Nobody Believes Commoners are Adults

 https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes

 If banning noncompetes is a net gain for employees, that means employees were regularly signing contracts that were a net loss for them. Like, you can just not work in an NCC industry. If you get a job offer and they want an NCC, decline. Or: if someone demands an NCC, then demand a 25% higher wage than you normally would. Clauses have costs. Either they stop demanding NCCs or they go out of business...unless employees are too stupid to not sign bad contracts. 

 I mean, yeah? In fact, employees are stupid enough to sign contracts that hurt them for no benefit. (Meanwhile employers are smart enough to offer such unconscionable terms, because unlike dumb employees, dumb employers go out of business.)

 Commoners are irresponsible children who simply cannot take care of themselves. Commoners are physically incapable of being reasonable or informed. Every contract with a commoner is unconscionable.

 Tangent. We can see why women don't want to be married to commoners; a male commoner can't take care of himself, let alone a wife or his children. No wonder commoner women keep cheating or getting divorces. Problem: commoners and below are 99% of the population at the best of times. Good luck finding a husband lol. 

 For context, a 1% IQ is 137+. The term 'gifted' applies to 130+, but that's still midwit at best. Given my current estimates, a proper super-commoner IQ starts at 149. This isn't because 149 is terribly high, it's because 100 is dumb like a bag of rocks. Not a joke 100 is a seriously dysfunctional, damaged/mutated brain. It's horrifying that 85 is even possible.

 Since commoners cannot take care of themselves, they have to be attached to a grownup - a lord - who is reasonable and informed on their behalf. Note that grownups found it easy to evade noncompetes, it was only commoners that were ever affected. 

 A lord doesn't necessarily need a 150 IQ, but they do need some kind of arete which is as rare as a 150 IQ. These excellations ultimately come from a baseline (adequate) level of health; stuff like IQ is a symptom of virtue, not themselves virtues. If your IQ goes down, it merely frees up stress on the chassis to support a different excellation.

 A society where commoners make their own decisions will be eroded by their commoner's sense until it collapses. Peasants and children create problems, and without paying a lord to solve those problems, they accumulate, like cancer, and kill, like cancer.

 

 The FTC wants to be the proxy lord for the voters mortal livestock of America, but even in the unlikely case that they want to benefit the livestock, there's a bandwidth issue. The FTC itself cannot possibly be informed about all these peasants. They're not even aware that most of the issues exist, let alone know enough about the issues to wisely adjudicate them. Even if they did magically know about the issues through omniscience and genuinely wanted to adjudicate them, this quantity of peasants creates more problems than there are hours in the day. The FTC couldn't solve them faster than they arose even if they wanted to. They don't have enough personnel to physically communicate the solutions faster than the problems arise.

 If your job is impossible, you should quit. Indeed, lords will quit such a position. They find guaranteed failure unpleasant, especially since they see so many opportunities for success. Thus, the position selects for imbeciles and psychopathic parasites. 

 We can prove the FTC doesn't care about trade or about employees. Using their own - incredibly biased, highly fudged - numbers, the gain is expected to be $500 a year, or about 1.2% of a wage. A rounding error. Sure the commoners were harming themselves for no reason, but at a rate that's hardly noticeable - below the commoner's threshold of legibility. If you want to benefit workers, you can, guaranteed, get a much higher return than this by abolishing the FTC. It's $300 million of parasitism gone just for a start. 

 Mandatory or forbidden: before the FTC banned NCCs, they functionally endorsed them. They could have chosen to ban them at any time before, but only did so now. Tacit approval. Without an FTC, NCCs wouldn't have been endorsed. Maybe the FTC is solving a problem, but they caused the problem in the first place. You're getting back to the starting line, but less $300 million in budget. 

 How many problems is the FTC causing but not attempting to fix? Why, almost everything it does is a net loss. Why would any of it be to the benefit of trade? Does the FTC chairman own trade? Does his stock go down if he harms trade? Is it, in fact, none of his goddamn business? Is he, in fact, an irresponsible child (or criminal parasite) just like every commoner? lol