The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."
In other words, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not comprehensive or exclusive. There are other rights that have not been enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We have a right to travel, we have privacy rights, we have the right to purchase and own property (real, personal, and intellectual).
And we have the right to sell our property as well as our services, on terms that we deem appropriate. Which means that as long as the sale is not for an illegal purpose (e.g., sale of something we don't own, contract killing).
Minimum wage laws are, in effect, unconstitutional. If a person agrees to sell his services and/or time for $5/hour, and an employer agrees to pay it, any attempt by the Sovereign to prevent that transaction, or to alter it is illegitimate. I suspect the reason why it has been allowed to go for so long is that the logical plaintiff, the wage earner, would have to be the one fighting the minimum wage law, and that's not going to happen, for a number of reasons.
The State of California is poised to prevent Lyft and Uber from employing thousands of people on terms that BOTH PARTIES FIND ACCEPTABLE (otherwise they wouldn't sign Uber's documents). Where does the State get the right to ALTER this voluntary transaction between two willing, competent parties? The State doesn't like it...they don't want these people being employed as "Independent Contractors"? Fuck the State. The State has NO RIGHT to alter this arrangement. Indeed, this is literally a case of force majeure, and either party can terminate the arrangement immediately upon the State's interference.
California sucks.
In other words, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not comprehensive or exclusive. There are other rights that have not been enumerated in the Bill of Rights. We have a right to travel, we have privacy rights, we have the right to purchase and own property (real, personal, and intellectual).
And we have the right to sell our property as well as our services, on terms that we deem appropriate. Which means that as long as the sale is not for an illegal purpose (e.g., sale of something we don't own, contract killing).
Minimum wage laws are, in effect, unconstitutional. If a person agrees to sell his services and/or time for $5/hour, and an employer agrees to pay it, any attempt by the Sovereign to prevent that transaction, or to alter it is illegitimate. I suspect the reason why it has been allowed to go for so long is that the logical plaintiff, the wage earner, would have to be the one fighting the minimum wage law, and that's not going to happen, for a number of reasons.
The State of California is poised to prevent Lyft and Uber from employing thousands of people on terms that BOTH PARTIES FIND ACCEPTABLE (otherwise they wouldn't sign Uber's documents). Where does the State get the right to ALTER this voluntary transaction between two willing, competent parties? The State doesn't like it...they don't want these people being employed as "Independent Contractors"? Fuck the State. The State has NO RIGHT to alter this arrangement. Indeed, this is literally a case of force majeure, and either party can terminate the arrangement immediately upon the State's interference.
California sucks.
