Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Personally, I'd love it if everyone could easily vote with their feet. I think there's more overlap between certain libertarian and socialist visions of the economy than most people realize. In our current system, there's a lot of factors that prevent people from voting with their feet: healthcare, location, switching costs, and availability of jobs being chief among them, but also newer phenomena like non-compete contracts.


Non-compete contracts tend to be unenforceable.


They tend to be unenforceable in California, they certainly aren't unenforceable in other states.


Yeah, they are unenforceable in other states, and in all of them if they are determined to be unreasonable in court.

https://www.legalnature.com/guides/are-non-compete-agreement...


>Yeah, they are unenforceable in other states

Yes there are other states that have similar limits, and many other states that don't.

>and in all of them if they are determined to be unreasonable in court

That's a tautology. A court can refuse to enforce any contract for many reasons. The problem is that what may be considered unreasonable in California might not be in Georgia.

It's also not super helpful for someone who can't afford a lawyer to fight it. Or for someone who can't find another job because companies don't want to deal with the hassle.


Courts tend to take a dim view of well-monied people bullying the not-monied in courts. Larger companies are well aware of this, so are their employees, and the companies get sued constantly by those employees, and the companies usually settle because it's cheaper.

I personally know of many, many cases of this.


>Courts tend to take a dim view of well-monied people bullying the not-monied in courts

Even if this is true in theory, it's so completely untrue from a practical perspective that it's pointless to debate.


Don't worry, it isn't true in theory either. Courts don't give a shit about that sort of high-minded honorableness.

Why, the existence of anti-SLAPP laws comes directly out of courts not caring how they're weaponized by well-monied people bullying not-monied people. That's literally the point of anti-SLAPP laws.

GP's claim makes no sense with even the dimmest awareness of the court system.


> it's so completely untrue from a practical perspective

Poor people successfully sue businesses ALL THE TIME.

Besides, just last week a friend of mine told me that the former boss of one of his employees threatened a lawsuit over a non-compete agreement. He simply told the former boss "see ya in court and you'll be paying my legal bill". That was the end of that.

Not only are most of these just bluster, it's not profitable to sue poor people, since poor people don't have money.


There's really no point in debating someone like you. No matter what I say you'll just quote some unverifiable anecdote and declare victory.

I'll leave you with some advice that helped me find my way out of libertarian ideology when I was younger.

Stop and think for a second. Why the "proper functions of government" just happen to line up exactly with the functions that directly benefit you.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: