Dolphin’s Dock

I like the idea of libertarianism, I really do, but Kip Esquire writes a post today that illustrates why I remain in the liberal camp.

Kip is responding to a new California law prohibiting companies from requiring their employees to submit to the subdermal implantation of RFID devices (the same kind of microchips you can have implanted in your pets so they can be returned if they get lost). In true libertarian fashion, Kip notes that only the government can “force” anything on a private citizen. If a private citizen objects to the terms of a contract with a private organization (in this case an employment contract with an employer), they are free to not sign the contract and look elsewhere. It’s a completely rational argument and it’s difficult to find any factual or logical error in it. So why then does every ounce of my being scream that it’s wrong?

Well, it’s because I think there is at least a bit more to every issue than raw logic and mathematical figuring. I’m not a number-crunching computer, but rather a human with human emotions and “gut-feelings.” Are such things worthy measures from which to make policy decisions? Of course not, but I think it’s a bit dangerous to write them off completely. We’re all humans, living in a human society. Why then should we completely shrug off an entire (and somewhat major) part of the human experience when it comes to making laws to govern humans? That can’t be right.

With regards to the specific issue, the human in me rejects the notion that if one disagrees with the terms of employment one can simply seek employment elsewhere. Anybody who has job-hunted knows that finding a new job is not as easy as simply leaving your current one and showing up at a new one. The Boyfriend™ has been looking for a new job for nearly a year now (while remaining at the job he currently has as it’d be extremely tight for us to survive on just my income, though we’ve done it once before), and has only this week landed a prospect (keep your fingers crossed). Finding a new job is difficult and the consequences of being without one can be dire.

“Still,” the libertarian will answer, “if the demands are sufficiently disagreeable, then the risk associated with leaving a job will be justified and each individual can decide for themselves how that risk/benefit ratio plays out for their situation.” Again, I’d agree with the libertarian here, their logic being precise and accurate, but here is also where we part ways. I cannot accept, from a human standpoint, that simply because a demand is not quite (perceived to be) as bad as the risk at stake, that it is therefore an acceptable demand. A single mother may be able to leave her job if her boss demands sexual favors as a condition of continued employment, but she may decide that with young mouths to feed, trying to find a new job isn’t quite worth the risk. Is it therefore acceptable for her boss to make such advances?

Because jobs can be so difficult to find, and (for most of us) impossible to do without, most people face extreme pressure not to lose their jobs. We shouldn’t ask people to walk away from their very livelihoods to avoid demands that are clearly unreasonable (I hope most can agree that, outside of prostitution, providing sexual favors is an unreasonable job requirement. Perhaps there’s room to argue over whether having devices surgically implanted into one’s body, essentially being microchipped like a dog, is). No doubt such reasoning subjects society to the potential of “nanny-statists” and “legislating morals” (both of which I abhor), but, for me, I’m happy to battle those out as they come (and dance around that sometimes fine line) in order to keep a little humanity in our (human) society.