Bullets and Pills

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

The primary reason the culture wars keep raging on is that neither side really wants them to end. Neither side is content with merely winning the freedom to do its own thing. Real winning is all about the joy of getting the power to force your opponents to do things they find objecitonable. On the left, we’ve seen this with the birth control mandate. It isn’t enough to have won the legal right to birth control, which has been the case for a couple generations now. (And should have been from the start.) Now it’s about forcing people who have moral objections to birth control to buy it for other people.

Here in Tennessee, we’re seeing a similar bit of one-upsmanship from the right on the issue of guns. Gun rights proponents have finally earned a Supreme Court decision declaring that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. And since about 2000, further efforts at gun control have basically been a non-starter in national politics. (Again, as it ought to be.)

But that isn’t enough enough for the gun-rights crowd, either. Tennessee Republicans are now pushing . . .

 . . . legislation to let employees tote any legally possessed firearm into their company parking lots and then leave the guns locked in their cars during their workday. Businesses say the bill tramples their private property rights and threatens the safety of all their employees.

A who’s who of the Tennessee business world has paraded to the Capitol to try to persuade lawmakers to buck the National Rifle Association, which is demanding passage of what’s become known as the guns-in-parking-lots bill. It’s put legislators, particularly Republicans, in a no-win political position — faced with upsetting one or the other of their strongest and most-feared constituencies.

Among those testifying before the legislative committees against the bill have been representatives from FedEx, Volkswagen and Bridgestone — three of the largest employers in the state. They raised the specter of disgruntled or deranged employees or customers grabbing their guns out of their cars and going on shooting sprees.

All the state’s business associations have lined up in opposition too, including Nashville’s Chamber of Commerce and the hotel and restaurant industries. Also against the bill are the Farm Bureau and many of the state’s hospitals and universities, including Belmont and Vanderbilt.

“This is not an anti-gun position on the part of employers. It’s a pro-employer rights and a pro-property rights position,” said Bill Ozier, chairman of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry. “The employer has the right to set rules in the interest of the safety of their other employees.”

The libertarian solution to these debates is pretty simple. Do you want to work for a company that lets you bring a gun to work? Find an employer that lets you bring a gun to work, then get yourself a job with that employer. Do you want to work for a company that includes free birth control as part of its health plan? Find employer that provides free birth control, then get yourself a job with that employer.

It really doesn’t matter if you aren’t convinced by the arguments from, say, Catholic hospitals that birth control leads to moral turpitude and is part of Satan’s plan to make the earth his dominion. (I’m not.) It also doesn’t matter if you’re convinced by the arguments from Tennessee businesses that allowing guns in the parking lot will turn workplaces into blood-spattered battlefields. (I’m not.)

In the end, you have the right to voluntarily negotiate the terms of your employment. You don’t have the right to take a job, then have the government to force your employer to provide you with the benefits or the workplace environment of your choosing.

Actually, the way things are going, it’s looking more and more like you kinda’ do have that right. But dammit, you shouldn’t.


Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

135 Responses to “Bullets and Pills”

  1. #1 |  Mike T | 

    Simple: the cars are on the employers’ property and are therefore bound by their rules, whatever they may be.

    So, when you park your car on government property, you give them the right to search it. Their property, their rules. Oh wait, you didn’t think of that did you?

  2. #2 |  Mike T | 

    On the other hand there is a strong case to be made that if a business choose to disarm their employees (say a cab company, pizza delivery company) and prevents them from practicing self defense then the company is now responsible for their protection during work. That means if a cabby is killed by robber, or a FedEx Driver is mauled by a dog then the company is libel for failing to provide protection for their employees. If you disarm someone, you are De Facto taking up the responsibility to protect them.

    This!

    When libertarians wonder why they cannot make any traction with the general public, this is a perfect example of why. No one is proposing forcing employers to provide guns, training, etc. to employees. Merely forcing employers to let people who have the ability to defend themselves do so. In libertarianland, employer rights and property rights are so sacrosanct that libertarians would literally rather pizza delivery and Fedex employers get murdered rather than put a moderate restriction on employers that prevents them from preventing their employees from taking private action to defend themselves if confronted by criminals.

  3. #3 |  Kevin | 

    So, when you park your car on government property, you give them the right to search it. Their property, their rules. Oh wait, you didn’t think of that did you?

    No, but I implicitly agree with whatever rules they have in place vis a vis their treatment of cars parked on their property – up to and including random/arbitrary searches (if such are the policies). I think random, arbitrary searches are a terrible policy, but yes, if you walk into a situation where those policies apply, you’re implicitly accepting that said policies will be applied to you.

    The main difference between random, arbitrary and inane policies enacted by the government and similar policies enacted by a private company (or individual) is that I can voluntarily choose not to interact with the latter. The former, at best, merely forces me to pay for their stupidity; at worst it hoists the policies against me on my own property and then forces me to pay for the privilege.

  4. #4 |  David | 

    So, when you park your car on government property, you give them the right to search it. Their property, their rules. Oh wait, you didn’t think of that did you?

    Curses, foiled again! If only there were some set of rules that restricts government powers but not those of private actors working under mutually agreed contract!

  5. #5 |  Michael | 

    @Mike T. “So, when you park your car on government property, you give them the right to search it. Their property, their rules. Oh wait, you didn’t think of that did you?”

    I did think of that, and that’s why I have such a problem with some of the arguments posted here. My car is my property, and my employer’s ability to regulate THEIR property ends and the door of my car, just as the government’s should (and most here would claim) – otherwise as soon as I drive from my home’s driveway onto the street (public property) the government would have the right to freely browse through my car any time they wanted. Does the employer have the right to search an employee’s car at any time just because its in their lot? I don’t see how anyone can make that argument. Why do their property right trump my own? Are we really claiming that my car is not my personal property?

    In general, I agree with Radley’s argument, but I’d extend it to things like gay rights, racial discrimination, etc. – ok, we all agree everybody is equal, but that’s not good enough, we have to have affirmative action and special classes of citizens (hate crime laws, etc.)

  6. #6 |  Angus | 

    I see Lauren at #22 has made a good, if unwitting, argument for anarchism.

  7. #7 |  Len | 

    Yeah Jay , all of Article 1, Section 8 refutes what you said. Article 1, Section 8 says what the congress may do, and beyond that is has no authority. So no the congress may not force people or tax people to provide for health care/insurance. As the tenth amendment clarifies, if a power is not granted, then it is extra-constitutional to assume a power not given. The commerce power deals with state governments by essentially creating a free trade zone, but does not extend to businesses. Try actually reading the federal convention and state ratification debates instead of your modern day liberal sites where they base their OPINION on continuing violations.

    I offer the following if you care for any truth, unlikely as that is.

    http://www.i2i.org/hpchomepage.php

  8. #8 |  Mike T | 

    The main difference between random, arbitrary and inane policies enacted by the government and similar policies enacted by a private company (or individual) is that I can voluntarily choose not to interact with the latter.

    I think you and the other two follow up commenters missed the point entirely. If property rights determine the limits of gun rights, then the government is well within its rights to summarily abolish all gun rights on its property. No matter how much a libertarian stridently asserts the non-existence of government property rights, they do in fact exist in society and in the minds of most people. You might as well be a leftist arguing private property rights are just a social construct of the rich if you go that route.

    Curses, foiled again! If only there were some set of rules that restricts government powers but not those of private actors working under mutually agreed contract!

    The bill of rights is irrelevant to a discussion of the basic form that rights ought to take. You are putting the cart before the horse and thinking you’re doing something intelligent instead of idiotic.

  9. #9 |  Angus | 

    No matter how much a libertarian stridently asserts the non-existence of government property rights, they do in fact exist in society and in the minds of most people. You might as well be a leftist arguing private property rights are just a social construct of the rich if you go that route.

    This is an argument ad populum. And if you’re going to rely on “the minds of most people” to define property rights, you’re rendering those rights as much a social construct as the leftist in your hypothetical example.

  10. #10 |  N | 

    While the comments have been fascinating, I want to reiterate that this bill has nothing to do with being armed while at work. It is about being armed while traveling to/from work. I leave for work at 5 AM, in the dark, and drive 20 minutes on rural highway and county roads. If my car breaks down on a deserted road and some unsavory character happens by, I want to be armed. Luckily, my state has this same parking lot bill, so I am allowed to keep a gun in my car in the company lot. The company still has a policy prohibiting it, but the law prevents the enforcement of said policy. This law is not about having access to a gun while at work.

    As far as the policy debate goes, I see both sides of the argument, but I tend to fall on the side that says my car is my property, regardless of where it is physically located. Michael’s comment (#105) states it really well.

  11. #11 |  JOR | 

    #96, Please. For one thing the libertarian obsession with defending employers/property owners against anything and everything is residual from their alliance with conservatives. I’ve seen it manifest in this thread (in the form of the usual stupid/dishonest appeals to personal responsibility and choice, of course), but it’s nothing that conservatives and liberals don’t do to the victims of people they like. So it’s not a reason that libertarians “can’t make traction”, because it’s something all the other assholes do, too.

    For another, asking a delivery boy to go to a bad neighborhood and allowing him to arm himself is still asking him to bear a higher than normal risk of getting hurt or killed. If it violates his rights to ask him to go in unarmed (on pain of losing his job), it violates his rights to ask him to go in armed. Maybe to a smaller degree, but it amounts to the same thing in kind.

  12. #12 |  David | 

    The bill of rights is irrelevant to a discussion of the basic form that rights ought to take. You are putting the cart before the horse and thinking you’re doing something intelligent instead of idiotic.

    Or you think I’m responding to something other than what I actually was? “Your property, your rules” doesn’t mean the same thing with respect to government property as private property, because the Bill of Rights restricts what rules the government is allowed to make in ways that it does not restrict individual citizens. The analogy is pointless, regardless of where you draw the line between what citizens may do and what governments may do, because it supposes that there is no line. Or do you think you have the right to free assembly in my backyard?

  13. #13 |  JOR | 

    “This is an argument ad populum.”

    Not really. Actually it’s one of the better arguments on this thread (even if I don’t think much of the guy’s other arguments). By the standards libertarians usually use to rationalize or justify authoritarian property rights on the parts of employers etc. you can rationalize and justify government regulation and totalitarianism. Of course there are strains of libertarianism (such as market anarchism, or at least some forms of it) whose standards are harder to appropriate for those ends, but then those strains of libertarianism tend to be more skeptical of the property claims and authority of professional owners/employers/financiers/etc., too.

  14. #14 |  r.l.s.3 | 

    “But my car doesn’t become their car just because it’s parked in their lot. Whatever I leave in my car shouldn’t be any of their damn business. If they want to give me a company car for my commute, they are more than welcome to dictate what I have in there.”

    So if you come in my house with a gun in your pants, I should be OK with that? After all, they’re your pants. Maybe I should require all visitors to leave their pants at the door, and make them wear a pair of mine.

    I’m actually OK with people coming into my house with firearms. My friends and family do it all the time, but if you try to enter with nude pictures of Arlen Specter, I’m kicking your ass out.

  15. #15 |  Deoxy | 

    but if you try to enter with nude pictures of Arlen Specter, I’m kicking your ass out.

    GAH!!!!! BRAIN BLEACH!!

    Dude, warn people before you write something like that, eh? Put it in some kind of spoilers block text or something? Eew.

  16. #16 |  Mike T | 

    This is an argument ad populum. And if you’re going to rely on “the minds of most people” to define property rights, you’re rendering those rights as much a social construct as the leftist in your hypothetical example.

    There are property rights which are social constructs. Intellectual property rights are one such example. Copyright has no basis in nature. It is explicitly an attempt to propertize that which is not property by nature. A painting, book, etc. can be real property insofar as it is a real thing which denying it to the holder would constitute theft, but the rights tied to copyright are not themselves inherent in property. Far from it. It goes against nature to say that a man may not transform his property to mimic yours (which copyright law explicitly prohibits in most cases).

    All corporate property rights are likewise social constructs because corporations are themselves creatures of the state and the law. Since corporations are entirely the product of human society, the full extent of their rights are defined by human society. Where the individual and family are prior to society, corporations come after society.

  17. #17 |  NL_ | 

    If the legislators want to be pro-gun but also pro-property rights, then they can exercise their own administrative authority by allowing gun possession in the public parking lots for government buildings. This would be acting as owner of their own property, not as regulator on the property of others.

    I don’t see how forcing, say, Quakers or pacifists to accept guns on their property is substantively different from forcing Catholics to pay for birth control.

    Though this is a natural corollary of paternalist policies like the popular drive to force out smoking from every public space. If the government is able to protect your right to breathe fresh air on other people’s property then why can’t it protect your right to defensive weaponry on other people’s property? The mindset is big government, but anti-smoking laws are increasing bipartisan in their support. People aren’t really asking “who has the right to make this decision about private property” but rather the questions are “do I like smoking” and “do I like guns.” Which is really just a cultural taste.

  18. #18 |  N | 

    @NL_
    I agree that there is a similarity between this issue and smoking bans, and I admit that there may be a slight bias in my view of this issue due to the fact that I am a gun owner. However, I really do believe that an honest argument can be made in support of these so-called parking lot bills, unlike smoking bans, without sacrificing or cherry-picking my libertarian beliefs. It really comes down to whether my personal property rights (my vehicle) trump my employer’s property rights (its parking lot) or vice versa. On that, I agree with Mike (#116) in that personal property rights trump corporate property rights.

  19. #19 |  Mike T | 

    @NL_

    I think you can make a few distinctions that would help in the absence of having a unifying societal belief system. The first is that you aren’t forcing the pacifist or the quaker to accept something which is objectively unreasonable. The second is that you are forcing them to permit carrying a gun in a public space, not their private residence. Since public spaces by their very nature are shared with other people, you must accommodate their reasonable human needs (such as the right of self-defense). The third would be that you are forcing the Catholics to actually violate their conscience by their own actions. The former is a negative right, the latter a positive right.

  20. #20 |  Swing | 

    “The left supports a mandate that forces employers that provide health insurance to provide birth control without a copay as part of their health plans.”

    “Yes, that is forcing some people to buy birth control for other people.”

    No, they’re making it so employers can’t dictate an employee’s health care that employees also pay into. It is not “free.”

    What you’re telling us here is a lie, Balko.

  21. #21 |  Bergman | 

    Re: cynical In New York, #43:

    I agree that private property rights should win. Just one problem: Whose private property rights?

    The most basic private property right is the right to one’s own body. Ownership of the pack of gum I bought and stuck in my pocket does not change depending on whether I’m standing in my yard, on the sidewalk or in someone else’s privately-owned office.

    Likewise, my car is my private property. The contents of the car, and the car itself, do not transfer title just because I drive it off my property. It’s my car on my driveway, on a public street or in someone else’s parking lot.

    It sounds to me like you’re actually against private property rights, because you are opposed to the basic ones that support everything else.

    Re: Kevin, #103:

    So, out of curiosity, why do you think one property owner’s rights to their own property are superior to someone else’s rights to their own private property?

    I own my clothes, the contents of my pockets, and have a reasonable expectation that I won’t be randomly tackled and strip searched. I own my car. My clothes, my car, and the contents thereof are my own private property, which I, as any private property owner, have the right to control.

    The government acts, via legislation, like a super-owner. Why is it okay for someone to violate my private property rights to my car, but not okay for someone to violate your private property rights to your land? The most fundamental of all private property rights is the right to one’s own body; A body search to prove someone is not concealing a totally legal firearm violates that most fundamental right.

    Your argument, logically extended a bit, would permit involuntary strip searches of employees, a rule stating all women must be topless, and a mandate that all men must have vasectomies.

  22. #22 |  Radley Balko | 

    It is not “free.”

    Fair enough.

    they’re making it so employers can’t dictate an employee’s health care that employees also pay into.

    Not true, in two ways. First, the only one dictating anything here is the federal government, which is dictating that every health insurer in the country provide birth control with no co-pay. Prior to the mandate, if you didn’t like your employer’s pan, you could work for another employer. Only the feds are saying everyone, everywhere must abide by this policy.

    Second, even the “dictate” part of your sentence were true, “health care” wouldn’t be what’s being dictated. A woman working for a company that didn’t include birth control coverage would still be able to get birth control. It’s just that her health insurance wouldn’t be paying for it.

  23. #23 |  30 year lawyer | 

    The libertarian obsession with defending employers/property owners against anything and everything, including the property (and life) rights of employees, is why the Libertarian Party gets fellow-travelers but few supporters.

    Just because I agree to perform services for you DOES NOT make me a rightless 21st Century serf. My employer doesn’t control my life, not even at work. I am not his property. Not even for a moment.

  24. #24 |  Swing | 

    “Second, even the “dictate” part of your sentence were true, “health care” wouldn’t be what’s being dictated. A woman working for a company that didn’t include birth control coverage would still be able to get birth control. It’s just that her health insurance wouldn’t be paying for it.”

    Yeah, health care is what’s being dictated. It’s already been determined that prescription coverage can’t be discriminated this way, back in 2000. You cover medical prescriptions, you cover them equally. The “birth control” that’s being objected to is used to treat other things as well.

    Yeah, the feds are regulating a standard for an industry. If some people and their bronze-age superstitions don’t like what that standard is, they are completely free to not offer health care as employers.

  25. #25 |  David | 

    Why is it okay for someone to violate my private property rights to my car, but not okay for someone to violate your private property rights to your land?

    If it’s not okay for your employer to do that, you’re free to quit or, if they need you more than you need them, to negotiate an exception to the rule. If they don’t need you more than you need them, I think we’ve figured out why they get to demand sacrifices from you that they don’t reciprocate.

  26. #26 |  supercat | 

    With regard to arbitrary-item storage in vehicles, I would suggest that in many areas, businesses are required to provide a certain number of free parking spaces for customers and employees; as a libertarian, I would in many cases consider such requirements justifiable on the basis that street parking is often a scarce resource (or would be if employers weren’t providing parking), and in the absence of such requirements the Tragedy of the Commons would result in severely sub-optimal parking-space allocation. I would further suggest that while a business may at its option provide some parking spaces whose usage requires affirmative agreement to vehicle searches, such parking spaces should not count toward meeting the business’ parking-space quota.

    Further, as a libertarian I find reasonable the general rule that a person or company X can be held liable if it performs some action Y and some harm befalls person Z, if such harm would likely not have occurred without X having done Y, and if the harm which befell Z was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of doing Y. Given that there are vastly more instances where a someone who was disarmed has been harmed as a result of such disarmament, than there are cases where a concealed-permit holder has caused unjustifiable harm to someone, it would seem reasonable to codify that the former type of harm shall be presumed foreseeable and the latter type not. As such, while companies would be free to impose “no gun” policies on their premises, with the exception of the interiors of vehicles within “quota” parking places, they would accept substantial liability by so doing. Companies would probably be willing to accept such liability in some situations (e.g. if they need armed guards for various other reasons) but companies wishing to minimize their liability exposure could best do so by allowing permit holders to carry their weapons concealed.

  27. #27 |  Kevin | 

    Re Bergman #121:

    So, out of curiosity, why do you think one property owner’s rights to their own property are superior to someone else’s rights to their own private property?

    In the case of the employer-owned parking lot, neither party’s rights are being violated. The employer is setting terms for using his or her property. You’re free to accept or reject the terms, and ergo your rights are not being violated. Such is the nature of voluntary agreements.

    Your argument, logically extended a bit, would permit involuntary strip searches of employees, a rule stating all women must be topless, and a mandate that all men must have vasectomies.

    Those are all correct except for the first one; my logic only extends to voluntary strip searches (if they don’t want to be strip searched, they’re free to work somewhere else) – not involuntary searches. That is, no one is being forced to do anything they didn’t agree to.

    Besides that corection, and the obvious fact that those rules would be silly and impractical, I don’t see a problem with them from a libertarian perspective. No one’s rights are being violated.

  28. #28 |  Brad | 

    Want a job that pays more than .35/hour, go find one. Want a job that doesn’t expose you to asbestos, go find it. Want a job that gives you vacations, no problem, go find it. Want a job with less than a 12 hour work day, just find another employer. Want a job even though you are black, go for it. As history shows, the market will provide…. We don’t need no stinkin’ government interference….

  29. #29 |  twency | 

    #80 Herb “I’m sorry, but if that’s the standard, there is no standard. A religious person working a 24X7X365 type job might find it morally objectionable to work on the Sabbath. Does that mean employers should be required to give them that day off?”

    Your analogy is inapt. If we’re trying to make an accurate comparison to the BC mandate, using “Sabbath” work, a better analogy would be Chik-Fil-A.

    Imagine if the feds mandated that every business in the country, including a fast-food chain well-known for being closed on Sunday for religious reasons, offer employees the opportunity to work any day of the week including Sunday.

  30. #30 |  Kevin | 

    Brad #128:

    Want a job that pays more than .35/hour, go find one. Want a job that doesn’t expose you to asbestos, go find it. Want a job that gives you vacations, no problem, go find it. Want a job with less than a 12 hour work day, just find another employer. Want a job even though you are black, go for it. As history shows, the market will provide…. We don’t need no stinkin’ government interference….

    Exactly, except without the sarcasm.

  31. #31 |  Nathanael | 

    As long as the government does not guarantee people a living (and it should), you *should* have the right to force your employer to obey a whole lot of rules.

    Because, frankly, in a country with high unemployment and insufficient welfare, *practically everyone who takes a job offer does it under duress*.

    Untili Radley admits that fact, his economic analysis is frankly stupid.

    Milton Friedman recognized that the only way to have free actors in a free market was to guarantee everyone food, clothing, and shelter with a guaranteed minimum income. Does Radley recognize this?

  32. #32 |  Nathanael | 

    This comment is crucial:

    “The libertarian obsession with defending employers/property owners against anything and everything, including the property (and life) rights of employees, is why the Libertarian Party gets fellow-travelers but few supporters.

    Just because I agree to perform services for you DOES NOT make me a rightless 21st Century serf. My employer doesn’t control my life, not even at work. I am not his property. Not even for a moment.”

    The so-called libertarians don’t seem to understand that they’re advocating serfdom. Quite literally. Until people are really, *genuinely* free to refuse to take a job, they are subject to the employer cartel. Make people free to do that, and perhaps employers will actually start to offer employees fair treatment through the “free market” But to do that you have to guarantee absolutely everyone a living income, full stop.

    Given that that isn’t the case, that a job is a necessity of life and that employers undersupply jobs (if they didn’t, there would be no unemployment), then there is absolutely no excuse for the fake libertarian position which Balko is pushing here. It isn’t remotely libertarian, really; it’s a “let the powerful make the rules” system. It’s a useful rhetorical tool for abusive cartels of employers, though.

  33. #33 |  Nathanael | 

    “If it’s not okay for your employer to do that, you’re free to quit”

    This piece of unrealistic garbage is why so-called libertarians are not taken seriously by people living in the real world.

    In the real world, people are under duress, forced to take jobs in order to *not starve*. Until the government absolutely guarantees a living income to everyone (as it pretty much does in the Scandanavian countries) this sort of “you’re free to quit” line is just plain, purest, unadaulterated bullshit.

    So stop spouting bullshit, please.

  34. #34 |  Nathanael | 

    Radley @122: absolutely false. Employers *are* dictating things; they offer the only affordable health insurance (do you think $1400/month is affordable? That’s the private market rate). So employees are under duress: they take the employer-offered coverage or they risk dying when they get sick.

    Why the latter? Because hospitals refuse to treat uninsured patients. Yes, this is illegal, but it happens anyway. Even if they do treat them, they charge them *5-10* times the amount they charge insurance companies (just look at the bills, this is fact). This is apparently *legal*.

    The reason all this happens is that health insurance does not work as a market — Kenneth Arrow wrote the primary paper on it. What actually works is health insurance as a public service: single-payer, Medicare-for-all, like they have in Canada and Australia, or even a National Health Service such as they have in the UK. The Scandanavian countries have hybrids of the two.

    All this faffing about with mandates (which I think are unconstitutional) is clearly unconstitutional, whereas a simple government-provided system paid for by taxes is clearly *constitutional* as well as clearly being *better*.

    The trouble with self-described libertarians is that they usually don’t believe in public services. This is for stupid, blinkered ideological reasons; if they got over their hostility to public services, they might have a coherent program for governance.

  35. #35 |  Kevin | 

    Comparing these two is a false equivalency. The glaring difference here is that my co-worker/employee being on birth control will never have a negative impact on me. It’s pretty obvious that the same argument can’t be made for the armed employee. While perhaps minimal, the armed employee undeniably increases the risk of someone in the workplace being shot. You said yourself that the cost of an employee’s insurance is a component of their salary. Removing part of their coverage amounts to a wage reduction. In addition, the employee is forced to absorb the cost of birth control.

    You imply that labor markets are perfectly efficient, when the economic reality is that they suffer from immobility. An underpaid employee doesn’t just simply find themselves at the proper wage level in an instant. This is compounded by the uneven distribution of power between employer and employee. The reality is that when an employer effectively cuts wages in this manner, they have no recourse in the short run. History has shown us time and time again that truly free markets do not work. A fact which capitalistic-libertarians refuse to acknowledge. Surely you detest minimum wage laws, 40 hr works wks, the right to collectively bargain and any other instances you (ignorantly) assert to be an overreach of government power (i.e. any exercise of it). I suppose you would consider the pinnacle of capitalism to be the point at which a single monopoly controls all resources, leaving individuals no option but to work for next to nothing or starve. This is the ultimate result of any truly free market, the only variable being how long it takes.

    Allowing employers to inject their morals into the personal lives of employees is a slippery slope. Freedom to exercise one’s religion doesn’t equate to freedom to exercise religion over others, not even by a private entity.