DISQUS

the idea that self ownership is inalienable is because I would say you can't at any point be forced to work.

Selling your time is different than selling yourself. Who you are, in terms of your productivity, is a function of your skill you will into action. Since at no point, can someone bind your will (well they can, but I'm assuming without violence), you can't be owned.

Your time, and your short term commitment, to invoke your skills towards and employers goals, for a period of time, is a salable commodity. Once that time is committed, and expended, it's fruits belong to the employer. That's a commodity. On the other hand, what you learn, isn't a commodity. Because while it enhances the value of your time, it can't be sold into the ownership of another. Nor can that learning it's self isolated from the whole of your experience. You can't, realistically, commit to an employer that the experiences you have while working for them will not influence you later. You can only promise that you won't use this experience as a weapon against them directly. (which would be a wise thing to avoid in any case)

In concrete terms I'm saying that an employer can bind you to not do something specific in the future. But to not do anything that would compete with them at a latter date is ridiculous. And that's how most non-competes are composed. To read these things is ridiculous:

"You will not work in this field for a period of 5 years after leaving ..."

There is just no way that can hold up in court. To do so would be an issue of free choice, and you can't sell that (for reasons above). It's like agreeing to be a slave or bankrupted. I haven't signed a non-compete in 15 years. In fact I make employers sign a contract that explicitly states that they don't own anything I do outside their offices. To date, I've never had a refusal to sign my statement, or been forced to sign a non-compete upon refusal.

the point isn't that companies can benefit from a non-compete, or that a sufficiently unique individual can negotiate a compensation packaged for it. The point is that a non-compete implies external ownership of someones skills, thoughts, experiences. It's absurdity. It's as absurd to say you can force someone to work (intellectually) as it is to say you can force them not to work.

As the basis for all ownership, we first have to own ourselves. Experiences and skills are intrinsic parts of self, especially where we are focused on a workers value. A 'worker' may sell part of his time, but the one thing he cant sell are parts of him self. A fact already protected by law; a man can not sign a waver to his constitutional rights.

Or they could retain the employee by treating him better. Most programmers don't leave their job for lack of pay, but for promotion or growth opportunities, or companies that simply treat their coders better.

If you have a specialized skill, say Bio-Informatics, or Search Engine design. Your not going to go leave your present job and start over in video games.

Non-competes distort the market, forcing talented individuals into non-optimal positions. Non-competes effectively state that an employer owns your learning and growth during your time with him. This is ridiculous. It's one thing to say, that I can not duplicate (exactly) the work I did for my employer, but another to say I can't use that experience to create a wholly new competitive product.

What I carry between my ears is mine, to invoke at my desire, in any form or direction I so wish.

All good and well. But if the cable company can do as they will with their content, I should be able to do as I will with the TV and/or cable box I own.

Under current DMCA legislation, if I modify, in any way, my own property I can do jail time.

Freedom only works if it's on both sides of the divide.

Over protection of copyrighted material, by limiting my rights to do with my own property as I will, is equally invalid.

someone just did it. and really @#$@ good too!

http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id...