Economics drives human rights. For reference, see the conditions of the 19th century farms people fled to go work in those factories.

See also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118134633403829656.html?mod=...

And I don't understand what you mean about laws being proof that people feel this way. I assume that the proof that people feel a certain way is that they act that way. For example, if I think being a coal miner is too risky, I won't be a coal miner; if I think the rewards are fair compensation, I will be one. Why do you need a law to deprive me of my freedom to make those decisions?

I don't understand why you keep posting comments that begin with "I don't understand", and then proceed to make an argument about the comment that you profess not to understand.

I've found that sometimes, people refuse to say exactly what they mean because it's so absurd. So they write vague, pleasant nonsense about how "human rights trump economics." What is that supposed to mean? Economics is the study of what people want and how they get it -- how can it be 'trumped' by one set of things people want. It's a malformed argument. I wondered if the commenter would explain exactly what he was trying to say.

Want to know what else those conditions led to? death, disease, revolution, communism, fascism and war.

>For example, if I think being a coal miner is too risky, I won't be a coal miner.

Unless of course you're not in the position to make that choice. You are speaking from a position of privilege and assume all share that privilege. It leads to only a half understanding of why we've instituted the systems we have.

>Why do you need a law to deprive me of my freedom to make those decisions?

Wow, that's a warped view of freedom. Too many Ayn Rand books to be sure. If you were right in your theory, the nation you live in (assuming you're American) wouldn't exist right now. Think about that a little.

Shit. I thought death, disease, revolution, communism (read Acts), fascism (which was an attempt to revive Rome) and war all predated the Industrial Revolution. In fact, the actual research I've read (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html) demonstrates clearly that those are declining as we industrialize. But I'm sure you meant to cite your own source. I'm waiting.

" You are speaking from a position of privilege and assume all share that privilege."

Pleasant nonsense. Why should my status change the validity of my arguments? I have an idea -- let's ask a black high school dropout (http://www.tsowell.com/) if he agrees with me! Then let's decide that an individual's 'privilege', whatever that means, isn't as important as making a reasonable argument backed by data.

"If you were right in your theory, the nation you live in (assuming you're American) wouldn't exist right now."

If I were right in my theory that depriving people of freedom in order to force them to make decisions they're going to make anyway (at best!) is a bad idea? I don't see how my rightness would affect American politics. Do you mean that if more people agreed with me, the world would be different? Are you confusing my perscriptions and historical descriptions? Please clarify.

So you think that seed and VC firms should be bound by the same laws?

If not, why the distinction?

Do I think we should expect seed and venture companies not be racist when deciding on how to hand out money? Of course.

I'm not sure we need laws that commit them to be though for the simple fact that it would be very hard to actually enforce those laws.

Employers are a completely different situation, and thus are bound to a different set of expectations.