## Tpoints

> you lose. I could make plenty of money running dope too. lol


Didn't say you couldn't. But I can say I report my earnings to the IRS, good luck with that

----------


## thoughtomator

> To the contrary, I have run several. To my admission, not always licensed and registered, but I managed to pay my bills. I'm not saying everybody must survive on the amount I was making, but to make the excuse that government is keeping you from working for yourself is ridiculous.


Why are you so obstinate about accepting that you could not have done it at all if you actually adhered to what the law demanded of you, and that even cutting corners as you did, most people couldn't even live on the little income you managed to live on?

The government doesn't need to physically prevent you from working for yourself in order to make it so burdensome that it's not worth it. Why would anyone bother, if they could get a job working for someone else and not have to deal with the mountains of bull$#@! involved with self-employment? It's clearly nowhere near a government-neutral proposition whether you are self-employed vs. working for someone else.

They want you working for someone else, that way they have a prior claim on every dime you make before you see it.

----------


## Tpoints

> Why are you so obstinate about accepting that you could not have done it at all if you actually adhered to what the law demanded of you, and that even cutting corners as you did, most people couldn't even live on the little income you managed to live on?


Because I don't see the regulations that either didn't apply to me, were unworthy to enforce, or when enforced, were negligible in harm, to be excuses not to work for yourself. If you can't or don't want to do something, fine, but don't say "I would if there were less regulations", that's bull$#@!, I can speak from personal experience. 

For example, the guy who brought up the cake decorating, or I will throw in the taxi cab and alcohol serving part. While it's true there are licensing and registration fees to legitimize your business, it's do or don't. If you don't make enough money to warrant the licensing fees, don't do it, and you'll never matter to the regulators. If you DO make enough, go for it. The regulations aren't "Stopping you" from doing what you want, they may hurdle you a bit, but it's no different than many other risks you take inherent to the business.




> The government doesn't need to physically prevent you from working for yourself in order to make it so burdensome that it's not worth it. Why would anyone bother, if they could get a job working for someone else and not have to deal with the mountains of bull$#@! involved with self-employment? It's clearly nowhere near a government-neutral proposition whether you are self-employed vs. working for someone else.


Why would anybody bother? because the freedom and responsibility is great. I can't force anybody to do it, but I won't care to listen to their whining. 




> They want you working for someone else, that way they have a prior claim on every dime you make before you see it.


Self employment is not tax free, so it's hardly the reason they "want you to work for somebody else".

----------


## Dr.3D

> nobody is forcing you to seek employment with them.


Can that be said if all of them were doing the same thing?
There comes a time when one is being forced to work just to earn a living.  If there are no jobs available except from those employers who wish to stick their nose in your business, you are being forced to seek employment with them.

Now don't tell me I should start my own business.  I am a controls engineer and my experience lends itself to working for others.  My political and religious beliefs are none of the business of any employer I might decide to work for.

----------


## Tpoints

> Can that be said if all of them were doing the same thing?


Yes, because nobody owes you a job, nor your well being. The government isn't forcing you to be employed either. So, not only are they not forcing you to seek employment WITH THEM, nobody is forcing you to seek employment AT ALL. If it were actually illegal to work for yourself or not not work, you'd have a point. 




> There comes a time when one is being forced to work just to earn a living.  If there are no jobs available except from those employers who wish to stick their nose in your business, you are being forced to seek employment with them.


And living is a choice, isn't it? 




> Now don't tell me I should start my own business.  I am a controls engineer and my experience lends itself to working for others.  My political and religious beliefs are none of the business of any employer I might decide to work for.


They don't owe you your employment either, the man with the money makes the rules, it's called capitalism. If you had something of value, without competitors, they'll have to be "forced to" employ you even if they hate your guts. When I hear people make arguments like yours, I'm starting to think of the anti-discrimination laws imposed by liberals and communists that force people to employ blacks and homosexuals, nothing that is guaranteed in the Constitution. And I can't help but think, why not make the same argument that you can't afford to find or build "private roads" and therefore, we must force everybody to public rules of public roads (speed limits, stop signs, driving age...etc)?

----------


## Dr.3D

> And living is a choice, isn't it?


Is it?  Are you suggesting I might hold my breath and die since living is a choice?

Fortunately, I am retired now and none of this will be a problem for me.  If I were still looking for a job, it still wouldn't be a problem, as I never had nor will have a 'social media' account.

----------


## malkusm

> No, I think I am entitled to keep my private affairs and personal effects *private*, free from the snooping eyes of *anybody*.
> 
> That includes government, an employer, an ex-wife, you...it doesn't matter.
> 
> Oh, that steps on Mega-Global-Hyper-Corp's "human resources" data mining operations?
> 
> Boo $#@!ing hoo.


Isn't that why you're not on Facebook, though?

I mean, personal responsibility has to play a role here. An employer can already conduct a background check, drug screening, etc. prior to hiring an individual. Not all employers do this, but if you want to work for one that does, you have to submit for their terms. You always have the option of refusing the service of your labor to any such employer.

I can't believe some here are advocating for blatant government intervention in employment contracts...

----------


## Tpoints

> Isn't that why you're not on Facebook, though?
> 
> I mean, personal responsibility has to play a role here. An employer can already conduct a background check, drug screening, etc. prior to hiring an individual. Not all employers do this, but if you want to work for one that does, you have to submit for their terms. You always have the option of refusing the service of your labor to any such employer.
> 
> I can't believe some here are advocating for blatant government intervention in employment contracts...


and their argument seems to be "We need government to stop this because one day government will use it" "we need government to interfere because one day I'll be left with no choice" "we need government to protect me from my choices because government made it impossible for me to work for myself"...sounds a lot like people who advocate for GMO mandatory labeling or Civil Rights equal protection crap.

----------


## malkusm

Now, that said, I'm all for a bill that says "No private information, including information available on social media accounts, shall be required as a precondition for employment in any *governmental agency, or contractor thereof.*

But private enterprise....nope.

----------


## Tpoints

> Now, that said, I'm all for a bill that says "No private information, including information available on social media accounts, shall be required as a precondition for employment in any *governmental agency, or contractor thereof.*
> 
> But private enterprise....nope.


Agreed, THAT would be what the Constitution requires.

----------


## BAllen

> you lose. I could make plenty of money running dope too. lol


 Lol!
T points is full of $#@!!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Lol!
> T points is full of $#@!!


Beats making the decision to not make a living.

----------


## acptulsa

> I mean, personal responsibility has to play a role here. An employer can already conduct a background check, drug screening, etc. prior to hiring an individual. Not all employers do this, but if you want to work for one that does, you have to submit for their terms. You always have the option of refusing the service of your labor to any such employer.
> 
> I can't believe some here are advocating for blatant government intervention in employment contracts...


But, of course, personal responsibility is often short-circuited and government intervention is rampant.  A locomotive engineer operates a vehicle which runs on private property (unless it gets switched onto Amtrak rails, which the operator has no control over).  Yet the railroad has little control over the very stuff you mention.  The federal government establishes several hurdles an engineer must jump before the railroad is allowed to hire him or her.  Where's the sense in that?

And there are a whole lot of fields and professions into which the government sticks its sticky little fingers.

----------


## pcosmar

> The government has made it difficult to be self employed? How is that? What self employment were you trying to do that you've been stopped from?


Hemp Grower?

On a serious note,, anyone wanting to conduct business nearly anywhere in this country must jump through a bunch of bureaucratic HOOPS.
And then there are the legal hurdles,, the added bookkeeping to comply etc etc etc.

----------


## Tpoints

> Hemp Grower?
> 
> On a serious note,, anyone wanting to conduct business nearly anywhere in this country must jump through a bunch of bureaucratic HOOPS.
> And then there are the legal hurdles,, the added bookkeeping to comply etc etc etc.


yep, there are definitely loops and hoops, nothing enough to stop a person who is able and willing though.

----------


## akforme

> Yeah. You ALWAYS have to think 5 moves ahead. In a free market/ free society this law would be ridiculous.
> 
> But we are nowhere near free.


So becoming less free is the fix?

----------


## Dr.3D

> So becoming less free is the fix?


Hey, congress seems to think spending more money is the fix for being broke.

----------


## Tpoints

> So becoming less free is the fix?


less free for employers, more free for employees.

----------


## Tpoints

> Hey, congress seems to think spending more money is the fix for being broke.


Yeah, Congress did it, so we'll follow their step :/

----------


## cbrons

> More government regulations to prohibit free choice and employers from knowing their potential applicants
> http://www.upi.com/blog/2012/12/31/F...9231356986835/


What's interesting to me is that while these scum in the government keep trying to push for new laws to restrict info-gathering from private entities they work very hard indeed to make sure their invasion of privacy continued unimpeded.

----------


## Tpoints

> What's interesting to me is that while these scum in the government keep trying to push for new laws to restrict info-gathering from private entities they work very hard indeed to make sure their invasion of privacy continued unimpeded.


Government hates competition! and we have cheerleaders here that'll help them stop that

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yeah, Congress did it, so we'll follow their step :/


LOL, they are supposed to be representative of the people.

----------


## tttppp

> Isn't that why you're not on Facebook, though?
> 
> I mean, personal responsibility has to play a role here. An employer can already conduct a background check, drug screening, etc. prior to hiring an individual. Not all employers do this, but if you want to work for one that does, you have to submit for their terms. You always have the option of refusing the service of your labor to any such employer.
> 
> I can't believe some here are advocating for blatant government intervention in employment contracts...


The only thing the government should do with employment contracts is enforce them.

----------


## malkusm

> The only thing the government should do with employment contracts is enforce them.


Precisely.

----------


## DamianTV

> It's private, but so are employers.


Are you trying to say they have a "Right" to know what you do outside of work?

----------


## malkusm

> Are you trying to say they have a "Right" to know what you do outside of work?


If you sign a contract with them saying that you will volunteer that information as a precondition to being employed there....then yes.

----------


## tttppp

> Are you trying to say they have a "Right" to know what you do outside of work?


Only if the candidates agree to it. Plus as I stated earlier there are plenty of ways viewing facebook accounts can be valuable. Its unfortunate that a few scumbag companies have to ruin it for everyone.

----------


## akforme

> Are you trying to say they have a "Right" to know what you do outside of work?


Sure because you don't have any right to work for them, it's an agreement between two people, and that agreement can mean many things.  And think about this for a second, lots of jobs are like this, I've had some.  If you have a public job where your perception is apart of your job, it matters.

----------


## akforme

> less free for employers, more free for employees.


How is that?  You don't have any right to the job, facebook, or anything such. You can do whatever you want, you don't have the freedom to how others will react to it.

Plus why are we focusing on collectives, what about the individual, take rights from any individual, you take them from all individuals.

----------


## MRK

> To the contrary, I have run several. *To my admission, not always licensed and registered,* but I managed to pay my bills. I'm not saying everybody must survive on the amount I was making, but to make the excuse that government is keeping you from working for yourself is ridiculous.


Reported to your municipal, county, state, and federal divisions of regulation, taxation, and licensing for immediate seizure of all assets, property, life, liberty, rights, freedoms, reproductive custody and voting privileges.

You're going beyond gitmo this time boy.

----------


## Anti Federalist

So, nobody arguing in favor of an employer being able to do anything they want to you in this thread, is opposed to unions then, right?

----------


## Tpoints

> Reported to your municipal, county, state, and federal divisions of regulation, taxation, and licensing for immediate seizure of all assets, property, life, liberty, rights, freedoms, reproductive custody and voting privileges.
> 
> You're going beyond gitmo this time boy.


Nope, not going to prison, Gitmo or otherwise, I report all my incomes to IRS and my state tax board. I pay taxes on all my income and have an accountant review it. License and registration didn't stop me from doing the things I do, and the regulators know it. They've never bothered to harass me or shut me down, because they know a visit to me costs more than they'll ever get out of me at the time. Ask them, they know me

----------


## Tpoints

> So, nobody arguing in favor of an employer being able to do anything they want to you in this thread, is opposed to unions then, right?


I'm not opposed to unions.

----------


## Tpoints

> How is that?  You don't have any right to the job, facebook, or anything such. You can do whatever you want, you don't have the freedom to how others will react to it.
> 
> Plus why are we focusing on collectives, what about the individual, take rights from any individual, you take them from all individuals.


The context of the response was, somebody asking "Since you are complaining that we are nowhere near free, or as free as you wish to be, is 'less free' the fix?" and I added "Less free for the employer, since the employer is now not allowed to ask for certain information, while employees, applicants, are free from being asked such information". I never said anybody has rights to a job, all my posts in this thread have reflected that. I definitely agree you can't force a person to react (or not react) to whatever you do.

----------


## tttppp

> So, nobody arguing in favor of an employer being able to do anything they want to you in this thread, is opposed to unions then, right?


I'm opposed to unions if they are forced upon the employer.

----------


## KingNothing

Expose me to the dangers of too much Liberty, please and thank you.  "Protection" from (voluntary) corporate spying-eyes might be beneficial to me but government has no right to interfere in private contracts.  

It is totally inconsistent with our principles to support this sort of legislation, regardless of whether or not it may benefit us.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm very seldom a "there oughtta be law" guy, but in this case, good.
> 
> Now prohibit government from snooping around as well.


I'll go one better.  Employers shouldn't have access to arrest records.  Note, I'm not talking about criminal records.  It's one thing if you've been convicted.  But if you haven't even had a trial yet, an employer shouldn't be able to find out that you have one pending.  Innocent until proven guilty right?  Sadly that's not the case anymore.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Its not always snooping. Seeing your facebook account can provide valuable information to employers. For example, if they know your likes and dislikes that could give them a better idea if you can fit into the culture. If you have opinions on everything, you might not fit into a shut your mouth corporation. There are valid reasons for using it. But I admit large corporations will abuse it and use it as a tool to prevent hiring people.


We are talking PASSWORD here!  Like able to read your archived chat sessions, like reading your e-mail.  Like seeing those "riskie" photo's that are limited to "friends only".

-t

----------


## Tpoints

> We are talking PASSWORD here!  Like able to read your archived chat sessions, like reading your e-mail.  Like seeing those "riskie" photo's that are limited to "friends only".
> 
> -t


yes, password, or full access. Take the job or leave it, for me, no job is that good.

----------


## malkusm

> So, nobody arguing in favor of an employer being able to do anything they want to you in this thread, is opposed to unions then, right?


I am not opposed to unions and the ability to collectively bargain; in fact, I believe that freedom of association is an inherent right that we have as people. I am not even opposed to workplaces which require membership in a union as a precondition of employment. I do draw the line at two other elements of typical modern unions which are commonplace and which I find reprehensible:

1. Any profession or market of labor which is commanded by a union which has a monopoly on that market (a monopoly which is pretty much always made possible by governmental barriers to entry);

2. Unions which require dues to be paid, which basically constitutes extortion and ensures a continuous cycle of favor-granting from union to government and back again.

I would say that #1 is more odious than #2, but since #2 leads directly to #1, I think both must be rejected.

Note, though, that the problem is not the precondition to employment that you voluntarily ascribe to when working for a union workplace, at face value.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm opposed to unions if they are forced upon the employer.


How do you mean, "forced"?

Forced by government?

Or "forced" by a voluntary association of employees?

----------


## Tpoints

> How do you mean, "forced"?
> 
> Forced by government?
> 
> Or "forced" by a volutary association of employees?


I think he's opposed to all "forced" associations, but he'd have more understanding and accepting of the latter.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I am not opposed to unions and the ability to collectively bargain; in fact, I believe that freedom of association is an inherent right that we have as people. I am not even opposed to workplaces which require membership in a union as a precondition of employment. I do draw the line at two other elements of typical modern unions which are commonplace and which I find reprehensible:
> 
> 1. Any profession or market of labor which is commanded by a union which has a monopoly on that market (a monopoly which is pretty much always made possible by governmental barriers to entry);
> 
> 2. Unions which require dues to be paid, which basically constitutes extortion and ensures a continuous cycle of favor-granting from union to government and back again.
> 
> I would say that #1 is more odious than #2, but since #2 leads directly to #1, I think both must be rejected.
> 
> Note, though, that the problem is not the precondition to employment that you voluntarily ascribe to when working for a union workplace, at face value.


My point is that if there are legal restrictions in place against violating an employee's rights, then the need for unionism and all the trouble it causes is obviated.

----------


## tttppp

> How do you mean, "forced"?
> 
> Forced by government?
> 
> Or "forced" by a voluntary association of employees?


If a union is threatening to strike unless they get what they want, I am assuming the union is being forced on the company.

----------


## tttppp

> We are talking PASSWORD here!  Like able to read your archived chat sessions, like reading your e-mail.  Like seeing those "riskie" photo's that are limited to "friends only".
> 
> -t


If thats too much for you than dont give them your password. Personally I would just ASK to be friended to see if they have the right personality. I do think asking for passwords is excessive which is why I said a few crappy companies are ruining it for everyone. That said, that info can be used for good if its used to assess your personality. If its just another tool to prevent employment, thats not a good thing.

----------


## Tpoints

> If a union is threatening to strike unless they get what they want, I am assuming the union is being forced on the company.


what good is a union (or any employee) if they cant threaten to strike or quit?

----------


## tttppp

> what good is a union (or any employee) if they cant threaten to strike or quit?


An employer could give employees some collective bargaining rights to make them happy, but just put some limits on it. The owners run the company, not the unions. As long as that relationship is intact, they could have a healthy relationship.

----------


## Tpoints

> An employer could give employees some collective bargaining rights to make them happy, but just put some limits on it. The owners run the company, not the unions. As long as that relationship is intact, they could have a healthy relationship.


Owners own the company, but customers and workers are vital to the company's existence. So I still don't see the answer to my question, what good is an employee or union if they are unable to threaten to quit? Isn't that the most basic freedom of choice (unless otherwise agreed, in which case it's a violation of a contract)

----------


## jmdrake

You know what?  Nothing in the constitution says states can bar employers from being jackasses by asking for passwords.  That said, the stuff lots of people put on facebook without password protection can get them in trouble.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If a union is threatening to strike unless they get what they want, I am assuming the union is being forced on the company.


Oh, so owners can collectively come together and claim the right to be able to have access to every single aspect of my life, even outside of active employment hours, forever, but I can't collectively come together with fellow employee's and demand a contract that prohibits such action.

'Fraid not.

It cuts both ways: I don't have a right to a job, and an employer has no right to my life.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> An employer could give employees some collective bargaining rights to make them happy, but just put some limits on it. The owners run the company, not the unions. As long as that relationship is intact, they could have a healthy relationship.


Why just avoid all this mess and acknowledge the fact that an employer has no right to this private information.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If thats too much for you than dont give them your password. Personally I would just ASK to be friended to see if they have the right personality. I do think asking for passwords is excessive which is why I said a few crappy companies are ruining it for everyone. That said, that info can be used for good if its used to assess your personality. If its just another tool to prevent employment, thats not a good thing.


It's much more than just FarceBook here.

With ObamaCare coming online, what if an employer, what if all employers start mandating prescription drugs or invasive emdical procedures as a condition of employment?

A "gun free" home with in house surveillance to monitor for compliance?

----------


## malkusm

> It's much more than just FarceBook here.
> 
> With ObamaCare coming online, what if an employer, what if all employers start mandating prescription drugs or invasive emdical procedures as a condition of employment?
> 
> A "gun free" home with in house surveillance to monitor for compliance?


Assuming that the rights of employees are greater than those of employers is a fallacy which the left has pushed for decades to promote class warfare. Obamacare happened in part *because* the rights of doctors, as business owners and thus as men, were deemed means to the industry's end and to the "greater good" - the "rights" of individuals to health care trumped the legitimate rights of the doctors.

Furthermore, what part of your statement would not apply in a completely voluntary society where businesses did this? Why should we promote the validity of government's power in order to prevent this? It would seem that it's a societal problem, and not a governmental problem.

----------


## tttppp

> Why just avoid all this mess and acknowledge the fact that an employer has no right to this private information.


They certainly do have that right if you agree to it. The government shouldn't be telling us what contracts we can or can't enter into.

----------


## tttppp

> It's much more than just FarceBook here.
> 
> With ObamaCare coming online, what if an employer, what if all employers start mandating prescription drugs or invasive emdical procedures as a condition of employment?
> 
> A "gun free" home with in house surveillance to monitor for compliance?


I think you are ignoring that won't happen with free markets. The solution is free markets, not more regulations adding to the problem.

----------


## tttppp

> Oh, so owners can collectively come together and claim the right to be able to have access to every single aspect of my life, even outside of active employment hours, forever, but I can't collectively come together with fellow employee's and demand a contract that prohibits such action.
> 
> 'Fraid not.
> 
> It cuts both ways: I don't have a right to a job, and an employer has no right to my life.


Employers can't do that with free markets. Plus I've pointed out in other threads that unions are not good for all employees, and actually prevent employees from moving up in a corporation, keeping employees at a lower level.

----------


## tttppp

> Owners own the company, but customers and workers are vital to the company's existence. So I still don't see the answer to my question, what good is an employee or union if they are unable to threaten to quit? Isn't that the most basic freedom of choice (unless otherwise agreed, in which case it's a violation of a contract)


One employee threatening to quit is fine. Conning all your employees to strike to get your way is not fine, unless its agreed upon. If your contract says no unions or no striking, than tough $#@!, you can't strike...when you walk out you effectively quit.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> what good is a union (or any employee) if they cant threaten to strike or quit?


The public sector unions in my State don't need to threaten strike, they vote, promote, lobby and spend into place the very people they bargain with. It's like giving yourself a raise.

----------


## Tpoints

> One employee threatening to quit is fine. Conning all your employees to strike to get your way is not fine, unless its agreed upon. If your contract says no unions or no striking, than tough $#@!, you can't strike...when you walk out you effectively quit.


Agreed, so basically what you're saying is- if agreed in advance, everything goes, if not, nothing does...right?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I think you are ignoring that won't happen with free markets. The solution is free markets, not more regulations adding to the problem.


It most certainly can happen, if one considers 19th century US markets to be free.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> They certainly do have that right if you agree to it. The government shouldn't be telling us what contracts we can or can't enter into.


So, there are no "natural" rights then.

We all have to work and engage in commerce, so, surveillance and lack of privacy and forced medical treatments, here we come.

Good luck selling polite slavery.

----------


## Tpoints

> It most certainly can happen, if one considers 19th century US markets to be free.


educate us, when did the market stop being free?

----------


## Tpoints

> So, there are no "natural" rights then.
> 
> We all have to work and engage in commerce, so, surveillance and lack of privacy and forced medical treatments, here we come.
> 
> Good luck selling polite slavery.


I would say there are not.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> educate us, when did the market stop being free?


In the US, never.

There have been tariffs and duties since day one.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I would say there are not.


At least you're honest.

That settles it then, polite penal slavery and indentured servitude on one hand, government totalitarianism on the other.

Those are the only two logical conclusions that assumption will lead to.

----------


## Tpoints

> In the US, never.
> 
> There have been tariffs and duties since day one.


Ok. So this was the wrong country to live in since you were born? Where or when was it the right one? Or....maybe I misunderstood you, is free market a good thing or bad? Was it wrong or right for US to have tariffs and duties since day one?

----------


## Tpoints

> At least you're honest.
> 
> That settles it then, polite penal slavery and indentured servitude on one hand, government totalitarianism on the other.
> 
> Those are the only two logical conclusions that assumption will lead to.


and saying there are natural rights will prevent that?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> and saying there are natural rights will prevent that?


No, no more than laws against murder will stop murder.

That does not negate the fact that there is a significant proportion of murders that go uncommitted due to the fact that the murderer would face punishment.

So, affirmation of natural rights of individuals will help prevent the trampling of said rights by government or commerce.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ok. So this was the wrong country to live in since you were born? Where or when was it the right one? Or....maybe I misunderstood you, is free market a good thing or bad? Was it wrong or right for US to have tariffs and duties since day one?


What does where I was born have to do with it?

You asked when the free market ended in the US.

I have been told numerous times, as an advocate of tariffs, that the imposition of same results in an "unfree" market.

Thus, since tariffs have been around since day one, there has never been a "free market" in the US.

----------


## Tpoints

> What does where I was born have to do with it?
> 
> You asked when the free market ended in the US.
> 
> I have been told numerous times, as an advocate of tariffs, that the imposition of same results in an "unfree" market.
> 
> Thus, since tariffs have been around since day one, there has never been a "free market" in the US.


You're an advocate of unfree markets?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You're an advocate of unfree markets?


So I've been told.

I'm an advocate of "natural" or individual rights above all else.

If it infringes on the rights of an individual regardless of who's doing it, I'm against it.

----------


## tttppp

> Agreed, so basically what you're saying is- if agreed in advance, everything goes, if not, nothing does...right?


Exactly. Whatever you agree to sticks unless you get the other party's permission, or else you get sued.

----------


## Tpoints

> So I've been told.
> 
> I'm an advocate of "natural" or individual rights above all else.
> 
> If it infringes on the rights of an individual regardless of who's doing it, I'm against it.


so you got me confused. How do you advocate for natural and individual rights, but at the same time advocate for tariffs, and unfree markets??

----------


## tttppp

> So, there are no "natural" rights then.
> 
> We all have to work and engage in commerce, so, surveillance and lack of privacy and forced medical treatments, here we come.
> 
> Good luck selling polite slavery.


So I dont have the right to engage in commerce? If I ask for permission to view a candidates facebook page to increase the chance of hiring him, thats out of bounds?

----------


## Tpoints

> So I dont have the right to engage in commerce? If I ask for permission to view a candidates facebook page to increase the chance of hiring him, thats out of bounds?


LOL, can't wait to see what he says.

----------


## bolil

> So I dont have the right to engage in commerce? If I ask for permission to view a candidates facebook page to increase the chance of hiring him, thats out of bounds?


Anyone with a facebook account can view a "candidates" page.  What you mean is "If I ask for permission to _access_..."  Then sure you do, but I hope any decent candidates find another place to work.  What about requiring access to a candidates home?  That is within the logical progression.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So I dont have the right to engage in commerce? If I ask for permission to view a candidates facebook page to increase the chance of hiring him, thats out of bounds?


Sure you do.

So do I.

Commerce and employment does not require you snooping around in my private affairs.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sure you do.
> 
> So do I.
> 
> Commerce and employment does not require you snooping around in my private affairs.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again._

Next we'll here the "If employers aren't allowed to demand sexual favors from employees they don't have a right to commerce."

----------


## Anti Federalist

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again._
> 
> Next we'll here the "If employers aren't allowed to demand sexual favors from employees they don't have a right to commerce."


No kidding...or your first born son, or the "right" to _prima noctis_ or what have you.

This is just silly at this point, commerce is not going to collapse and the market is not going to turn into a Marxist nightmare because some HR snoop cannot root around in my online accounts whenever they feel like it.

----------


## Tpoints

> Anyone with a facebook account can view a "candidates" page.  What you mean is "If I ask for permission to _access_..."  Then sure you do, but I hope any decent candidates find another place to work.  What about requiring access to a candidates home?  That is within the logical progression.


yes, definitely logically possible. But at least you know, take it or leave it.

----------


## Tpoints

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again._
> 
> Next we'll here the "If employers aren't allowed to demand sexual favors from employees they don't have a right to commerce."


yes, exactly. Why shouldn't employers be allowed to demand sexual favors ? What can they "threaten" them with? If your employer has something that belongs to you, that's not their bargaining chip, but if what they have is "their property", why can't they use it "against you"?

----------


## tttppp

> Sure you do.
> 
> So do I.
> 
> Commerce and employment does not require you snooping around in my private affairs.


Then all you would have to say is NO. But in this situation its your loss. Plus, what if I wanted to use it to your advantage and help place you with the right team? Do we need regulation to stop that?

----------


## tttppp

> Anyone with a facebook account can view a "candidates" page.  What you mean is "If I ask for permission to _access_..."  Then sure you do, but I hope any decent candidates find another place to work.  What about requiring access to a candidates home?  That is within the logical progression.


Thats not really out of bounds unless you are demanding passwords. Employers ask all the time about your hobbies, why is finding your interests on facebook a bad thing?

----------


## bolil

> Thats not really out of bounds unless you are demanding passwords. Employers ask all the time about your hobbies, why is finding your interests on facebook a bad thing?


Isn't this about the demanding of passwords?  Check out our other discussion, you may be pleased.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thats not really out of bounds unless you are demanding passwords. Employers ask all the time about your hobbies, why is finding your interests on facebook a bad thing?


Nothing wrong with that, if it's publicly displayed, and meant for people to look at, then of course there is no issue.

My issue is with the demanding of passwords or access to private account numbers, or even more outrageous invasions into a person's private life.

Don't tell me it can't happen and don't tell me it can't happen to the point where every outfit is doing "it", because that is just what's happening in my business and getting worse every day.

----------


## Kregisen

A lot of people on these forums are not libertarians at all, except for on issues they benefit from....just like liberal republicans, who want small government only when it is a convenience to them.

An employer should be able to request access to your profile. This is no different than any other cost, such as a reduction in salary or benefits. When you look at a job, you compare costs and benefits ($50k salary, signing bonus, good experience, good location, vs. costs of long commute, lots of hours worked, have to share my facebook profile, etc)

Anybody here saying the government should be allowed to ban employers from asking for this information is no different than someone trying to get the government to implement minimum wage laws....and if anyone has taken economics they know how much minimum wage laws hurt, especially the poor. Go read Walter Williams. Ridiculous argument.

----------


## Antischism

So we should just allow employers to keep demanding more and more ridiculous, privacy-invading measures? Should we allow it to keep happening to the point where all businesses are doing it, and in order to gain employment, you HAVE to give up your privacy? No sane person is going to say "no" and resort to homelessness or starvation; everyone needs to $#@!ing eat. No one is going to start robbing banks because they would rather not face prison.

Those looking for employment will bite the bullet and give up their privacy for the almighty dollar. Once people start giving up their privacy to employers, others will follow and a growing number of people looking for work will just accept it and give in. A lot of people here like to pretend we're living in a pure free market right now. The problem isn't going to self-correct.

This reminds me of the argument where you say something you dislike about the way our country is being run , and some asshat will say, "WELL, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN MOVE." So when all employers start demanding we give up our privacy, what are you going to say? "HEY MAN, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN DON'T WORK. GO DUMPSTER DIVE SOMEWHERE, MARXIST!"

----------


## jmdrake

When minimum wage laws were passed there wasn't a rash of employers demanding access to private data so your argument has no merit.  In the future employers may demand brain scans of people.  I'm sure you'll be okay with that too.  In some states in feudal Asia, some employers would tell their servants "If you consent to letting me test my sword by killing you I'll will take care of your family for the rest of their lives."  I guess that's okay too.  You know what?  This isn't "libertarian central".  Everyone isn't required to be a libertarian or think exactly like you.  It's times like these that I proudly say I'm *not* a libertarian.




> A lot of people on these forums are not libertarians at all, except for on issues they benefit from....just like liberal republicans, who want small government only when it is a convenience to them.
> 
> An employer should be able to request access to your profile. This is no different than any other cost, such as a reduction in salary or benefits. When you look at a job, you compare costs and benefits ($50k salary, signing bonus, good experience, good location, vs. costs of long commute, lots of hours worked, have to share my facebook profile, etc)
> 
> Anybody here saying the government should be allowed to ban employers from asking for this information is no different than someone trying to get the government to implement minimum wage laws....and if anyone has taken economics they know how much minimum wage laws hurt, especially the poor. Go read Walter Williams. Ridiculous argument.

----------


## tttppp

> Nothing wrong with that, if it's publicly displayed, and meant for people to look at, then of course there is no issue.
> 
> My issue is with the demanding of passwords or access to private account numbers, or even more outrageous invasions into a person's private life.
> 
> Don't tell me it can't happen and don't tell me it can't happen to the point where every outfit is doing "it", because that is just what's happening in my business and getting worse every day.


I get what you are saying. My point is that if its voluntary, whats the harm. You are really giving a democratsa answer to the problem and being shortsighted. Yes some companies are invading our privacy and not for a good reason. But the solution is free markets, not more regulation. And as I pointed out, I would like the option to look at candidates accounts with their permission to gage their fit in the company. The more we know about them, the less the risk, and that makes it more likely to hire them.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again._
> 
> *Next we'll here the "If employers aren't allowed to demand sexual favors from employees they don't have a right to commerce."*


Oh, they already do.




> yes, exactly. Why shouldn't employers be allowed to demand sexual favors ? What can they "threaten" them with? If your employer has something that belongs to you, that's not their bargaining chip, but if what they have is "their property", why can't they use it "against you"?


SMFH.

----------


## Acala

> So we should just allow employers to keep demanding more and more ridiculous, privacy-invading measures? Should we allow it to keep happening to the point where all businesses are doing it, and in order to gain employment, you HAVE to give up your privacy? No sane person is going to say "no" and resort to homelessness or starvation; everyone needs to $#@!ing eat. No one is going to start robbing banks because they would rather not face prison.
> 
> Those looking for employment will bite the bullet and give up their privacy for the almighty dollar. Once people start giving up their privacy to employers, others will follow and a growing number of people looking for work will just accept it and give in. A lot of people here like to pretend we're living in a pure free market right now. The problem isn't going to self-correct.
> 
> This reminds me of the argument where you say something you dislike about the way our country is being run , and some asshat will say, "WELL, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN MOVE." So when all employers start demanding we give up our privacy, what are you going to say? "HEY MAN, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN DON'T WORK. GO DUMPSTER DIVE SOMEWHERE, MARXIST!"


This is the same specious argument that is made to justify EVERY SINGLE BIT of socialist legislation in this country.  It is based on the false assumption that people are too stupid or predatory to be allowed to manage their own affairs and need the magicaly unstupid unpredatory hand of government to manage their lives for them.

It does not stand up to reason and it has been a failure in practice.

----------


## Kregisen

> When minimum wage laws were passed there wasn't a rash of employers demanding access to private data so your argument has no merit.  In the future employers may demand brain scans of people.  I'm sure you'll be okay with that too.  In some states in feudal Asia, some employers would tell their servants "If you consent to letting me test my sword by killing you I'll will take care of your family for the rest of their lives."  I guess that's okay too.  You know what?  This isn't "libertarian central".  Everyone isn't required to be a libertarian or think exactly like you.  It's times like these that I proudly say I'm *not* a libertarian.


Employers can demand whatever the hell they want. They do *NOT* have to hire you or give you whatever employment offer you want. They do *not* have to offer you whatever salary you want. They do *not* have to give you whatever location you want, or whatever position you want. They can offer you whatever they hell they want, and if you agree to it, you sign the contract and you get hired. 

The argument saying employers should not be able to offer low privacy benefits is *no* different than offering low economic benefits (such as salary). This is the exact same argument. 




> Everyone isn't required to be a libertarian or think exactly like you.


I never said anyone had to be....stop putting words into my mouth. I said people who believe what you just said are not libertarians. If you already admit you aren't, then there's no foul. But just like 95% of Republicans shouldn't be calling themselves small-government conservatives, people who are trying to make it illegal for an employer to hire an employee who is willing to show the employer their facebook profile, are nothing but big-government liberals on this issue. Case closed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

It would appear so.

So I think there is nothing really to bother with anymore.

You have the "left" stripping rights through "democracy" and the "right" stripping rights through "corporatocracy".

So, I guess the only choice a free person has left is which orifice to take your raping in...





> *So we should just allow employers to keep demanding more and more ridiculous, privacy-invading measures?* Should we allow it to keep happening to the point where all businesses are doing it, and in order to gain employment, you HAVE to give up your privacy? No sane person is going to say "no" and resort to homelessness or starvation; everyone needs to $#@!ing eat. No one is going to start robbing banks because they would rather not face prison.
> 
> Those looking for employment will bite the bullet and give up their privacy for the almighty dollar. Once people start giving up their privacy to employers, others will follow and a growing number of people looking for work will just accept it and give in. A lot of people here like to pretend we're living in a pure free market right now. The problem isn't going to self-correct.
> 
> This reminds me of the argument where you say something you dislike about the way our country is being run , and some asshat will say, "WELL, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN MOVE." So when all employers start demanding we give up our privacy, what are you going to say? "HEY MAN, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN DON'T WORK. GO DUMPSTER DIVE SOMEWHERE, MARXIST!"

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Employers can demand whatever the hell they want. They do *NOT* have to hire you or give you whatever employment offer you want. They do *not* have to offer you whatever salary you want. They do *not* have to give you whatever location you want, or whatever position you want. They can offer you whatever they hell they want, and if you agree to it, you sign the contract and you get hired.


No, that is true.

But they can be told to stay the $#@! out of my private affairs and effects.

Tough $#@! for them.

----------


## Dr.3D

> It would appear so.
> 
> So I think there is nothing really to bother with anymore.
> 
> You have the "left" stripping rights through "democracy" and the "right" stripping rights through "corporatocracy".
> 
> So, I guess the only choice a free person has left is which orifice to take your raping in...


Anybody still selling chastity belts?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is the same specious argument that is made to justify EVERY SINGLE BIT of socialist legislation in this country.  It is based on the false assumption that people are too stupid or predatory to be allowed to manage their own affairs and need the magicaly unstupid unpredatory hand of government to manage their lives for them.
> 
> It does not stand up to reason and it has been a failure in practice.


Yes, it has failed because the prime directive has not been followed: government exists only to protect individual rights.

----------


## Acala

> Yes, it has failed because the prime directive has not been followed: government exists only to protect individual rights.


Yup.  And that includes the right to make your own rules on your own property.  And does NOT include the right to make other people accept you on your terms on THEIR property.

----------


## emazur

This is about the federal government, not states, but is relevant to the topic:
U.S. employees set to be forced to give bosses their Facebook PASSWORDS

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2RLxmBK4F
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




> An attempt to ban US bosses from asking employees to hand over their Facebook login details has been blocked by Congress.
> 
> A last minute alteration to the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) that would have prevented employers demanding that prospective employees disclose social media passwords as a condition of employment was voted down in the house of representatives.
> 
> The proposal, put forward by Democrat Ed Perlmutter was defeated by a 224-189 majority, according to the Huffington Post.
> 
> Handing over passwords could legally be a condition of acquiring or keeping a job, said WebProNews


I haven't checked to see who voted what on this provision but it would interesting to see how guys like Amash voted

----------

