This largely mirrors my thought. I was unpersuaded that non-technical management grasps the technical aspects well enough to leverage them as described.
The clear solution should this stand is to include a Terms of Incorporation when a business is created stipulating that they waive their right to a trial and that any labor disputes will be settled by independent arbitration.
The courts have routinely said you can't sign your rights away. This has gotten muddy with arbitration clauses being sometimes upheld, but for example, you can't sign a contract to entry into slavery for example.
I don't know what courts and what cases you're talking about, but SCOTUS has repeatedly held that binding arbitration agreements override almost all rights.
That’s incorrect: Jury-trial waivers are routinely enforced. (California and Georgia won’t enforce advance jury waivers in state courts, as a matter of state law, not federal-constitutional law.) And there's also a thing called a "confession of judgment," which in effect is a waiver of any trial.
What I said is not in fact incorrect, you are confusing waiving a right with alienating it, here's an essay[0] which can sort you out on the distinction.
> Alienating a right is different from exercising it or waiving it in a particular case. A police officer comes to my door and asks to look around my apartment; if I give my permission, I have waived my right. But the next time he comes, he must ask again, and if he is refused he cannot rely on my previous permission.
Waivers aren't necessarily one-time in nature; they can be ongoing.
Example: Many, many contracts explicitly say that any waiver of a contract right is only one-time, so as to rule out an argument by an opposing party that the waiver was continuing.
Example: If you enlist in the military, you waive — on an ongoing basis — your Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, because the Uniform Code of Military Justice prescribes who can sit as a member of a court-martial [plural: courts-martial].
So in the context we're discussing, calling rights "inalienable" or "unalienable" is not a helpful concept.
There's an enormous difference between waiving rights for a specific (alleged) infraction and carte blanche signing away your rights for anything that might ever happen in the future.
The courts view arbitration as a _forum_ change. The idea is that you're waiving some procedural rights while retaining all substantive rights. This is independent of a jury waiver (although arbitration necessarily requires a jury waiver).
There are some severe problems both in theory and in practice, but that's the rough justification.
A corporation has no right of protection from slavery.
And just imagine if you said it was protected from slavery ... would that mean all corporations are suddenly free of the dictates of their executives, their boards, their shareholders.
An NDA is a contract, not a law passed by Congress. First five words of the 1st Amendment:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you break it, it's a breach of contract, not a criminal act and you didn't break any laws.
Yes, but your example doesn’t work here. The bedrock of what we call our free speech rights is more of a prohibition on Congress from passing laws that impede that. Signing such a contract doesn’t contradict the First Amendment.
It does though because its a contract. There are states which enforces, in their contracts, various anti-boycott measures regarding Israel. These are effectively anti-free-speech clauses and they are imposed by the government. But, are allowed because they are agreed to in the terms of the contract.
Aren't corporations incorporated on the state level? Unless I am missing something at least one state would not include this in their terms and companies would flock to that state if they wanted trials.
Thank you, I was composing a reply along these lines as well. The essay is pseudo-erudite, using a lot of words to convey an impression of depth but in actuality saying very little, and repeatedly. I will also add that the Biblical exegesis at the end is interesting only as a personal interpretation: ahistorical and effectively creating its own mythical version. The piece might be acceptable as a work of fiction but it's not philosophy.
This is only a tenable position to hold if you _also_ accept educational requirements to exercise other rights. E.g., the right to vote.
The Supreme Court has held that such requirements to exercise a fundamental right are inherently unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Because rights are held to the standard of scrutiny, the only way to diminish the protections afforded by the second amendment is to lower the standard of scrutiny, which opens the door to two scenarios: either the 2nd amendment is deemed unpopular enough of a right that it warrants diminished protections, which yields the prospect of any right becoming unpopular and protections similarly diminished, or none of the enumerated rights deserve the robust protections that the second amendment provides, which imperils protections on rights we may care more about, like voting (which is not even constitutionally enumerated,) speech, etc.
Sure, it is hard. But there's a gigantic middle ground between "no photographs ever that contain any part of your house" and "permanent digital video camera whose footage is invisibly passed on to the government". It is far from impossible to write some rules that balances these things. Yes, there will be loopholes: a criminal who wants to photograph your house could come by with their nephew and stage a photoshoot. But we live with those kinds of exceptions already: as giraffe_lady said, the law is not an algorithm.
>"permanent digital video camera whose footage is invisibly passed on to the government".
I'd be fine with regulating / banning without a warrant the second half of that sentence. I don't want to prevent people from having security cameras outside their home, those are pretty useful.
The current loophole is police asking the same 3rd parties that host your data for that data and those 3rd parties can comply without your consent. We'd need some type of data ownership laws for that sort of thing. I'd certainly support that. There are laws around NIL (name, image likeness) and ownership thereof. I'l like to see those applied to third party data storage vendors, but like dragon_lady mentioned, it's a step.
Of course, that wouldn't prevent the police asking your neighbor or local business for locally stored footage.
>the law is not an algorithm
Laws should be as specific and un-vague as possible to prevent abuse, mainly from the government itself.
The irony is well-taken but it goes a little deeper. Even for someone who bought a house 20-30 years ago and could sell far below the current market without losing money...that person then can't afford to buy anything else. (Doubly so in places where property tax increases have been limited over the span of their ownership -- the taxes on a comparable house in the same region may be a large delta.) It's a vicious spiral with, I think, no pain-free offramp.
Sure, in the same way that when I'm trying to lose weight and want a snack I will make a choice between a celery stick and a cookie, or I can forestall the choice by not having a cookie in the house in the first place. The story of Odysseus and the sirens.
Except in automotive we have options that taste like cookies with all the benefits of celery sticks: hatchbacks and wagons with great cargo capacity, ride quality, driving dynamics, and fuel efficiency. In America we go with the unhealthy cookie even though the healthy one tastes the same, because we don't want to look gay or poor
I daily a sports car and am shopping for an old Bronco I don't need. Come from a family and community where everyone owns a body-on-frame truck or SUV. I'm just stating the facts
